K.ramesh

VI Addl Metropolitan Session Judge

SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana

K.RAMESH, VI Addl Metropolitan Session Judge, is posted at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 300 court orders on record since 2015. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLA, SC, MVOP cases.

300

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/31/2015 Acquitted

Begumpet PS vs Md. Jaweed Saleem

23 Jun 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2017

Present: K.Ramesh,

Special Judge for Trial of Offences

Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad.

S.C. No. 31 of 2015

(P. R. C. No. 31/2014 of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.)

Committed by : Sri. Ch.V.R.R.Varaprasad, XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.

Crime No. & Police Station : Cr.No.85/2014 of Begumpet Police Station

Name of the Complainant : The State represented through the Inspector of police, P.S.Begumpet, Secunderabad.

Name and Description of the accused : Md.Jaweed Saleem, S/o. Md.Zahir Hussain, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Light Machine Mechanic, R/o. H.No:12-11-506/A, Warsidguda, Secunderabad.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri Ravinder Reddy I/c Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by : Sri.Abdul Wahab Advocate for Accused

Offences : 366 of IPC.

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Result:-

In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 366-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled six months after the date of this judgment under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Begumpet Police Station, Secunderabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused is known person to the victim girl and wanted to marry her, but due to pressure of his family members he married another girl and that the accused wanted to marry the victim girl as his second wife for which she refused as such accused bore grudge against the girl and on 10.01.2014 he threatened the girl that he will spoil the life of her sister and abducted the victim girl and took her in a car to the house of Smt. Farhin Fatima and concealed the facts about the said incident.

b) The mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint on 24.02.2014 at about 21.30 hours which resulted in Cr.No.85 of 2014 under girl missing case and the Sub Inspector of Police registered the case and took up the investigation.

c) The Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of Complainant and made efforts to trace out the missing girl. While so, on 28.02.2014 he received credible information that the missing girl is present in the house of L.W.3 Smt.

Farhin Fatima and he gave a requisition to Station House Officer, Woman

Police Station, Begumpet to depute Woman Sub Inspector of Police to rescue the missing girl and they visited the said house and rescued missing girl and thereafter the statement of the victim girl was recorded and later on the section of law was altered from missing girl case to section 366 of IPC. On 01.03.2014 the accused was apprehended at 1800 hours and brought him to the police station, who confessed to have committed the offence, during the course of interrogation and accordingly confessional statement was recorded and later on he was sent for judicial custody. The Learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Secunderabad recorded the statement of the victim under section

164 of Cr.P.C. The Inspector of Police laid the charge sheet after completion of investigation.

3. The Learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad took cognizance of the case under section 366 of IPC, supplied the copies of documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case 3 vide P.R.C.No.31 of 2014 to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad.

4. The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

5. After appearance of the accused and on hearing both sides, a charge under section 366-A of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The Prosecution altogether examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.5. The Learned Additional Public Prosecution has given up the evidence of

L.W.3 Farhin Fatima, L.W.4 Mohd. Imran Khan, L.W.5 P. Srinivas, L.W.6 G.

Satish, L.W.7 Smt B. Pushpamma, L.W.8 JK. Rajanna and L.W.9 M. Prabhakar

Reddy.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, in order to explain him incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of P.W.3. Accused denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the charge under Section 366-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. P O I N T :

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused who already married, again wanted to marry the victim girl and accordingly he threatened her stating that he will spoil the life of her sister and took the girl in a car to the house of

Smt. Farhin Fatima and kept there. The plea of the accused is that of total denial.

11. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Smt. Fatima Begum, who is the mother of the victim and she stated in her evidence that in the month of January, 2014 her daughter Kum. Syeeda Begum went to the house of her relatives and on the next day she lodged the complaint as in Ex.P.1 and that on enquiry with her daughter she disclosed that she went to their relative house and that she did not suspect any one for her absence and that she does not know the accused.

12. P.W.2 who is the victim girl and she stated in her evidence that she does not know the accused and does not know what happened in this case and nobody kidnapped her or forced to marry her and that she herself went to her relatives house without informing to her mother, as such her mother lodged a complaint with the police. Both the crucial witnesses to the case of the prosecution i.e, P.W.1 and 2 have not supported the version of the prosecution and consequently they were declared hostile and confronted with their 161

Cr.P.C statements which are marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 nothing has been brought on record to probablise the version of the prosecution.

