Currently Serving

Joginipally Bhavishya

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Nirmal, PDJ Court Complex · Nirmal · Telangana

Joginipally Bhavishya, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, is posted at Nirmal, PDJ Court Complex, Nirmal, Telangana, India. 3,132 court orders on record since 2023. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, PRC cases.

3,132

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

DVC/17/2023

Anjum Begum vs Abdul Rafiyaddin

12 May 2026

1/8 DVC No. 17 of 2023 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT NIRMAL

Present : Ms. Joginipally Bhavishya,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

Dated, this the 12 th day of May, 2026

DVC No. 17 of 2023

Between:

Anjum Begum, W/o. Abdul Rafiyoddin, aged about 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No. 2- 1-179, Viveknanda Road, Korutla, Dist: Jagityal, Telangana State., presently residing at her parents house Asra Colony, Nirmal Town, Nirmal District ..Aggrieved person/Petitioner

//AND//

1. Abdul Rafiyoddin, S/o. Abdul Rahoof, aged about 35 years, Occ:Hotel Business, R/o.H.No.2-1-179, Viveknanda Road, Kortula, Dist. Jagityal.

2. Majeed Khan, S/o. Hameed Khan, aged about 55 years, Occ: Hotel Business, R/o. H.No.6-19, Choulamaddi village of Metpelly Mandal, Dist. Jagityal.

3. Farzana Begum, W/o. Majeed Khan, aged about 50 years, Occ:House Hold, R/o.H.No. 6-19, Choulamaddi Village of Metpelly Mandal, Dist. Jagityal.

4. Sameena Begum, W/o. Majeea Khan, aged about 42 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o. H.No.6-19, Choulamaddi Village of Metpelly Mandal, Dist. Jagityal.

5. Shahinaz, W/o. Md.Naseeroddin, aged about 54 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o.Raikal village and mandal, Dist. Jagityal.

6. Shaheen Begum @ Shameen Begum, W/o.Shaik Hyder, aged 58 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o. H.No.88/B, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

7. Shabana, D/o. Shaik Hyder, aged about 38 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o.H.No.88/B, Bansilalpet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

8. Sameena, D/o. Shaik Hyder, aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.88/B, Bansilalpel, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

...Respondents

I AJMFC

2/8 DVC No. 17 of 2023 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Ajay Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner and respondents set exparte, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

O R D E R

1. The petitioner/aggrieved party filed DVC U/sec.12 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act against respondents for the relief of protection, residence, maintenance and compensation from the respondents.

2. The brief averments of the petitioner are that the aggrieved person/petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1 and the marriage of the aggrieved person/petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 27.08.2012 at Sri. Lax,i Function

Hall, Siddapur Road, Nirmal Town, Dist. Nirmal according to Shariyath of Mohammedan

Law. The parents of the petitioner/aggrieved party presented Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty

Thousand only) towards dowry and Rs. 40,000/- towards to purchase two wheeler bike and also the parents of the petitioner/aggrieved party presented 4 tulas of gold ornaments to the petitioner, worth Rs.2,00,000/- furniture, worth Rs.50,000/- house hold utensils.

It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 is the husband of the petitioner/aggrieved party, the respondent no.2 is the step father of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.3 is mother of the respondent no.1, the respondent no.4 is second wife of the respondent no.2, the respondent no.5 is sister of the respondent no.3, the respondent no.6 is the sister of the respondent no.3, the respondent no.7 is the sister of the respondent no.1, the respondent no.8 is the sister of the respondent no.8.

It is further submitted that soon after the marriage the petitioner joined with the company of respondent no.1 in a shared residential house R/o. H.No.6-19, Choulamaddi

Village of Metpelly Mandal. Dist. Jagityal along with other respondents. The

I AJMFC

3/8 DVC No. 17 of 2023 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal petitioner/aggrieved party marriage was consummated with the respondent no.1 out of wedlock the petitioner begotten a female child by name Aliza Firdous, now aged about 10 years.

It is further submitted that the petitioner/aggrieved party soon after the marriage joined with the company of respondent no.1 at her in-laws house lead happy peaceful conjugal life for a period of one year, thereafter the respondents used to started harass mentally, quarreled, beat the petitioner/aggrieved party without any reasons, however they have got no interest to lead matrimonial life with the respondent no.1. Further the respondents started illegal demand to bring dowry an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents, but she expressed her inability then they have stated that if the respondent no.1 agreed with their choice women shall they are ready to pay above said demand amount, however the petitioner/aggrieved party patiently tolerated harassment in the hands of the respondents, that the petitioner/aggrieved party requested the respondents not to harass her, but they did not change their attitudes. The respondent no.5 to 8 frequently used to come to respondent no.1 house and instigated the respondent no.1 to demand additional dowry an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and also instigated to perform second marriage to the respondent no.1.

The petitioner/aggrieved party further submitted that the petitioner/aggrieved party conceived second pregnancy of 6 months in the year 2021, the respondent no.1 beat the petitioner indiscrimination manner and abused in most vulgar language and the other respondents instigated the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 did not provide medical aid and nutrition food, that the respondent no.1 increased harassment to the petitioner and kicked in her stomach with leg due to which abortion was taken place at Swarna Hopsital,

I AJMFC

4/8 DVC No. 17 of 2023 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

Nirmal, even though the respondent no. 1 did not change his attitude.

The petitioner/aggrieved party further submitted that the petitioner is unable to tolerate male treatment in the hands of the respondents narrated the same to her parents and elders then a meeting was conveyed in the month of December-2022 in the presence

Masjid Committee elders and convinced the respondents by the elders and resume the conjugal life, after one month again started the similar type of harassment, demand of money to bring from her parents house due to which she suffered lot of mental agony. The respondents have beat in mercilessly manner to the petitioner/aggrieved party in order to not comply demand of the dowry and also wrongful confined in the house and they stated to perform the another marriage to respondent no.1 and instigated respondent no.1 to give divorce to petitioner, despite of cruel attitude, adamant behavior of the respondent no.1 to 8 patiently tolerated harassment by the petitioner/aagrieved party stayed in-laws house discharged her legal mandatory obligations as being parda nashee lady. Whenever the petitioner/aggrieved party was suffering with ill health the respondents never brought medicines and nor gave a medical aid instead of that the respondent no.1 dropped the petitioner/aggrieved party no.1 at her parents house, upon which the parents of the petitioner/aggrieved took her to hospitals and spent entire medical expenditure, even though the respondent no.1 did not gave a single penny towards medical expenses, after cure of her health condition, her parents used to leave her at in-laws house.

The petitioner/aggrieved party further submitted that during the matrimonial life the respondent no.1 on instigation of other respondents harassed physically, mentally to the petitioner/aggrieved party to bring additional dowry an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but she expressed her unwillingness, and the petitioner/aggrieved with pond hope they might have

I AJMFC

5/8 DVC No. 17 of 2023 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal change their attitude towards the petitioner/aggrieved, but they did not change their attitude, that the elders of the petitioner/aggrieved party several times conducted panchayath and in those panchayath the respondent no.1 admitted his guilt and promised that he will not repeat the above said harassment, but after some days of every panchayath the respondent no.1 repeated the harassment to the petitioner/aggrieved party.

The petitioner/aggrieved party faced a lot of mental agony with the respondent no.1 to 8 who used to make illegal demand to bring additional dowry an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on failure they beat in mercilessly manner the petitioner/aggrieved party and necked from the matrimonial house and the petitioner/aggrieved filed a complaint on 29.11.2022 before the SHO Nirmal Town and the police conducted a family counseling, in which the respondent no.1 admitted his guilt and agreed to take the petitioner/aggrieved party to lead matrimonial life, but till this date the respondent no.1 did not take back the petitioner/aggrieved party matrimonial life, that the petitioner/aggrieved party number of times approached her in laws house and the respondents all together threatened the petitioner/aggrieved that "if she want to join matrimonial life demanded to bring additional dowry an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- or else give Khula Divorce" due to which she suffered a lot of mental agony.

The petitioner/aggrieved party no.1 further submitted that the respondent no.1 is working in hotel, and earns an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)

Indian currency, on the other hand the respondent no.1 is having substantial bank balance lying holding in accounts and having a residential houses, commercial shutters, at Raikal village through which the respondent no.1 is getting monthly Rs.40,000/- and having agriculture to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts situated at Raikal village of Jagityal mandal & Dist.,

I AJMFC

6/8 DVC No. 17 of 2023 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal through which the respondent no.1 is yielding an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The respondent no.1 is a hale and healthy person, able bodied person and his duty to provide basis needs to petitioner/aggrieved party, thus the petitioner is in need of an amount of

Rs.30,000/- per month towards her and her minor daughter maintenance. The respondent no.1 is leading his life style at Saudi luxury life and having sufficient facility at his home as such the same level of standard of living life style can be awarded in shape of money to the petitioner/aggrieved party and her daughter.

The petitioner/aggrieved party further submitted that she is not having means of income to maintain herself and her minor daughter and they are leading miserable life on the mercy of her parents. Hence the petition.

3. Despite on receipt of notices, the respondent no.1 to 8 failed to appear before the court and file counter as such the respondent no.1 to 8 were set exparte.

4. In order to prove its case, the petitioner herself examined as PW1.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The point that arises for consideration is “Whether the petitioner is entitled for protection, compensation, and maintenance from the respondents as prayed for?”

7. POINT: From a perusal of the chief-affidavit of petitioner as PW1, it is clear that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent no.1 and after the marriage, the

I AJMFC

7/8 DVC No. 17 of 2023 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal petitioner joined the matrimonial life and lived with the respondent under one roof. It is also further clear that all the respondents harassed and deserted the petitioner, as there is no rebuttal from the respondents, when there is no rebuttal this court is inclined to believe the version of the petitioner i.e., PW1. From the above, it is clear that the respondents no.1 to 8 committed Domestic Violence towards the petitioner. The respondents no.1 to 8 remained absent, as such they were set exparte. In the said circumstances, the version of the petitioner that the respondents committed Domestic Violence towards her remained unrebutted.

Therefore, it can be held that the petitioner is entitled for protection from respondents. Since the petitioner was deserted by the respondent no.1 from the matrimonial home, she would have suffered mental agony and emotional distress and suffered a lot in maintaining herself, and hence, she is entitled for compensation from the respondents and maintenance from the respondent no.1 who is her husband.

8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation and maintenance is concerned, the petitioner stated that the respondent no. 1 is able bodied person and is working in hotel, and earns an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only), having substantial bank balance in his holding accounts and having a residential houses, commercial shutters, at Raikal village through which the respondent no.1 is getting monthly Rs.40,000/- and having agriculture to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts situated at Raikal village of Jagityal mandal and District, through which the respondent no.1 is yielding an income of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner had filed an annexures of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Rajnesh Vs Neha and another.

I AJMFC

8/8 DVC No. 17 of 2023 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

9.IN THE RESULT, DVC is allowed in part with costs of Rs.10,000/-, directing the respondents No.1 to 8 not to interfere with the life of the petitioner in any manner and further all the respondents jointly are directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner payable within 3 months from the date of order. Further, the respondent no.1 is ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- in total per month for petitioner and her minor daughter from the date of filing of the petition. The maintenance amount shall be paid on or

before the 10 th day of every month. Arrears from the date of petition till the date of order

shall be paid within period of 12 months from the date of order.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this 12 th day of May, 2026).

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

Petitioner: Respondent: PW1: Anjum Begum -None-

Exhibits Marked

Petitioner: Respondent: -Nil- -Nil-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

I AJMFC

OS/101/2025

Mohammed Abdul Asrar Ahmed vs Ahmadunnisa Begam

12 May 2026

Page No.1 of 8 Order in OS No.101 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIRMAL

Present: Ms. JOGINIPALLY BHAVISHYA

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal

(Dated, this the 12 th day of May, 2026)

O.S.No.101 of 2025

BETWEEN:

Mohammed Abdul Asrar Ahmed, S/o. Mohammed Abdul Nazeer Ahmed, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o. H.No 1-4-125/3/2, Behind Alphores High School, Street: Adarshnagar, Post: Nirmal Town, Dist: Nirmal presently working in Canada Country (Abroad) appointed GPA Holder namely Mohammed Abdul Nazeer Ahmed, S/o. Raj Mohammad, R/o. 1-4-162/4, Adarshnagar, Nirmal Town, Dist: Nirmal, 504106, State Telangana.

... Plaintiff.

AND

Ahmadunnisa Begam, W/o.Mohd. Abdul Asrar Ahmed, (D/o.Syed Ahmed Ulla Hussain), age: 28 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Presently residing at her village Jalalpur, Mandal: Balkonda, Dist: Nizamabad. 503218 Parents house bearing No. 2-90.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri P.Chandrashekar, Sri. Mohd. Fasiuddin, Sri. K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate Counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this court delivers the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1.This suit is filed seeking a dissolution of marriage between the plaintiff and defendant under Mohammedan Law.

Page No.2 of 8 Order in OS No.101 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal

Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

2.The defendant is legally wedded wife of the plaintiff and their marriage was solemnized on 06.08.2020 at residence, village: Jalapur, Mandal:

Balkonda, Nizamabad as per principles governed under Mohammadan Law and the marriage is still subsisting between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Soon after the marriage the defendant joined company of the plaintiff at her in-laws house at Nirmal and within 24 hours of marriage, the plaintiff felt and noticed defendant strange movements, unusual behavior, at the time of marriage the plaintiff was not aware that the defendant is suffering from mental health disorders, as the parents of the defendant had kept this information undisclosed to the plaintiff and did not inform the plaintiff that the defendant is taking medicines for her mental disorder disease. The father of the defendant is the real younger brother of the plaintiff's mother so immediately the plaintiff informed the defendant's parents about her mental health disorders then her parents said that this problem would go away after child begotten and by believing defendant parent's version the plaintiff lead conjugal life for period of one year and out of said wedlock one female child was born in the year 2021 and her name is Ayesha Raahath, aged 4 years, but her mental disorder and health condition was getting worse day by day.

It is further submitted that, during stay of the plaintiff in India several times the defendant insisted the plaintiff that the defendant want to teach in the

Page No.3 of 8 Order in OS No.101 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal school and the plaintiff tried to stop the defendant because of her health condition but the defendant did not listen to him then the plaintiff took the defendant to many schools at Nirmal but nobody selected the defendant lastly the defendant joined in Sri Chaitanya School but after three months management stopped her after observation mentioning her mental condition is not stable.

It is further submitted that, after marriage the plaintiff got treated the defendant in major hospitals and spent lot of money for her treatment with an hope that she might recover from the mental disorder diseases despite of all plaintiff's efforts there is no improvement in her mental disorder illness and all the expenses for the doctors, medicines, and for medical tests born by her. It is further submitted that one of the doctor advised to give the defendant electric shocks for her mental diseases but the plaintiff does not want to give pain to defendant and preferred treatment with the medicines. The plaintiff all the time sending money to her father for her treatment and also sending money for the defendant and for the child for their livelihood even though still her stay back at her parent's home.

It is further submitted that the plaintiff got issued(02) years Canadian visa for the defendant and for the daughter to stay together with the plaintiff at

Canada country but because of her health issues it was not possible to the plaintiff to get her to the Canada country. The plaintiff left to Canada country

Page No.4 of 8 Order in OS No.101 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal (abroad) in the month of June 2023 to finish his studies and immediately within a week time the defendant left with her parents to their house without plaintiff's permission, consent, intimation, knowledge.

It is further submitted that, there is no happiness in the life of the plaintiff, after marring with defendant and all the time bothers of the plaintiff about how to get cure of her mental disorders disease and the plaintiff took her outings and spend time with her for some picnic spots so that the defendant could psychologically recover from her illness but in vain.

It is further submitted that, whenever the plaintiff's parents visited to see the defendant and the daughter, the defendant's parents misbehaved, started to quarrel, abused in most vulgar language to parents of the plaintiff and warned with dire consequences not to come to their house to see or to meet her and the daughter. Despite of all, the plaintiff patiently tolerated her parent's ill treatment with an intention no to broke the marital ties with the defendant by hopeful that one day the defendant will recover from the illness and also her parents will change their attitudes but in vain.

It is further submitted that, lastly the parents of the plaintiff approached to the Sharia Committee members at Nirmal to solve this issue which was not getting conclusion of the problems facing by the plaintiff and on 31.10.2024 the Sharia Committee members at Nirmal conducted mediation in between both sides i.e. the parents of the plaintiff and parents of the defendant and

Page No.5 of 8 Order in OS No.101 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal some of their elders, relatives and others from her side and after keen observation of the Sharia Committee members and the committee gave the defendant and the parents of the defendant (15) days time period to answer whether the defendant want to take khula or to continue with the marriage.

The committee asked plaintiff 's intention then the plaintiff expressed his intention not to continue with the marriage with the defendant because of her day by day increasing mental disorders illness. Even though the defendant and her parents did not approach to the Sharia Committee members after (15) days of time period. Rather the parents of the plaintiff approached to know about the information from her side and the committee replied to the parents of the plaintiff that there is no reply from the defendant and her parents and on 17.11.2024 the committee discharged the application and provided a copy of committee's decision.

It is further submitted that, in view of all the above circumstances that the defendant's health is not in a good condition and the defendant is surviving from mental disorders, in this situation the defendant cannot raise plaintiff's daughter in such a health problem and now the plaintiff's daughter is about 4 years old and at this age plaintiff's daughter needed good care and education.

The plaintiff is also interested to take the custody of the minor children from the defendant. The plaintiff does not want his daughter's future to be ruined. In these circumstances the plaintiff is ready and wants to take custody of the minor child for forever to raise, to provide good education and marriage to his

Page No.6 of 8 Order in OS No.101 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal daughter. It is further submitted that all his efforts become futile, in helpless condition the plaintiff has filed this suit for obtaining judgment and decree of divorce from the defendant. Hence the suit.

3.The sole defendant remained ex-parte.

4.In support of his claim the plaintiff got examined himself has PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and one Farjana Begum was examined as PW2.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the suit is maintainable?” “Whether the plaintiff established the grounds to seek the relief prayed for?” “To what relief?”

POINT:

7.In support of his claim the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and one one Farjana Begum was examined as

PW2.

8.Issue no.1

9.Admittedly, both the parties belongs to Muslim religion. However as per the dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act-1939, only the woman married under

Muslim law can dissolve the marriage under this act and this act does not

Page No.7 of 8 Order in OS No.101 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal applied to the Muslim man. This court is not empowered to dissolve the marriage of plaintiff and defendant as the suit is filed by the Muslim man. As this court do not have any jurisdiction nor empower to pass any appropriate orders in this suit. Hence, this suit is not maintainable.

10.Hence issue no.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

11.Issue no.2 and 3

12.As issue No.1 answered against the plaintiff where the suit is not maintainable it is not necessary to answer the issue No.2 and 3.

13.In the result the suit is dismissed without costs.

(Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12 th day of May, 2026).

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW1: Shaik Imran PW2: Farjana Begum

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::

- Nil -

Page No.8 of 8 Order in OS No.101 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nirmal

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A1 is the Marriage Booklet along with translation copy dated 06.08.2020.

Ex.A2 is the Marriage Photographs.

Ex.A3 is the Original Marriage card.

Ex.A4 is the Prescription of the defendant issued by doctor A.Visha of Indur Neuro Psychiatric hospital, Nizamabad.

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT::

- NONE –

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal.

CC/118/2025 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Sub- inspector, Bhainsa vs Rathod Srinivas S/o Rathod Shankar,

26 Jun 2025

1/7 Judgment in CC.No.118 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIRMAL

Present:-J.Bhavishya, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

Dated, this the 26 th day of June, 2025

CC.No. 118 of 2025

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Bhainsa. ...Prosecution AND

Rathod Srinivas, S/o. Rathod Shankar, Age: 42 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Dilawarpur thanda of Dilawarpur Mandal. …Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O for the complainant and Sri.S.Raju, counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this d ay for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhainsa filed the charge sheet in COR.No.107 of 2023 for the offences punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act, 1995 against the accused.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 12.07.2023, on reliable information about illegal sale of illicitly distilled liquor in Dilawarpur thanda of Dilawarpur mandal, the LW3 along with staff have

I AJMFC

2/7 Judgment in CC.No.118 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal secured the presence of LW1 and LW2, the excise officials and staff proceeded to the house of accused and on reaching the house the accused was found with white bag in his hand beside his house and tried to escape by duly dropping the bag in the bushes but the staff caught him and stopped him, on opening the bag in the presence of panchas found a can containing containing (02) litres of liquid with hard smell without colour, on verification it is confirmed that the liquid is illicitly distilled liquor. On enquiry the said person revealed his identity and particulars, then LW3 drawn one sample of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle as per procedure and seized the remaining ID liquor undercover of a panchanama in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and obtained signatures of the panchas and later LW3 sent the sample to Government Chemical Examiner for analysis.

3. Basing on the report, the LW3/S.Ramesh Kumar, Proh.& Excise S.I, Bhainsa has registered a case in COR.107/2023 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Proh Act 1995, issued COR and took up the investigation and later issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. Subsequently LW3 destroyed the contraband before the same panchas under cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, the LW4 filed charge- sheet against the accused person.

4. This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Proh Act 1995 against the accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and he was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8

I AJMFC

3/7 Judgment in CC.No.118 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

(e) of AP Proh Act 1995. Hence the charges for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

Proh Act 1995 were framed and read over and explained to the accused person in vernacular language.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined the PW1 and PW2, the document marked under Ex.P1 to P4. No witnesses and no documents marked on behalf of the accused person. The learned APP gave up the evidence of LW2 and LW4.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against him, for which the accused person denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the

offence punishable U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Proh Act 1995 against the

accused ?”

9. POINT:- To prove its case, the prosecution have examined PW1/Rathod Ravi who is the panch witness to the seizure panchanama have not supported the case of prosecution and deposed that he they do not know anything about this case and further

I AJMFC

4/7 Judgment in CC.No.118 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal deposed that at about 2 years back on one day the excise police officials obtained his signatures on some blank papers.

10. Further the prosecution have examined PW2/S.Ramesh Kumar, ESI, Bhainsa who is Investigation Officer in this case has deposed that on 12.07.2023 at about 11.25 am,

PW2 received a reliable information with regard to illegal sale of ID liquor in

Dilawarpur thanda of Dilawarpur mandal, then PW2 along with staff and PW1 and

LW2 proceeded to the house of alleged accused in the vehicle and while reaching the house, the alleged accused was found with a white bag in his hand beside his house and tried to escape by duly dropping the bag in the bushes but staff caught him and stopped him. PW2 further deposed that, on opening the bag in the presence of PW1 and LW2 there is can containing some hard smelling liquid without colour. The ID liquor is about 02 liters. On inquiry the alleged accused reveled his identity. PW2 seized the 02 liters of

ID liquor in the presence of PW1 and LW2, PW2 drawn two samples of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle as per the procedure and remaining was seized under the cover of panchanama. PW2 further deposed that, basing on the panchanama he registered COR

No.107/2023 dated 12.07.2023, U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh. Act and issued a COR against the accused for the said offence and thereafter released the accused by duly issuing a notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation PW2 sent the sample of ID liquor to the Chemical Examiner, Proh. & Excise, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. Later PW2 received a report vide report No.967/2023, dated 13.10.2023 with Sl.No.6838 in which it is opined that the ID liquor is unfit for human

I AJMFC

5/7 Judgment in CC.No.118 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal consumption and injurious to health. Later as per the orders of the Deputy

Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Adilabad vide Proc. No.B1BNS/PI&ES/DC/2022

dated 15.11.2022 the seized quantity of ID liquor was destroyed. During the course of

investigation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. During the course of investigation it was established that the accused is committed the offence and punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh. Act. Later PW2 handed over the case file to LW4, LW4 after investigation and upon verification filed a charge-sheet against the accused.

11. As it could be seen from the above evidence that, the panch witness to the seizure panchanama i.e., PW1 have not supported the case of prosecution, as such recording of panchanama. Further the prosecution have not examined any of the independent witnesses, when no independent witnesses were examined this court cannot relay upon the evidence of PW2 who is the Investigation Officers in this case and who interested in the outcome of the case of the prosecution. As such, due to lack of the evidence, this court do not hesitate to held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Ramakant

Rai Vs. Madan Rai. Reported in AIR 2007 SC 77, wherein it was held as follows:

I AJMFC

6/7 Judgment in CC.No.118 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trival or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case”.

12. For the reasons stated above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to prove the case for the offence U/s.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

Proh. Act, 1995 against the accused and the accused person is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8

(e) of AP Proh. Act, 1995 and thus acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall b e in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., Two sealed sample bottle (180 ml) of ID liquor deposited vide CP No. 32/2025 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of June, 2025).

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

I AJMFC

7/7 Judgment in CC.No.118 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1 : Rathod Ravi -NONE- PW2 : S.Ramesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

-NIL- Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Confession cum Seizure panchanama.

Ex.P2: COR

Ex.P3: Confession cum Seizure panchanama

Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

I AJMFC

CC/119/2025 Acquitted

The Telangana Prohibition Excise station Bhainsa vs Ade Roda R/o Bali Ram

26 Jun 2025

1/7 Judgment in CC.No.119 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIRMAL

Present:-J.Bhavishya, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

Dated, this the 26 th day of June, 2025

CC.No. 119 of 2025

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Bhainsa. ...Prosecution AND

Ade Roda, S/o. Bali Ram, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Suryam thanda, Mdl. Narsapur-G, District Nirmal. …Accused

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhainsa filed the charge sheet in COR.No.107 of 2022 for the offences punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act, 1995 against the accused.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 05.07.2022, on reliable information with regard to preparation, possession and selling of ID liquor at Suryam thanda village of Narsapur-G mandal, then

I AJMFC

2/7 Judgment in CC.No.119 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal immediately LW3 along with staff secured the presence of two panchas i.e., LW1 and

LW2 and proceeded to the spot and found a person trying to run away with a bag in his hand, upon which the staff stopped and on opening the bag in his hand found one plastic can of capacity of 05 litres filled with some liquid about 02 litres, on smelling it, they confirmed that the liquid is Illicitly distilled liquor, on enquiry with the accused he disclosed his name and particulars, then LW3 drawn one sample of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle as per procedure and seized the remaining ID liquor under cover of a panchanama in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and obtained signatures of the panchas and later LW3 sent the sample to Government Chemical Examiner for analysis.

3. Basing on the report, the LW3/M.Praneeth Goud, Proh.& Excise S.I, Bhainsa has registered a case in COR No. 107/2022 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Proh

Act 1995, issued COR and took up the investigation and later issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. Subsequently LW3 destroyed the contraband before the same panchas under cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, the LW4 filed charge- sheet against the accused person.

(e) of AP Proh Act 1995. Hence the charges for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

I AJMFC

3/7 Judgment in CC.No.119 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

Proh Act 1995 were framed and read over and explained to the accused person in vernacular language.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against him, for which the accused person denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the

offence punishable U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Proh. Act 1995 against the

accused ?”

9. POINT:- To prove its case, the prosecution have examined PW1/Jadhav Eshwar who is the panch witness to the seizure panchanama have not supported the case of prosecution and deposed that he do not know anything about this case and further testified at about 2 years back on one day excise police officials obtained his signatures on some blank papers.

I AJMFC

4/7 Judgment in CC.No.119 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

10. Further t he prosecution have examined PW2/Praneeth Goud, ESI, Bhainsa who is

Investigation Officer in this case has deposed that on 05.07.2022 at about 10.30 am,

PW2 received a reliable information with regard to illegal sale of ID liquor in Suryam thanda village of Narsapur (G) mandal, then PW2 along with staff and PW1 and LW1 proceeded to the house of alleged accused, they found him running with a bag in his hand upon which the staff stopped and upon opening a bag found one plastic can of 05 liters capacity filled with some liquid about 02 liters, on smelling the liquid they felt it as

ID liquor. The ID liquor is about 02 liters. PW2 further deposed that, on inquiry the alleged accused reveled his identity. PW3 seized the 02 liters of ID liquor in the presence of PW1 and LW1, PW3 drawn two samples of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle as per the procedure and remaining were seized under the cover of panchanama. PW2 further deposed that, basing on the panchanama, PW3 registered COR No.107/2022

dated 05.07.2022, U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh. Act-1995 and issued a COR against

the accused for the said offence and thereafter released the accused by duly issuing a notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, PW3 sent the sample of ID liquor to the Chemical Examiner, Proh. & Excise, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. Later PW3 received a report vide report No.607/2022, dated 08.08.2022 in which it is opined that the ID liquor is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Later as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Proh. & Excise,

Adilabad vide Proc. No.B1/BNS/P & ES/DCA/2022 dated 15.11.2022 the seized quantity of ID liquor was destroyed. During the course of investigation the accused voluntarily

I AJMFC

5/7 Judgment in CC.No.119 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal confessed to have committed the offence. During the course of investigation, it was established that the accused has committed the offence and punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh. Act. Later PW3 handed over the case file to LW4, LW4 after investigation and upon verification filed a charge-sheet against the accused.

11. As it could be seen from the above evidence that, the panch witness to the seizure panchanama i.e., PW1 have not supported the case of prosecution, as such recording of panchanama. Further the prosecution have not examined any of the independent witnesses, when no independent witnesses were examined this court cannot relay upon the evidence of PW2 who is the Investigation Officer in this case and who interested in the outcome of the case of the prosecution. As such, due to lack of the evidence, this court do not hesitate to held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme court in Ramakant

Rai Vs. Madan Rai. Reported in AIR 2007 SC 77, wherein it was held as follows:

“Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trival or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case”.

I AJMFC

6/7 Judgment in CC.No.119 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

12. For the reasons stated above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to prove the case for the offence U/s.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

Proh. Act, 1995 against the accused and the accused person is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8

(e) of AP Proh. Act, 1995 and thus acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., two sealed sample bottles of ID liquor (180 ml) deposited vide CP No. 27/2025 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of June, 2025).

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1 : Jadhav Eshwar -NONE- PW2 : Praneeth Goud

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

-NIL- Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Confession cum Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P2: COR. Ex.P3: Confession cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report.

I AJMFC

7/7 Judgment in CC.No.119 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

I AJMFC

CC/120/2025 Acquitted

The telangana prohibition Excise Sub- Inspector of Bhainsa vs Ade Lalu S/o Gangaram

26 Jun 2025

1/7 Judgment in CC.No.120 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NIRMAL

Present:-J.Bhavishya, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

Dated, this the 26 th day of June, 2025

CC.No. 120 of 2025

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Bhainsa. ...Prosecution AND

Ade Lalu, S/o. Gangaram, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Suryam thanda, Mdl. Narsapur-G, District Nirmal. …Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O for the complainant and Sri.A.Linga Goud, Legal- Aid Defense counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this d ay for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhainsa filed the charge sheet in COR.No.111 of 2022 for the offences punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act, 1995 against the accused.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 07.07.2022, on reliable information with regard to preparation, possession and selling of ID liquor at Suryam thanda village of Narsapur-G mandal, then

I AJMFC

2/7 Judgment in CC.No.120 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal immediately LW3 along with staff secured the presence of two panchas i.e., LW1 and

LW2 and proceeded to the spot and found a person trying to run away with a bag in his hand, upon which the staff stopped and on opening the bag in his hand found one white bag filled with some liquid about 1 litres, on smelling it, they confirmed that the liquid is

Illicitly distilled liquor on enquiry with the accused he disclosed his name and particulars, then LW3 drawn one sample of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle as per procedure and seized the remaining ID liquor under cover of a panchanama in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and obtained signatures of the panchas and later LW3 sent the sample to Government Chemical Examiner for analysis.

3. Basing on the report, the LW3/M.Praneeth Goud, Proh.& Excise S.I, Bhainsa has registered a case in COR No. 111/2022 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Proh

(e) of AP Proh Act 1995. Hence the charges for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

I AJMFC

3/7 Judgment in CC.No.120 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

Proh Act 1995 were framed and read over and explained to the accused person in vernacular language.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined the PW1 to PW3, the document marked under Ex.P1 to P3. No witnesses and no documents marked on behalf of the accused person. The learned APP gave up the evidence of LW4.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against him, for which the accused person denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the

offence punishable U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Proh Act 1995 against the

accused ?”

9. POINT:- To prove its case, the prosecution have examined PW1/Rathod Laxman and PW2/Ade Rohidas who are the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama have not supported the case of prosecution and deposed that they do not know anything about this case and further testified at about 3 years back on one day excise police officials obtained their signatures on some blank papers.

I AJMFC

4/7 Judgment in CC.No.120 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

10. Further t he prosecution have examined PW3/Praneeth Goud, ESI, Bhainsa who is

Investigation Officer in this case has deposed that on 07.07.2022 at about 07.20 am,

PW3 received a reliable information with regard to illegal sale of ID liquor in Suryam thanda village of Narsapur (G) mandal. PW3 along with staff and PW1 and PW2 proceeded to the house of alleged accused, they found him running with a bag in his hand upon which the staff stopped and upon opening a bag found filled with some liquid of one liter, on smelling the liquid they felt it as ID liquor. The ID liquor is about 01 liter.

PW3 further deposed that, on inquiry the alleged accused reveled his identity. PW3 seized the 01 liters of ID liquor in the presence of PW1 and PW2, PW3 drawn two samples of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle as per the procedure and remaining were seized under the cover of panchanama. Basing on the panchanama, PW3 registered COR

No.111/2022 dated 07.07.2022, U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh. Act-1995 and issued a

COR against the accused for the said offence and thereafter released the accused by duly issuing a notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. PW3 further deposed that, during the course of investigation, PW3 sent the sample of ID liquor to the Chemical Examiner, Proh. &

Excise, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. Later PW3 received a report vide report

No.607/2022, dated 08.08.2022 in which it is opined that the ID liquor is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Later as per the orders of the Deputy

Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Adilabad vide Proc. No.B1/BNS/P & ES/DCA/2022

dated 15.11.2022 the seized quantity of ID liquor was destroyed. During the course of

investigation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. During

I AJMFC

5/7 Judgment in CC.No.120 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal the course of investigation, it was established that the accused has committed the offence and punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh. Act. Later PW3 handed over the case file to LW4, LW4 after investigation and upon verification filed a charge-sheet against the accused.

11. As it could be seen from the above evidence that, the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama i.e., PW1 and PW2 have not supported the case of prosecution, as such recording of panchanama. Further the prosecution have not examined any of the independent witnesses, when no independent witnesses were examined this court cannot relay upon the evidence of PW3 who is the Investigation Officer in this case and who interested in the outcome of the case of the prosecution. As such, due to lack of the evidence, this court do not hesitate to held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme court in

Ramakant Rai Vs. Madan Rai. Reported in AIR 2007 SC 77, wherein it was held as follows:

I AJMFC

6/7 Judgment in CC.No.120 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal doubt is not an imaginary, trival or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case”.

12. For the reasons stated above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to prove the case for the offence U/s.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

Proh. Act, 1995 against the accused and the accused person is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8

(e) of AP Proh. Act, 1995 and thus acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., two sealed sample bottles of ID liquor (180 ml) deposited vide CP No. 29/2025 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of June, 2025).

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1 : Rathod Laxman -NONE- PW2 : Ade Rohidas PW3: Praneeth Goud

I AJMFC

7/7 Judgment in CC.No.120 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

-NIL- Ex.P1: COR.

Ex.P2: Confession cum Seizure panchanama

Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

I AJMFC

Order Record 3,012 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/101/2025	Mohammed Abdul Asrar Ahmed vs Ahmadunnisa Begam	12 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/118/2025	Shaik Imran vs Tasleem Begum	12 May 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/17/2023	Anjum Begum vs Abdul Rafiyaddin	12 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/180/2025	Excise Nirmal vs Kothapelli Laxmi W/o Ganga Rajanna	11 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/909/2025	Telangana Prohibition and Excise station Nirmal, vs Rathod Kamala W/o Ramesh	11 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
MC/4/2017	Shaheda Sultana vs Azeez ahmed Khusroo Siddiqui @ Azeez ahmed Siddiqu	05 May 2026	Judgement	—
MC/11/2024	Bheemrao Jadhav S/o Maji Jadhav vs Jadhav Dayanand S/o Bheem Rao	28 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/121/2025	Ippa Narsareddy vs Rathod Amar Singh	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/135/2018	Donthula Ganesh vs Athar Baig Mirza	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/359/2020	State of Telangana vs Banka Naresh	20 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/489/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA Through Prohibition and Excise station Bhainsa vs Rathod Ravindar S/o Gangaram	20 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/294/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal Town vs Dharamajigari Rajendar	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/398/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Narwade Sainath	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/454/2021	State of Telangana vs Salla Chinnaiah	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/463/2020	State of Telangana vs Kare Sudhakar	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/742/2021	State of Telangana vs Ashtapu Sriharsha	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/167/2026	PS Nirmal Rural vs Aftab ahmed Alias Afatab Shaik	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/126/2026	PS Nirmal Town vs Afthab Ahmad Shaik	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/247/2020	State of Telangana vs Byagari Srinivas	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
MC/12/2018	Advala Trinayani vs Advala Rajesh	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/40/2025	PS Nirmal Rural vs Srinivas Police S/o Bheema lingu	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/5/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal Town vs Mohammad moinoddin	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/222/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal Town vs Akula Srikanth	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/660/2017	PS Nirmal Town vs Jadpati Shekhar	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/913/2025	Telangana Prohibition and excise station, Nirmal. vs Madoth Ravinder S/o Dhansingh	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/727/2013	PS NIRMAL TOWN vs SHAMIULLA KHAN ANOTHER	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/36/2025	PS Nirmal Rural vs Prakash Balki S/o Janardhan Balki	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/781/2019	State of Telangana vs Bajagiri Srinivas	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/22/2024	Durgam lingavva W/o Mudimadgula Bhumesh vs Mudimadgula Bhumesh S/o Mudimadugula Shanker	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/42/2025	Asari Pedda Bheemanna vs Jadhav Devi Chand	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/124/2026	PS Nirmal Town vs Mathin Noorbas	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/684/2019	State of Telangana through Ps. Nirmal town vs M. Ravi Babu	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/42/2017	Firduse vs Mohd. Ali Ahmad	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/33/2025	PS Nirmal Town vs Shekar Jadpatti S/o Late Krishna	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/35/2025	Nirmal Town vs Govind Jadhav S/o Rao Sab	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
PRC/47/2025	Nirmal Town vs Vamshi Kumar Chiluka S/o Muthyam	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/680/2019	State of Telangana through PS. Nirmal Town vs A. Ganesh	10 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/905/2025	Telangana Prohibtion and Excise Station, Nirmal. vs Rathod Sheela W/o Kashiram	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/910/2025	Telangana Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal. vs Jadhav Gopi S/o Amriya	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/911/2025	Telangana prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal. vs Madovath Ranjitha W/o Madovath Gangadhar	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/912/2025	Telangana Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal. vs Madoth Sabitha W/o Madoth Mahesh	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/78/2018	Through SHO PS Nirmal Town vs Mohd. Mazor	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/169/2025	The telangana Prohibition and Excise Inspector Nirmal vs Allepu Gangu alias laxmi Allepuy W/o Somanna	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/191/2015	through sho nirmal Rural vs Uppala Panender Rao and another	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/195/2025	Excise Nirmal vs Allepu Laxmi W/o Sommanna	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/510/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal Town vs Mohammed Gousoddin	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/193/2025	Excise Nirmal vs Rathod Rukma S/o Parusuram	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/204/2025	Excise Nirmal vs Thokala Sandeep S/o Erranna	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/251/2023	Nirmal Rural vs Kondaji Raghupathi Chary	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/552/2018	Through SHO PS Nirmal Town vs Erra Rahul and 3 others	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/106/2025	Moogala Chinnamaiah vs To whom so ever it may concernTo whom so ever it may concern	24 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/770/2019	State of Telangana vs Vskotagiri sainath	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/904/2025	The Telangana Prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal. vs Malavath Vijaya W/o Chander	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/908/2025	Telangana Prohibition and Excise station, Nirmal vs Ajmeera Rena Bai W/o Kishan	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/914/2025	Telangana prohibition and Excise Station, Nirmal. vs Chavan Naresh S/o Lakya	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/11/2020	State of Telangana vs Barla Murali	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/479/2020	State of Telangana vs Kathroju Kamalakar	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/531/2017	PS Nirmal Rural vs Kopula Daveedu @ David	19 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/488/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal Rural vs Kadike @ Kanike Bheemesh	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/500/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal Rural vs Kadike @ Kanike Bheemesh	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/533/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal Rural vs Kadike @ Kanike Bheemesh	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/753/2020	State of Telangana vs Ginka Suman	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/38/2022	State of Telangana vs Gaini Krishna	12 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/476/2017	PS Nirmal Rural vs Mupkalwar Nadipu @ Gandla Bhumesh	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/386/2020	State of Telangana vs Sunkam Ramesh	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/753/2025	PS Nirmal Rural vs Namdev Alias Ramkishan Bhosle AliasRamdas Bhosle Alias Ramdas Bhosle	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/61/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal vs Peddolla Mallaiah	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/511/2025	AP Prohibition Excise Station vs Rathod Mothibai W/o Anandrao	12 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
MC/8/2018	Mohammed Reshma and 3 others vs Mohammed Wajeed	08 Jan 2026	Order	—
CC/117/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Aleti Maheshwar Reddy	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/170/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Indrakaran Reddy Allolla	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/183/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mandeep Singh .	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/871/2025	PS Nirmal Town vs Maheshwer Reddy Aleti	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
DVC/15/2020	Dumpala Saritha and 2 others vs Dumpala Gangadhar	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
PRC/45/2025	PS Nirmal Town vs Abdul Bilal Mohammed S/o Mohammed Abdul Waheed	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/10/2021	State of Telangana through SHO PS Nirmal Town vs Katorth Sridhar	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/164/2021	State of Telangana through SHO, PS Nirmal Town vs Malyala Santhosh	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/1156/2022	District Transport Officer vs Mohd Shamim	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/276/2019	Through SHO PS Nirmal Town vs Shaik Moseen	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
PRC/12/2025	Nirmal town vs Rukma Bosu	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/513/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA through Nirmal rural vs Renjarla Ramesh .	22 Dec 2025	Order	—
PRC/5/2025	Nirmal town vs Jadhav Subhash S/o Rayasal Alias Rajeshwar	22 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/384/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA Through Nirmal town vs Ayisha @ Nimra Muskan .	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/411/2025	Nirmal Rural vs Anwar Syed	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/446/2023	NIrmal Town vs Bandi Ravi	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/453/2023	Nirmal Rural vs Devolla Maruthi	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/462/2023	Nirmal Town vs Ramkamble Shattragan	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/659/2017	PS Nirmal Town vs Sadak Jabbar Jafri@ Sadhak Irani @ Sando @ Nader Azeez Jafri @ Nader Jafri	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/863/2025	PS Nirmal Town vs Madhukar Thondakuri	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/870/2025	PS Nirmal Town vs Narendhar Selke	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/891/2025	PS Nirmal town vs Pavan Alias Pawan Kalyan Gondala	21 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/140/2012	through ps Nirmal Town vs Shaik Siraj	20 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/304/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Shaik Ansar Ahmed	20 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/765/2025	PS Nirmal town vs Harish Mittapalli	20 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/928/2025	PS Nirmal Rural vs Pradeep Jadav S/o Jadav Shyam Rao	20 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/226/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Faisal Ullah Khan	18 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/262/2025	Nirmal Town vs Ravi Alias Ravi Yellappa Ambore	18 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC/384/2020	State of Telangana vs Abeedh	18 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/534/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Rajeshwar Neela	18 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/645/2015	PS NIRMAL TOWN vs SYED MAJEED PASHA AND 5 OTHERS	18 Dec 2025	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 3,012 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		6
Apr 2026		14
Mar 2026		29
Feb 2026		19
Jan 2026		2
Dec 2025		93
Nov 2025		104
Oct 2025		60
Sep 2025		321
Jun 2025		81
May 2025		59
Apr 2025		34

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Joginipally Bhavishya handled?

Joginipally Bhavishya has handled 3132 court orders since 2023 at Nirmal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 99 orders per month.

What types of cases does Joginipally Bhavishya hear?

Based on available records, Joginipally Bhavishya primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Nirmal, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Joginipally Bhavishya currently posted?

Joginipally Bhavishya is posted as I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class at Nirmal, PDJ Court Complex, Nirmal, Telangana.

Are judgments by Joginipally Bhavishya available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Joginipally Bhavishya are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Joginipally Bhavishya dispose cases?

Joginipally Bhavishya disposes approximately 99 cases per month, based on 3132 orders handled over their tenure at Nirmal, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Joginipally Bhavishya serving?

Joginipally Bhavishya has been serving at Nirmal, PDJ Court Complex since 2023. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

STC 54%

CC 37%

PRC 3%

DVC 3%

JCC 2%

MC 1%

OS 0%

Posting History

Aug 2025 — Present

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class · 648 orders
Feb 2024 — Jun 2025

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class · 2,484 orders
Oct 2023 — Oct 2023

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 7

Other Judges at this Court

Sri. Porika Ravinder

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Nirmal

551 orders

Ms. B.C.Nikhita

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl. Judl. Mag...

110 orders

Smt.S.Sreevani

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

933 orders

← View all judges at Nirmal, PDJ Court Complex