Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka) · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L., Addl. Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka), Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 4,757 court orders on record since 2011. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, MC, PRC cases.

4,757

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/200232/2017 Acquitted

The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs Ilapogu Vijayamma

04 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:: NANDIGAMA

Present:- Smt. M.Anuradha,

ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA.

Thursday, this the 04 th day of May, 2017.

C.C. NO: 232/2017

BETWEEN: State, represented by Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla. …. Complainant

A N D

Ilapogu Vijayamma, W/o.(late) Babu Rao, Age:50years, Caste:Madiga, R/o. Arundhathi Colony, Kanchikacherla. .... Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 03.05.2017 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri SK.Dada Hussain, Counsel for the accused and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The case against the accused, as projected by the prosecution is as follows:

2That on 16.09.2016 at about 09:00a.m, PW.1, R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition &

Kanchikacherla town, who is having in possession of total 08 Nips of Indian

Made Liquor (herein after referred as IML for brevity) in a mica bag and when questioned on suspicion, the accused confessed that the bag contains I.M.L.

bottles. Then PW.1 tried to secure the mediators but in vain. PW1 examined the bag in the presence of raid party and found the bag containing 08 nips of

Old Tavern Fine Whisky (180ml each) with the accused. PW.1 explained the substance of the offence committed and drafted a special report. On that

PW.1 drew one bottle from the contraband as sample, for analysis purpose and the contraband were seized. PW.1 returned to the station and registered a case in Cr.No.39/2016-17 U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. PW.1 released the accused after issuing notice under Sec.41(A)Cr.P.C.. The sample bottle 2 was sent to the chemical analyst for analysis wherein it was confirmed that the contents of the sample bottle are Indian Made Liquor. The accused was charge sheeted for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act,1968.

3 This case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4After appearance of the accused before the court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied upon were furnished to the accused.

5Accused was examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C on the substance of accusation.

Accused denied the same. On a consideration of entire material on record charge U/s 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6 The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined P.W.1 and marked

Ex.P1 to P3, and M.O.1, one sample bottle.

1. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 (1)

(b) of Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material brought on record in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No documents were marked by the accused during trial.

7Heard arguments on both sides.

8 The point that arise for determination is Whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec. 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9The Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is no way connected with the case and it was foisted only for the statistical purpose and even M.O.1 is planted one. Per contra the Learned A.P.P contends that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Lab analysis report i.e., Ex.P3 would support the case of the prosecution.

10 To prove its case the prosecution has examined P.W.1. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. Ex.P1 is special report, Ex.P.2 is F.I.R, Ex.P.3 is Lab analysis report. M.O.1 is one sample bottle. No oral or documentary evidence produced by the accused.

11 P.W.1/R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla testified that on 16.09.2016 at about 09:15a.m., he along with his staff while conducting patrolling for the detection of crimes proceeded to 3

Kanchikacherla town, found the accused at the road margin opposite to house of the accused in Arundhathi Colony of the said village, carrying a mica bag and that PW.1 tried to secure the presence of mediators but the effort ended in futile as no persons were available at that time to act as mediators. PW1 testified that he verified the bag and found that the bag containing 10 beer bottles of 650 ml each. Further PW.1 testified that he found the said bottles identified as Indian made liquor and drew one bottle from the contraband as sample and sealed it for analysis purpose, which was marked as M.O.1. After ascertaining the name and particulars of the accused, PW.1 explained the offence committed and seized the entire property under the cover of a special report which was marked as Ex.P.1 and that basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the same as a case in Cr.No:39/2016- 17, U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and issued F.I.R. which was marked as

Ex.P2. PW.1 released the accused after obtaining sureties under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. It is the evidence of PW1 that he sent M.O.1 to the chemical analyst and in turn the chemical analyst opined that sample bottle contains

Indian Made Liquor and issued Laboratory Analysis Report, which was marked as Ex.P3. After completing investigation PW.1 filed charge sheet against the accused.

12 In the cross examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the case is foisted for statistical purposes and the accused never committed offence as alleged by the prosecution.

