K. Jayaram Reddy

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Armoor

Armoor, SCJ Court Complex · Nizamabad · Telangana

K. Jayaram Reddy, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Armoor, is posted at Armoor, SCJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana, India. 880 court orders on record since 2014. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC, MC cases.

880

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/137/2016 Acquitted

PS Bheemgal vs Daravath Laxman

28 Apr 2017

CC 137 of 20161

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ARMOOR

PRESENT: SRI K.Jayaram Reddy,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017

C.C. No. 137 of 201 6

Between:-

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bheemgal. .… Complainant

And

A1) Daravath Laxman, S/o. Heerya, aged 30 years, A2) Daravath Bujji, W/o. Laxman, aged 28 years, A3) Daravath Reddy, S/o. Hiriya, aged 38 years, A4) Daravath Tari, W/o. Reddy, aged 35 years, A5) Daravath Manjula, W/o. Vittal, aged 25 years,

All caste: Lambada, occu: Agriculture, R/o. Rahathnagar village, Bheemgal mandal, …. Accused

This case is coming on 26-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State-complainant and of Sri Aleti Gangadhar, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Bheemgal filed a charge sheet against the accused nos. 1 to 5 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/Banavath

Shankar is having land in Survey No. 49. There is a land dispute between the accused No.1 and the LW-1/Shankar. In this regard the village elders

CC 137 of 20162

fixed the boundary stones. On 7.11.2015 at about 1320 hours while LW- 1/Shankar and his wife Latha were attending the work in their land, all the accused went there and started digging the land with the help of JCB. When

LW-1/Shankar and LW-2/Latha asked the accused not to attend any work in their land, all the accused beat them and caused injuries. Hence LW- 1/Shankar gave report. Basing on his report a case was registered in Cr.

No. 167 of 2015 u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the Lw8/SI of police had examined the witnesses and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and recovered the crime sticks.

On 17-11-2015 the accused no.1 to 4 surrendered at Police Station. On interrogation, they confessed this offence. The doctor, who treated the injured issued report stating that the nature of the injuries of LW-1/Shankar and LW-2/Latha are simple. After completion of the investigation the accused no.1 to 5 were charge sheeted.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34

IPC against the accused no1 to 5.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently all the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C with regard to the accusation. They denied the same. Charge U/S. 324 r/w 34 IPC are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC 137 of 20163

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and

Ex P.1 to P.8 were marked. MO1 and MO2 are the crime sticks. After closure of prosecution side evidence all the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of the prosecution and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard on both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the Point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

8.The accused no.1 to 5 are charged for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC alleging that on 7-11-2015 at about 1320 hours, all the accused beat the defacto complainant and his wife with sticks and that due to land disputes, the incident took place in which the defacto complainant and his wife sustained injuries. As stated above to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses and got marked eight documents.

9.The learned APP argued that all the accused beat the defacto complainant and his wife and the evidence of the prosecution would establish the case, hence he prayed for conviction of the accused.

10. The learned counsel for the accused argued that all the accused are innocent persons and that no incident was occurred as alleged by the prosecution. He further argued that the evidence of the defacto complainant and his wife is not corroborating with each other and with the injury

CC 137 of 20164

certificates with regard to the alleged injuries and that their evidence is not corroborating with each other. He further argued that there is a land dispute between the defacto complainant and the accused and due to which he filed this false case only to harass the accused.

11. The case of the prosecution as per Ex.p1 report is that the defacto complainant sustained injury to left shoulder, arm and his back. In his evidence, the defacto complainant, who is examined as PW-1 deposed that he sustained injuries to his back and left shoulder. The doctor, who said to have examined PW-1 is examined as PW-3. According to the evidence of

PW-3 and Ex.P2 injury certificate of PW-1, there are multiple injuries to

PW-1 i.e. injuries over the left side of chest, left fore arm, right side of eye and right arm. The evidence of PW-1 is not clear as to how he sustained the injuries which are not mentioned in his Ex.P1 report as well as in his evidence. Further, the evidence of PW-2 who is the wife of PW-1 is also not corroborating with the case of the prosecution about the injuries. Because, according to Ex.P1 report PW-2 sustained injuries on left hand and head, but in her evidence, PW-2 deposed that she sustained head injury and injury on her stomach, whereas according to the evidence of PW-3 and Ex.P3 injury certificate, PW-2 sustained multiple minor abrasions on various sizes are present all over the body. Thus the evidence of PW-2 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW-3 and Ex.p3 injury certificate.

