M Kiran Mahi

Prl. Junior Civil Judge court, Kamareddy

Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Kamareddy · Telangana

M Kiran Mahi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge court, Kamareddy, is posted at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Kamareddy, Telangana, India. 406 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

406

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/199/2018 Acquitted

State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Goguloth Vittal

22 Feb 2019

1 CC 199/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Smt. M. Kiran Mahi, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2019

C.C. No. 199 of 2018

Between:- The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy. …Complainant // And //

Guguloth Vittal, S/o. Guguloth Nanu, Age: 69 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 2-98, Kakulagutta Thanda, Machareddy Mandal.

…Accused. --<>--

This case coming before me on this the 20th day of February, 2019 for hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the State and Sri P. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the accused and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy laid charge sheet against the accused in COR No. 98 of 2017 for the offence U/s. 34 (e) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

2It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-09-2017 at about 10:45 am accused was found with illegal possession of 18 kgs Black Jaggery and 30 liters of Feremented Jaggery wash which is used for manufacturing of ID liquor in his house situated at H.No. 2-98, Kakulagutta Thanda, Machareddy

Mandal and the same was seized under cover of panchanama in presence of 2 CC 199/2018 the mediators. Therefore the accused is liable for punishment for the offence

U/s. 34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

3.The facts of the case are that on 12-09-2017 at about 10:45 pm on reliable information regarding illegal possession of black jaggery and alum which is used for manufacturing of illicit distilled liquor in H.No. 2-98,

Kakulagutta Thanda, Machareddy Mandal and found the accused and on searching the said premises by Pw3 along with Pws 1 and 2, found 18 kgs of

Black Jaggery and 30 liters of Feremented Jaggery wash which is used for manufacturing ID Liquor. Further Pw3 drafted panchanama in presence of the mediators i.e., Pws 1 and 2 and obtained their signatures and seized the property under cover of seizure panchanama and handed over the case papers and contraband to Pw4 for further investigation. Further Pw4 registered a case in COR No. 98/2017. During the course of investigation PW4 deposited the two sample bottles of Feremented Jaggery wash and two sample packets of

Black Jaggery each 100 grams in to the Hon’ble Court vide CPR No.

354/2017 along with a letter of advice to send one of the sample bottles to the

Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. The

Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad opined that the samples at

Sl.No. 5039 and 5040 has opined the sample Sl.No. 5039 contains reducing sugar, it is jaggery which can be used as raw material in the manufacturing of illicit distilled liquor. Sl.No. 5040 contains alcohol and sugar it is fermented was fit for distillation. On 12-09-2017 the accused surrendered before Pw4 and on interrogation he confessed the guilt and on production of sufficient sureties, Pw4 released the accused and after the completion of entire 3 CC 199/2018 investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence U/s. 34

(e) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

4.After filing the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/s. 34 (e) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

5.Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as provided

U/s.207 Cr.P.C, and charge there upon was framed against him for the offence U/s. 34 (e) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 read over and explained to him in

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

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused when examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the offence U/s. 34 (e) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 in order to establish its case. The offence against the accused is U/s. 34 (e) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

4 CC 199/2018

11.Pw3 who is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 12-09-2017 at 10:45 am on reliable information he along with Pws 1 and 2 raided the house of the accused situated at Kakulagutta and on searching the house of the accused and found 30 liters of fermented jagery wash in two plastic pots, 18 kgs of black jaggery in a polythene cover and that the accused confessed that he used black jaggery for preparing ID liquor. Pw3 conducted panchanama in presence of Pws 1 and 2 and affected the arrest of the accused and handed over the accused along with panchanama, samples and seized property to Pw4 for further investigation.

12.Pw4 is the Investigating Officer who conducted panchanama deposed that on 12-09-2017 Pw3 handed over accused along with panchanama, samples and seized property and that he registered a case. Pw4 deposed that he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice upon the accused and on production of sureties he released the accused and after completion of entire investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

13.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused confessed his guilt in presence of Pws 1 and 2 and the contraband was seized from the scene of offence and the panchanama was recorded in their presence.

But Pws 1 and 2 who are the panch witness for recovery panchanama and the material witness herein, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Pws 1 and 2 stated that the police obtained their thumb impression and the police did not seize any contraband and did not conduct panchanama in their presence.

5 CC 199/2018

14.Pws 1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the seizure panchanama, stated that the police did not recover any property and did not conduct any panchanama in their presence and they does not know the contents of the panchanama. The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of jaggery and alum from the house of the accused. Therefore there is no evidence on record to say that the property was seized from the house of the accused. Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/s. 34 (e) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 34 (e) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of (6) months.