14. As seen from the evidence, P.W.1 was examined, who worked as Excise official, Kanchikacherla during the relevant period. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is residential area. The efforts made by the investigating officer to secure the presence of the mediators are not according to the procedure. Even as per the version of P.W.1, the scene of offence is not located in an isolated place. In the absence of serving of written notices either on the people gathered at the scene of offence or on the people who were residing in the locality, by compelling them to assist the raid party and in the absence of furnishing names and other particulars of the people who were requested by the staff of P.W.1 to act as mediators, clouds the prosecution case with suspicion. For the reason of not making 4 efforts to take independent respectable local mediators, the evidence of

P.W.1 loses its credibility.

15.Ex.P.3 Lab analysis report would establish that the M.O.1 contains

Indian Made liquor. By marking this document, the prosecution at best established the nature of the content that was sent to the chemical analysis but they failed to establish that it was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Here it is pertinent to see the relevant judgment of Hon’ble

A.P High court on this aspect.

16. The Hon’ble High court of A.P in the case of ‘S.Babu saheb @babu Vs The State of A.P’ reported in ‘2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P’ held that: “When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place

wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of

independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable independent

inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100 (4)

of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise

officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking

them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100

of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure

confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a

genuine search has been made and incriminating material has

been really found and not planted”

17.By following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court and for the foregoing reasons, this court finds that it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of official witness i.e., PW1 when it is not supported by any other independent witness. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the seizure of IML bottles from the possession of the accused. In the present case on hand the prosecution failed to secure the independent mediators and failed to examine any independent witness to establish the guilt of the accused and failed to follow proper procedure prescribed under law. Hence, in any way there is no credibility to the prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused and their evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to believe the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. In view of the above infirmities, this court finds that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution, when it is not complete to prove the guilt of the accused. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and she is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1, one sample bottle in C.P.No.44/2017, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal 5 time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist on the Bench directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M.Anuradha

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: R.V. Rama Siva -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 Special Report …..NIL...

Ex.P.2 Original FIR

Ex.P.3 Lab Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

M.O.1: Sample Bottle-012

Sd/- M.Anuradha

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate

Nandigama.

CC/200235/2017 Acquitted

The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs Yesupogu Prasad

03 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:: NANDIGAMA

Present:- Smt. M.Anuradha,

ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA.

Thursday, this the 03 rd day of May, 2017.

C.C. NO: 235/2017

BETWEEN: State, represented by Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla. …. Complainant

A N D

Yesupogu Prasad, S/o.Muthaiah, Age:45years, Caste:Madiga, R/o. Gottumukkala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal.

.... Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 03.05.2017 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri Sk.Dada Hussain, Counsel for the accused and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

2That on 26.12.2016 at about 07:45p.m, PW.1, R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition &

Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla along with his staff conducted patrolling for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences and found the accused at the NH

Road Margin of opposite to the Vijayarani Convent at Gottmukkala road in

Kanchikacherla Mandal, who is having in possession of total 07 nips of Indian

Made Liquor (herein after referred as IML for brevity) in a mica bag and when questioned on suspicion, the accused confessed that the bag contains I.M.L.

bottles. Then PW.1 tried to secure the mediators but in vain. PW1 examined the bag in the presence of raid party and found the bag containing 08 Nips of

Bag Piper Elite Whisky (180ml each) with the accused. PW.1 explained the substance of the offence committed and drafted a special report. On that

PW.1 drew one bottle from the contraband as sample, for analysis purpose and the contraband were seized. PW.1 returned to the station and registered a case in Cr.No.58/2016-17 U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. PW.1 released the accused after issuing notice under Sec.41(A)Cr.P.C.. The sample bottle 2 was sent to the chemical analyst for analysis wherein it was confirmed that the contents of the sample bottle are Indian Made Liquor. The accused was charge sheeted for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act,1968.

3 This case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4After appearance of the accused before the court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied upon were furnished to the accused.

5Accused was examined U/s. 239Cr.P.C on the substance of accusation.

6 The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined P.W.1 and marked

Ex.P1 to P3, and M.O.1, one sample bottle.

1. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 (1)

7Heard arguments on both sides.

8 The point that arise for determination is Whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec. 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

11 P.W.1/R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla testified that on 26.12.2016 at about 07:45p.m., he along with his staff while conducting patrolling for the detection of crimes proceeded to 3

Kanchikacherla, found the accused at the road margin opposite to the

Vijayarani Convent at Gottumukkala road in the said village, carrying a mica bag and that PW.1 tried to secure the presence of mediators but the effort ended in futile as no persons were available at that time to act as mediators.

PW1 testified that he verified the bag and found that the bag containing 07 nips of Bag Piper Elite Whisky 180 ml each. Further PW.1 testified that he found the said bottles identified as Indian made liquor and drew one bottle from the contraband as sample and sealed it for analysis purpose, which was marked as M.O.1. After ascertaining the name and particulars of the accused, PW.1 explained the offence committed and seized the entire property under the cover of a special report which was marked as Ex.P.1 and that basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the same as a case in Cr.No:58/2016- 17, U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and issued F.I.R. which was marked as

Indian Made Liquor and issued Laboratory Analysis Report, which was marked as Ex.P3. After completing investigation PW.1 filed charge sheet against the accused.

12 In the cross examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the case is foisted for statistical purposes and the accused never committed offence as alleged by the prosecution.

P.W.1 loses its credibility.

15.Ex.P.3 Lab analysis report would establish that the M.O.1 contains

A.P High court on this aspect.

wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of

independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable independent

inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100 (4)

of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise

officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking

them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100

of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure

confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a

genuine search has been made and incriminating material has

been really found and not planted”

Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1, one sample bottle in C.P.No.47/2017, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal 5 time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist on the Bench directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 03rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M.Anuradha

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: R.V. Rama Siva -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 Special Report …..NIL... Ex.P.2 Original FIR Ex.P.3 Lab Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

M.O.1: Sample Bottle-01 2 Sd/- M.Anuradha Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

CC/200234/2017 Acquitted

The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs SK.Baji

03 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:: NANDIGAMA

Present:- Smt. M.Anuradha,

ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA.

Thursday, this the 03 rd day of May, 2017.

C.C. NO: 234/2017

BETWEEN: State, represented by Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla. …. Complainant

A N D

Sk. Bhaji, S/o.Masavali, Age:50years, Caste:Muslim, R/o. Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal..... Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 03.05.2017 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri Sk. Dada Hussain, Counsel for the accused and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

2That on 26.12.2016 at about 05:00p.m, PW.1, R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition &

Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla along with his staff conducted patrolling for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences and found the accused at the NH

Road Margin of opposte to the SaiBaba temple in Paritala Village of

Kanchikacherla Mandal, who is having in possession of total 07 nips of Indian

Made Liquor (herein after referred as IML for brevity) in a mica bag and when questioned on suspicion, the accused confessed that the bag contains I.M.L.

bottles. Then PW.1 tried to secure the mediators but in vain. PW1 examined the bag in the presence of raid party and found the bag containing 07 Nips of

Old Tavern Fine Whisky (180ml each) with the accused. PW.1 explained the substance of the offence committed and drafted a special report. On that

PW.1 drew one bottle from the contraband as sample, for analysis purpose and the contraband were seized. PW.1 returned to the station and registered a case in Cr.No.40/2016-17 U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. PW.1 released the accused after issuing notice under Sec.41(A)Cr.P.C.. The sample bottle 2 was sent to the chemical analyst for analysis wherein it was confirmed that the contents of the sample bottle are Indian Made Liquor. The accused was charge sheeted for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act,1968.

3 This case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4After appearance of the accused before the court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied upon were furnished to the accused.

5Accused was examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C on the substance of accusation.

6 The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined P.W.1 and marked

Ex.P1 to P3, and M.O.1, one sample bottle.

1. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 (1)

7Heard arguments on both sides.