12.The case of the prosecution is that there is land disputes between

PW-1 and the accused, for which boundaries were fixed in the presence of village elders and according to the case of the prosecution, Pws-4 and 5 are

CC 137 of 20165

the elders, who said to have fixed boundaries around the land of PW-1, but in their evidence, Pws.4 and 5 did not co-operate with the case of the prosecution. Since these material witness did not co-operate with the case of the prosecution, at the request of the learned APP, they were declared hostile. However, inspite of cross examination by the learned APP, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their version.

13.It is evident from the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, that there are the land disputes between PW-1 and the accused. The evidence of PW-1 would goes to show that about 1 ½ years back, the accused no.1 encroached in his land to an extent of one yard along side of his land and cultivating the same.

One Lakavath Swamy and Daravath Shankar were present at the time of fixation of boundaries around his land. He informed about the encroachment of land by the accused to Swamy and Shankar, on that they accompanied him to his land and at that time at about 1 pm, the accused nos.1 and 2 beat him with sticks and the accused Nos.3 to 5 beat him with stick and when his wife tried to rescue him, all the accused beat his wife. Perusal of evidence of PW-1 goes to show that his evidence is not corroborating with the case of the prosecution about the individual overt acts of the accused, because, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused nos.1 and 3 beat PW-1 with sticks, but PW-1 deposed that the accused nos.1 and 2 beat him with sticks. Further, according to Ex.p1 report, all the accused beat

Pws.1 and 2 with three sticks. It is not clear in Ex.P1 report as to who are the persons holding sticks and beat PW-1. Though PW-1 deposed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 beat him with sticks, the evidence of PW-2 is not clear as to how all the accused beat them. She vaguely deposed that all the

CC 137 of 20166

accused beat her and her husband. Further, according to the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 , one Swamylal and Dharavath Shankar were present and witnessed the incident, but the prosecution has failed to examine the said

Swamylal and Shankar for the reasons best known to them. Except the evidence of PW-1 and 2, there is no evidence of any independent witnesses.

Though PW-1 deposed that Swamylal and Shankar and others were present and witnessed the incident, the prosecution has failed to examine any other eye witnesses. Since the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is not corroborating with the case of the prosecution with regard to their injuries and overt acts of the accused, it is not safe to keep reliance over their testimony as there is no evidence of independent witnesses to corroborate with the case of the prosecution.

14. The case of the prosecution as per PW7, SI of Police/Investigating

Officer is that he visited the spot, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW6 and LW-6/Ramulu and recovered Mos.1 and 2 crime sticks. But PW-6 did not co-operate with the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Inspite of cross examination by the learned APP, nothing was elicited to disbelieve his version. Moreover, though the prosecution has alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 5 used JCB to attend the work in the land of PW.1, the prosecution has failed to examine the driver of the said JCB. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused Nos.1 to 5 are entitled for acquittal.

CC 137 of 20167

15.In the result, the accused no1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO1 and 2/crime sticks shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1: Banavath Shankar NIL

PW.2: Smt. Banavath Latha

PW.3: Dr. N. Rajesh Kumar, CAS,

PW.4: Bhukya Babulal

PW.5: Malavath Shankar

PW.6: Bhukya Ganga

PW.7: S. Vijaya Kumar, SIP

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Report of Pw.1 to PoliceNIL

Ex.P2 : Injury certificate of PW-1

Ex.P3 : Injury certificate of PW-2

Ex.P4 : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4

Ex.P5 : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5

Ex.P6 : Signature of PW-6 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P7 : FIR

Ex.P8 : Crime Details Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS : MO.1 and 2 are crime sticks.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

CC 137 of 20168

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT:

ARMOOR

C.C. No. 137 of 2016

1. Date of offence: 7.11.2015

2. Date of report/complaint: 8.11.2015

3. Date of apprehension of the accused :17.11.2015

4. Date of commencement of trial :15.3.2017

5. Date of closer of trial:12.4.2017

6. Date of sentence/order: 28.4.2017

COMPLAINANT: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S/ES.: Bheemgal

ACCUSED : A1) Daravath Laxman and

others.

Offence U/s.: 324 r/w 34 IPC

Finding: All the accused are found not guilty.