16.The unmarked case property which is deposited vide CPR No. 354/2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 6 CC 199/2018 Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

For Prosecution For Defence:- PW1: Pitla Balnarsu/Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW2: Bala Goud/ Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW3: D. Sayanna/Investigating Officer PW4: D. Nagaraju/Investigating Officer

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1: Signature of Pw1 on panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of Pw2 on panchanama Ex.P3: Panchanama Ex.P4: COR Ex.P5: Analysis Report Ex.P6: Confiscation Proceedings dated 18-01-2018

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 7 CC 199/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No. 199 of 2018

Name of the police station. :Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy

COR. No. :98 of 2017

Description of the accused. : Guguloth Vittal

Date of offence. : 12-09-2017

Date of complaint. : 12-09-2017

Date of apprehension. : 12-09-2017

Date of commencement of trial. : 23-01-2019

Date of closure of trial. : 13-02-2019

Date of sentence or order. : 22-02-2019

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

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

CC/201/2018 Acquitted

State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Maloth Panthulu

22 Feb 2019

1 CC 201/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Smt. M. Kiran Mahi, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2019

C.C. No. 201 of 2018

Between:- The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy. …Complainant // And //

Maloth Panthulu, S/o. Hari Chanda, Age: 55 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 3-24/3, Edulagutta Thanda, Yellampet GP Machareddy Mandal. …Accused. --<>--

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy laid charge sheet against the accused in COR No. 104 of 2017 for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 04-10-2017 at about 03:10 pm on reliable information regarding illegal sale and possession of illicit Distilled

Liquor in the house of the accused situated at H.No. 3-24/3, Edulagutta

Thanda, Yellampet GP Machareddy Mandal and on raiding the said premises, accused was found with ½ liter of Illicit Distilled liquor and 20 liters of

Fermented Wash and the same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama 2 CC 201/2018 in presence of the mediators Therefore the accused is liable for punishment for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 .

3.The facts of the case are that on 04-10-20107 at about 03:10 pm on reliable information regarding illegal possession and sale of illicit Distilled

Liquor in the house of the accused situated at H.No. 3-24/3, Edulagutta

Thanda, Yellampet GP Machareddy Mandal, Pw3 secured the presence of Pw1 and Lw2 and conducted raid in the said place and found ½ liter of ID liquor and 20 liters of Fermented wash. Pw3 opened the lid of the can and found strong smell of intoxicant and confirmed as ID Liquor and the same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama. Further Pw2 deposited the two sample bottles of ID Liquor in to this Court along with a letter of advice to send one of the sample bottles to the Government Chemical Examiner,

Nizamabad for chemical analysis. The Government Chemical Examiner,

Nizamabad opined that the sample is “Illicitly Distilled Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. On 04-10-2017the accused surrendered before SHO, Kamareddy. Pw2 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C Notice to the accused and on the same day the accused submitted sureties and after the completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

4.After filing the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

5.Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as provided

U/s.207 Cr.P.C, and charge there upon was framed against him for the offence 3 CC 201/2018 U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) o A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused when examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 in order to establish its case. The offence against the accused is U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

11.Pw3 deposed that on 04-10-2017 on reliable information she along with her staff proceeded to the house of the accused situated at H.No. 3-24/3,

Edulagutta Thanda, Yellampet GP Machareddy Mandal and found the accused siting in front of his house. She further deposed the she secured the presence of Pw1 and Lw2 as mediators and on searching the said premises they found ½ liters capacity ID Liquor in a plastic bottle and one plastic bucket 4 CC 201/2018 containing 20 liters of Mova Flower wash and that she has drawn two samples of 180 ml of ID Liquor each for chemical analysis and seized the remaining

ID Liquor along with plastic bottle under cover of panchanama in presence of

Pw1 and Lw2. Pw3 affected the arrest of the accused and produced the accused along with seized contraband and samples and case file to Pw2 for further investigation.

12.Pw2 who is the other Investigating Officer deposed that on 04-10-2017

Pw3 handed over the accused along with seized contraband and samples and case file and that he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on furnishing sureties he released the accused.

13.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused confessed the guilt in presence of Pw1 and Lw2 and the contraband was seized from the scene of offence and the panchanama was recorded in their presence. But Pw1 who is one of the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and the material witnesses herein, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. She stated that the police obtained their signatures on some blank papers and they do not know the contents of those papers and the police did not seize any liquor and did not conduct panchanama in their presence.

