Smt.K.Kavitha

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex · Vikarabad · Telangana

Smt.K.Kavitha, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, is posted at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana, India. 2,404 court orders on record since 2016. 33 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

2,404

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/511/2019 Acquitted

PS Nawabpet vs Anthappaguda Badrappa

28 Sep 2021

1 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. Kavitha Kamalapuram, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

Dated, this the 28 th day of September, 2021

C.C. No. 511 OF 2019

Between: The State of Telangana through SHO, Police Station, Nawabpet. … Complainant A N D

Anthappaguda Badrappa, S/o: Shivarajappa, aged about 50 years, Occ: Kirana Business, R/o: Gangyada Village of Nawabpet Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri. M. Gopal Reddy, Advocate

for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on

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, P.S. Nawabpet, filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 70 of 2019 for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

On 19.06.2019 during evening hours, LW6/K. Krishna, S.I. of Police

P.S. Nawabpet received credible information from Gangyada Village of

Nawabpet Mandal that some persons are selling liquor without having any valid license from the Government Authorities. On receipt of the information, while raiding the Kirana Shop of the Accused he was illegally selling the liquor without having any permission from the concerned authority. They found 1) King Fisher Beers 650 ml. (18) bottles, 2)

Aristocrat Premium 360 ml. (6) bottles, 3) Aristocrat Premium 180 ml. (11) bottles, 4) MC Dowell's 750 ml. (1) bottle, 5) MC Dowell's 360 ml. (3) bottles, 6) MC Dowell's 180 ml. (8) bottles, 7) Imperial Blue 180 ml. (4) bottles, 8) Officer Choice 180 ml. (30) bottles and 9) Officer Choice 90 ml.

(8) bottles and conducted scene -cum- seizure panchanama in the presence of two mediators. Basing on the panchanama, LW6/K. Krishna,

S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No. 70/2019, U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

2 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

Excise Act, 1968. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW1/G. Chandraiah, HC 125, LW2/C.

Srishailam, PC 4679 & LW3/P. Dharma Reddy, PC 5569. On 19.06.2019 he effected the arrest of the Accused and produced him before the Hon'ble

Court for judicial remand. After completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/Sec.

239 of Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations. Charge U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 was framed against the Accused, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. PWs. 1 to 3 are the Police Officials who assisted the Investigating Officer/PW6, PWs. 4 & 5 are the mediators for scene of offence -cum- seizure panchanama and PW6 is the Investigating

Officer.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material against him. No defence evidence is adduced. The plea of the Accused is total denial.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec. 34 (a)

of A.P. Excise Act, 1968?

POINT:

9. PW1/G. Chandraiah, H.C. 125, has deposed that on 19.06.2019

PW6/S.I of Police received credible information about illegal sale of liquor at Gangyada Village. On that information, he along with PWs. 2, 3 & 6 proceeded to the said Village to the Kirana Shop of the Accused. When they reached the said Shop, there were customers present who were purchasing the said liquor and the said Accused was also present in the 3 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

Shop. On search, they found 18 bottles of Kingfisher beer, 02 Aristocratic full bottles, 13 liquor bottles of small quantity, 36 Officer Choice bottles, 01 full bottle of Imperial Blue and 4 bottles of MC Dowels. PW6 conducted panchanama in the presence of two mediators and seized the contraband and the Accused to the Police Station. PW1 identified the Accused present

in the Court hall as the same person who was present in the Kirana Shop

at the time of offence. In his cross-examination, PW1 has stated that there were only 5 Kirana Shops at Gangyada Village. He further stated that he cannot say the batch numbers and manufacturing company name of the said bottles. He further stated that he cannot say the house number, where the said Kirana Shop is situated. He agreed that he did not state in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement, how many customers were present at the Kirana Shop who purchased the liquor bottles from the said Shop and by the time, they reached the said Shop, the customers in the said

Kirana Shop left the place and they did not see. That the Kirana Shop was not having any name. He further stated that he cannot say the names of the neighbours or the boundaries of the said Kirana Shop. He further stated that the said contraband was recovered from the refrigerator and in carton boxes also and that there were two carton boxes, each carton has a capacity of 12 bottles and that the refrigerator was of Godrej company, but the refrigerator was not seized. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

10. PW2/C. Srisailam, P.C. 4679, has deposed that on 19.06.2019

Pw6/S.I. of Police received credible information about illegal sale of liquor at Gangyada village. On that information, he along with PW1, 3 & 6 proceeded to the said Village to the Kirana shop of the Accused. On seeing them, the said person who was conducting illegal sale tried to escape from the scene. Then, they caught hold of the Accused. When they reached the said shop, there were customers who were purchasing the said liquor and the said Accused was also present in the shop. On search, they found 18 bottles of King Fisher beer, 180 ml. (30) bottles, 18

Officer Choice bottles and 8 bottles of MC. PW6 conducted panchanama in the presence of two mediators and seized the contraband and the

Accused and went to the Police Station along with contraband, the

Accused and case papers. PW2 identified the Accused as the same person who was present in the Kirana Shop at the time of offence. In his cross- examination, PW2 stated that they reached the Shop of the Accused at about 03:00 P.M. and that their S.I. seized the contraband. He agreed that 4 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

except the above mentioned contraband, he does not know if any other contraband was seized. He further agreed that what he stated in his 161

Cr.P.C. statement is same as the chief and that he does not know what quantity was written by PW6 in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He further stated that he cannot say the batch numbers and manufacturing company of the said contraband. He further stated that there were no general public present at the shop when they reached and that he did not enquire with the neighbours whether the Shop belongs to the Accused and that he cannot say the name of the said Kirana Shop. He further stated that he has seen the Accused after the date of the present offence as his Shop is present on the road. He further stated that he cannot say the house number of the said Shop. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

11. PW3/P.Dharma Reddy, P.C. 5569, has deposed that on 19.06.2019 he along with PWs. 1, 2 and their S.I. of Police/PW6 proceeded to

Gangyada as PW6 received credible information about illegal sale of ID liquor at Gangyada Village. One person was present in the Kirana Shop and on seeing them, the said person tried to flee away from the place and on search, they found 18 bottles of King fisher beers of 650 ml. each,

Aristocrat premium 6 bottles of each 360 each, Aristocrat premium 11 bottles of 180 ml. each, Mac Dowels of one bottle of 720 ml., 3 bottles of 360 ml. & 8 bottles of 180 ml. each, Imperial Blue (4) bottles of 180 ml.

each and Officer Choice (30) bottles of 180 ml. each & 36 bottles of 90 ml.

of each. PW6 called two mediators and seized the said contraband and drafted the panchanama and they returned back to the station along with the case papers, contraband and the Accused. PW3 identified the

Accused as the same person who was present in the shop and tried to run away, but was caught by the Police. In his cross-examination PW3 has stated that his statement was recorded at 09:30 P.M. by their S.I./PW6 and that there is no time mentioned as to when his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is recorded and that he did not state in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the time when they went to the Gangyada Village to the said Kirana Shop and that he did not state in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that their S.I./PW6 called the mediators. He stated that he cannot say the house number, where the said Shop was being run and that he cannot say the manufacturing date or batch numbers of the above contraband. He further agreed that he cannot say the boundaries of the said Kirana Shop and that himself,

PWs.1 & 2 caught the Accused while he was trying to escape from the 5 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

Shop and that he did not state the names of the Police personnels who caught hold of the Accused while he was trying to escape from Kirana

Shop in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. He stated that he does not know the mediators called by PW6. PW3 adds that he can recognize them. He further stated that he did not state that he can recognize the mediators in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and that he has no prior acquaintance with the

Accused and that he did not state about the physical features of the

Accused in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. PW3 adds that as they apprehended the Accused, he did not state the same and that on the date of the present offence, they went only to one Kirana Shop and that he cannot say how many Kirana Shops are there in the said Village. He further stated that he cannot say the Sumo Registration number in which they went to the scene. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

12. PW4/K. Raghavendar who is the mediator for scene of offence -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P1, has deposed that on 19.06.2019 he went to Police Station on his personal work. At that time, Pw6 received credible information about illegal sale of liquor at Gangyada Village and he asked him and PW5 to accompany them to the said Village as mediators. They went to the Shop of one Bhadrappa/Accused and on seeing them, one person tried to escape from the Shop, but he was apprehended by the Police. On search of the Shop, they found liquor bottles i.e. Kingfisher 18 beer bottles, Officer Choice 30 bottles, Officer

Choice of 180 ml. (30) bottles, MC Diet one bottle and other liquor bottles were seized from the said shop in their presence. The said person confessed that he previously sold liquor bottles and there are cases against him. PW4 identified the Accused as the said person who was in the Kirana Shop at the time of the offence. In his cross-examination, PW4 has stated that Lingampally Village is situated one stop before Gangyada

Village. He agreed that he does not know the villagers of Gangyada

Village. He further stated that he does not know the Accused. He further agreed that he frequently goes to the Police Station. He further stated that he cannot say the house number or the Shop number of said Kirana

Shop and that he cannot say the boundaries of the said Shop. He further agreed that he stated in his chief-examination as told by the Police and that he does not know the contents on Ex.P1 and no panchanama was conducted in his presence. He further stated that he put his signature on

Ex.P1 at the Police Station and that he does not know whether they 6 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

obtained his signature on written papers or white papers as he did not observe the same. He further agreed that he did not see the Accused at the scene and that no property was seized in his presence and that the

Accused did not confess before him. He further stated that he identified the Accused at the instance of Police and that he does not know the facts of the case. As PW4 himself stated that he put his signature on Ex.P1 at

Police Station and no panchanama was conducted in his presence and no property was seized, his evidence cannot be consider.

13. PW5/B. Bal Reddy who is the mediator for scene of offence -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P1, turned hostile and has stated that he does not know any facts of the case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence. Around 3 years back when he was at his Village, Police

Officials obtained his signatures under Ex.P2 on some white papers.