8 The point that arise for determination is Whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec. 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

11 P.W.1/R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla testified that on 18.09.2016 at about 11:15a.m., he along with his staff while conducting patrolling for the detection of crimes proceeded to Gottumukkala 3

Village, found the accused at the road margin opposite to the temple in the said village, carrying a mica bag and that PW.1 tried to secure the presence of mediators but the effort ended in futile as no persons were available at that time to act as mediators. PW1 testified that he verified the bag and found that the bag containing 07 nips of Old Tavern Fine Whisky 180 ml each.

Further PW.1 testified that he found the said bottles identified as Indian made liquor and drew one bottle from the contraband as sample and sealed it for analysis purpose, which was marked as M.O.1. After ascertaining the name and particulars of the accused, PW.1 explained the offence committed and seized the entire property under the cover of a special report which was marked as Ex.P.1 and that basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the same as a case in Cr.No:40/2016-17, U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and issued F.I.R.

which was marked as Ex.P2. PW.1 released the accused after obtaining sureties under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. It is the evidence of PW1 that he sent

M.O.1 to the chemical analyst and in turn the chemical analyst opined that sample bottle contains Indian Made Liquor and issued Laboratory Analysis

Report, which was marked as Ex.P3. After completing investigation PW.1 filed charge sheet against the accused.

12 In the cross examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the case is foisted for statistical purposes and the accused never committed offence as alleged by the prosecution.

14. As seen from the evidence, P.W.1 was examined, who worked as Excise official, Kanchikacherla during the relevant period. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is residential area. The efforts made by the investigating officer to secure the presence of the mediators are not according to the procedure. Even as per the version of P.W.1, the scene of offence is not located in an isolated place. In the absence of serving of written notices either on the people gathered at the scene of offence or on the people who were residing in the locality, by compelling them to assist the raid party and in the absence of furnishing names and other particulars of the people who were requested by the staff of P.W.1 to act as mediators, clouds the prosecution case with suspicion. For the reason of not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediators, the evidence of

P.W.1 loses its credibility.

15.Ex.P.3 Lab analysis report would establish that the M.O.1 contains

A.P High court on this aspect.

wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of

independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable independent

inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100 (4)

of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise

officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking

them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100

of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure

confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a

genuine search has been made and incriminating material has

been really found and not planted”

Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1, one sample bottle in C.P.No.45/2017, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist on the Bench directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 03rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M.Anuradha

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: R.V. Rama Siva -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 Special Report …..NIL...

Ex.P.2 Original FIR

Ex.P.3 Lab Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

M.O.1: Sample Bottle-01 2

Sd/- M.Anuradha

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

CC/200233/2017 Acquitted

The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs Alokam Purna Chandra Rao

03 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:: NANDIGAMA

Present:- Smt. M.Anuradha,

ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA.

Thursday, this the 03 rd day of May, 2017.

C.C. NO: 233/2017

BETWEEN: State, represented by Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla. …. Complainant

A N D

Alokam Purna Chandra Rao, S/o.Krishna Rao, Age:38years, Caste:Kamma, R/o. Gottumukkala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal.

.... Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 03.05.2017 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri P. Prakasha Rao, Counsel for the accused and this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

2That on 18.09.2016 at about 11:15a.m, PW.1, R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition &

IML for brevity) in a mica bag and when questioned on suspicion, the accused confessed that the bag contains I.M.L. bottles. Then PW.1 tried to secure the mediators but in vain. PW1 examined the bag in the presence of raid party and found the bag containing 07 Nips of Old Tavern Fine Whisky (180ml each) with the accused. PW.1 explained the substance of the offence committed and drafted a special report. On that PW.1 drew one bottle from the contraband as sample, for analysis purpose and the contraband were seized. PW.1 returned to the station and registered a case in Cr.No.40/2016- 17 U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. PW.1 released the accused after issuing notice under Sec.41(A)Cr.P.C.. The sample bottle was sent to the chemical 2 analyst for analysis wherein it was confirmed that the contents of the sample bottle are Indian Made Liquor. The accused was charge sheeted for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act,1968.

3 This case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4After appearance of the accused before the court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied upon were furnished to the accused.

5Accused was examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C on the substance of accusation.