Sentence/order:Acquitted

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

To The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

CC/23/2017 Acquitted

Excise Bheemgal vs Bhukya Jawaharlal

28 Apr 2017

CC No. 23 of 2017 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT ARMOOR

PRESENT: Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy, B.Com.LL.B., Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

FRIDAY, THIS THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

CC No. 23 of 2017

Between:

The State through

Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, ES, Bheemgal ..Complainant

And

Bhukya Jawaharlal, S/o. Shankar , aged 36 years, occu: Labour, caste: ST, R/o. H.No. 4-170, Poosalatanda ,

GP Gadkole, Sirikonda mandal, Nizamabad district .. Accused

This case is coming on 26-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State-complainant and Sri Bethu Jagadeesh, Advocate, Armoor for accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The P & E Sub-Inspector, Excise Station, Bheemgal has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act and Section 34 (e) of AP Excise Act.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 9.3.2016 the

LW-3/P & E Sub-Inspector, SHO, Bheemgal along with his staff and mediators conducted raids at House No. 4-170 situated at Poosalatanda, GP

Gadkole, Sirikonda mandal and found the accused at about 6 pm while having illegal possession of 2 liters of ID liquor and 100 liters of fermented jaggary wash. On enquiry the accused revealed his particulars. Since the possession of ID liquor and preparation of ID liquor is an offence, he

CC No. 23 of 2017 2

recovered the said contraband under the cover of panchanama. Later he registered a case in Crime No. 25 of 2016 under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of

AP Prohibition Act and Section 34 (e) of AP Excise Act. During the course of investigation he sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Nizamabad for analysis and report. The chemical examiner issued report stating that the sample is ID liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and other sample is fermented wash is fit for distillation. Hence the charge.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offences under section 7 (A) r/w 8

(e) of AP Prohibition Act and Section 34 (e) of AP Excise Act against the sole accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the charge sheet allegations. Charge under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act and Section 34 (e) of AP Excise Act framed read over and explained to him in

Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case the prosecution has examined Pw1 and Pw2 and got marked Ex P.1 to P.4. MO1 is the sample of ID liquor. After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under section 313

Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution and reported no defense evidence.

6.Heard on both sides and perused the record

7.Now the point for the determination is that whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence with which is charged?

CC No. 23 of 2017 3

8.The accused is charged under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition

Act and 34 (e) of AP Excise Act, alleging that on 9-3-2016 at about 6.00 pm he was found while having illegal possession of 2 liters of ID liquor and 100 liters of fermented jaggery wash in contravention to the provisions of the A.P.

Prohibition Act and AP Excise Act. As stated above to prove it's case the prosecution has examined as many as two witnesses and got marked four documents.

9.The case of the prosecution as per the PW2/the P & E Sub-Inspector,

SHO, Bheemgal is that on 9-3-2016 he along with his staff and mediators conducted raids at H.No. 4-170 situated at Poosalatanda, GP Gadkole,

Sirikonda mandal and found the accused at about 6 pm while having illegal possession of 2 liters of ID liquor and 100 liters of Jaggary wash and recovered the same in the presence of Pw1 and Lw2/Srilal. Ex P4 CE report goes to show that the sample is ID liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and other sample is femented wash fit for distillation.

Therefore from the point of view of alleged recovery the evidence of Pw1 is crucial, hence this Court has carefully perused his evidence. How ever on my perusal of his evidence no incriminating material is found against the accused as he categorically deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no contraband was recovered from the accused in his presence . Since

Pw1 did not co-operate with the case of the prosecution at the request of learned APP he was declared hostile. However in spite of cross examination nothing was elicited to infer his presence at the time of alleged recovery except suggesting the only to help the accused he is deposing false. The prosecution has failed to examine LW-1/Srilal alleging that he went to abroad.

CC No. 23 of 2017 4

10.As stated above except the interested testimony of Pw2 there is no evidence of any independent witnesses to prove the alleged recovery, therefore it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of Pw2 because strict rule of corroboration is necessary in case of official witness. In the light of the above discussion this court has no other go but to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act and Section 34 (e) of AP Excise

Act and he is acquitted of the said offence under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1: Malavath Ravi PW-2: Md. Jaleeluddin, P & E SINIL

CC No. 23 of 2017 5

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on panchanama Ex.P2: Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: CE Report NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: Sample of ID liquor

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

CC No. 23 of 2017 6

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT: ARMOOR

C.C.NO. 23 of 2017

1. Date of offence : 9.3.2016

2. Date of report/complaint : 9.3.2016

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 9.3.2016

4. Date of commencement of trial : 12.4.2017

5. Date of closer of trial :26.4.2017

6. Date of sentence/order : 28.4.2017

COMPLAINANT

The State through P & Sub-Inspector of Police, ES, : Bheemgal

ACCUSED : Bhukya Jawarla

Offence U/s.: 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act Section 34 (e) of AP Excise Act.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/order:Acquittal

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

To The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

CC/24/2017 Acquitted

Excise Bheemgal vs Akula Laxminarsaiah

28 Apr 2017

CC No. 24 of 2017 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT ARMOOR

PRESENT: Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy, B.Com.LL.B., Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

FRIDAY, THIS THE 28 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

CC No. 24 of 2017

Between:

The State through

Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, ES, Bheemgal ..Complainant

And

Akula Laxmi Narsaiah, S/o. Kistaiah, aged 50 years, occu: Labour caste: BC, R/o. Gongoppula village,

Bheemgal mandal, Nizamabad district .. Accused

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

1.The P & E Sub-Inspector, Excise Station, Bheemgal has laid charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 10.3.2016 the

LW-3/P & E Sub-Inspector, SHO, Bheemgal along with his staff and mediators conducted raid at the outskirts of Gongoppula village and found the accused at about 7 a.m. while having illegal possession of 4 liters of ID liquor and recovered the same in the presence of mediators. Later he registered a case in Crime No. 26 of 2016 under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of

CC No. 24 of 2017 2

AP Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation he sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Nizamabad for analysis and report. The chemical examiner issued report stating that the sample is ID liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Hence the charge.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence under section 7 (A) r/w 8

(e) of AP Prohibition Act against the sole accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the charge sheet allegations. Charge under section 7 A r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act framed read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution and reported no defense evidence.

6.Heard on both sides and perused the record

7.Now the point for the determination is that whether the prosecution has brought home the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence with which is charged?

8.The accused is charged under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition

Act alleging that on 10-3-2016 at about 7.00 AM he was found while having

CC No. 24 of 2017 3

illegal possession 4 liters of ID liquor in contravention to the provisions of the

A.P. Prohibition Act. As stated above to prove it's case the prosecution has examined as many as two witnesses and got marked four documents.

9.The case of the prosecution as per the PW2/the P & E Sub-Inspector,

SHO, Bheemgal is that on 10-3-2016 he along with his staff and mediators conducted raids at the outskirts of Gongoppula village and found the accused at about 7 am while having illegal possession of 4 liters of ID liquor and recovered the same in the presence of Pw1 and Lw2/Srilal. Ex P.4 CE report goes to show that the sample is ID liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Therefore from the point of view of alleged recovery the evidence of Pw1 is crucial, hence this Court has carefully perused his evidence. How ever on my perusal of his evidence no incriminating material is found against the accused as he categorically deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no contraband was recovered from the accused in his presence . Since Pw1 did not co-operate with the case of the prosecution at the request of learned APP he was declared hostile. However in spite of cross examination nothing was elicited to infer his presence at the time of alleged recovery except suggesting the only to help the accused he is deposing false. The prosecution has failed to examine LW-2/Srilal alleging that he went to abroad.

CC No. 24 of 2017 4

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7 A r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act and he is acquitted of the said offence under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on

this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1: Malavath Ravi PW-2: Md. Jaleeluddin, P & E SINIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 on panchanama Ex.P2: Relevant portion of confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: FSL Report NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: Sample of ID liquor

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

CC No. 24 of 2017 5

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT: ARMOOR

C.C.NO. 24 of 2017

1. Date of offence : 10.3.2016

2. Date of report/complaint : 10.3.2016

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 10.3.2016

4. Date of commencement of trial : 12.4.2017

5. Date of closer of trial :26.4.2017

6. Date of sentence/order : 28.4.2017

COMPLAINANT

The State through P & Sub-Inspector of Police, ES, : Bheemgal

ACCUSED : Akula Laxmi Narsaiah

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

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/order:Acquittal

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

To The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

CC/447/2016 Acquitted

Excise Morthad vs Palthya Tholya

28 Apr 2017

CC No. 447 of 2016 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ARM00R

Present: Sri K.Jayaram Reddy,

Additional Judicial magistrate of first class.

Armoor.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017

CC. No. 4 4 7 of 2016

Between:

The state of through P&E sub-inspector of Excise Station, Morthad.

…..Complainant

And

Palthya Tholya, s/o. Bheelya, 58 yrs, Labour, r/o. Santhosh Nagar thanda, Bheemgal .

…..Accused

This case is coming on before me on 26-4-2017 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri Jakkula Sreedhar, Advocate for the accused having been heard and stood over for consideration,this court delivered the following

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

1.The P & E Sub-Inspector, SHO, Morthad has laid charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution are that on 23-4-2015 on receiving reliable information about the illegal transportation of ID liquor, the Lw3 P&E

SI SHO Morthad along with his staff and mediators conducted raids on road leads to Mothe to Veloor village and found the accused at about 8.30 AM while coming on cycle having illegal possession of (30) liters of ID liquor. On enquiry the accused revealed his particulars. Since the transportation of ID

CC No. 447 of 2016 2

liquor is an offence, he recovered the said contraband under the cover of panchanama. Later, he registered a case in COR No 55 of 2015-16 under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. During the course of investigation he sent the samples to the chemical examiner Nizamabad for analysis and report. The chemical examiner issued report stating that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Hence the charge.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the sole accused. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.p.c. Subsequently, the accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the charge sheet allegations.

Charge under section 7(A) r/e 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition act framed read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case the prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw3 and got marked Ex P.1 to P.5. MO1 is the sample of ID liquor. After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under section 313

Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution and reported no defense evidence.

5.Heard on both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for the determination is that whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged?

CC No. 447 of 2016 3

7.The accused is charged under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition act alleging that on 23-4-2015 at about 8.30 AM he was found while transporting 30 liters of ID liquor in contravention to the provisions of the

A.P. prohibition act. As stated above to prove it's case the prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses and got marked five documents.

8.The case of the prosecution as per the Pw3 the P&E sub-inspector, SHO

Morthad is that on 23-4-2015 on receiving information about the illegal transportation of ID liquor he proceeded to the road leads Mothe to Velpoor village and found the accused at about 8.30 AM while transporting 30 liters of ID liquor on cycle and recovered the same in the presence of Pw1 and

Pw2. Therefore from the point of view of alleged recovery the evidence of

Pw1 and Pw2 is crucial, hence this court has carefully scrutinized their evidence. However on perusal of their evidence no incriminating material is found against the accused as they categorically deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no contraband was recovered from the accused in their presence. Since these material witnesses did not co- operate with the case of the prosecution at the request of learned APP they were declared hostile. However in spite of cross examination nothing was elicited to infer their presence at the time of alleged recovery except suggesting the only to help the accused they are deposing false.

9.As stated above except the interested testimony of Pw3 there is no evidence of any independent witnesses to prove the alleged recovery, therefore it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of Pw3 because strict rule of corroboration is necessary in case of official witness. In the light of the above discussion this court has no other go but to hold that the

CC No. 447 of 2016 4

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition act and he is acquitted of the said offence under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO1 sample bottle of ID liquor shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1: Sri Alluri Rajender,NIL PW.2: Smt Rajakolla Padma PW.3: Sri Patel Banothu, P & EI,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 on recovery panchanamaNIL Ex.P2: Signature of PW-2 on recovery panchanama Ex.P3: Relevant portion of confession and Recovery Panchanama Ex.P4: COR Ex.P5: Report Material Objects

MO.1 is Sample of ID liquor

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

CC No. 447 of 2016 5

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT:

ARMOOR

C.C. No. 447 of 2016

1. Date of offence : 23.4.2015

2. Date of report/complaint : 23.4.2015

3. Date of apprehension of the accused:23.4.2015

4. Date of commencement of trial : 15.3.2017

5. Date of closer of trial : 26.4.2017

6. Date of sentence/order :28.4.2017

COMPLAINANT

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, E.S. : Armoor

ACCUSED : Palthya Tholya

Offence U/s.: 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of APP Act.

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence/order: Acquitted

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

To The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

CC/25/2017 Acquitted

Excise Bheemgal vs Bhukya Dhupiya

21 Apr 2017

CC 25 of 2017 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ARM00R

Present: Sri K.Jayaram Reddy,

Additional Judicial magistrate of first class.

Armoor.

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2017

CC. No. 25 of 20 17

Between The state of Telangana through P&E sub-inspector of Excise station, Bheemgal.

…..Complainant

And

Bhukya Dhupiya s/o Fakira, 52yrs, Labour, r/o Gonugoppula Thanda, Bheemgal Mandal.

…..Accused

This case is coming on before me on 19-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri Bethu Jagadeesh, Advocate for the accused having been heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The P&E sub-inspector,SHO, Bheemgal has laid charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/e 8 (e) of

A.P. prohibition act.

2.The brief avarements in the charge sheet are that on 10-03-2016 on information the Lw3 P&E SI SHO Bheemgal along with his staff and mediators conducted raid at Gongoppula Thanda and found the accused in an unnumbered hut at 9 AM while having illegal possession of 4 Liters of ID

Liquor. On seeing the excise officials the accused escaped from that place.

Since the possession of ID liquor is an offence the P&E SI had seized the contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas. Later he registered a case in COR No 27 of 2016 under section 7(A) r/e 8 (e) of A.P.

CC 25 of 2017 2

prohibition act. During the course of investigation he sent the samples to the chemical examiner Nizamabad for analysis and report. The chemical examiner issued report stating that the sample is illicit distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. On 17.3.2016 the accused was arrested. Hence the charge.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/e 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition Act against the sole accused. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.p.c. Subsequently the accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the charge sheet allegations.

Charge under section 7(A) r/e 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition act framed read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case the prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw3 and got marked Ex P.1 to P.4. MO1 is the sample of ID liquor. After closure of prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under section 313

Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution and reported no defense evidence.

5.Heard on both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for the determination is that whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged?

CC 25 of 2017 3

7.The accused is charged under section 7(A) r/e 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition act alleging that on 10-03-2016 at about 9 AM he was found while having illegal possession of 4 liters of ID liquor in contravention to the provisions of the A.P. prohibition act. As stated above to prove it's case the prosecution has examined as many as three witnesses and got marked four documents.

8.The case of the prosecution as per the Pw2 the P&E sub-inspector, SHO

Bheemgal is that on 10-03-2016 he along with his staff and mediators conducted raid at Gongoppula Thanda village and found the accused at about 9 AM while having illegal possession of 4 liters of ID liquor and recovered the same in the presence of Pw1 and Pw3. There fore from the point of view of alleged recovery the evidence of Pw1 and Pw3 is crucial, hence this court has carefully scrutinized their evidence. How ever on perusal of their evidence no incriminating material is found against the accused as they categorically deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no contraband was recovered from the accused in their presence. Since these material witnesses did not co-operate with the case of the prosecution at the request of learned APP they were declared hostile. However in spite of cross examination nothing was elicited to infer their presence at the time of alleged recovery except suggesting the only to help the accused they are deposing false.

9.As stated above except the interested testimony of Pw2 there is no evidence of any independent witnesses to prove the alleged recovery, therefore it is not safe to rely on the interested testimony of Pw2 because strict rule of corroboration is necessary in case of official witness. In the light

CC 25 of 2017 4

of the above discussion this court has no other go but to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7(A) r/e 8 (e) of A.P. prohibition act and he is acquitted of the said offence under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO1 sample bottle of ID liquor shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, after correction ,pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1: Bhukya Devulu PW.2: Md. Jaleeluddin, P & ESI PW.3: Guguloth Chaturu NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Relevant portion in Confession and Recovery Panchanama Ex.P2: CORNIL Ex.P3: Chemical Examination Report Ex.P4: Signature of PW-3 on panchanama

Material Objects : MO. 1: Sample of ID liquor

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor

CC 25 of 2017 5

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :AT:

ARMOOR

C.C.NO. 25 of 2017

1. Date of offence : 10.3.2016

2. Date of report/complaint : 10.3.2016

3. Date of apprehension of the accused:17.3.2016

4. Date of commencement of trial : 15.3.2017

5. Date of closer of trial : 19.4.2017

6. Date of sentence/order :21.4.2017

COMPLAINANT

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, E.S. : Bheemgal

ACCUSED : Bhukya Dhupiya

Offence U/s.: 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of APP Act.