13. P.W.3 who is Inspector of Police, and according to him the accused was produced before him and during the interrogation, the accused has confessed to have the committed the offence in the presence of the mediators. The version spoken to by P.W.3 is inadmissible in evidence, because confession has not resulted in seizure of material objects. Thus the material evidence available on record seems to be totally insufficient to make out the case against the accused for the alleged incident of kidnap or abduction, as such it can be held that the prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused is entitled to acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

14. In the result, the accused found not guilty for the charge punishable under section 366-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled six months after the date of this judgment under section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 23rd day of June, 2017.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

SEC’BAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1 Smt. Fatima Begum, Complainant and mother of Victim

PW.2 Kum.Zubeda Begum, Victim Circumstantial Witness

PW.3 G.Baswa Reddy, Inspector of Police, Begumpet, I.O.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 Report given to police

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P4 FIR

Ex.P5 Alteration of Section of Law memo

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

NIL

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE. SEC’BAD.

Typed by:

Compared by:

CRLA/586/2015 Acquitted

KAMPA THIRUOATHAIAH vs THE STATE THROUGH PP CITY CRIMINAL COURTS

24 Jun 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPl. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2017

Present: K.Ramesh, Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-c-um-- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 586 of 2015

From which court this VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. appeal is preferred

No. of the case in that C.C.No: 154/2014 court

Number of appeal CRL.Appl.NO.586 of 2015

Name & description of Kampa Thirpathaiah, S/o. K.Ramaiah, Aged appellant/accused about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat

No.140, Block No.IV, H.No:1-4-948-950,

Janapriya Abodes Apartments, Near Old

Balaji theatre, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

Name and description of 1.The state of Telangana., respondent/complainant Rep. by its Public prosecutor, City

Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

2.Athota Ratna Raju, S/o. Athota koteswara Rao, R/o. D.No:10-13-4,

Near railway Station, Tenali, Guntur

Dist.,

The Sentence and law The Complaint against the accused was under which it was dismissed U/s. 256 of Cr.P.C and the imposed in lower court. accused was acquitted under section 256 of

Cr.P.C.

Whether, Allowed/ In the result, the Criminal Appeal.No.586 of dismissed, confirmed, modified or reversed and if 2015 is allowed and the order under appeal modified the modification. is set aside and C.C.No.154 of 2014 is restored and the Learned VII Special

Magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to proceed

2 with the case and dispose off in accordance with law and both the parties are also directed to appear before the Learned VI

Special Magistrate, Hyderabad on 14.07.2017.

Date of on or which:

Presentation: 12-03-2015

Filing: 23-7-2015

Notice issued by the court 24-7-2015 to appear:

Bail bonds, if appellants --- let out on bail.

Appellants order to appear 7-10-2015

Hearing 8-6-2017

Judgment: 27-6-2017

This Criminal appeal is coming before me for final hearing on 8-6- 2017 in the presence of Sri N.Vijay Kumar, Counsel for the appellants/petitioners and Sri.K.Sandeep, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the petition of appeal, record of evidence and upon duly considering the same, till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the

Learned VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.154 of 2014 (Old

C.C.No.724 of 2013) on 27.08.2014.

2. The Appellant/Complainant filed the case under section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the Respondent/Accused gave the cheque and the same was bounced and after compliance of the provisions of section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act he filed the complaint and the same was registered and summons were issued to the Respondent/Accused and the case was dismissed for default on 27.08.2014 due to non-prosecution of the case by the Complainant and the order passed by the learned Magistrate 3 discloses that the Complainant failed to proceed with the case even after imposition of the costs and not only the Complainant but his counsel also called absent and consequently the complaint was dismissed for default under section 256 of Cr.P.C.

4. The Appellant/Complainant filed the case against the

Respondent/accused for dishonour of the cheque for an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh and the same was pending for enquiry and admittedly the Complainant who filed the case was remained absent and failed to prosecute the case diligently, consequently the trial court dismissed the complaint for default.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The point for consideration is whether the order under appeal is sustainable or deserves to be set aside?

7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that his wife met with an accident on 11.07.2014 and succumbed to injuries on 27.07.2014, as such he could not appear before the court and that there were none to look after the minor son and thereby he could not communicate to the Appellant about the date of hearing and due to unfortunate tragic incident, he along with his client could not appear before the court and consequently the complaint was dismissed.