6 The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined P.W.1 and marked

Ex.P1 to P3, and M.O.1, one sample bottle.

1. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 (1)

7Heard arguments on both sides.

8 The point that arise for determination is Whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec. 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

which was marked as Ex.P2. PW.1 released the accused after obtaining sureties under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. It is the evidence of PW1 that he sent

M.O.1 to the chemical analyst and in turn the chemical analyst opined that sample bottle contains Indian Made Liquor and issued Laboratory Analysis

Report, which was marked as Ex.P3. After completing investigation PW.1 filed charge sheet against the accused.

12 In the cross examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the case is foisted for statistical purposes and the accused never committed offence as alleged by the prosecution.

14. As seen from the evidence, P.W.1 was examined, who worked as Excise official, Kanchikacherla during the relevant period. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is residential area. The efforts made by the investigating officer to secure the presence of the mediators are not according to the procedure. Even as per the version of P.W.1, the scene of offence is not located in an isolated place. In the absence of serving of written notices either on the people gathered at the scene of offence or on the people who were residing in the locality, by compelling them to assist the raid party and in the absence of furnishing names and other particulars of the people who were requested by the staff of P.W.1 to act as mediators, clouds the prosecution case with suspicion. For the reason of not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediators, the evidence of

P.W.1 loses its credibility.

15.Ex.P.3 Lab analysis report would establish that the M.O.1 contains

A.P High court on this aspect.

wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of

independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable independent

inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100 (4)

of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise

officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking

them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100

of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure

confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a

genuine search has been made and incriminating material has

been really found and not planted”

Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1, one sample bottle in C.P.No.45/2017, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist on the Bench directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 03rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M.Anuradha

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: R.V. Rama Siva -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 Special Report …..NIL...

Ex.P.2 Original FIR

Ex.P.3 Lab Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

M.O.1: Sample Bottle-01 2

Sd/- M.Anuradha

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

CC/200231/2017 Acquitted

The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs Narala Jagadeesh

04 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE:: NANDIGAMA

Present:- Smt. M.Anuradha,

ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA.

Thursday, this the 04 th day of May, 2017.

C.C. NO: 231/2017

BETWEEN: State, represented by Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla. …. Complainant

A N D

Narala Jagadeesh, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Age:30yeras, Caste:Gowda, R/o. Indira Colony, Kanchikacherla .... Accused

J U D G M E N T

2That on 15.09.2016 at about 07:15p.m, PW.1, R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition &

Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla along with his staff conducted patrolling for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences and found the accused at the road margin of opposite to the UDay Shankar Meals Hotel in Kanchikacherla town, who is having in possession of total 10 bottles of Indian Made Liquor (herein after referred as IML for brevity) in a mica bag and when questioned on suspicion, the accused confessed that the bag contains I.M.L. bottles.

Then PW.1 tried to secure the mediators but in vain. PW1 examined the bag in the presence of raid party and found the bag containing 10-beer bottles (650ml each) with the accused. PW.1 explained the substance of the offence committed and drafted a special report. On that PW.1 drew one bottle from the contraband as sample, for analysis purpose and the contraband were seized. PW.1 returned to the station and registered a case in Cr.No.37/2016- 17 U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. PW.1 released the accused after issuing notice under Sec.41(A)Cr.P.C.. The sample bottle was sent to the chemical 2 analyst for analysis wherein it was confirmed that the contents of the sample bottle are Indian Made Liquor. The accused was charge sheeted for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act,1968.

3 This case was taken on file for the offence U/s. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4After appearance of the accused before the court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied upon were furnished to the accused.

5Accused was examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C on the substance of accusation.

6 The prosecution, in order to prove its case examined P.W.1 and marked

Ex.P1 to P3, and M.O.1, one sample bottle.

1. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 (1)

7Heard arguments on both sides.

8 The point that arise for determination is Whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec. 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

11 P.W.1/R.V. Rama Siva, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanchikacherla testified that on 15.09.2016 at about 07:15p.m., he along with his staff while conducting patrolling for the detection of crimes proceeded to 3

Kanchikacherla town, found the accused at the road margin opposite to

Uday Sankar meals Hotel town carrying a mica bag and that PW.1 tried to secure the presence of mediators but the effort ended in futile as no persons were available at that time to act as mediators. PW1 testified that he verified the bag and found that the bag containing 10 beer bottles of 650 ml each.

Further PW.1 testified that he found the said bottles identified as Indian made liquor and drew one bottle from the contraband as sample and sealed it for analysis purpose, which was marked as M.O.1. After ascertaining the name and particulars of the accused, PW.1 explained the offence committed and seized the entire property under the cover of a special report which was marked as Ex.P.1 and that basing on Ex.P1, PW.1 registered the same as a case in Cr.No:37/2016-17, U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and issued F.I.R.

which was marked as Ex.P2. PW.1 released the accused after obtaining sureties under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. It is the evidence of PW1 that he sent

M.O.1 to the chemical analyst and in turn the chemical analyst opined that sample bottle contains Indian Made Liquor and issued Laboratory Analysis

Report, which was marked as Ex.P3. After completing investigation PW.1 filed charge sheet against the accused.

12 In the cross examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the case is foisted for statistical purposes and the accused never committed offence as alleged by the prosecution.

14. As seen from the evidence, P.W.1 was examined, who worked as Excise official, Kanchikacherla during the relevant period. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is residential area. The efforts made by the investigating officer to secure the presence of the mediators are not according to the procedure. Even as per the version of P.W.1, the scene of offence is not located in an isolated place. In the absence of serving of written notices either on the people gathered at the scene of offence or on the people who were residing in the locality, by compelling them to assist the raid party and in the absence of furnishing names and other particulars of the people who were requested by the staff of P.W.1 to act as mediators, clouds the prosecution case with suspicion. For the reason of not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediators, the evidence of

P.W.1 loses its credibility.

15.Ex.P.3 Lab analysis report would establish that the M.O.1 contains

A.P High court on this aspect.

wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of

independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable independent

inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100 (4)

of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise

officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking

them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100

of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure

confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a

genuine search has been made and incriminating material has

been really found and not planted”

Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1, one sample bottle in C.P.No.43/2017, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist on the Bench directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 04th day of May, 2017.

Sd/- M.Anuradha

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: R.V. Rama Siva -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 Special Report …..NIL...

Ex.P.2 Original FIR

Ex.P.3 Lab Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

M.O.1: Sample Bottle-01 2 Sd/- M.Anuradha Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandigama.