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence/order: Acquitted

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Armoor

To The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

Order Record 862 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/23/2017	Excise Bheemgal vs Bhukya Jawaharlal	28 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/24/2017	Excise Bheemgal vs Akula Laxminarsaiah	28 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/137/2016	PS Bheemgal vs Daravath Laxman	28 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/447/2016	Excise Morthad vs Palthya Tholya	28 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/25/2017	Excise Bheemgal vs Bhukya Dhupiya	21 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/208/2014	Kammarpally vs Rajula Babaiah @ Babanna	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/21/2017	Excise Bheemgal vs Bhukya Shanker	19 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/304/2016	Excise Station Bheemgal vs Chowhan Pakira	17 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/6/2015	PS Morthad vs Pilli Srinivas	12 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/17/2015	P.S.Bheemgal vs A1 Jaranoyri Kalyan @ Kalyan Kumar	12 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/448/2014	P.S.Bheemgal vs Jerupula ganesh	10 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/336/2014	PS Morthad vs Makloor narsa Goud @ Abbas	07 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/348/2014	P.S.Bheemgal vs Uggera Latha	06 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/537/2015	PS Bheemgal vs Gaddam Prashanth Reddy	03 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/152/2015	PS Bheemgal vs A1 Rajarapu Narsaiah	31 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/151/2011	P.S. Armoor vs Musuku Rajinikanth Reddy	27 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/397/2015	PS Velpoor vs Dasari Sridhar	27 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/987/2008	EX Bheemgal vs Gaddala Ganesh	27 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/256/2013	PS Sirikonda vs Kethavath Bhikya	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/365/2015	PS Sirikonda vs Engade Maruthi	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/281/2014	The state Police PS Sirikonda vs Vemulawada Jagadeesh	23 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/20/2017	Excise Bheemgal vs Bhukya Rena	22 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/441/2016	Excise Armoor vs Nemuri Ganesh Goud	22 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/391/2016	Excise Morthad vs Kontakanti Balaiah	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/442/2016	Excise Armoor vs Seliveri Kistagoud	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/444/2016	Excise Armoor vs Padala Janardhan Goud	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/458/2016	Excise Armoor vs Banda Sagar	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/279/2015	Ex. Morthad vs Thokala Naresh	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/390/2016	Excise Morthad vs Pallepu Nadipi Narsaiah	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/452/2014	P.S. Sirikonda vs Sirsu Laxmi	10 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/385/2014	P.S.Bheemgal vs Banavath Santhosh	09 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
DVC/8/2013	Nandipet Sathvika @ Mamatha vs Nandipet Chandradev @ Suresh	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/206/2014	PS Bheemgal vs Malavath Balram	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/443/2016	Excise Armoor vs Nagapuram Devender Goud	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/448/2016	Excise Armoor vs Anikesh Ramesh	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
DVC/10/2014	Rathnapuram Laxmi vs Rathnapuram Gangadhar	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/402/2016	PS Kammarpally vs Allibilli Vinod Kumar	02 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/177/2014	PS Velpoor vs Jakkam Bhumesh	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/294/2015	Ex. Morthad vs Bukya Mahesh	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/364/2013	PS kammarpally vs Gandla Srinivas	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/827/2008	EX Bheemgal vs Yelala Anjaiah	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/212/2014	PS Morthad vs Yama Kishore	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/432/2014	P.S.Velpoor vs Vsijnna Prabhakar	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/433/2015	EX Bheemgal vs Bhukya Ganesh	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/426/2016	PS Bheemgal vs Badavath Suresh	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
DVC/18/2015	Bommakanti Navaneeta vs Bommakanti Dash Goud	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/337/2014	PS Morthad vs Chandrakanti Naresh @ Naveen	17 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/460/2016	PS Velpoor vs Nadukuda Gangadher	17 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/52/2014	PS Morthad vs Boda Laxmikanth	16 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/284/2014	PS kammarpally vs Gurrapu Rajesham	16 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/281/2016	Excise Morthad vs Rajakolla Suman	15 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/283/2016	Excise Morthad vs Ambapyad Viswanath	13 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/286/2014	PS Kammarpally vs A1 Vemula Raju	13 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/322/2014	P.S.Bheemgal vs A1 Barkunta Borrranna	13 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/393/2016	Excise Morthad vs Juvvaji Gangu	10 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/394/2016	Excise Morthad vs Bodas Mamatha	10 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/457/2016	Excise Morthad vs Gandikota Sairam	10 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/397/2016	Excise Morthad vs Dandugulla Lokanna	09 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/456/2016	Excise Morthad vs Malavath Kishan	09 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/282/2016	Excise Morthad vs Pippera Bhoomanna	08 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/284/2016	Excise Morthad vs Rajakolla Saroja	08 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/439/2016	Excise Armoor vs Cinema Muthyam	08 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/399/2016	Excise Morthad vs Ergadintla Sayamma	06 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/451/2016	Excise Morthad vs Dandugula Rukma	06 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/401/2015	EX Armoor vs Nakka Poshetty	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/402/2015	Excise Armoor vs NaKKa Poshetty	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/403/2015	Excise Armoor vs Nakka Poshetty	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/405/2015	Excise Armoor vs Nakka Poshetty	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/406/2015	Excise Armoor vs Nakka Poshetti	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/438/2016	Excise Armoor vs Gummala Anjagoud	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/338/2014	PS Morthad vs Enke Praveen	02 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/309/2016	Excise Station Bheemgal vs Vemula Ashamma	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/338/2016	Excise Armoor vs Mallapula Gangadhar Goud	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
MC/1/2014	Nandipeta Sathvika alias Mamatha vs Nandipeta Chandradev	31 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/127/2014	Ex.Stn.Morthad vs Dasari Ramesh	30 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/341/2014	P.S. Kammarpally vs A1 Jangili Linganna	27 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/392/2016	Excise Morthad vs Charlapally Mallikarjun	27 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/450/2016	PS Sirikonda vs Noothpally Raju	27 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/119/2016	PS Bheemgal vs Neeradi Prabhakar	25 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
DVC/14/2013	Dharajula Sujatha @ Mothe Sujatha vs Dharajula Gangadhar	24 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/368/2014	P.S.Kammarpally vs Barla Komariah @ Dhandigapu Komaraiah	20 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/432/2015	Excise Bheemgal vs Bhukya Ganesh	20 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/434/2015	EX Bheemgal vs Bhukya Ganesh	20 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/356/2014	PS Bheemgal vs Moode Gangadhar	19 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/306/2016	Exise Bheemgal vs Palthya Mahipal	18 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/310/2016	Excise Bheemgal vs Nathi Potha Goud	18 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/277/2016	Excise Morthad vs Dandugulla Yellaiah	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/358/2014	PS Ex.Morthad vs Bhukya Ramu	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/199/2016	PS Sirikonda vs Anji Reddy @ Singi Reddy Anand Reddy	10 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/450/2013	PS.Bheemgal vs A1-Nuthula Subash	10 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/309/2015	Ex.Armoor vs Nakka Poshetty	09 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/337/2016	Excise Armoor vs Vallepu Venkati	09 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/342/2014	P.S. Kammarpally vs A1 Ponna Rajender	09 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/400/2015	Appo vs Nakka Poshetti	09 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/275/2016	Excise Morthad vs Shankarigari Ashok Goud	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/284/2013	EX Armoor vs Nunavath Babu	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/311/2016	Excise Morthad vs Alluri Nandam	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/315/2015	Ex.Armoor vs Nakka Ganga Poshetty	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/399/2015	Excise Armoor vs Nakka Poshetti	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/407/2015	Excise Armoor vs Nakka Poshetty	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 862 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2017		14
Mar 2017		25
Feb 2017		34
Jan 2017		32
Dec 2016		31
Nov 2016		25
Oct 2016		29
Sep 2016		31
Aug 2016		13
Jul 2016		20
Jun 2016		9
May 2016		14

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has K. Jayaram Reddy handled?

K. Jayaram Reddy has handled 880 court orders since 2014 at Armoor, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 24 orders per month.

What types of cases does K. Jayaram Reddy hear?

Based on available records, K. Jayaram Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at Armoor, SCJ Court Complex.

Where is K. Jayaram Reddy currently posted?

K. Jayaram Reddy is posted as Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Armoor at Armoor, SCJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by K. Jayaram Reddy available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by K. Jayaram Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does K. Jayaram Reddy dispose cases?

K. Jayaram Reddy disposes approximately 24 cases per month, based on 880 orders handled over their tenure at Armoor, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is K. Jayaram Reddy serving?

K. Jayaram Reddy has been serving at Armoor, SCJ Court Complex since 2014.

Case Types

CC 97%

DVC 2%

MC 1%

Posting History

Apr 2014 — May 2017

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Armoor · 880 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. P. Sreedevi

Senior Civil Judge Armoor

383 orders

Smt. Nelli Sarala Rani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Armoor

303 orders

Ms. P. Bhavya Sree

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Armoor

193 orders

← View all judges at Armoor, SCJ Court Complex