8. The reasons assigned by the Learned Counsel for the appellant for dismissal of complaint for default seems to be just and reasonable because on account of the death of his wife, he failed to attend the court and also failed to communicate the date of hearing of case to his client and consequently the complaint was dismissed.

9. As state supra the complaint was filed for bouncing of cheque worth Rs.

1 Lakh and the said matter is required to be enquired into in order to do justice to both the parties, otherwise the matter will remain un-decided on merits and thereby the Appellant/Complainant will be put to hardship. It is not a case that the Complainant or his counsel remained absent intentionally in order to drag on the proceedings. Thus it appears that the order under appeal seems to 4 be unsustainable and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice and accordingly the point is answered.

9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal.No.586 of 2015 is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside and C.C.No.154 of 2014 is restored and the

Learned VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to proceed with the case and dispose off in accordance with law and both the parties are also directed to appear before the Learned VI Special Magistrate, Hyderabad on 14.07.2017.

Typed to Dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2017.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: SECUNDERABAD

Typed By:

Compared By:

CRLA/587/2015 Acquitted

KAMPA THIRUOATHAIAH vs THE STATE THROUGH,PP NAMPALLY

24 Jun 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPl. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2017

Present: K.Ramesh, Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-c-um-- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 586 of 2015

From which court this VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. appeal is preferred

No. of the case in that C.C.No: 154/2014 court

Number of appeal CRL.Appl.NO.586 of 2015

Name & description of Kampa Thirpathaiah, S/o. K.Ramaiah, Aged appellant/accused about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat

No.140, Block No.IV, H.No:1-4-948-950,

Janapriya Abodes Apartments, Near Old

Balaji theatre, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

Name and description of 1.The state of Telangana., respondent/complainant Rep. by its Public prosecutor, City

Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

2.Athota Ratna Raju, S/o. Athota koteswara Rao, R/o. D.No:10-13-4,

Near railway Station, Tenali, Guntur

Dist.,

The Sentence and law The Complaint against the accused was under which it was dismissed U/s. 256 of Cr.P.C and the imposed in lower court. accused was acquitted under section 256 of

Cr.P.C.

Magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to proceed

2 with the case and dispose off in accordance with law and both the parties are also directed to appear before the Learned VI

Special Magistrate, Hyderabad on 14.07.2017.

Date of on or which:

Presentation: 12-03-2015

Filing: 23-7-2015

Notice issued by the court 24-7-2015 to appear:

Bail bonds, if appellants --- let out on bail.

Appellants order to appear 7-10-2015

Hearing 8-6-2017

Judgment: 27-6-2017

J U D G M E N T

1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the

Learned VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.154 of 2014 (Old

C.C.No.724 of 2013) on 27.08.2014.

2. The Appellant/Complainant filed the case under section 138 of

4. The Appellant/Complainant filed the case against the

5. Heard both sides.

6. The point for consideration is whether the order under appeal is sustainable or deserves to be set aside?

9. As state supra the complaint was filed for bouncing of cheque worth Rs.

9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal.No.586 of 2015 is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside and C.C.No.154 of 2014 is restored and the

Typed to Dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2017.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: SECUNDERABAD

Typed By:

Compared By:

CRLA/587/2015 Acquitted

KAMPA THIRUOATHAIAH vs THE STATE THROUGH,PP NAMPALLY

24 Jun 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPl. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2017

Present: K.Ramesh, Spl. Judge for Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-c-um-- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 586 of 2015

From which court this VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. appeal is preferred

No. of the case in that C.C.No: 154/2014 court

Number of appeal CRL.Appl.NO.586 of 2015

Name & description of Kampa Thirpathaiah, S/o. K.Ramaiah, Aged appellant/accused about 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat

No.140, Block No.IV, H.No:1-4-948-950,

Janapriya Abodes Apartments, Near Old

Balaji theatre, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

Name and description of 1.The state of Telangana., respondent/complainant Rep. by its Public prosecutor, City

Criminal Courts, Hyderabad.

2.Athota Ratna Raju, S/o. Athota koteswara Rao, R/o. D.No:10-13-4,

Near railway Station, Tenali, Guntur

Dist.,

The Sentence and law The Complaint against the accused was under which it was dismissed U/s. 256 of Cr.P.C and the imposed in lower court. accused was acquitted under section 256 of

Cr.P.C.

Magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to proceed

2 with the case and dispose off in accordance with law and both the parties are also directed to appear before the Learned VI

Special Magistrate, Hyderabad on 14.07.2017.

Date of on or which:

Presentation: 12-03-2015

Filing: 23-7-2015

Notice issued by the court 24-7-2015 to appear:

Bail bonds, if appellants --- let out on bail.

Appellants order to appear 7-10-2015

Hearing 8-6-2017

Judgment: 27-6-2017

J U D G M E N T

1. This criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the

Learned VII Special Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C.No.154 of 2014 (Old

C.C.No.724 of 2013) on 27.08.2014.

2. The Appellant/Complainant filed the case under section 138 of

4. The Appellant/Complainant filed the case against the

5. Heard both sides.

6. The point for consideration is whether the order under appeal is sustainable or deserves to be set aside?

9. As state supra the complaint was filed for bouncing of cheque worth Rs.

9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal.No.586 of 2015 is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside and C.C.No.154 of 2014 is restored and the

Typed to Dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2017.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE: SECUNDERABAD

Typed By:

Compared By:

SC.SPL/6/2012

ACP, Chikkadpally Division vs G.Anji Reddy

28 Jun 2017

Order Record 283 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC.SPL/3/2017	Tukaramgate vs R.Sampath	01 Sep 2017	Order	—
CRLA/132/2016	K. Kishan vs The state of TS through PS thrimulgherry	31 Jul 2017	Order	—
CRLRP/247/2014	BV Ranga Rao vs Ambati Rajeshwari	30 Jun 2017	Order	—
SC.SPL/6/2012	ACP, Chikkadpally Division vs G.Anji Reddy	28 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/586/2015	KAMPA THIRUOATHAIAH vs THE STATE THROUGH PP CITY CRIMINAL COURTS	24 Jun 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CRLA/587/2015	KAMPA THIRUOATHAIAH vs THE STATE THROUGH,PP NAMPALLY	24 Jun 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/31/2015	Begumpet PS vs Md. Jaweed Saleem	23 Jun 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/409/2016	the state through ps gopalapuram vs Shekar Giddu	23 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
SC/370/2014	Karkhana Ps vs KS Vikas	22 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/732/2015	Ch.Krishnaveni vs State of Telangana P.S.Gopalapuram	20 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/750/2015	Lakshmi Kumari vs State of Telangana P.S Gopalpuram	20 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
SC/406/2016	The state through PS Goapalpuram vs Biyala Mohan Rao	20 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/57/2016	B.Ranga Swamy vs T.Khalik Basha	19 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/35/2014	ACP, Gopalapuram Division vs Ch. Gopal Rao	15 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
SC/356/2015	The sub Inspector of police P.S. Bowenpally vs Pattamalla Satyanarayana	13 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
CRLRP/183/2017	Latha Devi Thakur vs Nanda Kishore	12 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/41/2016	The asst commissioner of police panjagutta vs Vssrideshmukh renu singh	12 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
SC/188/2015	P.S.Karkhana vs PALLAPU SHEKAR	09 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/763/2016	ATG Sea link and two others vs Vsall cargo logistic limited	08 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/46/2016	THE STATE THROUGH SULTAN BAZAR DIVISION HYDERABAD vs ASMIT SANGHI	08 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
SC/342/2016	the state through ps Market vs T.Mahesh Goud	06 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/808/2016	KIRAN RAPARTHI vs THE STATE THROUGH PS BEGUMPET	05 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/70/2017	K.Indraneel vs Vsstate rep by its inspector ramgopalpet ps	01 Jun 2017	Judgment	—
MVOP/72/2014	V JEETHAIAH vs BIRADA BHARATH	26 May 2017	Judgment	—
SC/136/2015	Sub inspector of police,Bowenpally vs Shaik altaf	23 May 2017	Judgment	—
CRLRP/34/2017	MANOJ KUMAR CHOKDA vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA THROUGH PS RAMGOPALPET	19 May 2017	Order	—
CRLRP/187/2017	Bollarum PS vs Medar Yadagiri	19 May 2017	Order	—
CRLA/1100/2014	Guganti Kamalakar vs HDFC Bank	18 Apr 2017	Order	—
SC/371/2014	Ramgopalpet P.S. vs Mohd. Yusuf	18 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/1014/2016	B.Nagesh vs The state of Telangana SHO begumpet	17 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
SC/117/2015	S.I. of police Mahankali vs Nadeem Nawaz Khan	07 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CRLRP/281/2016	GOURAV MAITY vs THE STATE OF TELANGANA PS MAHANKALI	04 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/1025/2012	V.Vaman Reddy vs Smt S.Leelavathi	03 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/29/2014	ACP, Saifabad Division vs Pallikonda Shobha	31 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/28/2016	The state through PS lallaguda vs Smt. C.Anasuya and others	30 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/294/2013	Ms.Manipal Press Ltd. vs Ms.S.K.Health CareFormulations Pvt Ltd	28 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/508/2013	The State through P.S. Chilkalguda vs R.Santosh	27 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/5/2015	ACP,Malakpet Division vs A.Krishna swamy	21 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CRLRP/57/2017	V.RAMESH vs THE STATE OF TS BOLLARAM	14 Mar 2017	Order	—
MVOP/599/2009	A.H. Rajani vs New India Assurance Co Ltd	13 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CRLRP/248/2016	V.Mallikarjun vs The state through PS Trimulgherry	09 Mar 2017	Order	—
CRLA/539/2015	B.SRIDHAR vs M.RAMGA RAO	08 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
MVOP/153/2009	Sriram Gopal vs New India Assurance Co Ltd	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/264/2015	Sub-Inspector of Poilce P.S Chilakalguda vs Shaik amer	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/11/2015	Asst. Commissioner of Police vs Mohd.Sajeed	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/475/2014	Karkhana P.S. vs Painam Vijaya	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/345/2015	The sub Inspector of police P.S. Tukaramgate vs E.Balraj	02 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
SC/18/2015	GRP Cirlce, Sec-bad vs M.Ramesh	28 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/734/2016	C.Venkatesh vs Vsthe state of p.s.Gopalapuram	23 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
SC/182/2015	Sub inspector of police,Bowenpally vs GADDAM SAIRAM	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/16/2015	THE STATE OF AP,FALAKNUMA DIVISION vs T.PRABHU SHEKAR	21 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLRP/99/2016	P.G.Jose Sebastian vs K.S.Kartikeyan	20 Feb 2017	Order	—
CRLA/363/2015	GADDI MOHAN vs V CHANDRA SHEKAR RAO	17 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/836/2016	B.Anand Chary @ Anand Babu vs The state of telangana, p.s. gopalpuram	16 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
SC/481/2014	Gopalapuram P.S. vs Sudheer Singh	15 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/197/2016	T.Abhilash singh vs D. Maheshwar	14 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/8/2013	P.S.Sultanbazar vs J.Kalyan-A1	14 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/245/2015	Mohd.Mushtaq vs Vinay parthik	13 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/24/2014	Osmania University vs D.Veera Babu	13 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/468/2016	Minit Joshi vs State of Telangana PS Marredpally	10 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/768/2016	Y.Vijay sinha vs Vsthe state of p.s.marredpally traffic	10 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
SC/346/2015	The sub Inspector of police P.S. marredpallye vs Jeddi Saraiah	09 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
MVOP/212/2012	V. Shanatamma vs APSRTC	07 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
SC/184/2015	THE STATE THROUGH ,BEGUMPET DIVISION SECUNDERABAD vs MUNIMAKULA VIDYASAGAR	07 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/698/2015	Smt.Swarajya Lakshmi vs State of Telangana,by PP and others	06 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/572/2012	Eshwar Rao K vs P.s. Bollaram	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/968/2015	Seshagiri Rao vs K.Lahiri	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/969/2015	Seshagiri Rao vs K.Lahiri	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/970/2015	Seshagiri Rao vs K.Lahiri	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/971/2015	Seshagiri Rao vs K.Lahiri	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/972/2015	Seshagiri Rao vs K.Lahiri	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/973/2015	Seshagiri Rao vs K.Lahiri	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/974/2015	Seshagiri Rao vs K.Lahiri	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/348/2015	MOHAMMED ALTAF HUSSAIN vs C.MOHAN REDDY	30 Jan 2017	Order	—
CRLA/555/2016	kusuma krishna vs Ranga Ravinder Gupta	30 Jan 2017	Others	—
CRLA/904/2013	M. Gowmathi Pillay vs Ch.Umamaheshwari	27 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
SC/505/2014	Marredpally P.S. vs PC Kenady	25 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/439/2012	V.P.Pitchai Muthu vs APP-High court.	24 Jan 2017	Order	—
SC.SPL/31/2014	Habeebnagar P.S. vs Sahera Begum	24 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/624/2015	RAMAVATH CHARMA vs P.S.GOPALPURAM	20 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
SC/176/2014	ACP,Gopalapuram Division vs P.Vikram Babu	19 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/777/2016	Y.Manohar vs Vsthe state of p.s.Gopalapuram,traffic	18 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/778/2016	A.joseph reddy vs Vsthe state of tg ps gopalapuram traffic ps	18 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/204/2016	Smt. Panga Anitha Kumari vs Bandla Bhushanam Chary	17 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/12/2014	ACP, Mirchowk Division vs Shabaaz Ali Khan	17 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/583/2013	M. Narsimha Goud vs G. Srinivas Yadav	12 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
MVOP/90/2009	Joseph Thomas vs Vsunited India Insurance Co. Ltd	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/583/2014	Syed Nizamuddin vs Bollaram PS	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/38/2013	ACP, Asifnagar Division vs Arja Rajasekhar	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/121/2016	Mansoor Bin Ahmed vs Syed sabir	10 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/60/2005	MR Raja Srinivas vs MR BharatBhusan	06 Jan 2017	Order	—
CRLA/307/2013	Mayuka Labs Pvt Ltd vs Sri Dadu Chemicals	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/793/2016	V.Naveen Kumar vs Vsthe state of telangana ps gopolapuram traffic	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/944/2014	S. Prakash Rao vs S.Gurudeep Singh	05 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
SC/275/2015	THE STATE THROUGH P.S.LALAGUDA vs SHAIK FAREED KHAN	05 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/35/2013	ACP, Banjarahills Division vs Kandlakunta Srinivas	04 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
SC.SPL/12/2015	Mirchowk Division vs Mohd Anwar	03 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CRLA/807/2016	lakshminarayana vs Vsthe state through ps marredpally	30 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CRLA/516/2016	P. Kiran Reddy vs The state of APP, gopalapuram pc traffic police	29 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/921/2016	K.SANJAY vs THE STATE THROUGH SHO MAHANKALI	29 Dec 2016	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 283 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2017		1
Jul 2017		1
Jun 2017		22
May 2017		6
Apr 2017		6
Mar 2017		14
Feb 2017		27
Jan 2017		24
Dec 2016		27
Nov 2016		11
Oct 2016		5
Sep 2016		17