Order Record 4,669 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/200231/2017	The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs Narala Jagadeesh	04 May 2017	judgment	Acquitted
CC/200232/2017	The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs Ilapogu Vijayamma	04 May 2017	judgment	Acquitted
CC/200233/2017	The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs Alokam Purna Chandra Rao	03 May 2017	judgment	Acquitted
CC/200234/2017	The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs SK.Baji	03 May 2017	judgment	Acquitted
CC/200235/2017	The State represented by proh.and Excise Inspector,kanchikacherla vs Yesupogu Prasad	03 May 2017	judgment	Acquitted
CC/200194/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Hari Venkateswara Rao	28 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200193/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Mungi Srinu	27 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200196/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Nelakuditi Nageswara Rao	27 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200198/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Vegineti Krishna Rao	27 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200199/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Pilli Ramesh	27 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200200/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Nelakuditi Venkayamma	27 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200914/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Chalamala Srinivasa Rao	27 Apr 2017	judgment	—
MC/200029/2016	Aitham Sarojini Devi and 01 other vs Aitham Satyanarayana	27 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200189/2017	The State represented by Proh.and Excise Sub-Inspector Nandigama vs Gali Vasu	26 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200190/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub-Inspector,Nandigama vs Ramireddy Mallikarjuna Rao	26 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200191/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Ilapogu Venkata Ratnam	26 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200192/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Kovelamudi Nagarani	26 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200197/2017	State representated by Proh.and Excise Sub Inspector Nandigama vs Seelamneni Guravaiah	26 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200185/2017	The State represented by Proh.and Excise Sub-Inspector Nandigama vs Mecherla Narasimha Rao	25 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200186/2017	The State represented by Proh.and Excise Sub-Inspector Nandigama vs Chavala Swamy	25 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200187/2017	The State represented by Proh.and Excise Sub-Inspector Nandigama vs Mallepaka Madhu	25 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200188/2017	The State represented by Proh.and Excise Sub-Inspector Nandigama vs Medipalli Venkateswarlu	25 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200935/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Chandarlapadu P.S. vs Vutukuru Bulli Babu and 01 Other	25 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200956/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Kastala Govinda Rao	21 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200438/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Shaik Jaffar and other	20 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200824/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Korukonda Rama Krishna Rao	18 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200913/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Bandla Lakshmi and 06 Others	17 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200979/2015	Kanaparthi Srinivasa Rao vs Maddineni Srinivasa Rao	15 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/201006/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Veerullapadu P.S. vs Saggurthi Nageswara Rao	15 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/201065/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Veerullapadu P.S. vs Nandru Das and 08 Others	13 Apr 2017	judgment	—
PRC/200008/2017	The sub Divisional Police officer,Nandigama Sub Division vs Karnati Vijaya Nirmala @ Nirmala	13 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200412/2016	SHO Chandarlapadu PS. vs Bandarupalli Ramu and 03 Others	12 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200776/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Vallaparapu Sambasiva Rao	12 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200859/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Sd.Babu and O1 Another	12 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200976/2014	Sub Inspector of Police vs Kandukuri Sangameswara Rao @ Jangamaiah	10 Apr 2017	judgment	—
MC/200007/2016	Cherukumalli Durga Malleswari vs Cherukumalli Prasad	10 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200012/2017	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Pesaramilli Subrahmanyam and 05 Others	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200031/2017	The state SHO Kanchikacherla PS. vs Upputholla Prasad	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200077/2016	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Kandukuri Gopinadh	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200093/2016	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Chella Nagaraju	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200128/2017	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Ramesh Kumar Singh	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200181/2017	The State Sub Inspector of Police,Veerulapadu Police Station vs Kolli Venkateswara Rao and 04 Others	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200336/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Machineni Prasada rao and other	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200367/2016	The SHO Veerulapadu PS. vs Chatla Ravi	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200391/2016	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Popuri Venkatadri Rao @ Venkatadri	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200432/2016	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Jallepalli Venkata Rao	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200572/2016	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Velpula Seshagiri	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200579/2016	The Sub Inspector of Police vs Gunti Srinivasa Rao	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200967/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Arigela Prabhu Dasu	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/201043/2015	Vaddelli Prasad vs Pamdi Sarada	08 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200393/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Kowdegani Raju	07 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/200430/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Veerullapadu P.S. vs Kota Peda Koteswara Rao and 8 others	07 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/20167/2017	The State Sub Inspector of Police Kanchikacherla PS vs Mohammad yousuf and 02 Others	06 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/201094/2014	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Khambampati Babu Rao	06 Apr 2017	judgment	—