Though, PW5 was cross-examined by the learned APPO, no useful material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

14. PW6/K. Krishna, Investigating Officer, has deposed that on 19-06- 2019 during evening hours, he received credible information about illegal sale of Liquor at Gangyada Village and on that information, he along with his staff PWs. 1 to 3 proceeded to the said Village. There, he secured

PWs.4 & 5 and proceeded to the shop of the Accused. By the time, they reached the Accused was present in the shop. On search of the shop, they found 1). Kingfisher beers 650 ml. (18) bottles, 2). Aristocrat premium 360 ml. (6) bottles, 3). Aristocrat premium 180 ml. (11) bottles, 4). MC Dowell's 750 ml. (1) bottle, 5). MC Dowell's 360 ml. (93) bottles, 6).

MC Dowell's 180 ml (8) bottles, 7). Imperial blue 180 ml. (4) bottles, 8).

Officer Choices 180 ml. (30) bottles, and 9). Officer Choice 90 ml. (36) bottles and seized them under cover of panchanama under Ex.P3. Basing on Ex.P3, he registered a case in COR No. 70/2019, U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act and issued FIR under Ex.P4. He examined and recorded the statements of PWs. 1 to 3 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. In his cross-examination, PW6 has agreed that in Ex.P4 column No.3(b) the time is mentioned as 21:00 hours i.e. 09:00 P.M. He stated that they returned back to the station from the scene at 21:00 hours and that he registered a case at 09:00 P.M. and that Ex.P3 was conducted at 07:30 P.M. He further stated that he cannot say how many Kirana Shops are in Gangyada

Village and that he secured the panchas at the Police Station and that 7 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

there were no customers present at the Shop of the Accused when they reached there and that there was no specific mention as to who caught hold of the Accused. He further agreed that he did not mention the name of the Shop or Shop number as there was no name or number and that he did not enquire with the Kavalkar or Sarpanch with regard to the ownership of the Shop and did not file any record before the Court pertaining to the ownership of the Shop and that he did not mention in

Ex.P3 the manufacturing numbers or batch numbers of the seized contraband. He stated that he did not mention in Ex.P3 the exact places where the contraband was seized from the Shop. He further stated that

PW1 did not state before him as to how many customers were present at the Shop when they reached the shop. He further agreed that the time when they reached the scene is not stated in the statements of PWs. 1 to 3 and that he did not examine the neighbours at the scene. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

15.From the above evidence and record, it is clear that the Police did not examine the neighbors at the scene, Sarpanch or Kavalkar of

Gangyada Village to prove the occupancy of the Accused over the said

Kirana Shop. Admittedly, the Police did not secure any document to show that the Accused is the occupant of said Kirana Shop. As the Police did not secure any document to show the occupancy of the Accused over the said premises, this court holds that the prosecution failed to connect the

Accused with the premises, where the alleged contraband is said to have been recovered. The Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad in the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Criminal 805 (A.P) between T. Subbanna

V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh held, “that where the ownership or possession of the Accused is not established over the place of offence and where the independent mediators i.e. PW4 did not support the prosecution case and PW5 turned hostile, no conviction can be recorded for the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 on the version of official witnesses”.

16.Further, the case of the prosecution is rested upon the versions of

PWs. 1 to 3 and 6 who are the Police officials. Since, the independent mediators examined as PWs. 4 and 5 did not support the prosecution case, the Scene -cum- Seizure Panchanama under Ex.P1 is not proved in accordance with law. When the independent witnesses did not support the case, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the versions of PWs.1 to 3 and 6 8 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

who are the Police officials interested in the outcome of the prosecution of the Accused.

17.The prosecution failed to prove the scene -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P1 recorded in the presence of PWs. 4 and 5. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the Police did not examine the neighbours at the scene or any eye witnesses that the Accused was selling the contraband illegally. Hence, the prosecution failed to connect the Accused with the alleged offence. It is a settled law that where the mediators i.e. PW4 did not support the prosecution case and PW5 turned hostile, and recovery of any contraband from the possession of the

Accused is not proved, no conviction can be recorded for the offence on the version of official witnesses. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the Accused is entitled for an acquittal.

18.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence

U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted of the same

Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The property, deposited into this court

Vide C.P.R. No. 257/2019 i.e., samples of (9) liquor bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the, 28th Day of September,

2021.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1:- G. Chandraiah -None- PW2:- C. Srisailam PW3:- P. Dharma Reddy PW4:- K. Raghavendar PW5:- B. Bal Reddy PW6:- K. Krishna 9 of 9

CC. No. 511 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw4 on scene -cum- seizure -NIL- -cum- confession panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of Pw5 on on scene -cum- seizure -cum- confession panchanama Ex.P3: Scene -cum- seizure -cum- confession panchanama Ex.P4: First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

CC/117/2015 Acquitted

SHO Dharur vs Gaddamidi Ramulu and others

30 Sep 2021

1 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. Kavitha Kamalapuram, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

Dated: On this the 30 th day of September, 2021

C.C. No. 117 OF 2015

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Dharur. …Complainant A N D A1G. Ramulu @ Ramu, S/o: Rukkaiah, aged about 23 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: Haridas Pally Village of Dharur Mandal, R.R. Dist.

A2N. Venkatesham @ Venkat, S/o: Narsimulu, aged about 27 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: Allipur Village of Dharur Mandal, R.R. Dist.

A3M. Shekar, S/o: Sailu, aged about 23 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: Haridas Pally Village of Dharur Mandal, R.R. Dist. … Accused

This case was heard finally in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri P. Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 3, and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

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

1.The Circle-Inspector of Police, Vikarabad Rural Circle, Ranga Reddy

District, filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 125 of 2013 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457 and 380 of Indian Penal

Code.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

On 25.11.2013 at 09:00 hours, the defacto-complainant came to

Dharur Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that, on 14.10.2013 at about 23:00 hours, the defacto-complainant's relative demised and he went for final sight. At about 02:50 hours, the complainant's wife/P. Uma Rani phoned to him and told that some unknown offenders have committed theft in their house. Immediately, the complainant rushed to his house and found that an amount of Rs.62,000/- and ½ tula of gold ear studs were committed 2 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015 theft. Basing on the complaint, LW10/R. Ramesh, S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No.125/2013, U/Secs.457 and 380 of I.P.C. and took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1/P. Penta Reddy. Further, LW11/D. Vijaya

Lala, Circle Inspector of Police, rushed to Dharur Police Station and took up further investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW2/Smt. P. Uma Rani, visited scene of offence, situated at Chintakunta Village of Dharur Mandal and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators i.e. LW6/T. Lalaiah & LW7/K. Srinivas Reddy and drew rough sketch of the scene. On his transfer, LW12/A.V. Ranga, Circle Inspector of Police, took up further investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of

LW3/G. Mahender Reddy, LW4/M. Golla Venkataiah & LW5/B. Raju. While the investigation was in progress, on 10.12.2014 at 14:00 hours, LW12/A.V.

Ranga along with LW10/R. Ramesh, S.I. of Dharur P.S. and staff apprehended the Accused Nos.1 to 3 at the house of A1, situated at Haridaspally Village of

Dharur Mandal and on interrogation, the A1 to A3 admitted to have committed this offence. As such, in the presence of LW8/K. Srinivas Reddy &

LW9/T. Shaker, he conducted confession panchanama of A1 to A3. The confession made by the Accused revealed that, on the intervening night of 29/30.10.2014, A1 along with A2 & A3 committed theft at the house of complainant and had stolen an amount of Rs.90,000/- and gold ornaments i.e. one gold chain with pendant, five gold finger rings and one pair of gold ear hangings and subsequently, they shared the stolen property and cash (this is the subject matter of Crime No.159/2014). On further interrogation, the A1 confessed that prior to the offence, the A1 to A3 have committed thefts at the complainant's house, situated at Chintakunta Village (which is the subject matter of Crime No.421/2013 of P.S. Vikarabad). Further, they confessed and the property lost in this case was recovered in Crime No.

3 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015 159/2014 of Dharur P.S. on the basis of the confession of accused and recovery of property in Crime No.159/2014, the offence was established against the A1 to A3 in this case also. As such, simultaneously effected their arrest on 10.12.2014 at 21:00 hours and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. The property which was recovered from the Accused were deposited in the court vide CPR No.35/2015. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 3.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Secs.457 and 380

R/W 411 of I.P.C. against the Accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 to 3, the copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined U/Secs. 239 and 240 of Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations. Hence, charges U/Secs. 457 and 380 R/W 411 of I.P.C against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are framed, read over and explained to the them in vernacular. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the Accused Nos.1 to 3, none were examined and no documents are marked. PW1 is the defacto- complainant, PW2 is the wife of the complainant, PW3 is the neighbor of

PWs.1 & 2, PW4 is the witness, PWs.5 & 6 are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama, PW7 is the mediator for confessional -cum- seizuere panchanama of A1 to A3, PW8 is the 1st Investigating Officer and PW9 is the other Investigating Officer. LW5/B. Raju/witness, LW8/K. Srinivas

Reddy/panch witness for confession -cum- seizure panchanama of A1 to A3 and LW10/R. Ramesh/S.I. of Police were given up by the APPO.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against them. They denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

4 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015

The plea of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 is total denial.

7.Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and counsel for the Accused Nos.1 to 3.

8.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused

Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457 and 380 R/W 411

of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

9.PW1/P. Penta Reddy, has deposed that on 14.10.2013 he received death information of one Neelamma who is his relative and he along with

PW2 went to attend her last rites. On 15.10.2013, his wife went to their house around 02:30 A.M. and she found that the lock of the main door of their house was broke open and immediately, she informed him over phone about the said incident. Immediately, he rushed to his house and he along with his wife/PW2 entered the house and found that the Almirah was open and Rs.62,000/- cash and one pair of ear tops were committed theft by some unknown offenders. He lodged complaint with the police after one week of the said incident. He received Rs.10,000/- net cash and one pair of ear tops from the Court. MO.1 is the cash of Rs.10,000/- and MO.2 is the pair of ear tops. In his cross-examination PW1 has stated that, he know the contents of

Ex.P1 and that Police recorded his 161 Cr.P.C. statement at the police station.