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has K.RAMESH handled?

K.RAMESH has handled 300 court orders since 2015 at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 12 orders per month.

What types of cases does K.RAMESH hear?

Based on available records, K.RAMESH primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals, Sessions Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Original Suits) at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.

Where is K.RAMESH currently posted?

K.RAMESH is posted as VI Addl Metropolitan Session Judge at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by K.RAMESH available online?

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

How fast does K.RAMESH dispose cases?

K.RAMESH disposes approximately 12 cases per month, based on 300 orders handled over their tenure at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.

Since when is K.RAMESH serving?

K.RAMESH has been serving at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex since 2015.

Case Types

CRLA 43%

SC 25%

MVOP 15%

CRLRP 9%

AS 5%

OS 1%

OP 1%

CC 1%

Posting History

Oct 2015 — Oct 2017

VI Addl Metropolitan Session Judge · 300 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Ch.Chandra Kishore

I Addl Chief Judge

0 orders

Sri. K.suri Krishna

XXVII Addl Chief Judge Court Secunderabad

130 orders

Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique

XII Addl. Chief Judge

1,330 orders

MS.N.Saswatha

Prl. Rent Controller

34 orders

Sri. R. Rajkumar

III Senior Civil Judge

136 orders

SMT. DR.M.Shyam Sree

PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT

0 orders

Smt.T.Madhavi

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

1 orders

Smt. P. Padmavathi

XI Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

173 orders

Smt. P. Shirisha

XIV Additional Judge cum XVIII Addl Chief Metropo...

377 orders

Smt. M. Aruna

XV Additional Judge cum XIX Addl Chief Metropolita...

275 orders

Sri. J. Upender Rao

XVI Additional Judge cum XX Addl Chief Metropolita...

197 orders

Sri.v.sanketh Mithra

XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

361 orders

Sri G Venu

VI Addl Metropolitan Session Judge

145 orders

Smt. B Priyanka

I Junior Civil Judge

407 orders

Ms. Shirisha Katkojwala

XI Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex

K.ramesh

SECUNDERABAD.

S.C. No. 31 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 586 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 586 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 586 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

SECUNDERABAD

::O R D E R::

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN