Ms.K.Deepa Dyva Krupa

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAKOL

Present: - Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol

Thursday, the 27th day of March, 2014

C.C.No. 111/2012

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station ……. Complainant

AND

Badda Prabhakara Rao, S/o.Dasu, 34 years, SC-Mala, Resident of Chinapet, Achanta village of AChanta mandal.

…. Accused This case is coming on 26-3-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri P.Srinivas and of Sri K.Yohan, Advocates for the accused and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC in

Crime No. 20/2012.

2. The brief averments of the Charge-Sheet On 23.4.2012 at 9.30 pm the complainant and LW.2 and 3 were chit chatting by sitting on the said cement benches. By that time the accused came there in heavy drunken state while kicking the cement tables, he abused the elders saying that they were acting upon which the complainant stood up and obstained the attitude of accused, then the accused picked up nearby wooden piece and gave a blow on the left side cheek of the complainant and caused bleeding injuries. Basing on the report of complainant a case in

Cr.No.20/2012, u/s 324 IPC of Achanta police station was registered. During the course of investigation LW.10 arrested the accused on 30.4.2012 at 11 2 am in Chinnapet, Achanta village and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC against accused.

4. After appearance of the accused, case copies are furnished to accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, charge framed under sec.324 IPC. When the charge contents are read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to

PW.5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P5.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. examination and incriminating circumstances are explained in Telugu.Accused called upon to enter into defence, for which he reported no defence evidence.

7.Thereafter heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

8.The point for Consideration is “W hether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 324

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.PW.1 P.Sudhakar stated that on 23.4.2012 at 9.30 pm himself, LW.1 and 3 are chit chatting at Ambedkar Statue, the accused came there in drunken state and slapped the LW.1 on his right cheek. Immediately

LW.1 fell down and shifted to hospital and admitted in cross examination that he did not state before police that the accused slapped LW.1 on his right 3 cheek immediately the LW.1 fell down on the ground and shifted to

Government hospital.

10.PW.2 G.Babji stated that on 23.4.2012 at 10 pm himself, PW.1 and LW.1 were chit chatting at Ambedkar Statue of their village. Meanwhile the accuse came there and abused them on that LW.1 questioned him. Immediately accused slapped the LW.1 on his right cheek, the LW.1 fell down. Thereafter he was shifted to hospital. He stated in cross examination that he cannot say the boundaries of scene of offence and he was examined by police on 24.4.2012.

11.PW.3 K.Sambasiva Rao deposed that on 24.4.2012 at 1 pm himself, LW.8 are observed the scene of offence situated at

Ambedkar Statue Chinnapet, Achanta and prepared Ex.P1 scene observation report and seized Mo.1 wooden piece from scene of offence. He stated in cross examination that he did not mentioned the distance between cement benches to Ambedkar Statue in Ex.P1 as well as length and colour of cement benches and he did not mentioned the length and width of MO.1 approximately, but it was not measured before him and the exact location of

Mo.1 was not mentioned in Ex.P1.

12.PW.4 Dr.K.Rama Rao deposed about issuance of

Ex.P2 wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature.

13.PW.5 D.Prasad deposed about receipt of Ex.P3, registration of Ex.P4 FIR and preparation of Ex.P5 rough sketch. He stated in cross examination that in Ex.P1 the LW.1 mentioned the names of Babji and

Sudhakar and further stated that he can reach the police station from scene of offence within 10 or 15 minutes by walk and he did not receive hospital intimation and he do not know the incident till 24.4.2012 and he visited the scene of offence in between 2 to 3 pm. PW.1 stated before him that the 4 accused beat Lw.1 with a wooden piece. Immediately LWk.1 fell down and he was shifted to hospital., so also PW.2.

14.On perusal of record it is found that the prosecution has produced Pws.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P5. Pws.1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses of the incident are deposed about the incident which was happened on 23.4.2012. As per the charge sheet on 23.4.2012 at 9.30 pm when the Lws.1 to 3 were chit chatting the accused came there in heavy drunken state and abused them and when Lw.1 questioned the accused,he gave a blow on the left side cheek of complainant with wooden piece.

Surprisingly the Pws.1 and 2 who are the eye witnesses are stated that the accused slapped the LW.1 they no where deposed that the accused gave a blow on the left cheek of LW.1 with wooden piece. As per the version of prosecution the accused beat the Lw.1 on his left cheek whereas the contents of Ex.P2 are quite inconsistent with the version of prosecution because Ex.P2 discloses that a lacerated injury found on the right side upper lip, abrasion over right side fore head, abrasion over right side nose towards the tip of the nose. Here I quite inconsistent version in the prosecution case with regard to injuries received by Lw.1 further the prosecution has failed to produce the Lw.1 before this court,basing on the Death Certificate of LW.1 the evidence of LW.1 was closed on 5.12.2013. Further the admissions of

PW.3 with regard to seizure of MO.1. Strengthen the defence version that ex.P1 scene observation report was prepared in police station. Further the investigating officer has failed to examine the Babji and Sudhakar as per the version of prosecution witnesses the incident was occurred on 23.4.2012 at 12 noon there is delay of 15 hours in lodging Ex.P1 report, But the prosecution has failed to explain the reasons for delay in lodging the FIR.