CC/201072/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Gadiparthi Venkata Rao	04 Apr 2017	judgment	—
PRC/20007/2017	The State Inspector of police Nandigama Rural Circle vs Velpula Balaiah @ Balakirshna and 01 Other	03 Apr 2017	judgment	—
PRC/20006/2017	The State Sub Inspector of Police Chandarlapadu PS vs Partitala Basavaiah	30 Mar 2017	judgment	—
PRC/200004/2017	SHO Nandigama PS. vs Katarapu Veeraiah	30 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200755/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Darelli Goutham Prasad	28 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200780/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Kolagani Srinivas @ Srinivas rao	27 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/201073/2014	Sub Inspector of Police vs Gattigundi Sujatha	27 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200594/2015	Bathula Padma vs Kuncham Sambasiva Rao	25 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200720/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Gunji Venkanna	25 Mar 2017	judgment	—
MC/20009/2017	Mohammad Nusrath Fathima vs Mohammad Yousuf	25 Mar 2017	judgment	—
MC/200028/2016	Pacha Radha and 01 Other vs Pacha Ramakrishna	25 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200731/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Vaddeswaram Prasada Rao	24 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200860/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Bandrapalli Rajarao	24 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/201051/2014	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Vema Suresh and Other	24 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200396/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Chandarlapadu P.S. vs Penti Srinivasa Rao	23 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200964/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Madugula Thirupathi Rao	23 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/201013/2014	Sub Inspector of Police vs Pamarthi Srinivasa RAo @ Srinu	23 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200033/2015	Sub Inspector of Police vs Battula Venkanna	22 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200415/2016	SHO Kanchikacherla PS. vs Bokka Pullaiah	22 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200549/2016	Proh. Excise Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P vs Pagidipathi Ramu and Another	22 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/201076/2014	Sub Inspector of Police vs Markapudi Malleswari	22 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200357/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Kandimalla Rajesh	21 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200676/2015	The SHO,Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Shai Rajiya	20 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200969/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Sesham Madhusudhan @ Madhu and 05 Others	20 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200919/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Challa Ramanjaiah and 03 Others	17 Mar 2017	judgement	—
CC/201045/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Polla Venkatanarayana	17 Mar 2017	judgement	—
MC/200100/2008	Saidabasha vs Mohammad Nageena	17 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200268/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Gundimeda Pulla Rao and 3 others	16 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200325/2014	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Bhupathi Rama Rao	16 Mar 2017	judgement	—
CC/200890/2015	Jonnalagadda Mahesh vs Molabanti Ravi kumar	16 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/201066/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Veerullapadu P.S. vs Pamula Philip	16 Mar 2017	judgement	—
CC/201073/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Para lakshminarayana	16 Mar 2017	judgement	—
PRC/200003/2017	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Seelam Srinivasareddy	16 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200411/2016	SHO Kanchikacherla PS. vs Chavala Chinni and 01 Other	15 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200538/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Velpula Rama Rao and 01 Other	15 Mar 2017	judgement	—
CC/200863/2015	Proh. Excise Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama vs Seelam Sankar and 04 Others	15 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200950/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Boddukolla Subbarao	14 Mar 2017	judgement	—
CC/200539/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Bhukya Dharma	13 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/201040/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Chandarlapadu P.S. vs Markapudi Venkateswara Rao and 02 Others	13 Mar 2017	judgement	—
MC/200001/2016	Syd.Noorjahan vs Syed Goue Alram	13 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/201032/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. vs Velaga Narasaiah and 02 Others	10 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200976/2015	Shaik Iqbal vs Chintapalli Jhansi	09 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/201057/2014	Sub Inspector of Police vs Bandlamudi Paparo	09 Mar 2017	judgement	—
CC/201069/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Gariganti Krishnaiah @ Krishna	08 Mar 2017	judgment	—
CC/200593/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Nandigama P.S. vs Mannem Gopi	07 Mar 2017	judgment	—
MC/200004/2016	Petlu Manasa and 02 Others vs Petla Santosh	03 Mar 2017	judgment	—

Showing 100 of 4,669 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2017		5
Apr 2017		51
Mar 2017		46
Feb 2017		156
Jan 2017		36
Dec 2016		53
Nov 2016		69
Oct 2016		131
Sep 2016		57
Aug 2016		53
Jul 2016		107
Jun 2016		80

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. handled?

Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. has handled 4757 court orders since 2011 at Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 66 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. hear?

Based on available records, Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Petitions) at Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka).

Where is Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. currently posted?

Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. is posted as Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka), Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. dispose cases?

Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. disposes approximately 66 cases per month, based on 4757 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka).

Since when is Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. serving?

Smt.M.Anuradha,M.A.,M.L. has been serving at Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka) since 2011.

Case Types

CC 93%

MC 4%

PRC 3%

DVC 0%

STC 0%

CRL 0%

OP 0%

Posting History

May 2011 — May 2017

Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 4,757 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt V.Satya Lakshmi Prasanna Vanapalli

Civil Judge Senior Division

324 orders

Sri.Shaik.Reyaz

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

1,139 orders

MS G Vandana

Addl. Junior Civil Judge

572 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka)