Sri K Bala Koteswara Rao

Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge

Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO, Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge, is posted at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,303 court orders on record since 2025. 18 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

1,303

Total Orders

Judgments

117

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/353/2025 Acquitted

SHO of Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station vs Vanarasa Jitendra alias Siddu

25 Sep 2025

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MO-

BILE): ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: - SRI K. BALA KOTESWARA RAO Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu. FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, this the 25th day of September, 2025.

C.C.No. 353/2025

Between:

The StateRep. by Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station. ……. Complainant

And

Vanarasa Jitendra @ siddu, aged 34 years, S/o V. Anjinappa, Occupation-Electri- cian @ Auro Driver, Caste-Marati, Khaja Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town.

……. Accused

This case comes before me on 22.09.2025 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the complainant, and of Sri. T. Bharath, Legal Aid Counsel for Ac- cused, and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.303(2) or 317 of BNS Act, in

Crime Numbers 44/2025 and 46/2025.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:

2.1) L.W.1 –Sheik Fakruddhin parked his vehicle, Bajaj Pulsar, bearing No.

AP02 AQ 7359 in front of Sadhbavana Children park, Ananthapuramu in morning hours, on 12.03.2025 and went inside the house for painting. After competition of his work, he came the place where he parked his vehicle and

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 2 noticed that it was found missing. He searched near and dear, but in vain, and accordingly he reported to the police.

2.2) Based on the report of LW.1, L.W.11/S. I of Police, Ananthapuramu III

Town P.S registered the same as a case in Crime Number 44/2025 under section 303 (2) of BNS Act and investigated into. During the investigation, he examined as many witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch.

2.3)L.W.6 – P. Chandrasekhar parked his vehicle, Baja Pulsar, bearing

No. AP02 AG 4332 in the premises of APSRTC Bus Stand, Ananthapuramu at about 8.00 A.M., on 06.02.2025 and went inside the Bus Stand. After competition of his work, he came the place where he parked his vehicle and noticed that it was found missing. He searched near and dear, but in vain, and accordingly, he reported to the police.

2.4) Based on the report of LW.6, L.W.13/ S.I of Police, Ananthapuramu III

Town P.S registered the same as a case in Crime Number 46/2025 under section 303 (2) of BNS Act and investigated into. During the investigation, he examined as many witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch.

2.5) On credible information, L.W.12 along with his staff and mediators/L.W.9 and 10 went to the Chandra Hospital Circle,

Ananthapuramu and they noticed Accused in suspicious circumstances and on enquiry he confessed about the commission of offence. Based on his confession, the Police seized the Vehicle at place of arrest and thereafter in pursuance of the further confession of the accused, they went to the thorny bushes back side of Rambo Apartment, Lecturers colony, Anantapuramu and seized remaining motorcycles under cover of mediator report. After

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 3 competition of arrest formalities, LW.12 sent the accused to judicial remand in his case. On came to the said fact Lw.13 secured the presence of accused on PT warrant and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3.The case was taken cognizance on file against the accused of the offence under Sections 303 (2) or 317 of BNS Act.

4.On production of accused before this court copies of all the documents, on which the prosecution relied, were supplied to them under Section 230 of BNSS,

Act.

5.Accused was examined under Section 262 of BNSS, Act the accused de- nied having committed any offence. Thereafter, the charge under Sections 303 (2) or 317 of BNS Act has been framed, read over, and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P- 8 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked. In view of the evidence of P.W.1, to 3, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.Ws. 2 to 5, 7, 8 and 10.

7.Accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS, Act putting forth the in- criminating material that appears against him from the evidence of prosecution wit- nesses. The accused denied his guilt and reported no defence evidence.

8.Now, the following points will arise, for consideration of this Court:

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 4

1) Whether Bajaj Pulsar, bearing No. AP02 AQ 7359 and Baja Pulsar, bearing No. AP02 AG 4332 are stolen properties?

2) Whether the seizure of above vehicles from the possession of the accused has been proved?

3) Whether the accused knew that above vehicles are the stolen properties?

4) Whether the accused committed theft of the above vehicles?

5) Whether the Prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?

6) To what relief?

9. POINTS 1 TO 5 are answered together to avoid repetition of the facts:

10.For a better appreciation of the case, it is pertinent to mention the ingredients of Sections 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS Act as follows:

1.Section 303 (2) of BNS Act defines punishment for theft: - Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

2. Section 317 of BNS Act defines – Dishonestly receiving stolen property: - Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

11.According to the prosecution case, on 12.03.2025 in the morning hours, the

Bajaj Pulsar bearing No.AP02 AQ 7359 parked by P.W.1 in front of Sdhbavana

Childrens Park, Ananthapuramu and on 06.02.2025 at about 8.00 AM PW.2 parked

Pulsar Vehicle, bearing No. AP02 AG 4332 in the premises of APSRTC bus Stand

Ananthapuramu and went inside the above places and after completion of their works at the above places and they came there and noticed that those were miss- ing. Hence, they searched near and dear, but in vain. Later, they lodged Reports/

Exs.P1 and P.2, respectively. After two weeks of lodging Ex. P1 and after one week of lodging of Ex. P2/report, police recovered their stolen bikes. Accordingly,

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 5 they went to police station and identified their bikes. Further, they deposed that they do not know who committed theft of their respective bikes.

12.P.W.4-who is one of the Investigating Officer of the case deposed that he registered the cases based on the report of PW.1 and issued Ex. P5 and 7 FIRs.

During his investigation he examined as many as witnesses and prepared Ex. P6 and 8 rough sketches. During his investigation, he along with his staff appre- hended the accused and seized the case properties and other properties in the presence of mediators.

13.PW3-Mediator of the case deposed that on the request of police he along with another mediator had gone to Chandra Hospital Circle, Ananthapuramu and noticed the accused in suspicious circumstances and that police apprehended them. On enquiry the accused confessed about the commission of offences.

Based on the confession of accused, MO.1/ AP 02 AX 4373 bike was seized by the Police, under cover of Ex.P.3 mediator report. In pursuance of confession of the accused they had gone to the thorny bushes, back side Rambo Apartment,

Lecturers colony, Ananthapuramu and noticed Seven more vehicles were parked there and accordingly they seized the same under cover of Ex.P.4 mediator report.

14.After careful perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6, coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-8 and Mo.1 and 2, the motorcycles of

PW1 and PW2 were committed theft by some unknown culprits, but no one knows that who committed the theft of bikes of P.W.1 and 2.

15.The learned A.P.P. strongly contended that as per the illustration (a) of

Sec.119 of BSA, a man who has in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 6 can account for his possession, but in the present case accused did not explain

before the court the seized property belongs to him. Thus, the accused, in this

case, must be considered as thief.

P.W.4 seized the above vehicles from the possession of the accused soon after the theft of the same. In this connection, it is a settled principle of law in Criminal

Administration of Justice that based on presumptions or assumptions or inferences conviction cannot be recorded for most of the offences under the BNS.

17.Based on said presumption, in the absence of legal evidence, a conviction for the offence under section 303 (2) of BNS, cannot be recorded. Said presumption will not give any authority to the Court to record a conviction for the offence under section 303 (2) of BNS in the absence of legal evidence to prove the same. Said illustration does not mean that receiver of stolen property is a thief when there is no legal evidence on record to establish that the receiver of stolen property is a thief.

18.In the said gap ofmore than 20 days and 90 days, those vehicles can go to the hands of a greater number of persons and therefore, it is not correct to apply said presumption to the facts of this case and further Court has to maintain some balance given the said presumption and hence, I am of the considered opinion that the arguments of the learned A.P.P. are not acceptable about the accused is pre- sumed as thief.

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 7

19.In a case, Trimbak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1954

Supreme Court 39, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows: “The

Prosecution has to bring home the guilt of a person under section 411 of Indian

Penal Code to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property

before the accused got possession of it, and

(3) that the accused knew that the property was stolen property.

20.Section 411 of Indian Penal Code 1860 is the correspondence Section 317 of BNS Act.

21.Now, I am going to scan the evidence on record to know whether the above points have been established by the Prosecution or not?

22.P.W.1 and PW.2 gave evidences that the above vehicles were stolen away from the places as mentioned supra and that they reported as in Ex. P-1 and P.2 in

Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station.

23.Already, this court ordered to return those bikes to PW.1 and 2 after obtain- ing proper receipts from them and the same have not been challenged either by the accused or any other person. Therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute con- cerning ownership of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in respect of Mos.1 and 2.

24.With the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is established by the prosecution that the above said vehicles were the stolen property.

25.P.W.3/mediator gave evidence that in his presence and another mediator, police seized the above vehicles along with other vehicles on the date, time, and

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 8 the place as mentioned supra from the possession of accused under a Mediators’ report as in Ex. P-3 and P-4. The same corroborated by P.W.4.

26.The defence counsel mainly concentrated on:

1. Scene of arrest and seizure is the busy locality. Whenever scene of offence is busy locality it is the bounden duty of the I.O. to examine the inhabitants. But in the present case no inhabitants were examined at the scene of offence.

2. The place of kept vehicles do not belong to the accused and it is busy place. So, there is no possibility to kept the vehicles at that place as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to acquit the accused.

27.It is the case of the prosecution that Mos.1 and 2 are belongs to P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, and that the said vehicles were allegedly committed theft by the

Accused. The said vehicles were allegedly recovered from the Accused in the presence of mediators/P.W.3 and another mediator by the I.O.

28.Further, according to the prosecution the prosecution witness P.Ws.1 and 2 identified Mos. 1 and 2 as their vehicles which were allegedly committed theft on the date of commission of offence, at the police station.

29.As seen from Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice the identification of properties shall be held in the Court of Magistrate where the properties are lodged and each item of property shall be put up separately for the parade and it shall be mixed up with four or five similar objects and before calling upon the witnesses to identify the property, he shall be asked to state the identification marks of his property and the witnesses shall be called in one after the other and on leaving shall not be allowed to communicate with the witnesses not yet called in. The said procedure of conducting identification parade in respect of the property has not been conducted in this case, as admittedly the identification parade was not

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 9 conducted in the Court of the Magistrate.

30.As seen from the record no similar properties were secured by the police and clubbed all of them and asked the witnesses one by one to come and identify their vehicles. Further, as seen from the record, the witness was not asked to state the identification marks of their respective vehicles before showing the properties put up for test identification as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 35 of the

Criminal Rules of Practice. Thus, it is clear that the test identification in respect of the properties are not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in

Criminal Rules of Practice. Therefore, much credence cannot be given to the alleged test identification of Mos.1 and 2, by the witnesses/P.Ws.1 and 2.

31.As could be seen from the record, except for the circumstantial evidence based on the confessional statement of the accused no other evidence is available to prove the case of the prosecution. In this connection the learned counsel for the accused would argue in vehemence that the confession record by the police from the accused is irrelevant, when the accused was in their custody. On the other hand, it was contented by the learned APP by relying the proviso of (2) of section 23 of BSA Act, though the confession record by the police from the accused while he was in their custody it is relevant when the recovery was discovered in consequence of information received from a person.

32.Now I would like to decide whether the confessional statement recorded by the police is relevant or not?

a) After careful perusal of the confession, demonstrates that the accused and other persons were committed theft of bikes in several places while the accused was going on Syfulla bridge, the police apprehended the accused along with other person, and then the accused apprehended them and accordingly the police seized the Honda Activa bike from the

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 10 possession of accused. Based on confession of accused, they had gone to the thorny bushes situated at back side of Rambo Apartment,

Lecturers colony, Ananthapuramu and that accused showed seven motor cycles there and accordingly the police seized the same.

b) If, it is assumed that Mo.1 and 2 are the properties involved in theft committed on the above specified dates, it has to be seen whether the prosecution succeeded to prove that the recovery of said properties from the possession of the accused and the said recovery was discovered in consequence of information received from the accused.

c) According to the prosecution, Mo.1 and 2 were placed by the accused

before them and accordingly they have seized the same in the presence

of mediators.

d) In the instant case, the statement namely, “the accused had committed theft, while they were going on bridge, the police apprehended the accused and along with other person”, constituted only the past history of

Mo.1 or their theft by the accused; it was not the distinct and proximate cause of the discovery and had to be ruled out of evidence all together. A further statement of accused that “they had placed Mo.1 and 2 and other bikes at the thorny bushes, back side of Rambo Apartment, Lecturers

Colony, Ananthapuramu, “if you come along with me I will show vehicles;

It was also not distinct and proximate cause of the discovery and other hand it was constituted only the past history of the vehicles or theft by the accused and had to be ruled out of evidence all together. After culling out and rejecting inadmissible portion and that no further admissible portion of the information taken in conjunction with the facts discovered was sufficient to draw the presumption that the accused was the thief or

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 11 receiver of the stolen properties knowing it to be stolen. The answer to the question in the circumstances of the case, had to be in the negative.

The remaining seven vehicles in question were found at the compound of thorny bushes, back side of Rambo Apartment at Lecturers colony,

Ananthapuramu. It was not alleged by the prosecution-much less proved-that the vehicles were lying concealed, or that the said place was under the control of accused. There is not even an oblique hint that the place of the deposit of the vehicles was in any way under the control or occupation of the accused.

e) Admittedly, mediator/P.W.3 is not a resident of the locality where the accused said to have been arrested and where the property said to have been seized.

f) Of course, he stated that he acted as mediator but, there are several inhabitants in the above said localities. Further, there is very much availability of Village Administrative Officers and Sarpanches and ward secretary. He further stated that the place of arrest of accused and seizure of the property are busy localities. But, curiously enough

Inspector, who arrested the accused and seized the property stated that he could not secure any mediators of the locality to act as mediators. He wanted the Court to believe that he had taken mediators from

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 12 show that Inspector, who arrested the accused and seized the property served any summons on any of the witnesses of the locality to act as mediators and those persons refused to act as mediators. In the absence of such evidence. Even, in that regard the explanation was not offered by investigating officer, who arrested the accused and seized the property for non-compliance of Section 103 of BNSS Act. Further, as per Section 105 of BNSS Act the Investigating Officer ought to have recording of search and seizure through audio, video electronic means. But, in the present case Investigating Officer did not follow the said procedure. If he had done so, this Court would have an opportunity to know really the

Investigating Officer brought the above mediators to above places to arrest and seize the property from the possession of accused.

Therefore, obviously, mediator appears to be a stock witness for the police and, therefore, the police got the panchanama attested by such a witness as a mediator.

g) The place being thorny bushes, back side of Rambo Apartment, was from its very nature accessible to all the public. Admittedly it is abetting to the residential houses it means it is busy locality. But the police did not examine any inhabitants of said locality

h) Therefore, the evidence of mediator and investigating officer, who arrested the accused and seized the property under cover of the mediator report, it was prepared at the above places in connection with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of properties cannot be believed. In view of these circumstances, I am unable to believe the testimony of mediator and investigating officer, who arrested the accused and seized the property in respect of the alleged recovery of property from the Accused.

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 13

33)In my considered view, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that property recovered from the possession of the accused.

34)Accordingly, the above points are answered in favour of the accused.

35. Point No.6:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 303 (2) or 317 of BNS Act. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted under Sec.271 of

BNSS. Mos.1 and 2 have been ordered by this court as interim custody in favour of

P.Ws.1 and 2, is holds good, after appeal time is over. The office is hereby directed to address a letter to concerned jail authorities about the accused are released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer, corrected, signed, and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of September, 2025.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

P.W.1:Shaik Fakruddin.- N O N E -

P.W.2:P. Chandra Sekhar

P.W.3:U. Vigneshwar Rao (VRO)

P.W.4:G. Gopaludu (S.I., Vigilance and E.D)

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 14

P.W.5:C. Venkateswarlu (S.I of ATP

III Town P.S.)

P.W.6:K. Santhi Lal (C.I. of ATP III

Town P.S.,)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P-1:Report of PW1.- N IL -

Ex.P-2:Report of PW2.

Ex.P-3:Certifiedcopyof

Confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama.

Ex.P-4:Certified copy of Property seizure mahazarnama

Ex.P-5:FIR

Ex.P-6:Rough Sketch.

Ex.P-7:FIR

Ex.P-8:Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Bajaj Pulsar, bearing No. AP02 AQ 7359.

M.O.2:Baja Pulsar, bearing No. AP02 AG 4332

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

Prl. JFCM, ATP Spl. JFCM (Mobile), ATP.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 15

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar of cases tried by Sri K. Bala Koteswara Rao, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu, FAC. Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDER CASE NO. 353/2025 ON THE FILE OF SPL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE), ANANTHAPURAMU.

Date of offence:On 12.03.2025 in between Morning Hours to 12.30 PM and In between 08.00 Am to 04.00 PM on 06.02.2025. Complaint:13.03.2025 and 19.03.2025. Apprehension of:25.03.2025 accused Remand Period if any:03.04.2025 to till today. Released on bail:Accused is in jail. Commencement of trial:19.05.2025 Closing of trial:17.09.2025. Sentence or order:25.09.2025. Reasons for delay: -- Name of the complainant:The State – Represented by its Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town P.S. in Cr.No.44/2025 and 46/2025.

Name of the accused:Vanarasa Jitendra @ siddu, aged 34 years, S/o V. Anjinappa, Occupation- Electrician @ Auro Driver, Caste-Marati, Khaja Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town. Offence:U/s. 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS Act. Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty Finding:Not Guilty

O R D E R:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 303 (2) or 317 of BNS Act. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted under Sec.271 of BNSS. Mos.1 and 2 have been ordered by this court as interim custody in favour of P.Ws.1 and 2, is holds good, after appeal time is over. The office is hereby

C.C.No. 353-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 16 directed to address a letter to concerned jail authorities about the accused are released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

CC/352/2025 Acquitted

SHO of Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station vs Vanarasa Jitendra alias Siddu

25 Sep 2025

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE):

ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: - SRI K. BALA KOTESWARA RAO Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu. FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu

Thursday, this the 25th day of September, 2025.

C.C.No. 352/2025

Between:

The StateRep. by Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station. ……. Complainant

And

Vanarasa Jitendra @ siddu, aged 34 years, S/o V. Anjinappa, Occupation-Electri- cian @ Auro Driver, Caste-Marati, Khaja Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town.

……. Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.303(2) or 317 of BNS Act, in

Crime Numbers 43/2025 and 48/2025.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:

2.1) L.W.2 – G. Sadhasiva Reddy parked his vehicle, Honda Activa, bearing

No. AP02 AX 4373 in front of their house situated at Shiridi Nagar,

Ananthapuramu at about 2.00 P.M., on 01.03.2025 and went inside the said

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 2 house. After competition of his work, he came the place where he parked his vehicle and noticed that it was found missing. He searched near and dear, but in vain, and accordingly, Lw.1/ G. Suneetha reported to the police.

2.2) Based on the report of LW.1, L.W.10/C. I of Police, Ananthapuramu III

Town P.S registered the same as a case in Crime Number 43/2025 under section 303 (2) of BNS Act and investigated into. During the investigation, he examined as many witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch.

2.3)L.W.5 – B. Ramesh parked his vehicle, Passion Pro, bearing No.

AP02 CA 3557 in the premises of APSRTC Bus Stand, Ananthapuramu at about 8.00 A.M., on 28.12.2024 and went inside the Bus Stand. After competition of his work, he came the place where he parked his vehicle and noticed that it was found missing. He searched near and dear, but in vain, and accordingly, he reported to the police.

2.4) Based on the report of LW.5, L.W.10/C.I of Police, Ananthapuramu III

Town P.S registered the same as a case in Crime Number 48/2025 under section 303 (2) of BNS Act and investigated into. During the investigation, he examined as many witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch.

2.5) On credible information, L.W.10 along with his staff and mediators/L.W.8 and 9 went to the Chandra Hospital Circle, Ananthapuramu and they noticed Accused in suspicious circumstances and on enquiry he confessed about the commission of offence. Based on his confession, the

Police seized the Vehicle at place of arrest and thereafter in pursuance of the further confession of the accused, they went to the thorny bushes back side of Rambo Apartment, Lecturers colony, Anantapuramu and seized

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 3 remaining motorcycles under cover of mediator report. After competition of arrest formalities, LW.10 sent the accused to judicial remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3.The case was taken cognizance on file against the accused of the offence under Sections 303 (2) or 317 of BNS Act.

4.On production of accused before this court copies of all the documents, on which the prosecution relied, were supplied to them under Section 230 of BNSS,

Act.

Telugu, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P- 8 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 to 3, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.Ws. 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 9.

8.Now, the following points will arise, for consideration of this Court:

1) Whether Honda Activa, bearing No. AP02 AX 4373 and Passion Pro, bearing No. AP02 CA 3557 are stolen properties?

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 4

2) Whether the seizure of above vehicles from the possession of the accused has been proved?

3) Whether the accused knew that above vehicles are the stolen properties?

4) Whether the accused committed theft of the above vehicles?

5) Whether the Prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?

6) To what relief?

9.POINTS 1 TO 5 are answered together to avoid repetition of the facts:

10.For a better appreciation of the case, it is pertinent to mention the ingredients of Sections 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS Act as follows:

11.According to the prosecution case, on 01.03.2025 at about 2.00 PM the

Honda Activa, bearing No. AP02 AX 4373 parked by L.W.2 in front of their house

and on 28.12.2024 at about 8.00 AM PW.2 parked Passion Pro, bearing No. AP02

CA 3557 in the premises of APSRTC bus Stand Ananthapuramu and went inside the above places and after completion of their works at the above places and they came there and noticed that those were missing. Hence, they searched near and dear, but in vain. Later, they lodged Reports/Exs.P1 and P.2, respectively. After 15 days of lodging Ex. P1 and after one week of lodging of Ex. P2/report, police re- covered their stolen bikes. Accordingly, they went to police station and identified their bikes. Further, they deposed that they do not know who committed theft of their respective bikes.

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 5

12.P.W.4-who is one of the Investigating Officer of the case deposed that he registered the cases based on the reports of PW.1 and 2 and issued Ex. P5 and 7

FIRs. During his investigation he examined as many as witnesses and prepared

Ex. P6 and 8 rough sketches. During his investigation, he along with his staff ap- prehended the accused and seized the case properties and other properties in the presence of mediators.

Lecturers colony, Ananthapuramu and noticed Seven more vehicles were parked there and accordingly they seized the same under cover of Ex.P.4 mediator report.

14.After careful perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-8 and Mo.1 and 2, the motorcycles of

PW1 and PW2 were committed theft by some unknown culprits, but no one knows that who committed the theft of bikes of P.W.1 and 2.

15.The learned A.P.P. strongly contended that as per the illustration (a) of

Sec.119 of BSA, a man who has in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for his possession, but in the present case accused did not explain

before the court the seized property belongs to him. Thus, the accused, in this

case, must be considered as thief.

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 6

16.According to Prosecution, in this case, Mo.1 and 2 were missing from the possession of P.W.1 and 2, in the month march, 2025 and on 28.12.2024, respec- tively and as per the evidence of P.W.3, police allegedly seized the same from the possession of the accused on 25.03.2025. There is a gap of more than 20 days and 90 days, respectively between the two. Therefore, it cannot be said thatP.W.4 seized the above vehicles from the possession of the accused soon after the theft of the same. In this connection, it is a settled principle of law in Criminal Adminis- tration of Justice that based on presumptions or assumptions or inferences convic- tion cannot be recorded for most of the offences under the BNS.

19.In a case, Trimbak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1954

Supreme Court 39, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows: “The

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 7

Prosecution has to bring home the guilt of a person under section 411 of Indian

Penal Code to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property

before the accused got possession of it, and

(3) that the accused knew that the property was stolen property.

20.Section 411 of Indian Penal Code 1860 is the correspondence Section 317 of BNS Act.

21.Now, I am going to scan the evidence on record to know whether the above points have been established by the Prosecution or not?

22.P.W.1 and PW.2 gave evidences that the above vehicles were stolen away from the places as mentioned supra and that they reported as in Ex. P-1 and P.2 in

Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station.

24.With the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is established by the prosecution that the above said vehicles were the stolen property.

25.P.W.3/mediator gave evidence that in his presence and another mediator, police seized the above vehicles along with other vehicles on the date, time, and the place as mentioned supra from the possession of accused under a Mediators’ report as in Ex. P-3 and P-4. The same corroborated by P.W.4.

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 8

26.The defence counsel mainly concentrated on:

27.It is the case of the prosecution that Mos.1 and 2 are belongs to P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, and that the said vehicles were allegedly committed theft by the

Accused. The said vehicles were allegedly recovered from the Accused in the presence of mediators/P.W.3 and another mediator by the I.O.

28. Further, according to the prosecution the prosecution witness P.Ws.1 and 2 identified Mos. 1 and 2 as their vehicles which were allegedly committed theft on the date of commission of offence, at the police station.

30. As seen from the record no similar properties were secured by the police

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 9 and clubbed all of them and asked the witnesses one by one to come and identify their vehicles. Further, as seen from the record, the witness was not asked to state the identification marks of their respective vehicles before showing the properties put up for test identification as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 35 of the

Criminal Rules of Practice. Thus, it is clear that the test identification in respect of the properties are riot conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in

Criminal Rules of Practice. Therefore, much credence cannot be given to the alleged test identification of Mos.1 and 2, by the witnesses/P.Ws.1 and 2.

32.Now I would like to decide whether the confessional statement recorded by the police is relevant or not?

Ananthapuramu and that accused showed seven motor cycles there and

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 10 accordingly the police seized the same.

c) According to the prosecution, Mo.1 and 2 were placed by the accused

before them and accordingly they have seized the same in the presence

of mediators.

Mo.1 or their theft by the accused; it was not the distinct and proximate cause of the discovery and had to be ruled out of evidence all together. A further statement of accused that “they had placed Mo.2 and other bikes at the thorny bushes, back side of Rambo Apartment, Lecturers Colony,

Ananthapuramu, “if you come along with me I will show vehicles; It was also not distinct and proximate cause of the discovery and other hand it was constituted only the past history of the vehicles or theft by the accused and had to be ruled out of evidence all together. After culling out and rejecting inadmissible portion and that no further admissible portion of the information taken in conjunction with the facts discovered was sufficient to draw the presumption that the accused was the thief or receiver of the stolen properties knowing it to be stolen. The answer to the question in the circumstances of the case, had to be in the negative.

The remaining seven vehicles in question were found at the compound of thorny bushes, back side of Rambo Apartment at Lecturers colony,

Ananthapuramu. It was not alleged by the prosecution-much less

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 11 proved-that the vehicles were lying concealed, or that the said place was under the control of accused. There is not even an oblique hint that the place of the deposit of the vehicles was in any way under the control or occupation of the accused.

e) Admittedly, mediator/P.W.3 is not a resident of the locality where the accused said to have been arrested and where the property said to have been seized.

Ananthapuramu Town to all the way to place of arrest and seizure of the property, to act as mediators. As per Section 103 of BNSS Act, whenever a search is made, the persons of the locality have to be taken as mediators. It is not as if in the instant case the arrest and seizure took place outside of any residential locality. On the other hand, the accused were said to have been arrested and seized the property from the possession of accused at busy places where there are number of workers and also residential houses are situated. There is no material to show that Inspector, who arrested the accused and seized the property served any summons on any of the witnesses of the locality to act as mediators and those persons refused to act as mediators. In the absence of such evidence. Even, in that regard the explanation was not offered by investigating officer, who arrested the accused and seized the property

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 12 for non-compliance of Section 103 of BNSS Act. Further, as per Section 105 of BNSS Act the Investigating Officer ought to have recording of search and seizure through audio, video electronic means. But, in the present case Investigating Officer did not follow the said procedure. If he had done so, this Court would have an opportunity to know really the

Investigating Officer brought the above mediators to above places to arrest and seize the property from the possession of accused.

Therefore, obviously, mediator appears to be a stock witness for the police and, therefore, the police got the panchanama attested by such a witness as a mediator.

33)In my considered view, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that property recovered from the possession of the accused.

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 13 34).Accordingly, the above points are answered in favour of the accused.

35). Point No.6: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 303 (2) or 317 of BNS Act. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted under Sec.271 of

BNSS. Mos.1 and 2 have been ordered by this court as interim custody in favour of

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer, corrected, signed, and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of September, 2025.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

P.W.1:G. Suneetha.- N O N E -

P.W.2:B. Ramesh

P.W.3:U.Vigneshwar Rao (V.R.O)

PW.4:K.Santhi Lal (C.I of III Town

P.S., ATP)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P-1:Report of PW1.- N IL -

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 14

Ex.P-2:Report of PW2.

Ex.P-3:Confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama

Ex.P-4:Propertyseizure mahazarnama

Ex.P-5:F.I.R.

Ex.P.6:Rough Sketch

Ex.P.7:FIR

Ex.P.8:Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Honda Activa Motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP 02 AX 4373. M.O.2:Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP 02 CA 3557.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JFCM, ATP.

FAC. Spl. JFCM (Mobile), ATP.

// True Copy//

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 15

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar of cases tried by Sri K. Bala Koteswara Rao, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu, FAC. Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDER CASE NO. 352/2025 ON THE FILE OF SPL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE), ANANTHAPURAMU.

Date of offence:On 01.03.2025 in between 02.00 PM to 07.30 PM and In between on 28.12.2024 at about 08.00 Am to on 29.12.2024 at about 02.00 PM Complaint:13.03.2025 and 19.03.2025. Apprehension of:25.03.2025 accused Remand Period if any:03.04.2025 to till today. Released on bail:Accused is in jail. Commencement of trial:19.05.2025 Closing of trial:17.09.2025. Sentence or order:25.09.2025. Reasons for delay: -- Name of the complainant:The State – Represented by its Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town P.S. in Cr.No.43/2025 and 48/2025.

O R D E R:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 303 (2) or 317 of BNS Act. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted under Sec.271 of

BNSS. Mos.1 and 2 have been ordered by this court as interim custody in favour of

C.C.No. 352-2025, Dt.25.09.2025; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 16

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

// True Copy//

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

CC/1/2026 Acquitted

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHO ATP III TOWn PS vs Yadavali Manju

12 Feb 2026

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 1

APAN040000102026

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE):

ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: - SRI K. BALA KOTESWARA RAO Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu. FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu

Thursday, this the 12th day of February, 2026.

C.C.No.01/2026

Between:

The StateRep. by Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station. ……. Complainant

And

1. Yadavalli Manju, aged 25 years, S/o Y. Gadilingappa, resident of Gudar Nagar, Bellary Town, Karnataka State.

2.Pichuguntla Ramadasu, aged 24 years, S/o P. Netti Kallappa, resident of Gudar Nagar, Besides Govt. School, Siddaragadda, Bellary Town, Karnataka State.

……. Accused No.1 and 2

This case comes before me on 12.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V. Sreenivasulu, A.P.P. for the complainant, and of Smt. K.Eswaramma, Learned Counsel for Accused No.1 and 2, and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station laid a clubbed charge sheet in Crime Numbers 216/2025 and 233/2025 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/s.303(2) or 317 of BNS Act.

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 2

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:

2.1) This is a case of theft of gold ornaments that occurred on 27.10.2025 at about 03.00 PM at Plat form No.1, APSRTC Bus stand, Ananthapuramu, where in LW.1/ Gudala Manjusha, while boarding a bus amid a heavy crowd to proceed to their native village by carrying a handbag containing a black beaded gold chain weighing about 30 grams, some unknown offenders committed theft of the said gold chain from handbag of complainant and decamped with the stolen property.

2.2) Based on the report of LW.1, L.W.12/C. I of Police, Ananthapuramu III

Town P.S registered the same as a case in Crime Number 216/2025 under section 303 (2) of BNS Act and investigated into. During the investigation, he examined as 04 witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch.

2.3)This is another case of theft of gold ornament that occurred on 08.11.2025 at about 02.00 PM at Plat form No.5, APSRTC Bus stand,

Ananthapuramu, where in LW.5/B. Vijayalakshmi, while boarding a bus carrying a hand bag containing a gold box with a gold long chain weighing about 40 grams, after some time she noticed her gold chain was missing, further she suspected that some unknown offenders committed theft of the said gold chain from handbag of complainant and decamped with the stolen property.

2.4) Based on the report of LW.5, L.W.11/S.I of Police, Ananthapuramu III

Town P.S registered the same as a case in Crime Number 233/2025 under section 303 (2) of BNS Act and investigated into. During the investigation, he examined as LWs.5 to 7 witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch.

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 3 2.5) On credible information, L.W.12 and mediators/ L.W.8 and 9 went to the

M.G. Fuel Station, Bellary Bypass Road, Ananthapuramu and they noticed

Accused No.1 and 2 in suspicious circumstances and on enquiry they confessed about the commission of offences. Based on their confession, the Police seized the property i.e., gold chains relating to above crimes under cover of mediator report. After competition of arrest formalities, LW.12 sent the accused No.1 and 2 to judicial remand and after completion of investigation and he filed charge sheet in this case.

3.The case was taken cognizance on file against the accused No.1 and 2 of the offence under Sections 303 (2) or 317(2) of BNS Act.

4.On production of accused No.1 and 2 before this court copies of all the doc- uments, on which the prosecution relied, were supplied to them under Section 230 of BNSS, Act.

5.Accused no.1 and 2 were examined under Section 262 of BNSS, Act the ac- cused denied having committed any offence. Thereafter, the charge under Sec- tions 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS Act has been framed, read over, and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P- 11 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked.

7.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 351 of BNSS, Act putting forth the incriminating material that appears against them from the evidence of

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 4 prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 and 2 denied their guilt and reported no defence evidence.

8.Now, the following points will arise, for consideration of this Court:

1) Whether black beaded gold chain/ MO.1 and gold long chain/ MO.2 are stolen properties?

2) Whether the seizure of above MO.1 and MO.2 from the possession of the accused has been proved?

3) Whether the accused No.1 and 2 knew that above MO.1 and MO.2 are the stolen properties?

4) Whether the accused No.1 and 2 committed theft of the above MO.1 and MO.2?

5) Whether the Prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?

6) To what relief?

9.POINTS 1 TO 5 are answered together to avoid repetition of the facts:

10.For a better appreciation of the case, it is pertinent to mention the ingredients of Sections 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS Act as follows:

11.According to the prosecution case, on 27.10.2025 at about 03.00 PM at Plat form No.1, of APSRTC Bus stand, Ananthapuramu, while PW.1 boarding a bus amidst a heavy crowd to proceed to their native village by carrying a handbag containing a black beaded gold chain weighing about 30 grams, some unknown offenders committed theft of the said gold chain from

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 5 handbag of complainant and decamped with the stolen property. on 08.11.2025 at about 02.00 PM at Plat form No.5, APSRTC Bus stand,

Ananthapuramu, while PW.2 boarding a bus carrying a hand bag containing a gold box with a gold long chain weighing about 40 grams, after some time she noticed her gold chain was missing, further she suspected that some unknown offenders committed theft of the said gold chain from handbag of complainant and decamped with the stolen property. Hence, they searched near and dear, but in vain. Later, they lodged Reports/Exs.P1 and P.2, respectively. After 2 months of lodging Ex. P1 and after one month of lodging of Ex.P2/report, police recovered their stolen properties. Accordingly, they went to police station and identified their property. Further, they deposed that they do not know who committed theft of their respective gold ornaments.

12.P.W.6-who is one of the Investigating Officer of the case deposed that he registered the cases based on the report of PW. 2 and issued Ex. P7 FIR. P.W.7- who is one of the Investigating Officer of the case deposed that he registered the cases based on the report of PW.1 and issued Ex. P9/ FIR. During PW.7 investiga- tion, he along with his staff apprehended the accused and seized the case proper- ties and other properties in the presence of mediators.

13.PWs.3 and 4- who are the mediators came to court, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In the nature of the cross examination nothing could be elicited by the learned prosecution except for marking of their statements. Hence, their evidence is no way useful to the prosecution case.

14.After careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, PW.6 and 7 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.P-1 to P-4, 8 to 11 and Mo.1 and 2, the gold ornaments/ MO.1 and MO.2 of PW1 and PW2 were committed theft by some

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 6 unknown culprits, but no one knows that who committed the theft of MO.1 and

MO.2 of P.W.1 and 2.

15.The learned A.P.P. strongly contended that as per the illustration (a) of

before the court the seized property belongs to him. Thus, the accused, in this

case, must be considered as thief.

16.According to Prosecution, in this case, Mo.1 and 2 were missing from the possession of P.W.1 and 2, in the months of October and November, 2025, re- spectively, and as per the evidence of P.W.7, he allegedly seized the same from the possession of the accused on 27.12.2025. There is a gap of more than one month and 2 months, respectively between the two. Therefore, it cannot be said thatP.W.7 seized the above MO.1 and MO.2 from the possession of the accused soon after the theft of the same. In this connection, it is a settled principle of law in

Criminal Administration of Justice that based on presumptions or assumptions or inferences conviction cannot be recorded for most of the offences under the BNS.

17.Based on said presumption, in the absence of legal evidence, a conviction for the offence under section 303(2) of BNS, cannot be recorded. Said presumption will not give any authority to the Court to record a conviction for the offence under section 303(2) of BNS in the absence of legal evidence to prove the same. Said illustration does not mean that receiver of stolen property is a thief when there is no legal evidence on record to establish that the receiver of stolen property is a thief.

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 7

18.In the said gap ofmore than 30 days and 60 days, those MO.1 and MO.2 can go to the hands of a greater number of persons and therefore, it is not correct to apply said presumption to the facts of this case and further Court has to main- tain some balance given the said presumption and hence, I am of the considered opinion that the arguments of the learned A.P.P. are not acceptable about the ac- cused is presumed as thief.

19.In a case, Trimbak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1954

Supreme Court 39, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows: “The

Prosecution has to bring home the guilt of a person under section 411 of Indian

Penal Code to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property

before the accused got possession of it, and

(3) that the accused knew that the property was stolen property.

20.Section 411 of Indian Penal Code 1860 is the corresponding Section to Sec.

317 of BNS Act.

21.Now, I am going to scan the evidence on record to know whether the above points have been established by the Prosecution or not?

22.P.W.1 and PW.2 gave evidences that the above MO.1 and MO.2 were stolen away from the places as mentioned supra and that they reported as in Ex.

P-1 and P.2 in Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station.

23.Already, police returned MOs.1 and 2 to PW.1 and 2, after obtaining proper receipts from them and the same have not been challenged either by the accused or any other person. Therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute concerning own- ership of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in respect of Mos.1 and 2.

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 8

24.Further, according to the prosecution the prosecution witness P.Ws.1 and 2 identified Mos. 1 and 2 as their MO.1 and MO.2 which were allegedly committed theft on the dates of commission of offences, at the Sachivalayam in the presence of PW.5 under cover of Ex.P5 and 6/ mediator reports. PW.5 also corroborated the same.

25.As seen from Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice the identification of properties shall be held in the Court of Magistrate where the properties are lodged and each item of property shall be put up separately for the parade and it shall be mixed up with four or five similar objects and before calling upon the witnesses to identify the property, he shall be asked to state the identification marks of his property and the witnesses shall be called in one after the other and on leaving shall not be allowed to communicate with the witnesses not yet called in. The said procedure of conducting identification parade in respect of the property has not been conducted in this case, as admittedly the identification parade was not conducted in the Court of the Magistrate.

26.As seen from the record no similar properties were secured by the police and clubbed all of them and asked the witnesses one by one to come and identify their MO.1 and MO.2. Further, as seen from the record, the witness was not asked to state the identification marks of their respective MO.1 and MO.2 before showing the properties put up for test identification as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Thus, it is clear that the test identification in

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 9 respect of the properties are riot conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Criminal Rules of Practice. Therefore, much credence cannot be given to the alleged test identification of Mos.1 and 2, by the witnesses/P.Ws.1 and 2, under cover of Ex. P5 and P6/ mediator reports.

27.As could be seen from the record, except for the circumstantial evidence ie., the confessional statement of the accused no other evidence is available to prove the case of the prosecution. In this connection the learned counsel for the accused would argue in vehemence that the confession record by the police from the accused is irrelevant, when the accused was in their custody. On the other hand, it was contented by the learned APP by relying the proviso of (2) of section 23 of

BSA Act, though the confession record by the police from the accused while he was in their custody it is relevant when the recovery was discovered in consequence of information received from a person.

28.Now I would like to decide whether the confessional statement recorded by the police is relevant or not?

a) After careful perusal of the confession of accused under Ex.P.11, demonstrates that the accused committed theft of MO1 and 2 from the possession of PWs.1 and 2 and on the alleged date of arrest while the accused were going to Ananthapuramu for selling the MO.1 and 2 and other articles, the Police apprehended them and that the accused had placed articles along with MO.1 and 2 before the police, which were allegedly stolen by them, accordingly, the police had seized the same, in the presence of the mediators, under cover of the mediator's report.

b) In the instant case, the statements namely, "the accused had committed theft; they are going to sell the same in market then the police apprehended them", constituted only the past history of M.O.1

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 10 and 2 and other properties or their theft and possession over the stolen property by the accused, respectively; it was not the distinct and

Proximate cause of the discovery and had to be ruled out of evidence altogether. A further statement of the accused that” they had placed

M.O.1 and 2 before the Police, thereby they had seized the same under cover of Ex.P.11”.

c) In this connection, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bobby Vs. State of

Kerala referred the the decision of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. King

Emporer, wherein section 27 of Indian Evidence Act had been considered at length and it was noted that section 27 provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by the proceedings, provisions and enables certain statements made by an accused in police custody to be proved. It was observed that the condition necessary to bring section 27 into operation is that the discovery of fact in consequence of information received from a person “accused of any offence” in the custody of police officer must be deposed to and thereupon so much of the information, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved. It was observed that normally, section 27 is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment, some object, such as a dead body, a weapon or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime, of which the information is accused. However, the privy council concluded that the exception to section 26 added by section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act should not be held to nullify the substance of the provision and it would be fallacious to treat the “fact discovered” as equal into the object produced; fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused, as to this, and the information given must relates distinctly to this fact. For example, it was elucidated that information supplied by a person in custody that “ I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house” does not lead to

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 11 the discovery of a knife; as knives had discovered many years ago, but if it leads to the discovery of fact that if knife is concealed in the house of informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant.

Notingthis principle, the Hon’ble Supreme court observed that section 27 of Indian Evidence Act embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this and the information given must relates distinctly to the said fact.

d) Section 27 is corresponding provision to proviso of (2) of section 23 of

BSA Act

e) In the present case as I stated earlier accused placed MOs.1 and 2

before the police by stating that the said property is the stolen property.

f) After culling out and rejecting the inadmissible portion, as there is no admissible portion of statement, with the facts discovered was not sufficient to draw the presumption that the accused was the receiver of stolen property knowing it to be stolen.

g) Unfortunately, the mediators did not cooperate with the prosecution case.

Furthermore, as per section 105 of BNS Act, the investigation officer ought to have record the Audio and Video while seizing the property. But in the present case he failed to follow the said procedure. If, he followed the said procedure, certainly this would have an opportunity to know really from the alleged accused Mo.1 and 2 seized by police or not even in the absence of mediator’s evidence. Unfortunately, the said procedure was not followed by investigation officer and reasons best known to him only.

h) The answer to this question in the circumstances of the case had to be the negative against the accused, the MO.1 and 2 in question was found

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 12 in the possession of the accused. It was not alleged by the prosecution- much less proved-that M.O.1 and 2 wasin the possession of the accused. There is not even an oblique hint that M.O.1 and 2 was in any way under the possession of the accused.

29.Therefore, the evidence of investigating officer, who arrested the accused and seized the property under cover of the mediator report, in connection with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of properties cannot be believed. In view of these circumstances, I am unable to believe the testimony of PW7, who arrested the accused and seized the property in respect of the alleged recovery of property from the Accused.

30. In my considered view, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that property recovered from the possession of the accused. Accordingly, the above points are answered in favour of the accused.

31). Point No.6: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS Act. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.271 of BNSS. Mos.1 and 2 have been ordered by this court as interim custody in favour of P.Ws.1 and 2, is holds good, after appeal time is over.

The office is hereby directed to address a letter to concerned jail authorities about the accused No.1 and 2 are released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer, corrected, signed, and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

P.W.1:G. Manjusha- N O N E -

P.W.2:B. Vijayalakshmi

P.W.3:Krishnam Raghu

PW.4:Namala Chandra Mouli

PW.5:A. Kishore Kumar

PW.6:C. Venkateswarlu

PW.7:G. Rajendranath Yadav

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P-1: Report of PW1.- N IL -

Ex.P-2: Report of PW2.

Ex.P-3: PW.3 signature on the report.

Ex.P-4: Pw.4 signature on Panchanama

Ex.P-5: Mahazarnama

Ex.P.6: Mahazarnama

Ex.P.7: FIR

Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch

Ex.P.9: FIR

Ex.P.10: Rough Sketch

Ex.P.11: Mediator Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Black beaded gold chain weighing about 30 grams.

M.O.2:Gold long chain weighing about 40 grams

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JFCM, ATP.

FAC. Spl. JFCM (Mobile), ATP.

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 14

//True Copy//

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar of cases tried by Sri K. Bala Koteswara Rao, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu, FAC. Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDER CASE NO.01/2026 ON THE FILE OF SPL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE), ANANTHAPURAMU.

Date of offence:On 27.10.2025 at about 03.00 PM and 08.11.2025 at about 02.00 PM. Complaint:04.11.2025 and 04.12.2025 Apprehension of:27.12.2025 accused Remand Period if any:27.12.2025 to till today. Released on bail:Accused No.1 and 2 are in jail. Commencement of trial:22.01.2026 Closing of trial:06.02.2026 Sentence or order:12.02.2026 Reasons for delay:-- Name of the complainant:The State – Represented by its Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town P.S. in Cr.No.216/2025 and 233/2025.

Name of the accused:1. Yadavalli Manju, aged 25 years, S/o Y. Gadilingappa, resident of Gudar Na- gar, Bellary Town, Karnataka State.

2.Pichuguntla Ramadasu, aged 24 years, S/o P. Netti Kallappa, resident of Gudar Nagar, Besides Govt. School, Siddaragadda, Bellary Town, Karnataka State. Offence:U/s. 303(2) or 317(2) of BNS Act. Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty Finding:Not Guilty

C.C.No.01-2026, Dt.12.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 15

O R D E R:

In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 303 (2) or 317 of BNS Act. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.271 of BNSS. Mos.1 and 2 have been ordered by this court as interim custody in favour of P.Ws.1 and 2, is holds good, after appeal time is over.

The office is hereby directed to address a letter to concerned jail authorities about the accused No.1 and 2 are released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

//True Copy//

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

CC/100029/2018 Acquitted

The Station House Officer, I town PS, Anantapuramu vs Syed Sameer

04 May 2026

1 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP

APAN030028222018

FORM-A

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS : ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- SRI K. BALA KOTESWARA RAO

Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 4th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.29/2018

ComplainantThe State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town P.S.

Represented byAssistant Public prosecutor Smt. M. Durga Devi

AccusedSyed Sameer, S/o Syed Sadiq, aged about 32 years. Resident of Plot No. 21, B. N. T. Villas, Thapovanam, Ananthapuram Town.

Represented bySri K.S. Tabrez, Advocate

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station, laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.38/2017 for the offence under

Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, as set out in the charge sheet, runs like this:

2.1. LW1, Syed Sameena, was married to the accused at the GR Function Hall in Ananthapuram in 2014. At the time of the marriage, LW2, who is LW1's 2 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP ₹ brother, provided a dowry that included 6,00,000 in cash, 20 tulas of gold jew- ellery, a Pulsar motorcycle, and various household items. Shortly after the mar- riage, the accused took LW1 to his parents' home in Tapovanam, Ananthapu- ram, to begin their married life together. They lived happily for about two months.

2.2. The accused, who works as a software engineer with HCL Company in

Bangalore, began visiting his parents once a week. After the marriage, he forcibly took possession of documents pertaining to an 8-cent house site in Hy- derabad City, which was owned by LW1. Soon after, LW1 gave birth to a daughter. However, the accused began to harass LW1, claiming that the dowry and gifts received at their wedding were insufficient. He demanded an addi- ₹ tional 5,00,000, which led to increased harassment.

2.3. Despite her difficulties, LW1 tried to console herself, as both her parents had passed away. Unable to bear the harassment, she informed LW2 and LW3 about the situation. LW2, with the help of LW4 to LW6, arranged for a coun- selling session with the accused in an attempt to resolve the issues. Despite this intervention, the accused resumed harassing LW1 both physically and mentally, insisting on receiving additional dowry from her maternal family. Once again, LW2 sought advice from LW4 to LW6, who held further counselling ses- sions with community elders. The accused continued to harass LW1 repeat- edly. Frustrated by the situation, LW1 approached the Mahila Police Station for assistance. The police counselled both LW1 and the accused, during which the accused promised to reconcile and take LW1 back home. However, even after two months, he did not fulfil his promise.

2.4. On January 6, 2017, the accused called LW1 to inform her that he had sent a divorce notice, which she had yet to receive. Consequently, LW1 decided to file a report with the police.

2.5. Based on LW1's report, LW7 registered a case under Crime No. 38 of 2017 at the Ananthapuram 1 Town Police Station, citing Sections 498A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the investigation, he sum- 3 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP moned witnesses LW1 to LW6, examined them, and recorded their detailed statements. He inspected the crime scene and prepared a rough sketch. Addi- tionally, he drafted the police proceedings related to the scene. Later, he issued a notice under Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to the ac- cused. Later, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the above of- fences.

3. The case was taken cognizance of on file against the accused of the offence under Sections 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act.

4. The accused was present before the court, and copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The accused denied having committed any offence. Thereafter, charges under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over, and explained to the accused in Telugu, whereupon the ac- cused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to PW.5 were examined and Exs.P-1 to

P-3. On behalf of Defence, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined un- der Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he pleaded that all such evidence is false and reported no de- fence evidence.

8. Having heard the arguments of the counsels of the parties, perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, thoroughly, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is vulnerable to bring home the

guilt of the accused for the charges u/Sections 498A of IPC and

4 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond a reasonable

doubt?”

Point :

9. Prior to the appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is pertinent to mention the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC.

498-A. Husband or relative of the husband of a woman subject-

ing her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means.-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful de- mand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

10. Section 498-A does not specifically speak of dowry demand. It refers to an unlawful demand for property or valuable articles.

11. Section 498-A IPC enacted by the Criminal Law (2nd Amendment 1983) with effect from 25-12-1983. The word "cruelty" has been defined under Section 498-A of the IPC, as has "harassment". “Cruelty” under the explanation deals with two types of circumstances

(a) With reference to willful conduct leading to suicide or danger to life, limb or health, it can be either mental or physical of the woman.

(b) Relates to harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valu- able on his account of failure to meet such demand.

12. It is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A I.P.C. The complainant must allege that the harassment in question was 5 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP with the intention to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil illegal demands of dowry. It is only when the harassment is shown to have been caused for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet such demands that it amounts to cruelty, which is made punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. Cruelty postulates such harassment as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with her husband would be harmful and injurious to her life. Cruelty under Section 498-A I.P.C must be of such a nature as to coerce the wife to meet the illegal demands or to commit suicide.

13. Pointedly, PW1, the de facto complainant, testified that her marriage took place on August 24, 2020, with the accused. By then, he had received a ₹ dowry of 6,00,000 in cash and 20 tulas of gold, along with a Pulsar motorcycle and various household items, provided by her brother, LW2. At the time of their marriage, the accused was employed as a software engineer at an HCL com- pany in Hyderabad.

14. Immediately after the wedding, PW1 moved to the accused's home in Anan- thapur to begin her married life, where her in-laws and siblings-in-law also resided. However, from the beginning, the accused and his family members subjected her to both physical and mental harassment, demanding additional dowry. Since PW1 had no parents, she endured this mistreatment. The ac- cused further harassed her to provide documents related to her property in Hy- derabad. Under this pressure, she surrendered the documents to him, but even after receiving them, the accused prevented her from entering their home. After many requests, he eventually allowed her to return, and she then became preg- nant. Despite her requests, the accused neither performed the 'srimantam' cer- emony nor allowed her to go to her brother's house for the delivery. After she gave birth to a baby girl, the accused demanded more dowry in the form of a ₹ gold chain and 5,00,000 in fixed deposits, threatening not to accept her and their child back into his home without meeting these demands. As a result, she returned to her brother's house.

6 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP

15. Later, PW1, along with her child, attempted to re-enter the accused's life, but he refused to accept them. They sought mediation with the help of her brother and his friends, but these efforts were unsuccessful. During the media- tion sessions, the accused continued to demand further dowry.

16. Faced with no other options, PW1 and her child continued to live with her brother. The accused later requested that PW1 provide her brother's residential address to send items for the baby, but instead, he sent her a divorce notice.

Eventually, she filed a report at the Mahila Police Station. Following her com- plaint, the police arranged counselling, during which the accused promised to accept her back into his life within two months. Nevertheless, he subsequently issued her a divorce notice, prompting her to file another report with the police.

17. The above evidence of PW1 demonstrates that the accused harassed her both mentally and physically by demanding dowry and additional dowry. He also insisted that she give him her property documents; otherwise, he would not allow her into his society. With no options left, she eventually surrendered those documents to him. Even after giving birth to his child, the accused continued to pressure her for more dowry, despite her expressing an inability to meet his de- mands. Several attempts at mediation between them were unsuccessful. Dur- ing those mediations, the accused continued to insist on additional dowry. Con- sequently, she filed a report with the police.

18. PW2 and 4, who are the brothers and sisters of PW1, deposed in their chief examination as stated by PW1. PW3, who is the elder of mediations, deposed that he has attended the marriage of PW1 with the accused. By that time, the above-specified dowry had been given by PW2 to the accused. Later, after is- sues arose between PW1 and the accused, he held mediations, during which ₹ the accused also demanded a dowry of 5,00,000.

19. The testimony of PW5, the Investigating Officer, stated that he registered a crime based on PW1's report and conducted an investigation. During this inves- tigation, he examined numerous witnesses and prepared a rough sketch of the 7 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP events. Upon completing the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused.

20. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented by PW1 to 5, along with supporting documentary evidence, the court found that the accused had de- manded dowry from PW1 and her family members. At the time of marriage,

PW2 provided dowry. Following the wedding, PW1 initially led a happy marital life. However, disputes later arose due to demands for additional dowry. De- spite attempts at mediation, these efforts were unsuccessful. As a result, PW1 filed a report against the accused, stating that he harassed her both mentally and physically in relation to the demand for dowry.

21. In the cross-examination of PW1 to PW4, they categorically deposed that, except for their oral evidence, there is no other material evidence to say that

PW2 gave dowry to the accused. Furthermore, PW3, who is the elder of their marriage, deposed that, except for the time of the marriage talks, he was not present at any of the above places, as stated in his chief examination. But he came to know the said incident through PW1. The above evidence categorically shows that he was not present when the accused was given a dowry by PW2. It means his evidence is a subsequent development in the prosecution's case. On the other hand, there is evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW4, who are family members, except for their oral statements, did not provide any documents or proof to show that they gave a dowry to the accused. Furthermore, PW1 admit- ted during cross-examination that by the time of her marriage to A1, PW2 was a small employee. In such a case, how could he give such a large amount to the accused as a dowry? It is silent in the case of prosecution. Had they really had such a capacity to give such a dowry to the accused, they would have provided the same before the court. If they had provided the same before the court, this court would have had the opportunity to verify the contents and decide whether to grant such a dowry to the accused. But unfortunately, they didn't furnish the said material before the court. Therefore, after careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW4, except for their oral statements, nothing material was brought on record by them to prove their version that PW2 had given dowry to the ac- 8 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP cused on the accused's demand, and that the accused harassed PW1, as stated above.

22. Furthermore, PW1 and PW2 reported that the accused demanded that they give her the property documents for an extent of 8 cents of land as additional dowry. With no other options available, she handed the documents over to him.

The testimony of the Investigation Officer, who was examined as PW5, is of ut- most importance in this case. He stated that he registered a case based on

PW1's report and conducted an investigation. He examined several witnesses during this process and, upon completion, filed a charge sheet. A review of the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer indicated that the accused forcibly took the property documents from LW2's possession. LW2 is none other than PW2 in this case. This is contrary to the prosecution's case. The prosecution remained completely silent on this matter and did not provide any explanation to the court about how the events unfolded. If the accused indeed took the documents, the Investigating Officer should have retrieved them from his possession, but PW5's investigation does not indicate this. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses also did not provide any such testimony. If this is the case, it remains unclear where the alleged documents are currently located, whether with PW1 or with the accused. The prosecution should clarify this is- sue. If the prosecution's version is true, then the documents should have been in the accused's possession. However, the prosecution failed to provide any ex- planation regarding this. If the accused truly had the documents, it stands to reason that PW1 would have attempted to retrieve them, either through the court or law enforcement, when they were separated. Yet, no such material evi- dence was presented by the prosecution to support this incident. All the evi- dence suggests that the accused did not demand that PW1 provide any docu- ments for additional dowry. Therefore, in light of the reasons stated above, I cannot accept the prosecution's contention.

23. Further, the above evidence of the Investigating Officer reveals that he did not take any action, except for recording the statements of witnesses. It is his responsibility to investigate the case and determine whether the alleged inci- 9 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP dent actually took place. Crucially, he failed to collect any material evidence re- lating to dowry. Therefore, he did not conduct a thorough investigation to link the accused to the case. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 does not inspire any confidence in the alleged harassment of the accused. Further, the prosecu- tion did not bring any material on record to show that the accused harassed

P.W.1 in respect of dowry. Thereby, Section 498-A of IPC is not applicable to the present case at hand.

24. Sections 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, prescribe the penalty for the demand of dowry and additional dowry.

25. In this connection, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 10 of the Dowry Prohibi- tion Rules, which reads thus:

“10. Time for settlement of disputes: – Any offence under section 3 and section 4 or any dispute under section 6 of the Act shall be filed

before expiry of one year and the same shall be finalized within two

years from the date of filing”.

26. The above Rule 10 makes it clear that any offence under Section 3 & 4 or any dispute under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act shall be filed before the expiry of one year from the date of marriage. By applying the above prepo- sition to the present case on hand, the allegations in the report, in so far as the accused is concerned, if accepted as true, do attract the ingredients of Sections 4 of D.P. Act, there is a considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused that, since Rule 10 of A.P. Dowry Prohibition

Rules prescribes a limitation of one year for filing the complaint or report, but the complainant filed the present report after 3 years of their marriage and it is barred by limitation. Hence, in that view, the present case is also not maintain- able against the accused under Section 4 of the D.P. Act.

27. After forgoing reasons, no material evidence was brought on the record to show that the accused committed harassment on P.W.1 with a view to forcing her to commit suicide or to fulfil illegal demands of the accused and the continu- ous harassment, both physical and mental, by the accused made her life miser- 10 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP able and forced her to live separately from her husband. Thereby, in view of the reasons given above, except for making general and omnibus allegations against the accused that he used to harass her, she is not able to say when such incidents happened or the manner in which she has been harassed and without such material particulars, it cannot be said even primafacie that she has been subjected to any harassment by the accused. All the allegations made by her with regard to the alleged mental or physical torture are omnibus and gen- eral in nature, and hence they cannot be considered without any particulars, even approximately, as to when such incidents happened.

28. In the light of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this court is of the view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act. Conse- quently, the accused is found not guilty of the charges under Sections 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, and is acquitted of the said offences in terms of Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall re- main in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.437-A Cr.P.C., and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao,

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ANANTHRAPURAMU.

Form-B

Date of offencePrior to 29.01.2017

Date of FIR29.01.2017

Date of Charge sheet11.04.2017

Date of Framing of Charges14.02.2019

Date of commencement of evidence04.11.2025 11 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP

Date of which Judgment is reserved29.04.2026

Date of Judgment04.05.2026

Date of sentencing order if any--

Accused Details

RanName of Date of Date of Offences Whether Sentence Period of k of Accused Arrest Release charged Acquitted Imposed Detention the on Bail with or Undergon Accconvicted e during used Trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C 1Syed Sameer----Section Acquittal---- 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act

FORM C

LIST OF PROSEUCTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution

RankName(Nature of Evidence, Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, Expert witness, Panch witness, other witness)

PW1 Syed SameenaComplainant

PW2 S. Samiulla KhanProsecution witness

PW3 G. SreenivasuluProsecution witness

PW4 Shaik ShabanaProsecution witness

PW5 G. Rangadu Prosecution witness

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

Rank Name(Nature of Evidence, Eye witness, Police 12 C.C.No.29/2018 dt.04.05.2026; PRL.JFCM, ATP witness, Expert witness, Expert witness, Panch witness, other witness)

DW1 None None

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

Rank Name(Nature of Evidence, Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, Expert witness, Panch witness, other witness)

CW1NoneNone

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1Report

Ex.P2First Information Report

For Defence:-

Ex.Nil

Material Objects M.O.Nil

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao,

Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ananthapuramu.

//True Copy//

Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Ananthapuramu.

CC/1072/2025 Acquitted

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHO of Inspector ATP III Town PS vs Ravi Brava S/o Rathaning Bavra

11 Feb 2026

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 1

APAN040020992025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE):

ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: - SRI K. BALA KOTESWARA RAO Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu

Wednesday, this the 11th day of February, 2026.

C.C.No.1072/2025

Between: The StateRep. by Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station. ……. Complainant

And

1. Ravi Brava, aged 33 years, S/o Rathaning Bavra, D.No.813, Sanketh Colony, Vasantha Vihar, Muzaffar Nagar District, Uttar Pradesh state, now resident at Nigadevadi Fuel Station, Near DCB Bank, Gandhi Road, Kollapur, Maharashtra State.

2.Mahammad Shareef @ Mahammad Sohel sidda, aged 25 years, S/o Babu Ahammad Sidda, Sisamavu Post and Taluk, Karnalaganj Disrict, Gonda State, Uttar Pradesh, now resident at Nigadevadi Fuel Station, Near DCB Bank, Gandhi Road, Kollapur, Maharashtra State. ……. Accused No.1 and 2

This case comes before me on 11.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. V. Sreenivasulu, A.P.P. for the complainant, and of Kum. B. Anusha, Assistant Legal Aid Counsel for Accused No.1 and 2, and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the follow- ing:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station laid a charge sheet in Crime Number 77/ 2024 against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/s.379 or 411 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 2 2.1) This is a case of theft of gold ornament that occurred on 20.03.2024 at about 04.00 AM at D.No.1-4-24, near Ramalayam, Somanath Nagar,

Ananthapuramu Town., while LW.1/ P. Ramalakshmamma was sweeping in front of her house, she noticed a shadow of an unknown person standing on the rooftop. Upon that, she called the said individual as think that he is her children. Immediately, the said unknown individual got down from the roof, caught hold of her tuft, pushed her head against the wall, closed her mouth to prevent her from raising an alarm, and forcibly snatched the gold chain from her neck. Thereafter, the offender fled towards the left side of the house by climbing the kadapa stone compound wall. Subsequently, LW.1 informed the incident to her daughter Usharani over phone.

2.2) Based on the report of LW.1, L.W.10/S. I of Police, Ananthapuramu III

Town P.S registered the same as a case in Crime Number 77/2024 under section 379 of IPC and investigated into. During the investigation, he examined LWs.1 to LW.5 witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. Later, LW.11/ C.I of Police,

Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station took up further investigation.

2.3)On credible information, A.1 and A.2 were apprehended on 20.08.2025 at about 10.00 PM by LW.9/ B. Dheeraj/ C.I of Batageri Circle,

Karnataka State, in connection with Cr.No.69/2025 U/Sec.309(4) of BNS of

Betageri Badavane extension Police station, Karnataka and recovered the property from the possession of the accused persons under the cover of their confessional statements and seizure-cum-arrest mahazarnama.

2.4) Thereafter, LW.12/G. Rajendranath Yadav secured the presence of

Accused No.1 and 2 through P.T. Warrants and A.2 were produced before the court for judicial remand in the present case. Further, the recovered gold chain was subjected to a Property Identification Parade conducted on

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 3 27.11.2025 at the Panchayat Office, Rajiv Colony, Ananthapuramu Rural

Mandal, wherein LW.1 correctly identified the stolen property under a proper mahazar.

2.5) The investigation discloses a prima facie case against Accused A.1 and

A.2 for committing theft and retaining stolen property. Hence, the accused are liable to be punished for the offences U/s 379 IPC U/s 411 IPC. Hence, charge.

3.The case was taken cognizance on file against the accused No.1 and 2 of the offence under Sections 379 or 411 of IPC.

4.On production of accused No.1 and 2 before this court copies of all the doc- uments, on which the prosecution relied, were supplied to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 and 2 denied having committed any offence. Thereafter, the charge under Sections 379 or 411 of IPC has been framed, read over, and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined, Exs.P-1 to

P-9 were marked.

7.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, putting forth the incriminating material that appears against them from the evi- dence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 and 2 denied their guilt and re- ported no defence evidence.

8.Now, the following points will arise, for consideration of this Court:

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 4

1) Whether the gold chain is stolen property ?

2) Whether the seizure of above gold chain from the possession of the accused has been proved?

3) Whether the accused knew that above gold chain is the stolen property?

4) Whether the accused committed theft of the above gold chain ?

5) Whether the Prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?

6) To what relief?

9.POINTS 1 TO 5 are answered together to avoid repetition of the facts:

10.For a better appreciation of the case, it is pertinent to mention the ingredients of Sections 379 or 411 of IPC as follows:

1.Section 370 of IPC defines punishment for theft: -Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

2. Section 411 of IPC defines – Dishonestly receiving stolen prop- erty: - Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

11.According to the prosecution case, on 20.03.2024 at about 04.30 PM while

PW.1 was sweeping inform of her house she noticed one person on the terrace of her house and she questioned him that who are you? Immediately he came upon

PW.1, caught hold, pressed her against the wall by keeping cloths into her mouth and snatched her gold chain from her neck and the decamped with booty. Later, she lodged Report/Ex. P1. After 5 months of incident, police informed about recov- ery of her gold chain, accordingly she went to Police station, identified her gold chain in presence of VRO and accordingly the police handed over her gold chain after obtaining Ex. P2 receipt from her. Further, she deposed that she could not identify the accused as it was dark night.

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 5

12.P.W.5-who is one of the Investigating Officer of the case deposed that he registered the case based on the report of PW.1 and issued Ex. P6 FIR. During his investigation he examined as many as witnesses and prepared Ex. P7 rough sketch.

13.PW.6 who is the arrest investigation officer deposed that on credible infor- mation he along with his staff apprehended the accused in their crime 69/25 and on the confession of accused No.1 and 2, they have seized case property in this case as well as the case of PW.6 and other police stations. In the presence of

PWs.2 and 3 under cover of Ex. P8 and P9/Panchanamas. Later he informed same to concerned police stations.

14.PWs.2 and 3- who are the alleged arrest and seizer mediators came to court and turned hostile. In the nature of cross examination nothing could elicited by the

Learned APP except for marking of their signature on the above mediator’s report.

Therefore, the evidence PWs.2 and 3 is not helpful to the prosecution case.

15.PW.7 who is another investigation officer in this case deposed that he secured the presence of Accused no.1 and 2 through PT warrant and accordingly after completion of said formalities he sent them to judicial remand.

16.After careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 5 to 7, coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs.P-1 to 4, 6 to P-9, the gold chain of PW1 was committed theft by some unknown culprits, but no one knows that who committed the theft of above gold chain of P.W.1.

17.The learned A.P.P. strongly contended that as per the illustration (a) of

Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, a man who has in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 6 stolen unless he can account for his possession, but in the present case accused did not explain before the court the seized property belongs to him. Thus, the ac- cused, in this case, must be considered as thief.

18.According to Prosecution, in this case, gold chain was missing from the pos- session of P.W.1, on 20.03.2024 and as per the evidence of P.W.6, he allegedly seized the same from the possession of the accused on 20.08.2025. There is a gap of 1 year 5 months between the two. Therefore, it cannot be said thatP.W.6 seized the above gold chain from the possession of the accused soon after the theft of the same. In this connection, it is a settled principle of law in Criminal

Administration of Justice that based on presumptions or assumptions or inferences conviction cannot be recorded for most of the offence under the IPC.

19.Based on said presumption, in the absence of legal evidence, a conviction for the offence under section 379 of IPC, cannot be recorded. Said presumption will not give any authority to the Court to record a conviction for the offence under section 379 of IPC in the absence of legal evidence to prove the same. Said illustration does not mean that receiver of stolen property is a thief when there is no legal evidence on record to establish that the receiver of stolen property is a thief.

20.In the said gap ofmore than 1 year 5 months, the above gold chain can go to the hands of a greater number of persons and therefore, it is not correct to apply said presumption to the facts of this case and further Court has to maintain some balance given the said presumption and hence, I am of the considered opinion that the arguments of the learned A.P.P. are not acceptable about the accused is pre- sumed as thief.

21.In a case, Trimbak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1954

Supreme Court 39, Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, observed as follows: “The

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 7

Prosecution has to bring home the guilt of a person under section 411 of Indian

Penal Code to prove, (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property

before the accused got possession of it, and

(3) that the accused knew that the property was stolen property.

22.Now, I am going to scan the evidence on record to know whether the above points have been established by the Prosecution or not?

23.P.W.1 gave evidence that the above gold chain was stolen away from the place as mentioned supra and that the she reported as in Ex. P-1 in Ananthapu- ramu III Town Police Station.

24.Already, the police gave the said gold chain to PW.1 after obtaining Ex.P2 from her and the same has not been challenged either by the accused or any other person. Therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute concerning ownership of

P.W.1 in respect of above gold chain.

25.With the evidence of P.W.1, it is established by the prosecution that the above said gold chain was the stolen property.

26.(a)P.W.6/ Investigation Officer deposed that he seized the said gold chain from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators, along with other properties on the date, time, and the place as mentioned supra from the possession of accused under a Mediators’ report as in Ex. P-8 and P-9. The same has not been corroborated the mediators i.e. PW.2 and 3.

(b)As could be seen from the record, except for the circumstantial evidence based on the confessional statement of the accused no other evidence is available to prove the case of the prosecution.

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 8

27.The defence counsel mainly concentrated on:

Confessional statement recorded by the police during their custody of accused, it is in-admissible.

28.On the other hand, it was contented by the learned APP by relying the section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, though the confession record by the police from the accused while they were in their custody it is relevant when the recovery was discovered in consequence of information received from a person.

29.Now, I would like to decide whether the confessional statement recorded by the police is relevant or not?

a) After careful perusal of the evidence of PW.6, demonstrates that on the confession of accused they had gone to the residence of accused and that they produced the gold which was kept their room before the investigation officer and accordingly he seized the same. The above evidence of PW.6, shows that it is recovery but not discovery. Further more, it is the bounden duty of prosecution to explain the case before the court that discovery of material fact but not property. Then only the section 27 of Indian evidence act came into their rescue, otherwise it is irrelevant. In the present case except for mentioning so, they did not speak about how they discover the said gold chain and what are the material facts of discovery, in that connection the prosecution maintained total silence and reasons best known to them only. Furthermore, the prosecution did not rely on any piece of paper to show that the alleged seizure of gold chain at the house of accused. Even, they did not explain

before the court why they had not relied. Further, the mediators turned

hostile and did not support the case of prosecution except for the evidence of investigation officer, no other evidence is available to prove the same. Therefore, in view of above discrepancies and in view of the hostility of the mediators, the evidence of investigating officer, who

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 9 arrested the accused and seized the property under cover of the mediator report, it was prepared at the above places in connection with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of properties cannot be believed. In view of these circumstances, I am unable to believe the testimony of mediator and investigating officer, who arrested the accused and seized the property in respect of the alleged recovery of property from the Accused.

30.In my considered view, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that property recovered from the possession of the accused.

31.Further, according to the prosecution the PW.1 identified the said gold chain which was allegedly committed theft on the date of commission of offence, at the police station in the presence of PW.4.

32.As seen from Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice the identification of properties shall be held in the Court of Magistrate where the properties are lodged and each item of property shall be put up separately for the parade and it shall be mixed up with four or five similar objects and before calling upon the witnesses to identify the property, he shall be asked to state the identification marks of his property and the witnesses shall be called in one after the other and on leaving shall not be allowed to communicate with the witnesses not yet called in. The said procedure of conducting identification parade in respect of the property has not been conducted in this case, as admittedly the identification parade was not conducted in the Court of the Magistrate.

33.As seen from the record no similar properties were secured by the police and clubbed all of them and asked the witnesses one by one to come and identify their vehicles. Further, as seen from the record, the witness was not asked to state

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 10 the identification marks of their respective vehicles before showing the properties put up for test identification as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 35 of the

Criminal Rules of Practice. Thus, it is clear that the test identification in respect of the properties are riot conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in

Criminal Rules of Practice. Therefore, much credence cannot be given to the alleged test identification of gold chain, by the witness/P.W.1 .

34).Accordingly, the above points are answered in favour of the accused.

35). Point No.6: In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The gold chain which was given under Ex.P2 to PW.1 by police, is holds good, after appeal time is over. The office is hereby directed to address a letter to concerned jail authorities about the accused No.1 and 2 are released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer, corrected, signed, and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

P.W.1:P. Ramam Lakshmamma- N O N E -

P.W.2:Soma Sagar

P.W.3:Ravi Kumar

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 11

PW.4:S. Mamatha

PW.5:G. Gopaludu

PW.6:Dheeraj Babu Rao Shinde

PW.7:G. Rajendranath Yadav

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P-1:Report of PW1.- NIL -

Ex.P-2:Receipt.

Ex.P-3:Signature of the witness on the panchanama, dt:20.08.2021

Ex.P-4:Signature of the witness on the panchanama, dt:20.08.2021

Ex.P-5:Mahazarnama

Ex.P.6:FIR

Ex.P.7:Rough Sketch

Ex.P.8:Panchanama

Ex.P.9:Panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:-NiL-

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JFCM, ATP.

FAC. Spl. JFCM (Mobile), ATP.

// True Copy//

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar of cases tried by Sri K. Bala Koteswara Rao, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu, FAC. Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDER CASE NO. 1072/2025 ON THE FILE OF SPL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE), ANANTHAPURAMU.

Date of offence:On 20.03.2024 at about 04.00 AM at resident of complainant house.

Complaint:22.03.2024 Apprehension of:20.08.2025 accused Remand Period if any:24.11.2025 to till today. Released on bail:Accused is in jail. Commencement of trial:05.01.2026 Closing of trial:05.02.2026 Sentence or order:11.02.2026 Reasons for delay:-- Name of the complainant:The State – Represented by its Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town P.S. in Cr.No.77/2025

Name of the accused:1. Ravi Brava, aged 33 years, S/o Rathaning Bavra,

2. Mahammad Shareef @ Mahammad Sohel sidda, aged 25 years, S/o Babu Ahammad Sidda.

Offence:U/s.379 or 411 of IPC Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty Finding:Not Guilty

O R D E R:

In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The gold chain which was given under Ex.P2 to PW.1 by police, is holds good, after appeal time is over. The office is hereby directed to

C.C.No.1072-2025, Dt.11.02.2026; Prl. JFCM, ATP, FAC.Spl.JFCM (Mobile), ATP 13 address a letter to concerned jail authorities about the accused No.1 and 2 are released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Sd/- K. Bala Koteswara Rao

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

// True Copy//

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC. SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (MOBILE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Order Record 1,169 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/100043/2018	S.H.O I Town PS, Anantapuramu vs Bangi Nagendra	05 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/100029/2018	The Station House Officer, I town PS, Anantapuramu vs Syed Sameer	04 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
EP/182/2023	M.Lakshmi Dei vs K.Shivakumar @ Shiva	21 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/12/2025	Arava Pedda Narasimhulu S/o Late Arava Penchalaiah vs Varaparlli Ramesh S/o V.Narasimhulu	20 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/226/2022	M/s Sri Raghuvaran Chits Pvt Ltd vs M V Ramanna	20 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/426/2024	U.Peddakka W/o U.Ramanjineyulu vs CJM. Anand Kumar S/o janne Anjineyulu	20 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/227/2016	Ms. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd. vs K.Alla Bakash	17 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/189/2020	A. Vasundhara vs S. Shameem	17 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/337/2022	K.Ramachandra vs D.Srinivasulu	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/385/2024	M.Venkateswara Chowdary S/o M.Venkataramanappa vs M.Narayana Swamy S/o M.Mareppa	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/100102/2018	S.H.O I twon PS , Anantapuramu vs Iruri Nagendra Prasad	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
OS/259/2021	Y.S.Sekhar Reddy, aged 49 years vs R.Bheemeswara Reddy, aged 40 years	13 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/719/2019	Pamala Chinna Narayana vs Vadde Vemnkatesh	13 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/100119/2018	SHO I Town P.S., Ananthapuramu. vs Botta Siva Sankaraiah	13 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
EP/409/2024	M/s Shriram Raghavendra Chtis Pvt Ltd, rep by its B.M. K.Kiran Kumar vs Sreenivas Shouri S/o P .Hari Shouri	10 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/100182/2019	Sri Chitra Nagaraju vs M.Maryappan	10 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/100080/2018	The SHo I Town PS Anantapur vs Shaik Shaiksha Vali	09 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
OS/16/2021	B. Varalakshmi vs Mallikarjuna	08 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/237/2019	V.Uma Maheswari vs D.Masthan	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/305/2024	Annagiri peddi Reddy S./o A.Veera Reddy vs C.Nagabhushanam S./o C.Narayana	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/1019/2024	B.C.Lakshmmanna S/o B.C.Pakkeerappa vs M.Parusuram S./o M.Ramalakshmi	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1418/2024	C.Raja Rathnamma W/o Late Jeorge Wilson vs V.Naga Subramanyam S/o Late V.Ramdas	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/437/2025	Canara Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager vs Gopalam Obulesu	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/517/2024	Canara Bank rep by its Manager and authorised officer vs V.Gopal Reddy S/o V.Chinna Lakshmi Reddy	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/580/2015	Malipela Balarami Reddy vs Boggula Venkatesu	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/632/2022	Karnataka Bank Ltd. Repd by its Branch Manager V.Jayachandra Reddy, Ananthapuramu. vs S.Sardhanappa	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1281/2024	State Bank of India vs Mr. Manapaka Ramakotaiah S/o M.Venkaiah	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/1329/2022	Vadde Mangamma vs Manchala Gampamma	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/9/2022	The State represented by Sri K.Chand Basha, Sub Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town PS. vs Smt D.Lavanya	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/792/2024	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH I Town P.S. Anantharpuamu vs Rayapati Sunil Datta S/o nagesh	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/147/2025	Pathakamuri Subbaiah S/o Late Pathakamuri Seshanna vs J.Katamaiah died By LRs. 1. J.Naryanamma W/o Late J.Katamaiah	02 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1105/2025	M.Ramanjineyulu vs M.Ramakrishna	02 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/387/2020	SHO Ananthapuramu I town PS vs Guddeti Konda Reddy	02 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/391/2024	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH I Town P.S. Anantapuramu vs Jalla Janardhana S/o kadirappa	02 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/136/2025	Guggilla Nagarathnamma vs Yalakala Surendra Kumar Reddy	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/672/2025	V. Rajyalakshmamma vs V. Venkatanarasaiah	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/55/2024	K.Murali Mohan vs R.Kiran Kumar	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
PRC/7/2026	SHO ANANTHAPURAMU I TOWN PS vs M.RAJU, ALIES MALA RAMANJINEYULU	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
DVC/42/2021	K. Devipriya vs G. Konda Reddy	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	Dismissed As Not Pressed Disposal Date: 01-04-2026 Spl
OS/966/2016	D.Venkataramana vs Muntimadugu Laxminarayana Guptha	31 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/997/2025	Kunchepu Lakshmi vs A.Lakshmi devi alias Goll Dasari Lakshmi Devi	31 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1905/2023	andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, rep by its Branch Manager vs K.Adilakshmi w/o Chinna Venkataramana	31 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100623/2016	K.Lakshmi Narasamma vs K.Kumari	31 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	Dismissed Disposal Date: 31-03-2026 Spl
OS/16/2024	Puttaparthi Hanumantha Reddy S/o P.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy vs M.Narendra S/o M,.Basaveswaraiah	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/346/2022	G.Subash Chandra Bose vs B.Lakshmi Narayana	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1585/2024	B.Kodanda Ramireddy S/o Late B.Venkata Ramireddy vs M.Manohar Reddy S/o Late M.Narayana Reddy	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/56/2024	Ms/ Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd Repd by GPA Holder, T.Sreenivasulu Reddy vs Boya Dasamurthy	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/100441/2019	B. Narasimhulu vs Narendra Mandal	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/468/2025	C. Mahalakshmi vs C. Venkatesulu	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/104/2023	c. Narayanaswamy vs S. Sai Krishna	25 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/311/2023	Canara Bank its authorized Officer, B.Venkateswara Rao vs Sake Komala	25 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/690/2019	Gangi Reddy Gari Pulla Reddy vs Boya Ramajaneyulu	24 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/813/2007	Kodavandla Subbanna vs K.Venkateswarlu	24 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1545/2024	D.Sunil Kumar S/o D.Rajasekhar vs B.Raju S/o B.Chinnalinganna	24 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/494/2021	Ediga Vidyavathi @ Bommagowni Vidyavathi vs Bathula Sravan Kumar	23 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/926/2023	S.Sai Prasad Reddy vs S.Sainath Reddy	23 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1208/2025	Mannala Hemalatha vs M.Ramanjineyulu	23 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
PRC/1/2026	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH SHO of Inspector of Police, ATP III Town PS vs D. Ahammad (A1)	23 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/343/2020	P. Bharath Raju vs Nagappa	20 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/942/2020	Bandaru Sandeep Krishna vs M.Varaprasad Kumar	20 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1518/2019	K.Lakshmi Devi vs Y.Mallikarjuna Reddy @ 6 others	20 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1744/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, rep by its Manager vs Venkata Ramanamma.B W/o B.Nagireddy	20 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100091/2019	M/S HDFC bank LTD vs Kutagulla Sudhakar	20 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/29/2024	P.Parthasarathi vs B.Thirumalappa	18 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/143/2024	S.Eswaramma W/o S.Narayana vs B.Sathish Kumar S./o B.Narasimhulu	18 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/330/2023	Union Bank of India vs E. Murthy	18 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/379/2025	M. Nagabushanam vs M. Lakshminarayana	18 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/60/2025	M.Saraswathi W/.oM.Malla Reddy vs S.Ramachandra S/oS. Ramappa	17 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/848/2025	Bogam Ramesh vs Mohammad Fakrunnisa Begum	17 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/77/2018	Corporation bank, Anantapuramu vs G.Sreekanth,	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/337/2024	C.Narayana Reddy S/o C.Nanji Reddy vs D.Ramadevi w/.o Ramana Reddy	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/870/2025	Smt T.Sri Lakshmi vs Dandu Gangadar	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100150/2019	M/S A.C onvention Rep A.Akhil Kumar Reddy vs Mr.Surav benerjee, Esya Ventures PVT LTD OpS	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
PRC/25/2024	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH The SHO ITown P.S. Anantapuramu vs K.Anjineyulu @ Anji S/o Narasimhulu	16 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/12/2023	P.Hindu Sekhar Reddy vs S.Sudheer	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/102/2025	Vasagiri Naresh vs N.Jayanagendra Babu (Died by L.Rs) Aggida Suvarana	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/157/2025	M/s. Shriram Chits India Pvt. Ltd, Ananthapuramu -I, Reptd. by its Manager/GPA Holder vs K.Saila Kumari	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/188/2022	M/s Shriram Raghavendra Chits Pvt Ltd vs K Pavan KUmar Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/325/2022	M/S Shriram Raghavendra Chits Pvt Ltd vs B Bhagavan Goud	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/352/2023	Shriram Chits India Pvt.Ltd.,Ananthapuramu. vs N.Nagaraju	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/365/2024	M/S Sri Raghuvaran Chits PVT Ltd, ATP rep by its Manager T.Shaikshavali vs K.Naresh Kumar S/o K.Yerriswamy Late	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/399/2024	M/s Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Chit funds (Andhra) Pvt. repby P.Rangaswami vs Mr.H.Ramanjineyulu S/oH.Chinna Kullayappa	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
EP/438/2023	A.Vijaya Lakshmi vs N.Thimmappa	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/25/2025	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank rep by its Manager vs L.Ravindra Reddy S/o Raghunatha Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/115/2026	G.Venkata Ramana vs S.Abdul Hafeez	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/674/2023	P. Srivardhini vs P. Paravathamma	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/885/2023	B.Saraswathi vs Y.Radha Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
OS/1064/2022	Kummara savithri vs P. Anjina reddy	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/44/2025	The SHO I Town P.S. Anantapuramu. vs Devarakonda Somanath S./o D. Ramanjineyulu	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/51/2024	M/s Shriram Chits Pvt Ltd., Ananthapuramu -I Repd by its authorised signatoory S.Mohammed Rafi vs Namala Nagaraju	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/107/2026	SHO Ananthapuramu I town PS vs Korrapati Muneendra alis Chakri	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/112/2026	SHO Ananthapuramu I town PS vs Juturu Lakshmi narayana	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/119/2026	SHO Traffic PS, Ananthapuramu vs Kalyanadurgam Dadapeera	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/120/2026	SHO Ananthapuramu I town PS vs Bachala Raja reddy	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/121/2026	SHO Ananthapuramu I town PS vs Manilla Venkateswarlu	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/125/2026	SHO NARAPALA PS vs Balnagi naresh	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/243/2025	SHO I Town P.S, ATP vs Gajjala Amaresh	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/244/2025	SHO I Town P.S, ATP vs Satrasala Subramanyam Setty S/o Satrasala Eswanathan, D.No.1-4, Alamuru Village Ananthapuramu Rural	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/267/2023	State represented by SUB Inspector of Police,Ananthapuramu I Town PS vs Kondimala kumar	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/279/2024	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH I town P.S. Ananthapuramu vs Cjukkaluru Thulasamma W/o Guruswamy	14 Mar 2026	Copy of Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,169 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		2
Apr 2026		41
Mar 2026		204
Feb 2026		91
Jan 2026		85
Dec 2025		120
Nov 2025		81
Oct 2025		99
Sep 2025		111
Aug 2025		80
Jul 2025		173
Jun 2025		116

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO handled?

SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO has handled 1303 court orders since 2025 at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District). The average disposal rate is 117 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO hear?

Based on available records, SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District).

Where is SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO currently posted?

SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO is posted as Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO available online?

Yes. 18 judgments by SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO dispose cases?

SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO disposes approximately 117 cases per month, based on 1303 orders handled over their tenure at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District).

Since when is SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO serving?

SRI K BALA KOTESWARA RAO has been serving at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District) since 2025.

Case Types

OS 39%

CC 32%

EP 27%

PRC 1%

DVC 1%

RCA 0%

RCC 0%

MC 0%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — Apr 2026

Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge · 87 orders
Sep 2025 — Nov 2025

Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge · 58 orders
May 2025 — Present

Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class · 1,158 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Dismissed Disposal Date: 31-03-2026 Spl 4

Dismissed As Not Pressed Disposal Date: 19-11-2025 Spl 2

Dismissed As Not Pressed Disposal Date: 20-11-2025 Spl 1

Dismissed As Not Pressed Disposal Date: 01-04-2026 Spl 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri. E Bhima Rao

Principal District and Sessions Judge

1,187 orders

Smt. C. Satya Vani

I Addl. District Judge

0 orders

Sri D. Ramulu IIADJ

II Addl. District Judge

0 orders

Smt N Satyasri

III Addl. District Judge

0 orders

B.babu Naik

IV Addl. District Judge

3 orders

T.kesava

SC/ST Court Cum Addl. District Judge

19 orders

Sri G Sridevi

Chairman Cum Labor Court, Anantapur

185 orders

Sri C.N.Murthy

VII ADJ - Cum - Judge Family Court

0 orders

Smt A Padma

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

635 orders

G.shiva Prasad Yadav

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

833 orders

Smt. Harika Ravuri

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Judl. Magist...

704 orders

D. Pavani

Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act C...

41 orders

← View all judges at Prl. District & Sessions Court, ANANTHAPURAMU (District)