15.On thorough reading of testimonies of Pws.1 to 5 and

Exs.P1 to P5 and entire material paper available on record this court is of 5 opinion that the prosecution has produced inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence before this court.. Hence I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused. Hence accused is entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and she is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.Mo.1 ie.,wooden piece of 4 feet length shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal. The bail bonds of accused shall and cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27thday of March, 2014.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,PALAKOL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

PW-1 :P.Sudhakar -None- PW-2 :G.Babji PW-3 :K.Sambasiva Rao PW-4 :Dr.K.Rama Rao PW-5 :D.Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1/dt. 24-4-2012 :Scene observation report Ex.P-2/dt. 30-4-2012:wound certificate Ex.P-3/dt. 24-4-2012:Report of LW.1 Ex.P-4/dt. 24-4-2012:FIR Ex.P-5/dt. 24-4-2012:Rough sketch

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 wooden piece of 4 feet length

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAKOL.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol

Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23-4-2012 24-4-2012 30-4-2012 30-4-2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 5-3-2014 26-3-2014 27-3-2014 Due to non production of Witnesses Judgment of Calendar Case No:111/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I class, Palakol Complainant:- State:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Achanta Police Station Cr.No. 20/2012 of Achanta Police Station

Name of the Accused Father name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

Badda Prabhakara Rao, S/o.Dasu, 34 years, SC-Mala, Resident of Chinapet, Achanta village of AChanta mandal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: Punishable under section 324 IPC

FINDING: Found not guilty.

RESULT : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and she is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.Mo.1 ie.,wooden piece of 4 feet length shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal. The bail bonds of accused shall and cancelled.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAKOL.

Copy Submitted to:

1.The 1st Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru, through A.P.P., Palakol.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAKOL

Present : - Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA, B.A., LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Friday, the 24th day of January, 2014

C.C.No. 92/2012

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police Station …….

Complainant

AND

Tholeti Gandhi, S/o.Narsimha Rao, 32 years, C/Kapu, r/o.Veeravari Street, Palakol.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 23-1-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri G.Satyanarayana and of Sri M.V.Rama Redddy, Advocates for the accused and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 342 IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act in Crime No. 296/2011.

2. The brief averments of the Charge-Sheet The marriage of defacto complainant was performed with the accused on 3.5.2009 as per

Hindu rites and caste customs. An amount of Rs.3 lakhs was given as dowry.

Thereafter the complainant lead marital life with the accused. The accused started harassment towards complainant and insisted her to deliver the site of her father to him and confined her in the house by blocking her cell phone, finally the accused send back the complainant to her parental home. Basing on the report of LW.1 a case in Cr.No.296/2011, u/s 498-A, 342 /rw 34 IPC, 2 Secs 3 and 4 of DP Act of Palakol Town PS is registered on 29.12.2011 at 9.15 am. During the course of investigation LW.14 arrested the accused on 18.3.2012 and released him on bail in obedience of the orders of Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide Crl.M.P.No.2522/2012, dated 16.3.2012 and after completion of investigation LW.14 filed charge sheet in this case.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 342 IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act against accused.

4. After appearance of the accused case copies are furnished to accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C accused is examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C charge u/s 498-A, 342 IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act are framed. When the charge contents are read over to the accused he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to

PW.3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P4.

6.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence as there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused the examination u/s 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Thereafter heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

8.The point for Consideration is “W hether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 342 IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?” 3 POINT:

9.PW.1 Tholeti Siri Naga Mani who is the defacto complainant deposed that her marriage was performed with accused on 3.5.2012 in

Repakavari Satram, Palakol and she do not know the dowry particulars, after marriage she lead marital life and petty disputes are raised between her and accused. She informed the same to parents, her parents mediated the issue

before elders, but the said mediation is failed, so that the elders obtained her

signature on a typed report. Ex.P1 is signature on report and she further stated that at present she is compromised with the accused and the accused never harassed her for want of dowry and other things and admitted in cross examination done by APP that she is compromised with the accused and no disputes are pending between her and accused and she denied her Ex.P2 statement made before police.

10.PW.2 and PW.3 T.Ravindranath Tagore and T.Dhana

Lakshmi who are the parents of PW.1 are stated that the marriage of PW.1 was performed with accused about ten years back in Repakavari Satram,

Palakol. After marriage disputes are raised between PW.1 and accused on that they are mediated the issue before elders and now the PW.1 and accused are compromised and further stated that the accused never harassed PW.1 for want of dowry and other things. They also denied their 161 statements made before police as in Ex.P2 and P3.

11. On perusal of record it is found that the prosecution has produced Pws.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P4. PW.1 who is the defacto complainant is turned hostile to the case of prosecution denied her 161 statements made

before police as in Ex.P2 and also stated that she is compromised with

accused, Pws.2 and 3 who are the parents of PW.1 corroborated with the

PW.1 in all aspects and stated that the PW.1 is compromised with the 4 accused and the accused never harassed PW.1 for want of dowry and other things. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lws.4 to 14. No incriminating material is found against the accused as all the prosecution witnesses are turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Hence I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution is utterly failed to establish the guilt of accused by placing acceptable material. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 342 IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act and he is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24thday of January, 2014.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAKOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE PW-1 :T.S.Naga Mani -None- PW-2 :T.Ravindranath Tagore PW-3 :T.Dhana Lakshmi

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/dt. 29-12-2011 :Signature on report Ex.P-2/dt. 29-12-2011:161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P-3/dt. 29-12-2011:161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P-4/dt. 30-12-2011:161 Cr.P.C statement

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Judl. Magistrate of I Class Palakol 5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I class,Palakol

Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29-12-2011 29-12-2011 18-03-2012 18-03-2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trail close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 23-1-2014 23-1-2014 24-1-2014 Due to non production of Witnesses Judgment of Calendar Case No:92/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I class, Palakol Complainant:- State:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakol Town Police station. ( Cr.No. 296/2011 of Palakol Town P.S) Name of the Accused Father name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

Tholeti Gandhi, S/o.Narsimha Rao, 32 years, C/Kapu, r/o.Veeravari Street, Palakol.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: Punishable under sections 498-A, 342 IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act

FINDING: Found not guilty.

RESULT : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 342 IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act and he is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAKOL.

Copy Submitted to:

1.The 1st Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru, through A.P.P., Palakol.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAKOL

Present : - Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakol

Wednesday, the 12th day of February, 2014

C.C.No. 166/2012

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station ……. Complainant

AND 1.Molleti Venkata Rao, S/o.Venkanna, 60 years, Settibalija, Coconuts Business, Chinamallam village, Penugonda mandal.

2.Molleti Srinivasu alias Srinu, S/o.Venkata Rao, 25 years, Settibalija, Coconuts Business, Chinamallam village, Penugonda mandal.

3.Molleti Anjaneyulu, S/o.Venkata Rao, 33 years, Settibalija, Coconuts Business, Chinamallam village, Penugonda mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 22-1-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri B.V.Jagannadha Sarma and of Sri B.N.Murthy and of Sri S.Bala Krishna and of Sri K.Yohan, Advocates for the accused No.1 to No.3 and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC in Crime No. 95/2012.

2. The brief averments of the Charge-Sheet Disputes are prevailing between complainant and accused since long time with regard to coconut trees. On 5.7.2012 at 5 pm when the complainant along with other coolies were unloading the coconuts A.1 to A.3 wrongfully restrained the

Lws.1 to 5 by tying them to current pole and beat them with sticks and bricks 2 and caused injuries to Lws.1 to 5. Meanwhile LW.9 rushed to the spot and rescued them from the hands of A.1 to A.3. Basing on the report of Lw.1 as a case in Cr.No.95/2012, under sections 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC of Penugonda

Police Station is registered. LW.11 investigated the matter, arrested the A.1 to A.3 on 18.7.2012 at 9 am to send them to court for remand and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused.

4. After appearance of the accused case copies are furnished to accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C accused are examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C charges u/s 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC are framed. When the charge contents are read over to the accused they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to

PW.5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P6.

6.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence as there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused the examination u/s 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Thereafter heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

8.The point for Consideration is “W hether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.PW.1 Seelam Srinivas turned hostile to the case of prosecution deposed that about two years back on one day he fell down at his house and received injuries on his leg and chest. Thereafter he was shifted to hospital and somebody obtained his signature on a paper. Ex.P1 is 3 signature on report and he further stated that no altercation took place between him and all accused and he does not know the contents of report given to police, and he admitted in cross examination done by APP that he was compromised with accused and denied his Ex.P2 statement made before police.

10.PW.2 to PW.5: PW-2:Vannekuti Naveen, PW-3:Gode Ajay

Kumar alias Ajay, PW-4:Vardhanapu Hanish, PW-5:Vannekuti Vijay Kumar alias Vijay who are the eye witnesses of the incident also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and denied their 161 statements made before police as in Ex.P3 to P6. And they are stated that they are compromised with the accused, at present no disputes are pending between them and accused.

11.On perusal of record it is found that the prosecution has produced Pws.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P6. Including the defacto complainant all the prosecution witnesses are turned hostile to the case of prosecution and denied their 161 statements made before police as in Ex.P2 to P6. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lws.6 to 11. No incriminating material is found against the accused. Hence I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution is utterly failed to establish the guilt of accused by placing acceptable material before this court. Hence accused No.1 to No.3 are entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, accused No.1 to No.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12thday of February, 2014.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAKOL.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE PW-1 :Seelam Srinivas -None- PW-2 :Vannekuti Naveen PW-3 :Gode Ajay Kumar alias Ajay PW-4 :Vardhanapu Hanish PW-5 :Vannekuti Vijay Kumar alias Vijay

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/dt. 06-07-2012 :Signature on report Ex.P-2/dt. 06-07-2012:161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P-3/dt. 06-07-2012:161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P-4/dt. 06-07-2012:161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P-5/dt. 06-07-2012:161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P-6/dt. 06-07-2012:161 Cr.P.C statement

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAKOL.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I class, Palakol

Date of offence Report of Complaint Apprehension of accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-7-2012 6-7-2012 18-07-2012 18-07-2012 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) 22-1-2014 22-1-2014 12-2-2014 Due to non production of Witnesses Judgment of Calendar Case No:166/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I class, Palakol Complainant:- State:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police station. ( Cr.No. 95/2012 of Penugonda P.S) Name of the Accused Father name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village 1.Molleti Venkata Rao, S/o.Venkanna, 60 years, Settibalija, Coconuts Business, Chinamallam village, Penugonda mandal.

2.Molleti Srinivasu alias Srinu, S/o.Venkata Rao, 25 years, Settibalija, Coconuts Business, Chinamallam village, Penugonda mandal.

3.Molleti Anjaneyulu, S/o.Venkata Rao, 33 years, Settibalija, Coconuts Business, Chinamallam village, Penugonda mandal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCE: Punishable under sections 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC

FINDING: Found not guilty.

RESULT : In the result, accused No.1 to No.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAKOL.

Copy Submitted to:

1.The 1st Addl.District &Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru

2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru, through A.P.P., Palakol.

IN THE COURT OF THE 1stAdditional Junior Civil Judge, PALAKOL

CC.216/2013

Between.

1) Sai Krishna Enterprises,Rep.by Managing Partner, Address - Palakol, W.G.Dist., Advocate- C.V.N.Kishore

And

1) Mohammad Shajahan Address - Prop MSTV Show room, Punja center, Narsapur, W.G.Dist.,

2) Taneti Rama Krishna Aged 23 years, CSC-Madiga, Pappu Gunta, Jagannadhapuram village, Poduru Mandal, W.G.Dt.

3) Taneti Chanti Aged 19 years, CSC-Madiga, Pappu Gunta, Jagannadhapuram village, Poduru Mandal, W.G.Dt.

4) Taneti China Babu alias Pandu Aged 32 years, CSC-Madiga, Pappu Gunta, Jagannadhapuram village, Poduru Mandal, W.G.Dt.

5) Karri Hari Prakash Aged 19 years, CSC-Madiga, Pappu Gunta, Jagannadhapuram village, Poduru Mandal, W.G.Dt.

6) Kodamanchili Marthamma Aged 35 years, CSC-Madiga, Pappu Gunta, Jagannadhapuram village, Poduru Mandal, W.G.Dt.

7) Khandavalli Seethamma alias Seetha Aged 30 years, CSC-Madiga, Pappu Gunta, Jagannadhapuram village, Poduru Mandal, W.G.Dt.

….. Accused

ORDER

Dt : 28-3-2014

Complainant absent, no representation .Batta not filed. Hence this complaint is dismissed for default.

Sd/-.

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Palakol.

IN THE COURT OF THE 1stAdditional Junior Civil Judge, PALAKOL

CC.217/2013

Between.

Messrs Shriram Chits private limited, Palakol Bran Address - Palakol, W.G.Dist., Advocate- P.D.S.V.Balaji

And

1Sirigineedi Lakshmi Tulasi Address - D.No.2-34c, Main Road, Tillapudi, Velama peta, Veeravasaram mandal, W.G.Dist.,

….. Accused

ORDER

Dt : 24-1-2014

Complainant is present, filed a petition U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C. Heard, allowed, hence the accused is acquitted U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C

Sd/-.

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Palakol.