He agreed that in Ex.P1 it is written as he did not lodge a complaint with the police, Dharur. He adds that, he informed the same to his son who is working in Navy and his son informed the same to S.P. and the Collector.

Later, he lodged a complaint with the police. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

10.PW2/P. Uma Rani/wife of PW1, has deposed that at about 5 years back, she went to attend the funeral of one of her relative along with her husband/PW1 in their Village. On the next day around 02:30 A.M., she 5 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015 returned to her house and found that the main door was broke open and immediately, she informed the same over phone to PW1. Immediately, after

PW1 came, she along with PW1 entered the house and found that

Rs.62,000/- and one pair of gold ear tops were committed theft by some unknown offenders. In her cross-examination PW2 has denied all the suggestions put to her by the defence counsel.

11.PW3/G. Mahender Reddy, who is a circumstantial witness and neighbour of PW1 has deposed that he came to know that when PW1 and

PW2 went to attend the funeral of one of their relatives around 4 years back, there was a theft committed in their house during the night hours. In his cross-examination PW3 has stated that he does not know the contents of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

12.PW4/G. Venkataiah who is cited as a witness, turned hostile and has stated that he does not know any facts of the case and Police never examined him nor recorded his statement. PW4 was cross-examined by the learned APPO and he agreed that he informed to one Ghousepasha that his door lock of his house is open. He also asked him they locked the door or not. Then, Ghousepasha intimated that he went out of Station.

13.PW5/T. Lalaiah and PW6/K. Srinivas Reddy who are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama also turned hostile and have stated that they do not know anything about this case. No panchanama was conducted in their presence. Police obtained the thumb impression of PW5 and signatures of PW6 under Exs.P2 & P3 when they went to Police Station on their personal work. Though, PWs.5 and 6 were cross-examined by the learned APPO, no useful material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

14.PW7/T. Shanker, has deposed that in the year 2014, when he was at his

Office, Dharur Constable called him to P.S. Dharur. He along with LW8/K.

Srinivas Reddy went to the P.S. to act as mediators with regard to some theft committed at Haridaspally Village and at BTS Colony, Vikarabad. A1 to A3 confessed that A1 along with A2 & A3 committed thefts in the year 2013 at 6 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015

Haridaspally Village of cash of Rs.62,000/- and gold ear studs. A1 also confessed that along with A2 & A3 he committed theft at BTS Colony of gold chain and gold waist chain. The Accused also confessed that theft was committed at Haridaspally Village in the house of one Ghouse of gold chains, small gold chain and gold ear studs. The confession -cum- seizure panchanama of A1 to A3 was recorded and recovered from A1 half thula gold ear studs and from A2 & A3 Rs.5,000/- each, as the Accused spent the remaining amount. The Accused also confessed that A1 took his share of

Rs.22,000/- and A2 & A3 took Rs.20,000/- each. With regard to theft to BTS

Colony, receipts of Manapuram gold were seized and on the same, they proceeded to Manapuram gold at IFL and seized the gold ornaments pledged with the Manapuram gold. Police also seized Rs.30,000/- from A1,

Rs.15,000/- from A2 and Rs.5,000/- from A3 with regard to the theft committed at the house of Ghouse Pasha at Haridaspally Village. Exs.P4 to

P6 are the attested copies of confession and recovery panchanamas of the

A1 to A3. Ex.P7 is the attested copy of seizure panchanama at India Infoline

Finance Ltd. Ex.P8 is the attested copy of seizure panchanama at

Manapuram Finance, Vikarabad. He identified A1 to A3 present in the Court hall as the same persons.

15.In his cross-examination, PW7 has stated that he along with LW8K.

Srinivas Reddy went to P.S. Dharur and that he did not receive any notice from P.S. Dharur to act as mediator. He stated that he was on duty and took only oral permission to go to P.S. Dharur to act as a mediator and that there is a movement register in their office and that there is no entry when he went to P.S. Dharur. Only on the instructions of his higher authorities, he went to act as a mediator and that they went to Police Station in the morning hours, but he cannot say the exact time. He stated that first they went to

Haridaspally Village and that the thefts were committed in the month of

October, 2014 and he was called to the police station in December, 2014 and that Police drafted the confession -cum- seizure panchanamas in his 7 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015 presence, but he cannot say their names or designation now and that at the time of conducting confession -cum- seizure panchanamas C.I. and S.I. were also present. He further stated that he cannot say how much time was taken to draft the panchanams and that the panchanamas were completed before lunch. He stated that he cannot say the boundaries of the panchanamas conducted. He further stated that the Accused were not present at

Haridaspally Village and BTS Colony when the seizure panchanamas were conducted and that at Haridaspally only one panchanama was conducted and that he cannot say the exact time when panchananama was conducted at BTS Colony. He stated that they were along with the police till 06:30 P.M.

on the date when the confession -cum- seizure panchanamas were conducted and that 4 or 5 panchanamas were conducted on the said date.

He stated that the amount that was seized from the Accused was in the denomination of Rs.500 notes and that the amounts were recovered from the

Accused persons in their presence. He further stated that he cannot say specifically the names of the Accused, but the Accused who are present in the Court hall today are the same persons when the confession -cum- seizure panchanamas were recorded and that he knows the names of the Accused persons.

16.PW8/B. Vijaya Lala, Ist Investigating Officer, has deposed that on 25.11.2013 LW10/R. Ramesh received Ex.P1/complaint from PW1. Basing on it, he registered a case in Crime No.125/2013, U/Secs.457 & 380 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P9. LW10/R. Ramesh handed over the C.D. file to him on the same day. He examined and recorded the statement of PW2, visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene in the presence of PW5/T. Lalaiah and PW6/K.

Srinivas Reddy under Exs.P10 and Ex.P11. On his transfer, he handed over the C.D. file to PW9 for further investigation. In his cross-examination, PW8 has denied the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

8 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015

17. PW9/A.V. Ranga, Investigating Officer, has deposed that he visited the scene of offence and that on 10.12.2014 he apprehended the Accused and conducted their confession panchanama in the presence of PW7 and LW8/K.

Srinivas Reddy under Exs.P4 to P8 along with other offences. He affected the arrest of A1 to A3 and produced before the Court for judicial remand. He deposited the case property before this Court vide CPR No. 35/2015. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the A1 to A3 for the offences punishable U/Secs.457 & 380 of IPC. In his cross-examination,

PW9 has stated that he visited the scene after lapse of 8 to 9 months from the date of offence. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

18.In the present case on hand, the evidence of PW8, Ist Investigating

Officer deposed only to the extent of registering of FIR under Ex.P9, conducting scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P10, drafting rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P11 and recording the statements of witnesses.

But, mere registering of FIR, conducting scene of offence panchanama, drawing rough sketch and recording the statements of witnesses does not itself prove the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 3. The other evidence is that of

PW9, Investigating Officer who recorded the confession panchanama of the

Accused and recovered the case property. But, mere recording of confession panchanama of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and stating that, the case property was recovered from the Accused does not itself prove the guilt of the

Accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the evidences of PW7 and PW9 cannot be relied upon to convict the Accused Nos.1 to 3 as their evidence is not corroborated by any other independent witnesses.

Absolutely, there is no iota of evidence against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 connecting them with the offences alleged against them. PW7 in his cross- examination stated that the panchanamas were completed before lunch.

But, on perusal of the said panchanamas under Ex.P4 the time is mentioned 9 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015

as 14:30 hours, Ex.P5 at 16:30 hours, and Ex.P6 at 17:30 hours. Further, in

PW7's cross-examination he stated that the Accused were not present when the seizure panchanamas were conducted at Haridaspally Village and BTS

Colony. But, on perusal of Exs.P4 to P6 the place of conducting the said panchanama is at the house of A1 and on further perusal of the panchanama on Page 3, it is mentioned that A1 confessed about the present offence and he went inside his house and brought a plastic cover containing 2 ear studs.

Further, it reveals that the Accused had shown the vehicle which is parked infront of his house and also confessed that the said vehicle was used in the commission of the offence. Hence, it creates a doubt in the mind of the Court that when the Accused were not present at the time of seizure of property as per PW7's cross-examination, then how Accused No.1 went into his house and brought the plastic cover containing gold ear studs and how the property from A2 and A3 were recovered at the house of A1. There are variations in the evidence of PW7. Further, PW7 did not clearly state as to whether the

MO2 were the same ear studs as no identification of property was done by

PW7. There are variations in the evidence of PW7. Furthermore, when a doubt arises in the mind of the Court, the benefit has to be extended to the

Accused. Further, the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P10 i.e. PWs. 5 & 6 and alleged witness i.e. PW4, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and PWs.1 to 3 also did not state anything against the Accused Nos.1 to 3. For the reasons stated, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for an acquittal.

19. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are FOUND NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457 and 380 R/W 411 of I.P.C and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stand discharged after expiry of six months as under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 and 2 deposited into this Court 10 of 10 C.C.No. 117/2015 vide C.P.R. No. 35 of 2015 which are already given as interim custody to PW1 vide Orders dated 21.01.2015 shall become absolute after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the, 30th Day of September, 2021.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 is P. Penta Reddy -None- PW2 is Smt. P. Uma Rani PW3 is G. Mahender Reddy PW4 is M. G. Venkataiah PW5 is T. Lalaiah PW6 is K. Srinivas Reddy PW7 is T. Shaker PW8 is D. Vijaya Lala PW9 is A.V. Ranga

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the Complaint -None- Ex.P2 is the Signatures of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 is the Signature of PW6 on rough sketch of the scene Ex.P4 is the Attested copy of confession and recovery panchanama of A1 Ex.P5 is the Attested copy of confession and recovery panchanama of A2 Ex.P6 is the Attested copy of confession -cum- recovery panchanama of A3 Ex.P7 is the Attested copy of seizure panchanama at India Infoline Finance Ltd. Ex.P8 is the Attested copy of seizure panchanama at Manapuram Finance, Vikarabad Ex.P9 is the FIR Ex.P10 is the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P11 is the rough sketch of the scene 1...

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 is the cash of Rs.10,000/- M.O.2 is the pair of ear tops

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

CC/268/2016 Acquitted

PS Nawabpet vs B.Madhavi

28 Sep 2021

1 of 7

CC. No. 268 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KAMALAPURAM, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, R.R. District.

Dated: On this the 28 th day of September, 2021

C.C. No. 268 OF 2016

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Nawabpet. …Complainant

A N D A1:Smt. Purudu Yadamma, W/o: Balakrishna, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Anganwadi worker at Kadicharla Village.

A2:Durgamcheruvu Srinivas, S/o. Manaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Driving. Both R/o: Kadicharla Village of Nawabpet Mandal. …Accused

This case was heard finally in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri G. Lava Kumar, Counsel for the Accused No.1 and of Sri. K. Ramesh Kumar, Counsel for the Accused No.2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Nawabpet, filed charge sheet against the

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 48 of 2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of

Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

On 25.05.2016 at about 16:30 hours, the defacto-complainant by name B.

Madhavi/LW1, ICDS Supervisor at Nawabpet Mandal came to the Police Station and lodged a report stating that, there is an Anganwadi Center in the Village at Kadicharla.

The Accused No.1 was working as Angawadi worker at Kadicharla Village. LW2/Smt.

Ch. Laxmi is the Aaya (helper) in the said Anganwadi Center. Due to summer vacation, the Accused No.1 and LW2/Laxmi used to work on turn basis system i.e. each 15 days in a month. On 15.05.2016 LW2/Laxmi has attended her duty and on 16.05.2016 the

Accused No.1 has to attend her duty. But, the Accused No.1 failed to attend her duties from 16.05.2016 onwards. LW2/Laxmi telephoned to LW1/Madhavi and informed that

Accused No.1 is not attending her duties and the keys of Anganwadi Center were also with A1. Then, on 21.05.2016, LW1/Madhavi visited the scene and opened the said

Anganwadi Center with another key, they found the rice supplied on 04.05.2016 of 300 kgs. only 30 kgs. of rice was there, and out of 40 kgs. of dall ½ kg. of dall was there and 10 kgs. of oil was missing, which was supplied to the Center on 06.05.2016. Later, 2 of 7

CC. No. 268 of 2016

LW1/Madhavi gave a report to the Police against the Accused No.1.

3.Basing on the report given by the defacto-complainant, a case in Crime No.

48/2016, U/Sec. 380 of I.P.C was registered by LW10/P. Vijaya Bhasker Reddy, A.S.I. of

Police and took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Smt. B. Madhavi and LW2/Laxmi, visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

LW6/G. Ramakrishna & LW7/M. Krishna Reddy. While the investigation was in progress, on 26.05.2016 he along with his staff conducted vehicle checking at

Mythabkhanguda Cross Roads, where they noticed one Ashok Lyeland Mini DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TE 6823 coming from Nawabpet. On suspicion, they stopped the vehicle and checked, and found the Accused Nos.1 & 2. On search, they noticed rice bags, dall packets and oil packets. On questioning the Accused Nos.1 and 2, they confessed to have committed the theft of above said articles and the Accused No.1 was transporting the same with the help of Accused No.2 to dispose off at Hyderabad. Later, he conducted confession -cum- recovery panchanama of Accused and also seized the above said articles along with Ashok Leyland Mini DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TE 6823 in the presence of LW8/P. Mallesh & LW9/K.Bhasker and he effected the arrest of

Accused Nos.1 & 2 and produced them before this Court for judicial remanded. He deposited the case property before this Court vide CPR No. 241/2016. On his transfer, he handed over the C.D. file to LW11/A. Ravi Kumar, S.I. of Police. After verifying the investigation to be on proper lines, LW11/A. Ravi Kumar filed charge sheet against the

Accused persons.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC against the

Accused Nos.1 and 2.

5. On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations. Hence, charges U/Sec.

380 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in vernacular. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, none were examined and no documents are marked. PW1 is the defacto-complainant, PWs. 2, 3 & 6 are the circumstancial witnesses/village elders, PWs. 4 & 5 are the mediators for Crime Detail

Form, PWs. 7 & 8 are the mediators for confesion -cum- seizure panchanama, PW9 is the 1st Investigating Officer who issued FIR and PW10 is the Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet. LW2/Smt. Chakali Laxmi who is a witness was given up by the

APPO on Police Report.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were 3 of 7

CC. No. 268 of 2016

examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against them.

They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. The plea of the Accused

Nos.1 and 2 is total denial.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 and 2

for the offence punishable U/Sec.380 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

10.The case of the prosecution is that, on 21.05.2016 when the defacto- complainant/B. Madhavi, ICDS Supervisor, proceeded to Kadicharla Anganwadi Center and opened the lock of said Center, they found theft committed of the rice supplied on 04.05.2016 of 300 kgs. only 30 kgs. of rice was there, and out of 40 kgs. of dall ½ kg. of dall was there and 10 kgs. of oil was missing, which was supplied to the Center on 06.05.2016.

11.For the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that:

i) that the person dishonest intention to take property; ii) that the property must be movable; iii) that it should be taken out of the possession of another person; iv) that it should be taken without the consent of that person;

v) that there should be some moving of the said property to such taking; vi) that the theft should have been committed in a dwelling house or place used for safe custody of property.

12. Pw1/B. Madhavi, ICDS Supervisor, Nawabpet Mandal who is the defacto- complainant, has deposed that she know Accused No.1 as she was working as

Anganwadi teacher at Kadicharla Village. She was ICDS Supervisor for two Mandals consisting of Nawabpet and Ekmamidi. The two Mandals consists of 44 Anganwadies,

Accused No.1 used to work as Anganwadi teacher at Kadicharla Village and LW2/Laxmi is the helper. She further deposed that, there was summer vacation for Accused No.1 from 1st May to 15th May, 2016. Accused No.1 has to join the duties on 16th May, 2016, but she did not resume to her duties. The same was informed by LW2/Laxmi that

Accused No.1 did not resume her duties after the summer vacation on 17.05.2016. On that intimation given by LW2/Laxmi, on 21.05.2016 she visited the Anganwadi Center at

Kadicharla Village. On her inspection, she found 270 kgs. of rice, 39 kgs. of dall and 10 kgs. of oil were missing which were supplied by the Office to the said Anganwadi

Center, Kadicherla village. Then, she enquired about Accused No.1 by calling the 4 of 7

CC. No. 268 of 2016

Villagers who informed her that they do not know the where abouts of Accused No.1.

She also called over telephone to Accused No.1, but she did not answer the phone call.

She informed the same to her higher officials and on their instructions, she lodged a complaint with the Police under Ex.P1.

13.In her cross-examination, PW1 has stated that no incharge was placed from 16.05.2016 in place of Accused No.1 and that she was informed by LW2/Laxmi on 18.05.2016. Immediately, when she was informed, on the same day, she did not visit the Anganwadi at Kadicharla Village and that she lodged Ex.P1 on 25.05.2016. The villagers informed her that the Accused No.1 was not in Village from 01.05.2016 onwards and that her statement was recorded by the Police on the same day of lodging

Ex.P1. She did not mention the specific date on which LW2/Laxmi informed about

Accused No.1 not resuming her duties in Ex.P1. She further stated that, on 04.05.2016 when rice and on 06.05.2016 when dall were supplied to the said Anganwadi, Accused

No.1 was on vacation and LW2/Laxmi was on duty and she took the supply of the same and that she did not furnish any documents with regard to the supply of rice, dall and the carry forward of the oil from previous months to the Police. She agreed that while

Accused No.1 was on vacation, the charge of carry forward of the oil from the previous months was handed over to LW2/Laxmi. She further stated that there is no duplicate key for the Anganwadi Center and that she did not state in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement as in Ex.D1 to the Police. She further agreed that she did not state in her Ex.P1 or in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the specific name of the villager who informed her that Accused

No.1 committed theft. She further agreed that rice, dal and oil are easily available in the market. She further stated that she does not know whether the Police have seized the same rice, dal and oil supplied by them to the Anganwadi. She further denied the suggestions put to her by the defence counsel.

14.PW2/K. Galaiah, PW3/P. Narayana and PW6/S. Buchaiah who are the circumstantial witnesses/village elders, turned hostile and have stated that they do not know any facts of the case and Police never examined them nor recorded their statements. Though, Pws.2, 3 and 6 were cross-examined by the learned APPO, no useful material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

15. PW4/G. Ramakrishna & PW5/M. Krishna Reddy who are the mediators for Crime

Detail Form under Ex.P10 and PW7/P. Mallesh & PW8/K. Bhaskar who are the mediators for confession -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P11, turned hostile and have stated that they do not know any facts of the case and no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Police obtained their signatures under Exs.P4 to P8 on some papers about 2 or 3 years back. Though, PWs.4, 5, 7 & 8 were cross-examined by the learned APPO, no useful material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

5 of 7

CC. No. 268 of 2016

16. PW9/P. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, 1st Investigating Officer, has deposed that he received Ex.P1 from PW1. Basing on it, he registered a case in crime No. 48/2016,

U/Sec.380 of I.P.C. and issued FIR under Ex.P9. He examined and recorded the statements of PWs. 1, 2, 3 & 6 and LW2/Laxmi, visited scene of offence under Ex.P10 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PWs. 4 & 5. During the course of investigation, while they were conducting vehicle checking on 26.05.2016 around 04.00 A.M. at Mythabkhanguda Cross Roads, they noticed one Ashok Leyland

Mini DCM Van bearing No. AP-28-TE-6823 which was coming from Nawabpet to

Hyderabad. On suspicion, they stopped the said vehicle and they found both A1 and A2 present in the said vehicle and on search, they found 5 bags of rice each 50 kgs. and also one loose bag of 20 kgs. rice, 39 packets of tuwar dal containing 1 kg. each and 10 packets of sweet oil of 1 liter each and the Accused No.1 confessed that she was working as Anganwadi worker of the Village Kadicharla along with LW2/Laxmi and on 20.05.2016, as LW2 has to attend the duties prior to that day, Accused No.1 committed theft of above said articles with the help of Accused No.2 and to dispose off the same at

Hyderabad, they were transporting the same and they were caught hold by the Police and brought to the Police Station. In the presence of PWs. 7 & 8, he conducted confession -cum- recovery panchanama of the Accused under Ex.P11 and also seized the above said articles along with Ashok Leyland MINI DCM Van bearing No. AP-28-TE- 6823. He affected the arrest of both the Accused and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. He deposited the case property vide CPR No. 241/2016. On his transfer, he handed over the C.D. file to PW10. PWs.2, 3 and 6 deposed before him as in Exs.P2, P3 and P6. In his cross-examination, Pw9 has agreed that in the market rice, tuwar dal and oil are available. He added that on the property that was seized by him there is Government stamps for the supply. He further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

17. Pw10/A. Ravi Kumar, another Investigating Offcer, has deposed that he received

C.D. file from PW9 and after verifying the investigation to be on proper lines, he filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec.380 of IPC. In his cross-examination, PW10 has denied the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

18.The learned counsel for Accused vehemently contended that there was a delay in lodging report under ExP1 and the said delay clearly goes to show that the present case is nothing but fabricated and concocted against the Accused Nos.1 and 2. It is no doubt true, the offence in this case occurred prior to 21.05.2016, but the report was given on 25.05.2016, there is a delay in lodging Ex.P1. PW1 has stated in her evidence that she received intimation from LW2/Laxmi about the offence, but she did not choose to visit the 6 of 7

CC. No. 268 of 2016

Anganwadi Center on the same day and to give report against the Accused immediately.

PW1 has not explained the delay in giving report to the Police is not acceptable.

19. In the present case on hand, PW1 has stated that the Accused No.1 has committed theft of articles from the Anganwadi Center. Unfortunately, LW2/Laxmi who informed about theft of articles to PW1 is not examined by the prosecution. Had there been any truth in the evidence of PW1 at least one among, from the department would have come forward and supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the uncorroborated testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the

Accused No.1 has committed the offence. Except the sole testimony of PW1, no other oral or documentary evidence is available on the record to corroborate the testimony of

PW1. At least, the prosecution failed to produce the Articles supply register to various

Centers under PW1 and PW1 did not produce any record that the Accused No.1 was working as a teacher and drawing salary as per the register per month and from how long the Accused No.1 was working as a teacher. The panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The confession and seizure is not proved by the PWs. 7 and 8 as they turned hostile. The only evidence available on record is that of PWs.1 and PW9 who are none other than the official witnesses, which is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the

Accused. With regard to recovery of Mos.1 to 3 creates doubt that both the panch witnesses deposed on similar lines and their evidence is not corroborated by PWs.1 and

9. On overall consideration of factors, this Court comes to a conclusion that there is no authenticated proof on record to believe the case of the prosecution. No document is exhibited by the prosecution to establish that the Accused persons committed theft of certain articles. Thereby, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the

Accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and the Accused are entitled for an acquittal.

20.In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no documentary evidence placed

before this Court. Though, PW1 is an authorised person, but she failed to produce any

piece of documentary evidence to connect the Accused No.1 to the present offence.

Further, PW1 agreed that no incharge was placed for A1 and that she came to know from the villagers that A1 was not in the Village since 01.05.2016. PW1 in her cross- examination stated that when the supplies were made to Anganwadi, A1 was on vacation and LW2/Laxmi was on duty and LW2/Laxmi took the supplies. PW1 failed to explain as to “when LW2/Laxmi took the supplies and A1 was on leave during that time, how A1 committed the theft of said stock from the Anganwadi Center”. This creates a doubt in the mind of the Court.

21. In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of 6 months from 7 of 7

CC. No. 268 of 2016

the date of this Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The Accused are set at liberty. The MOs.1 to 3 which were already returned to defacto-complainant and the

MO.4 i.e. Mini DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TE 6823 which is already returned to its original owner vide Crl.M.P.No. 07/2017, dated 14.03.2017 vide CPR No. 241/2016 shall hold good after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the, 28 th day of September, 2021.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1:- Smt. B. Madhavi -None- PW2:- K. Galaiah PW3:- P. Narayana PW4:- G. Ramakrishna PW5:- M. Krishna Reddy PW6:- S. Buchaiah PW7:- P. Mallesh PW8:- K. Bhasker PW9:- P. Vijaya Bhasker Reddy, 1st Investigating Officer PW10:- A. Ravi Kumar, Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:- Complaint Ex.P2:- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3:- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P4:- Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5:- Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6:- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P7:- Signature of PW7 on confession -cum- seizure panchanama Ex.P8:- Signature of PW8 on confession -cum- seizure panchanama Ex.P9:- First Information Report Ex.P10:- Crime detail form Ex.P11: Confession -cum- recovery panchanama of Accused Nos.1 and 2

DEFENCE

Ex.D1:- A portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO.1:- 270 kgs. of rice MO.2:- 39 ½ kgs. of dall MO.3:- 10 kgs. of sweet oil MO.4:- Mini DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TE 6823

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

CC/145/2015 Acquitted

Police Station Vikarabad vs Chennagalla Srinivas

29 Sep 2021

1 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD:: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. KAVITHA KAMALAPURAM,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vikarabad, R.R. District.

Dated: On this the 29 th day of September, 2021

C.C. No. 145 OF 2015

Between: The State of Telangana through S.H.O. of P.S. Vikarabad. … Complainant

A N D A1: Chennagalla Srinivas, S/o: Ramaiah, aged about 32 years, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o: Gottimukkula Village of Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

A2: Jukanti Srinivas Reddy, S/o: Chenna Reddy, aged about 40 years, Occ: Owner of Tractor bearing No. AP 28 DD 0556, R/o: Gottimukkula Village of Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Accused Nos. 1 and 2

This case was heard finally in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri. P. Sampurna Anand, Counsel for the Accused Nos.1 & 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Vikarabad, filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 46/2015 for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 379 of IPC, Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 and Section 27/35 of Walta

Act, 2002.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

On 20.02.2015 at 17:00 hours at Gottimukkula Village, Vikarabad Town, the complainant/E. Shekar, S.I. of Police, Vikarabad P.S. along with his staff were on routine patrolling duty. They found one Tractor bearing No. AP 28

DD 0556 loaded with sand along with driver and owner of the said tractor, were taken into custody. Further, on enquiry it revealed that the Accused

No.1 is the driver and Accused No.2 is the owner of the said tractor. As per the instructions of owner of the said tractor/Accused No.2, the Accused No.1 2 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

who is the driver of the said tractor committed theft of the sand and loaded into above said tractor at “Gottimukkula Village” and same was brought to

Vikarabad to sell illegally for his personal benefits without any proper permission from concerned authorities. Accordingly, he secured two mediators and conducted confession -cum- seizure panchanama and took the custody of the said sand loaded tractor weighing about 3 ½ tons worth

Rs.4,000/- and said tractor was taken to P.S. Vikarabad. Basing on the above confession -cum- seizure panchanama, LW5/E. Shekar, S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No. 46/2015, U/Sec. 379 of I.P.C., Section 3 of

PDPP Act, 1984 and Section 27/35 of Walta Act, 2002 and took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW3/Ch. Vittalaiah and LW4/D. Ramesh. On 20.02.2015, he effected the arrest of Accused No.1 and produced before the

Court for judicial remand. While the investigation was in progress, on 25.03.2015 the Accused No.2 was surrendered before the Court in Crl. MP.

No. 346/2015, dated 25.03.2015 and released on bail. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC,

Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 and Section 27/35 of WALTA Act against the

Accused Nos.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations.

Hence, charges U/Sec. 379 of IPC, Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 and Section 27/35 of Walta Act, 2002 were framed, read over and explained to the

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in vernacular. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. On behalf of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, none were 3 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

examined and no documents are marked. PWs. 1 & 2 are the mediators for confession -cum- seizure panchanama, PWs. 3 & 4 are the Police Constables who assisted PW5 and PW5 is the Investigating Officer.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against them. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

The plea of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 is total denial.

7. Heard the learned APP for prosecution and counsel for the Accused.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused

Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC, Section 3

of PDPP Act, 1984 and Section 27/35 of Walta Act, 2002 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Point:-

9.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.02.2015, as per the instructions of Accused No.2/owner of Tractor bearing No. AP 28 DD 0556, the Accused No.1/driver of tractor committed theft of the sand and loaded into above said tractor at “Gottimukkula Village” and same was brought to

Vikarabad to sell the same illegally for his personal benefits without any proper permission from concerned authority.

10.For the offence punishable U/sec.379 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that:

(i) that the property in question is movable property;

(ii) that such property was in the possession of a person;

(iii) that the accused moved such property whilst in the possession of that person;

(iv) that he did so without the consent of that person;

(v) that he did so in order to take the same out of the possession of that person; 4 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

(vi) that he did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to that person or wrongful gain to himself.

11.For the offence punishable U/Sec. 27/35 of WALTA Act, the prosecution must prove that :

The Accused did sand mining from water bodies wherever such sand mining is environmentally harmful.

12.PW1/D. Gnaneshwar and PW2/MD. Jaffer who are the mediators for confession -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P3, turned hostile and have stated that they do not know any facts of the case and no panchanama was conducted in their presence. At about 2 or 3 years back, when they went to

Police Station on their personal work, Police obtained their signatures under

Exs.P1 and P2 on some white papers. Though, PWs.1 and 2 were cross- examined by the learned APPO, no useful material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

13.PW3/Ch. Vittalaiah, P.C. 3178 of P.S. Vikarabad, has deposed that on 22.02.2015, he along with PW4, P.C. 4785 and PW5, S.I. of Police were at

Police Station. At about 04:00 P.M. PW5 received credible information about illegal transportation of sand from Gottimukkula Vagu to Vikarabad. On that information, they proceeded to said Gottimukkula Village Road. Around 04:30 P.M., they noticed one Tractor bearing No. AP-28-DD-556 with load of sand coming from Gottimukkula Vagu. On demand with the driver/Accused

No.1 to produce any license or permit, he failed to furnish the same. PW5 secured two mediators i.e. PW1/D. Gnaneshwar & PW2/MD. Jaffer and conducted confession -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P3 and seized the said tractor along with sand. The driver of tractor/Accused No.1 disclosed that on the instructions of his owner/Accused No.2, the Accused No.1 was transporting the said sand. They moved the said tractor along with sand to 5 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

the Police Station. PW3 identified the Accused No.1 as the driver of said tractor on the date of present offence. In his cross-examination PW3 has stated that he along with PWs. 4 & 5 were went to the scene in their Police

Jeep and that he cannot say the number of the said Police Jeep. He further stated that he cannot say the exact location of the scene and that they reached Gottimukkula Village Road from Godamguda. He agreed that at what distance from the Gottimukkula Village, the said tractor was stopped.

He further stated that PW5 secured the panch witnesses i.e. PWs. 1 & 2 and that panch witnesses were secured from the scene. PW3 further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

14.PW4/D. Ramesh, P.C. 4785 of P.S. Vikarabad, has deposed that on 22.02.2015, he along with PW3, P.C. 3178 and PW5, S.I. of Police were at

Police Station. At about 04:00 P.M. PW5 received credible information about illegal transportation of sand from Gottimukkula Vagu to Vikarabad. On that information, they proceeded to said Gottimukkula Village Road. Around 04:30 P.M., they noticed one Tractor bearing No. AP-28-DD-558 with load of sand coming from Gottimukkula Vagu. On demand with the driver/Accused

No.1 to produce any license or permit, he failed to furnish the same. PW5 secured two mediators i.e. Pw1/D. Gnaneshwar & PW2/MD. Jaffer and conducted confession -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P3 and seized the said tractor along with sand. The driver of tractor/Accused No.1 disclosed that on the instructions of his owner/Accused No.2, the Accused No.1 was transporting the said sand. They moved the said tractor along with sand to the Police Station. PW4 identified the Accused No.1 as the driver of said tractor on the date of present offence. In his cross-examination, PW4 has stated that he along with PWs.3 & 5 were went to the scene in TATA sumo and that he cannot say the number of the said TATA sumo. He further stated that he cannot say the exact location of the scene and that they reached

Gottimukkula Village Road from Godamguda and that after crossing 6 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

Godamguda Village around 1 ½ kilometer away from Gottimukkula Village.

He further stated that PW5 secured the panch witnesses i.e. PWs. 1 & 2 and that the panchanama was conducted at the scene and that the panch witnesses were secured from the scene as they were proceeding on their bike and that they returned back to Police Station around 06:30 P.M. PW4 further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

15.PW5/E. Shekar, Investigating Officer, has deposed that on 20.02.2015, he along with PWs. 3 & 4 were on day patrolling duty and around 05:00 P.M.

at Gottimukkula Village, they noticed one tractor loaded with sand bearing

No. AP 28 DD 0556. The driver of the said tractor/Accused No.1 was present there and he confessed that he has transporting sand from Gottimukkula

Village on the instructions of his tractor owner/Accused No.2. The said tractor was proceeding from Gottimukkula to Vikarabad. On search of the said tractor, they noticed it was loaded with sand. The driver/Accused No.1 failed to produce any license or permit for transporting the said sand.

Immediately, he called two mediators and conducted confession -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P3 in the presence of PWs. 1 & 2. He brought the crime vehicle and the driver of the said tractor/Accused No.1 to the

Police Station. Basing on Ex.P3, he registered a case in Crime No.46/2015,

U/Sec.379 of IPC, Sec.27 R/W 35 of A.P. WALTA Act & Sec.3 of PDPP Act under

Ex.P4. He examined and recorded the statements of PWs. 3 & 4. He effected the arrest of Accused No.1 and produced before the Court for judicial remand. On 25.03.2015, the accused No.2 surrendered before the

Hon'ble court. He deposited the said tractor along with sand before this

Court vide CPR No. 160/2015. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against both the Accused Nos.1 & 2.

16.In his cross-examination, PW5 has agreed that the statements of PWs.

3 & 4 that he received credible information about illegal transportation of 7 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

sand when he was at the Police Station is correct. He stated that the distance between the scene of offence and P.S. Vikarabad is 10 kilometers and it takes 10 to 20 minutes to reach the scene from the Police Station and that he received the credible information around 04:00 P.M. and reached the scene before 04:30 P.M. He further stated that PW1 is the resident of

Nagasamunder Village which is at a distance of 10 kilometers from the scene of offence. He further agreed that generally a person will not come from 10 kilometers to act as a mediator. He further stated that it will take around 10 to 20 minutes to come from Nagasamunder Village to scene of offence. He further stated that PW2 is the resident of Yennepally Village which is at a distance of 10 kilometers from the scene of offence. He further agreed that generally a person will not come from 10 kilometers to act as a mediator. He further stated that it will take around 10 to 20 minutes to come from

Yennepally Village to scene of offence. He further stated that generally no person will be willing to act as mediators in Police cases and as he had the numbers of PWs. 1 & 2, he called them to act as mediators. He further stated that he took one hour to conduct Ex.P3. He further agreed that there is no mention in the charge sheet that the sand which was given to as safe custody was deposited with MRO. PW5 further denied all the suggestions put to him by the defence counsel.

17.In the present case on hand, the only evidence available is that of PWs.

3 to 5 who are the Police Officials. But, the material document i.e. the confession -cum- seizure panchanama under Ex.P.3 is not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses i.e. PWs. 1 and 2 as they turned hostile.

Further, the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 is not corroborating with each other as

PW3 deposed in his chief-examination that the tractor bearing Number is AP- 28-DD-556, whereas PW4 deposed that the tractor bearing Number is AP-28-

DD-55. In his cross-examination PW3 stated that the panch witnesses were secured from the scene, whereas PW4 sated that the panch witnesses were 8 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

secured from the scene as they were proceeding on their bike. PW4 further deposed in his chief-examination that he along with PW3 & PW5 were at

Police Station, whereas PW5 deposed that PW4 were on day patrolling duty at the time of offence. There are many variations and contradictions between the evidences of PWs. 3 to 5. There is no iota of evidence against the Accused persons connecting them with the offences alleged against them. On overall consideration of factors, this Court comes to a conclusion that there is no authenticated proof on record to believe the case of the prosecution. No document is exhibited by the prosecution to establish that the Accused persons were transporting sand in the said tractor illegally.

Further, no independent witness is examined by the prosecution. Thereby, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled for an acquittal.

18.In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC, Section 3 of PDPP Act, 1984 and

Section 27/35 of Walta Act, 2002 and they are acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. The property deposited before this Court vide CPR No. 160/2015 i.e.

Tractor bearing No. AP 28 DD 0556 which was already returned to its original owner vide Crl.M.P.No. 31/2015, dated 24.04.2015 shall hold good after expiry of appeal time. The MRO, Vikarabad is authorized to conduct a public auction as per the provisions and sell the seized sand and credit the sale proceeds to the Court under relevant head and file the copy of Challan

before the Court as soon as possible.

Typed to my dictation, by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of September, 2021.

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD .

9 of 9

CC. No. 145 of 2015

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1:- D. Gnaneshwar -None- PW2:- MD. Jaffer PW3:- Ch. Vittalaiah PW4:- D. Ramesh PW5:- E. Shekar, Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1:- Signature of Pw1 on confession -cum- seizure panchanama -NIL- Ex.P2:- Signature of Pw2 on confession -cum- seizure panchanama Ex.P3:- Confession -cum- seizure panchanama Ex.P4:- First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

VIKARABAD.

OS/114/2009

Abdul Hameed vs Mangali Shivakumar

16 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VIKARABAD,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: Smt.T. Lakshmi

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated, this the 9 th day of May, 2018.

O.S.No.114 OF 2009

Between:-

Abdul Hameed, S/o Abdul Khader, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Dharoor village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Plaintiff

AND

1. Mangali Shiva Kumar, S/o Mangali Gopal, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Mangali Dastaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, Both R/o Dharoor village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. … Defendants

This case is coming before me on 02.06.2018, in the presence of Sri Mohd. Rafi, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Sampurna Anand, Advocate for the defendant, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain defendants their men, agents and any person or persons claiming on their behalf from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property situated at Dharoor village,

Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief averments of Plaint:

Originally the father of the plaintiff, Abdul Khader was assigned Acre 4-29 guntas in

Sy.No.24/1 at Dharoor village about 30 years back and he was in possession and enjoyment of the land during his life time. The father of plaintiff died leaving behind his four sons namely Abdul

Hameed plaintiff herein, 2) Abdul Saleem, 3) Abdul Gaffar and 4) Abdul Rasheed. After the death of the father the plaintiff and his three brothers succeeded to the said land and also in possession.

After the death of their mother plaintiff and his brothers decided to divide their lands and ap- proached the Tahsildar, Dharoor and after enquiring the Thasildar allotted Acre 1-07 guntas to plaintiff, Acre 1.07 guntas of land to Abdul Saleem, Acre 1-07 guntas of land to Abdul Gaffer and

Acre 1-08 guntas of land to Abdul Rasheed and also issued pattedar pass books to the plaintiff and to his brothers and their names were mutated in the revenue records and plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The defendant who are having agriculture land assigned by the Government at Sy.No.24/2 adjacent to the suit schedule property trying to in- terfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property with malafide intention to grab the suit land. On 25.06.2009 defendants tried to interfere in peace- ful possession however plaintiff with the help of neighbouring cultivators succeeded in preventing the illegal act of defendants. However the defendants while leaving the suit schedule property threatened the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit schedule property. Hence the suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. Defendants contended that father of plaintiff was never assigned any land at Sy.No.24/1 to an extent of 4-09 guntas at Dharoor village nor the same was divided between the brothers of plaintiff including himself nor the plaintiff and his brothers names were mutated in Revenue records and never plaintiff was in possession of suit schedule property all are created for the purpose of filing the present suit in collusion with Revenue authorities. The plaintiff filed the present suit as a counter blast since defendants filed OS.No.99/2009, OS

No.100/2009 against the brothers of plaintiffs. The plaintiff has no identity of the property and never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in fact the plaintiff and his broth- ers do meat business and never cultivates land in the suit schedule property thus the question of in- terference by the defendants does not arise hence prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings the following issues were settled by one of my predecessor for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiff is peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 are examined and exhibited A1 to A4 exhibited. On behalf of the defendants DW1 and DW2 are examined and B1 to B28 marked. The plaintiff filed his written arguments. Arguments were heard on behalf of defendant side.

6. ISSUE No.1 to 3:

Since it is the case of the plaintiff that he is lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and defendants are trying to interfere with such peaceful possession as such he is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for against the defendants. Further it is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to stand or fall on the evidence let in by him and that they cannot take advantage of weakness of the defendants case.

7.To prove the case plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and filed the affidavit as contemplated under Order 18 Rule (4) CPC. The evidence of PW1 is reiterated version of plaint pleadings and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. A1 is the CC of pahani for the year 1996-97, A2 is the

CC of pahani for the year 1998-1993, A3 is the original pattedar Pass book of plaintiff and A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 2008-2009. The Ex.A1 and A2 establish that the father of plaintiff was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of 4-29 guntas and the Ex.A3 and A4 established that the plaintiff share of 1-07 guntas out of 4-29 guntas was mutated on his name by the revenue authorities. As such one can say that plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit.

8.Plaintiff adjacent land owner who is having land at Sy.No.25 at Dharoor ie, Golla

Gowaraiah, was examined as PW2 he also filed chief affidavit by reiterating the version of plaint. PW2 stated that originally the father of the plaintiff is the owner and assigned land to an extent of Acre 4-29 guntas at Sy.No.24/1 at Dharoor and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. After the demise of the father of plaintiff the land was succeeded by the plaintiff and his three brothers and they also divided their lands and in exclusive possession and enjoyment of lands. In the cross examination PW2 stated that plaintiff used to cultivate the lands personally and also used to give land on lease or share basis. Even defendants 1 and 2 having govt. land. The land of plaintiff and defendant were divided by a stream. Even the defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of their respective lands and also cultivating personally on koulu or batai basis finally PW2 denied that plaintiff was never in possession of suit schedule property.

9.After closure of plaintiff evidence, the defendant no.1 examined himself as DW1 and filed chief affidavit reiterating the contents of written statement stating that D1 and D2 are the pattedars admeasuring Acre 5.00 each at Sy.No.24/2 at Dharur village and further stated that they filed civil suit against the brothers of plaintiff vide OS No.99/2009 and 100/2009, thus plaintiff filed the present suit as a counter blast to the said suit and plaintiff by showing wrong boundaries trying to grab the suit schedule property. Further plaintiff and brother are never in possession of the land and they never cultivated the land infact they do meat business. The property was assigned to the ancestors of defendants. After their death they succeeded to the property. In cross examination DW1 admitted that he has mentioned in his chief examination with regard to Sy.No.24/2, 24/4 only.

10.Harijan Krishnaiah, pattedar of Sy.No.24/3 and his land is situated towards northern side of suit schedule property, who filed the affidavit and examined as DW2 who stated that defendant no.1 is the pattedar in respect of Sy.No.24/12 admeasuring Acre 5.00 guntas and defendant no.2 is pattedar in respect of Sy.No.24/11 admeasuring Acre 5.00 guntas at Dharur village and plaintiff never in possession of suit land and tried to interfere the land of defendants.

In cross examination the DW2 admitted that he has not submitted any record before the court that his land is situated towards the northern side of the defendant land however denied the suggestion that he is not having any land adjacent to the land of defendant and deposing false at the instance of defendant no.1.

11.To grant perpetual injunction plaintiff must establish the existence of legal right and it breach by the defendant. The plaintiff filed pahanies Ex.A1, A2, A4 which established originally the father of the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land at Sy.No.24/1 and after his demise the plaintiff and his brothers divided the property and the plaintiff succeeded to the suit schedule property in the said partition. Ex.A3, pattadar pass book of plaintiff which establishes that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and Ex.A4, pahani for the year 2008-2009 establish the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. The evidence of PW2 corroborated with the evidence of plaintiff the PW1. The PW1 and PW2 were cross examined but nothing was elicited to impeach their testimonies. There is no reason to disbelieve their credibility.

12.Per contra, the DW1 stated in his evidence that D1 and D2 are the pattedar at Sy.No.24/2 and possessing Acre 5.00 to each at Dharoor village adjacent to the suit schedule property.

Further suit schedule property is no way connected to the property of defendants further contended that the said suit schedule property was assigned to the ancestors of defendants after their death they succeeded to the property no way concerned to the property stated by the defendant the Sy.No. of plaintiff by showing wrong boundaries intending to grab the suit schedule property. DW1 who is contending that suit schedule property pertains to him failed to place any documentary evidence to substantiate his plea if at all plaintiff show any wrong entries boundaries the defendants might have taken steps for rectification of the same by giving any representation to revenue officials but no steps were taken by the defendant. The evidence of

DW2 also in the same footing except vague plea that plaintiff filed false suit in order to grab the suit schedule property. No documentary evidence was placed before the court. The DW1 contending that he is in possession of suit schedule property and filed the exhibits B13 to B28 which all relates to Sy.No.24/4 and Sy.No.24/2 which are no way connected to the suit schedule property. DW1 clearly admitted in cross examination that the documents filed by him does not pertains to land of plaintiff. His own admission itself is contrary to his pleadings. Except vague plea by the defendant that plaintiff filed false suit by showing wrong boundaries the defendants did not file any material to substantiate their claim. They failed to discharge their initial burden to show that they are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

13.On scanning the material on record, this court hold that the evidence of PW1 corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and his evidence is coupled with documentary evidence (Ex.A1 to A4) which proves that case of plaintiff that he is in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.2:

In view of my findings and conclusion on the above issue that the plaintiff is possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property thus plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue No.3:

In view of my findings and conclusion on the above issue the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly the issue is answered.

14. IN THE RESULT,

The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their men, agent and any other person or persons claiming through or on their behalf from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

However there shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist and corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 9 th Day of May, 2018.

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

PW1 is Abdul Hameed PW2 is Golla Gowraiah PW3 is Mohd Anwar Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 is the Cc of pahani for the year 1996-1997 Ex.A2 is the Cc of pahani for the year 1998-1999

Ex.A3 is the original pattedar pass book Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani patrika for the year 2008-2009

As per Amendment in IA in OS 114/2009

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF DEFENDANT

DW1 is Mangali Shivakumar DW2 is Harijan Krishnaiah

EXHIBITS MARKE

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT

Ex.B1 is CC of plaint in OS No.100/09 on the file of this court Ex.B2 is CC of IA No.211/09 in OS 100/09 Ex.B3 is Docket Order dt.30.9.2009 in IA.No. 211/09 in OS 100/09 Ex.B4 is Docket order dt. 30.9.2009 in OS 100/09 Ex.B5 is CC of plaint in OS NO.99/09 Ex.B6 is Docket order in OS No.99/09 dt.30.9.2009 Ex.B7 is Docket Order in IA No.207/09 dt. 30.9.2009 Ex.B8 is CC of Pahani for the year 2000-2001 Ex.B9 is CC of Pahani for the year 2002-2003 Ex.B10 is CC of Pahani for the year 2003-2004 Ex.B11 is CC of Pahani for the year 2007-2008 (2 pages) Ex.B12 is CC of Pahani for the year 2008-2009 (2 pages) Ex.B13 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1420 in respect of Sy.24/4 in the name of Dasthaiah Ex.B14 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1421 in respect of Sy.24/4 in the name of Dasthaiah Ex.B15 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1422 in respect of Sy.24/4 in the name of Dasthaiah Ex.B16 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1423 in respect of Sy.24/4 in the name of Dasthaiah Ex.B17 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1424 in respect of Sy.24/4 in the name of Dasthaiah Ex.B18 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1425 in respect of Sy.24/4 in the name of Dasthaiah Ex.B19 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1420 in respect of Sy.24/2 in the name of M.Shiva Kumar Ex.B20 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1421 in respect of Sy.24/2 in the name of M.Shiva Kumar Ex.B21 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1422 in respect of Sy.24/2 in the name of M.Shiva Kumar Ex.B22 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1423 in respect of Sy.24/2 in the name of M.Shiva Kumar Ex.B23 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1424 in respect of Sy.24/2 in the name of M.Shiva Kumar Ex.B24 is CC of Pahani for the year fasli 1425 in respect of Sy.24/2 in the name of M.Shiva Kumar Ex.B25 is CC of Judgment in OS No.100/2009 Ex.B26 is Decree in OS No.100/2009 Ex.B27 is CC of Judgment in OS No.99/2009 Ex.B28 is Decree in OS.No.99/2009

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIKARABAD.

Order Record 2,389 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
PRC/30/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Uppala Bala Raju	11 Oct 2021	Others	—
PRC/31/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bedgi Ravi Kumar	11 Oct 2021	Others	—
PRC/35/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Rachur Sandeep Kumar	11 Oct 2021	Order	—
CC/39/2011	Mohan goud vs M. Nagesh	08 Oct 2021	Others	—
CC/510/2018	PS.NAWABPET vs Momilla Charan Kumar and 4 others	07 Oct 2021	Others	—
CC/537/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Yelamanchali Hemanth Chandraprasad	07 Oct 2021	Others	—
CC/181/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Medikonda Shekar	05 Oct 2021	Others	—
CC/564/2018	WPS Vikarabad vs Uggelly Subhan reddy and 2 others	05 Oct 2021	Others	—
PRC/33/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Burra Naveen Goud	05 Oct 2021	Others	—
PRC/34/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Amgoth Naresh	05 Oct 2021	Others	—
CC/61/2019	PS Vikarabad vs Renigunta Parshaiah	30 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/117/2015	SHO Dharur vs Gaddamidi Ramulu and others	30 Sep 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/319/2014	Sabeena Khatoon vs VsmD. mUNWAR kHAN	30 Sep 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
PRC/32/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Boini Babaiah	30 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/69/2016	SHO Dharur vs Kummari Ramulu and others	29 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/145/2015	Police Station Vikarabad vs Chennagalla Srinivas	29 Sep 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/268/2016	PS Nawabpet vs B.Madhavi	28 Sep 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/511/2019	PS Nawabpet vs Anthappaguda Badrappa	28 Sep 2021	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/31/2020	K. Ashok kumar vs Lal Mahammad	27 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/402/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gandla Shiva Prasad	27 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/85/2020	Excise PS Vikarabad vs G. Sayanna goud @ Chakkera	24 Sep 2021	Judgment	—
OS/295/2021	Sankepally Srinivas vs Sankepally Rachaiah	22 Sep 2021	Others	—
PRC/29/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Naregudem Nagender Goud	22 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/168/2015	P.S Vikarabad vs Chellapuram Venugoud and another	20 Sep 2021	Others	—
DVC/12/2019	Banoth Renuka @ Banoth Saroja vs B. Kishore	20 Sep 2021	Others	—
MC/16/2019	Banoth Renuka @ Banoth Saroja vs B. Kishore	20 Sep 2021	Others	—
EP/7/2017	Kapil chit funds pvt. ltd. Rep by. G. Srinivas recovery Manager vs K. Sevya and 3 others	17 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/321/2017	P.S Vikarabad vs Burra Praveen goud and others	14 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/797/2021	PS vikarabad vs Kummaripally Narsimulu	13 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/798/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Chakali Shoba	13 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/799/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mogilijala Shikharesh	13 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/800/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mogilijala Shikharesh	13 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/801/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mogilijala Shikharesh	13 Sep 2021	Others	—
OS/25/2019	Patlolla Mahendar reddy vs Patlolla Shekar reddy	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
OS/171/2020	M.M. Asrar vs P. Shekar Reddy	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
OS/247/2008	Bakkani Laxmi Narayana vs Smt. Valgu Andalu	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/3/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mohammad Yousuf	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/23/2014	Police Station Vikarabad vs Chakali Mogulaiah @ Mogulappa	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/36/2019	PS Vikarabad vs Mutharagalla Srinivas	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/38/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Ibrahimpuram Abraham	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/50/2019	PS Vikarabad vs Vadde Yellaiah	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/55/2013	T.Padma vs T.Ravi	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/128/2017	L.Ravi kumar vs V.Murali	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/135/2017	PS Vikarabad vs Yerra Ashok	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/153/2021	Billapati Vijender reddy vs Chinchalpet Dayakar	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/162/2018	Amjad Khan vs M.Ramulu @ Ramesh	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/193/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Jangam Ramakrishna	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/229/2016	PS Vikarabad vs Kummaripally Ananthaiah	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/245/2018	P.S Nawabpet vs Ramagari Sthyanarayana goud	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/264/2015	Turpu Madhukar Reddy vs M.Raghu Ram Reddy	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/269/2019	PS Vikarabad vs Md. Khaleem	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/322/2019	PS Vikarabad vs Pilli Shivaraju	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/376/2014	K.Ravi vs M.Narayana	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/391/2017	Mahesh kumar vs Ramesh	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/393/2018	P.S Vikarabad vs Guttakurva Mahesh	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/453/2016	SHO Dharur vs Gajula Yadamma	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/454/2016	SHO PS DHARUR vs LALKOTA YADHAMMA AND OTHERS	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/492/2019	PS Vikarabad vs E. Manoj goud	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/543/2014	SHO PS Vsikarabad vs Chinnnalachi Raju	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/565/2019	PS Dharur vs Gajula Venkataiah @ Venkatesh	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/710/2021	PS Nawabpet vs Shaik Matheen	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/712/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Shaik Mohammad Rahman Ali	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/781/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bakkani Ramesh	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/790/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsgajula Venkataiah	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/791/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Ramesh Mothkuri	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/792/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Begari Ravi	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/793/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Meedinti Anantha Rao	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/795/2021	Excise PS Mominpet Marpally vs Koukuntla Anjaiah goud	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/796/2021	Excise PS Marpally vs Momula Sridhar reddy	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/797/2021	PS vikarabad vs Kummaripally Narsimulu	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/798/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Chakali Shoba	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/799/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mogilijala Shikharesh	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/800/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mogilijala Shikharesh	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/801/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mogilijala Shikharesh	11 Sep 2021	Others	—
STC/5/2018	PS Vikarabad vs A.Ananth Reddy	09 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/770/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pusala Rajesh Kumar	08 Sep 2021	Others	—
PRC/25/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Kondigari Gopal	08 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/98/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Dhammagalla Ramesh	07 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/344/2016	P. S Vikarabad vs Gulam Mohammad Jahiroddin and 2 others	07 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/490/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Rekkala Venkat Reddy	07 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/535/2018	PS Vikarabad vs Pasula Mahesh and 5 others	06 Sep 2021	Judgment	—
CC/446/2016	SHO PS DHARUR vs GOTAM RAMULU AND OTHERS	03 Sep 2021	Others	—
OS/152/2016	Siddannolla Satyamma vs Marri Damodhar	01 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/462/2015	K. Anil kumar vs Kammari Baswaraj	01 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/757/2014	Lalitha vs J.Thariya Niak	01 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/100137/2015	A.Venkateshwar vs Mohd.Jabbar	01 Sep 2021	Others	—
PRC/26/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Chakali Mohan	01 Sep 2021	Others	—
PRC/27/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs MD Javeed	01 Sep 2021	Others	—
CC/37/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mamilla chukkamma	31 Aug 2021	Judgment	—
CC/247/2011	k.Krishna vs K.Shiva Shanker	31 Aug 2021	Others	—
CC/423/2014	Police Station, Vikarabad. vs Koukuntla Bandhaiah goud	31 Aug 2021	Judgment	—
CC/573/2019	PS Vikarabad vs Mohammad Khaleel @ Athiq	31 Aug 2021	Others	—
DVC/28/2018	Kadigari Lavanya and another vs Kadigari Prabhakar reddy	31 Aug 2021	Others	—
PRC/28/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mandula Gopal	31 Aug 2021	Others	—
CC/205/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Nenavath Ravi Naik	27 Aug 2021	Others	—
CC/326/2019	PS Vikarabad vs Barkathpally Raghavendar	27 Aug 2021	Judgment	—
CC/682/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Musaligiari Shiva Kumar Reddy	27 Aug 2021	Judgment	—
OS/120/2020	P.Venu Gopal Reddy vs Yellakonda Mogulaiah	25 Aug 2021	Judgment	—
PRC/24/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Choudharipally Venkatesh Goud	25 Aug 2021	Others	—
OS/44/2020	Jarnamma vs Prabhu	25 Aug 2021	Others	Compromised

Showing 100 of 2,389 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2021		10
Sep 2021		78
Aug 2021		24
Jul 2021		408
Jun 2021		8
May 2021		5
Apr 2021		79
Mar 2021		36
Feb 2021		42
Jan 2021		31
Dec 2020		50
Nov 2020		67

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.K.Kavitha handled?

Smt.K.Kavitha has handled 2404 court orders since 2016 at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 41 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.K.Kavitha hear?

Based on available records, Smt.K.Kavitha primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.K.Kavitha currently posted?

Smt.K.Kavitha is posted as I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex, Vikarabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.K.Kavitha available online?

Yes. 33 judgments by Smt.K.Kavitha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.K.Kavitha dispose cases?

Smt.K.Kavitha disposes approximately 41 cases per month, based on 2404 orders handled over their tenure at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.K.Kavitha serving?

Smt.K.Kavitha has been serving at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2016.

Case Types

CC 76%

OS 15%

PRC 4%

EP 2%

MC 1%

DVC 1%

STC 0%

SCC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2021 — Aug 2021

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad · 175 orders
Jan 2020 — Oct 2021

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 945 orders
Jan 2020 — Feb 2020

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad · 17 orders
Jul 2019 — Dec 2019

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Tandur · 80 orders
Jan 2019 — Oct 2019

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 682 orders
Aug 2018 — Oct 2018

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad · 16 orders
Oct 2016 — Oct 2018

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 489 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 19

Compromised 4

Convicted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Sri M.Naga Raju

Principal District and Sessions Judge,Vikarabad

1 orders

Sri P.Pradeep Naik

I Addl District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Ses...

0 orders

Rallabandi Santhi Latha

Principal Junior Civil Judge

351 orders

Ms. S.Vaishnavi

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

181 orders

Sri. M. Venkateswarlu

Senior Civil Judge,Vikarabad

403 orders

← View all judges at Vikarabad, PDJ Court Complex