14.Pw1 who is the panch witnesses for the seizure panchanama, stated that the police did not recover any property and did not conduct any panchanama in their presence and they does not know the contents of the panchanama. The prosecution failed to produce the evidence of Lw2. The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of toddy from the hut of the accused.

5 CC 201/2018 Therefore there is no evidence on record to say that the property was seized from the hut of the accused. Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of (6) months.

16.The unmarked case property which is deposited vide CPR No. 362/2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

For Prosecution For Defence:- PW1: Malith Mangya/Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW2: B. Nagaraju/ Investigating Officer PW3: T. Sravanthi/Investigating Officer

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1: COR Ex.P2: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P3: Confiscation orders of Dy. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Nizamabad Ex.P4: Panchanama Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 6 CC 201/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No. 201 of 2018

Name of the police station. :Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy

COR. No. :104 of 2017

Description of the accused. : Maloth Panthulu

Date of offence. : 04-10-2017

Date of complaint. : 04-10-2017

Date of apprehension. : 04-10-20107

Date of commencement of trial. : 23-01-2019

Date of closure of trial. : 13-02-2019

Date of sentence or order. : 22-02-2019

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

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

CC/198/2018 Acquitted

State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Dharavath Rekha

22 Feb 2019

1 CC 198/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Smt. M. Kiran Mahi, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2019

C.C. No. 198 of 2018

Between:- The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy. …Complainant // And //

Dharavath Rekha, W/o. Shadulal, Age: 29 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 6-62, Chandru Nayak Thanda, Machareddy Mandal.

…Accused. --<>--

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy laid charge sheet against the accused in COR No. 97 of 2017 for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 12-09-2017 at about 08:30 am on reliable information regarding illegal sale and possession of illicit Distilled

Liquor in the house of the accused situated at H.No. 6-62, Chandru Nayak

Thanda, Machareddy Mandal and on raiding the said premises, accused was found with 1 liter of Illicit Distilled liquor and 20 liters of FJ Wash and the same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama in presence of the 2 CC 198/2018 mediators Therefore the accused is liable for punishment for the offence U/s.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 .

3.The facts of the case are that on 12-09-2017 at about 08:30 am on reliable information regarding illegal possession and sale of illicit Distilled

Liquor in the house of the accused situated at H.No. 6-62, Chandru Nayak

Thanda, Machareddy Mandal Pw3 secured the presence of Pw1 and Lw2 and conducted raid in the said place and found 1 liter of ID liquor and 20 liters of

FJ wash. Pw3 opened the lid of the can and found strong smell of intoxicant and confirmed as ID Liquor and the same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama. Further Pw4 deposited the two sample bottles of ID Liquor in to this Court along with a letter of advice to send one of the sample bottles to the

Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. The

Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad opined that the sample is “Illicitly Distilled Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. On 06-11-2017 AT 10:00 am accused surrendered before SHO,

Kamareddy. Pw4 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C Notice to the accused and on the same day the accused submitted sureties and after the completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence U/s.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

4.After filing the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

5.Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as provided

U/s.207 Cr.P.C, and charge there upon was framed against her for the offence 3 CC 198/2018 U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) o A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 read over and explained to her in Telugu, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused when examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, she denied the same and reported no evidence on her behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 in order to establish its case. The offence against the accused is U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

11.Pw3 deposed that on 18-07-2017 on reliable information he along with his staff proceeded to the house of the accused situated at H.No. 6-62,

Chandru Nayak Thanda, Machareddy Mandal and searched the house of the accused in presence of Pws 1 and 2 and on searching the said premises they found 1liter capacity ID Liquor in a plastic bottle and one plastic bucket containing 20 liters of Fermented Jaggery and that she has drawn two samples 4 CC 198/2018 of 180 ml of ID Liquor each for chemical analysis and seized the remaining

ID Liquor along with plastic bottle under cover of panchanama in presence of

Pw1 and Lw2. Pw3 produced the accused along with seized contraband and samples and case file to Pw4 for further investigation.

12.Pw4 who is the other Investigating Officer deposed that on 12-09--2017

Pw3 handed over the seized contraband and samples and case file and that he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on furnishing sureties he released the accused.

13.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused confessed the guilt in presence of Pws 1 and 2 and the contraband was seized from the scene of offence and the panchanama was recorded in their presence.

But Pws 1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and the material witnesses herein, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. She stated that the police obtained their signatures on some blank papers and they do not know the contents of those papers and the police did not seize any liquor and did not conduct panchanama in their presence.

14.Pws 1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the seizure panchanama, stated that the police did not recover any property and did not conduct any panchanama in their presence and they does not know the contents of the panchanama. The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of contraband from the house of the accused. Therefore there is no evidence on record to say that the property was seized from the house of the accused. Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.

5 CC 198/2018 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 and accordingly she is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of (6) months.

16.The unmarked case property which is deposited vide CPR No. 353/2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

For Prosecution For Defence:- PW1: Pitla Balaiah/Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW2: Bala Goud/ Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW3: D. Sayanna/Investigating Officer PW4: D. Nagaraju/Investigating Officer Exhibits Marked Ex.P1: Signature of Pw1 on the panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of Pw2 on the panchanama Ex.P3: Panchanama Ex.P4: COR Ex.P5: Analysis Report dated 22-11-2017 Ex.P6: Confisication Proceedings dated 11-01-2018

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 6 CC 198/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No. 198 of 2018

Name of the police station. :Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy

COR. No. :97 of 2017

Description of the accused. : Dharavath Rekha

Date of offence. : 12-09-2017

Date of complaint. : 12-09-2017

Date of apprehension. : 06-11-2017

Date of commencement of trial. : 06-02-2019

Date of closure of trial. : 13-02-2019

Date of sentence or order. : 22-02-2019

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

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

CC/532/2017 Acquitted

State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Guguloth Hamsya

25 Feb 2019

1 CC 532/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Smt. M. Kiran Mahi, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 25th day of February, 2019

C.C. No. 532 of 2017 Between:-

The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy. …Complainant // And //

Gugloth Hamsya, S/o. Guguloth Teekya, Age: 70 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 3-20, Somarpet Village of Machareddy Mandal.

…Accused. --<>--

This case coming before me on this the 22nd day of February, 2019 for hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the State and Sri P. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the accused and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy laid charge sheet against the accused in COR No. 212 of 2016 for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 07-12-2016 at about 11:30 am on reliable information regarding illegal sale and possession of illicit Distilled

Liquor in the house of the accused situated at H.No. 3-20, Somarpet Village of

Machareddy and on raiding the said premises, accused was found with 2 liters of Illicit Distilled liquor and the same was seized under cover of seizure 2 CC 532/2017 panchanama in presence of the mediators Therefore the accused is liable for punishment for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 .

3.The facts of the case are that on 07-12-2016 at about 11:30 am on reliable information regarding illegal possession and sale of illicit Distilled

Liquor in the house of the accused situated at H.No. 3-20, Somarpet Village of

Machareddy, PW3 secured the presence of Pws 1 and 2 and conducted raid in the said place and found 2 liters of ID liquor. Pw3 opened the lid of the can and found strong smell of intoxicant and confirmed as ID Liquor and the same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama. Further Pw3 deposited the two sample bottles of ID Liquor in to this Court along with a letter of advice to send one of the sample bottles to the Government Chemical

Examiner, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. The Government Chemical

Examiner, Nizamabad opined that the sample is “Illicitly Distilled Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. On 01-02-2017 the accused surrendered before SHO, Kamareddy. Pw2 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C Notice to the accused and on the same day the accused submitted sureties and after the completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

4.After filing the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

5.Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as provided

U/s.207 Cr.P.C, and charge there upon was framed against him for the offence 3 CC 532/2017 U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused when examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 in order to establish its case. The offence against the accused is U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

11.Pw3 deposed that on 07-12-2016 on reliable information he along with his staff proceeded to the house of the accused situated at H.No. 3-20,

Somarpet Village of Machareddy and found the accused and on seeing them the accused ran away. He further deposed the he secured the presence of Pws 4 CC 532/2017 1 and 2 as mediators and on searching the said premises they found 5 liters capacity of plastic can containing 2 liters of ID Liquor and that he has drawn two samples of 180 ml of ID Liquor each for chemical analysis and seized the remaining ID Liquor along with plastic bottle under cover of panchanama in presence of Pw1 and Lw2. On 01-02-2017 he apprehended the accused and issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on furnishing sureties he released the accused.

12.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused confessed the guilt in presence of Pws 1 and 2 and the contraband was seized from the scene of offence and the panchanama was recorded in their presence.

13.Pws 1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the seizure panchanama, stated that the police did not recover any property and did not conduct any panchanama in their presence and they does not know the contents of the panchanama. The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of toddy from the hut of the accused. Therefore there is no evidence on record to say that the property was seized from the hut of the accused. Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of 5 CC 532/2017 A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 and accordingly she is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of (6) months.

15.The unmarked case property whichh is deposited vide CPR No. 33/2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of February, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of For Prosecution For Defence:- PW1: Sakru/Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW2: Thirupathi/Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW3: B. Nagaraju/ Investigating Officer

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1: Signature of Pw2 on the panchanama Ex.P2: Panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Confiscation orders of Dy. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Nizamabad.

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 6 CC 532/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No. 532 of 2017

Name of the police station. :Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy

COR. No. :212 of 2016

Description of the accused. : Guguloth Hamsya

Date of offence. : 07-12-2016

Date of complaint. : 07-12-2016

Date of apprehension. : 01-02-2017

Date of commencement of trial. : 11-07-2018

Date of closure of trial. : 13-02-2019

Date of sentence or order. : 25-02-2019

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

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

CC/203/2018 Acquitted

State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Bhukya Vijaya

22 Feb 2019

1 CC 203/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Smt. M. Kiran Mahi, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2019

C.C. No. 203 of 2018

Between:- The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy. …Complainant // And //

Bhukya Vijaya, W/o. Bhukya Ramreddy, Age: 32 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 2-92, Bhanjapally Thanda, Bhanjapally GP, Machareddy Mandal. …Accused. --<>--

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy laid charge sheet against the accused in COR No. 101 of 2017 for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 27-09-2017 at about 08:30 am on reliable information regarding illegal sale and possession of illicit Distilled

Liquor in the house of the accused situated at H.No. 2-92, Bhanjapally

Thanda, Machareddy and on raiding the said premises, accused was found with 3 liters of Illicit Distilled liquor and the same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama in presence of the mediators Therefore the accused is 2 CC 203/2018 liable for punishment for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1955 .

3.The facts of the case are that on 27-09-2017 at about 08:30 am on reliable information regarding illegal possession and sale of illicit Distilled

Liquor in the house of the accused situated at H.No. 2-92, Bhanjapally

Thanda, Machareddy, PW2 secured the presence of Pw1 and Lw2 and conducted raid in the said place and found 3 liters of ID liquor. Pw2 opened the lid of the can and found strong smell of intoxicant and confirmed as ID

Liquor and the same was seized under cover of seizure panchanama. Further

Pw2 deposited the two sample bottles of ID Liquor in to this Court along with a letter of advice to send one of the sample bottles to the Government

Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. The Government

Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad opined that the sample is “Illicitly Distilled

Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. On 12-10-2017 the accused surrendered before SHO, Kamareddy. Pw2 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C

Notice to the accused and on the same day the accused submitted sureties and after the completion of entire investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

4.After filing the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

5.Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as provided

U/s.207 Cr.P.C, and charge there upon was framed against her for the offence 3 CC 203/2018 U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) o A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 read over and explained to her in Telugu, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused when examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, she denied the same and reported no evidence on her behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The prosecution examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 in order to establish its case. The offence against the accused is U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1955.

11.Pw2 deposed that on 27-09-2017 on reliable information he along with his staff proceeded to the house of the accused situated at H.No. 2-92,

Bhanjapally Thanda, Machareddy and found the accused and on seeing them the accused ran away. He further deposed the he secured the presence of Pw1 and Lw2 as mediators and on searching the said premises they found 5 liters capacity of plastic can containing 3 liters of ID Liquor and that he has drawn 4 CC 203/2018 two samples of 180 ml of ID Liquor each for chemical analysis and seized the remaining ID Liquor along with plastic bottle under cover of panchanama in presence of Pw1 and Lw2. On 12-10-2017 he apprehended the accused and issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on furnishing sureties he released the accused.

12.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused confessed the guilt in presence of Pw1 and Lw2 and the contraband was seized from the scene of offence and the panchanama was recorded in their presence. But Pw1 who is one of the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and the material witnesses herein, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. She stated that the police obtained their signatures on some blank papers and they do not know the contents of those papers and the police did not seize any liquor and did not conduct panchanama in their presence.

13.Pw1 who is the panch witnesses for the seizure panchanama, stated that the police did not recover any property and did not conduct any panchanama in their presence and they does not know the contents of the panchanama. The prosecution failed to produce the evidence of Lw2. The prosecution failed to establish the seizure of toddy from the hut of the accused.

Therefore there is no evidence on record to say that the property was seized from the hut of the accused. Therefore the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1955 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

5 CC 203/2018

15.The unmarked case property which is deposited vide CPR No. 359/2017 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

For Prosecution For Defence:- PW1: Shobha/Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama PW2: B. Nagaraju/ Investigating Officer

Exhibits Marked Ex.P2: Panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Confiscation orders of Dy. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Nizamabad.

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 6 CC 203/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No. 203 of 2018

Name of the police station. :Proh. & Excise, Kamareddy

COR. No. :101 of 2017

Description of the accused. : Bhukya Vijaya

Date of offence. : 27-09-2017

Date of complaint. : 27-09-2017

Date of apprehension. : 12-10-20107

Date of commencement of trial. : 13-02-2019

Date of closure of trial. : 13-02-2019

Date of sentence or order. : 22-02-2019

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

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

Order Record 406 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/532/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Guguloth Hamsya	25 Feb 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/198/2018	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Dharavath Rekha	22 Feb 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/199/2018	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Goguloth Vittal	22 Feb 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/201/2018	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Maloth Panthulu	22 Feb 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/203/2018	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Bhukya Vijaya	22 Feb 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/227/2016	PS Tadwai vs Sabavath Vittal	21 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/355/2015	PS Kamareddy vs Mohamede Azhar Khan	21 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/433/2018	State through PS Kamareddy vs Thiruveedula @ Thiruvaneni Mahesh	20 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/434/2018	State through PS Kamareddy vs Thiruveedula @ Thiruvaneni Mahesh	20 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/81/2015	PS Kamareddy vs Pinnoji Naveen Kumar	19 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/274/2015	M. Subash Reddy vs Jogu @ Mettu Swamy	18 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/128/2015	Andyala Swamy vs Katlekunta Rajesh	14 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/516/2018	State through PS Machareddy vs Kothapally Raju @ Banoth Raju	12 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/100/2016	PS Kamareddy vs Dilleep Surne	08 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/128/2016	PS Kamareddy vs Dilleep Surne	08 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/45/2015	Excise Domakonda vs Maktala Ramu	07 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/58/2016	PS Sadasiv nagar vs Pothual Maddhusudhan Reddy	07 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/546/2018	Yenugu Ravi Prasad vs Bhukya Thirupathi	05 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/549/2018	Pandula naresh vs Bhukya Thirupathi	05 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/546/2014	M.Sriinu vs M.Srinu	04 Feb 2019	Judgement	—
CC/100/2013	Chintala Gopi vs D.Krishna	31 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/547/2018	Neela Dayakar vs Bhukya Thirupathi	31 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/518/2018	State through PS Devanpally vs Muddangula Raju	28 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/215/2014	M.A Basith vs Md.Tamheed	25 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/315/2015	PS Kamareddy vs Syed Azaz	24 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/267/2015	Mails Kamalakar Rao vs Jenani Ramesh	22 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/533/2018	State through PS Devanpally vs A1. Bhukya Thirupathi	22 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/541/2018	The state through PS Ramareddy vs Bhukya Thirupathi	22 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/363/2015	PS Devanpally vs Kandi Kumara Swamy	17 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/270/2015	PS Devanpally vs Bathini Laxmi	11 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/405/2018	The state through PS Kamareddy vs Bukya Thirupathi	11 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/553/2018	State through PS Kamareddy vs Rafath Gopi	11 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/456/2018	State through PS Ramareddy vs Bhukya Thirupathi	10 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/435/2018	State through PS Machareddy vs Bhukya Tirupathi	08 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/436/2018	State through PS Machareddy vs Bhukya Trirupathi	08 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/440/2018	State through PS Kamareddy vs Bukya Thirupathi	08 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/188/2017	The SHO Machareddy vs Kammari Sathaiah	04 Jan 2019	Judgement	—
CC/53/2015	J. Rajeshwari vs Md. Imran	31 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/105/2015	K.Venkateshwarlu vs Shaik Jahangir	31 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/661/2013	K.Punavva vs K.kammalla Malleham	31 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/229/2013	PS Devanpally vs Rajputh Ramesh	28 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/511/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Kasala Swamy Goud	21 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/251/2013	Mohammed Taher vs Shaik Khamroddin	20 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/383/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Ushannagari Chinna Swamy Goud	20 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/177/2015	Shaik Aziz vs Penugonda Chinna Sailoo	19 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/423/2018	The state through PS Bhiknoor vs P.Ramesh	12 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/66/2015	Smt. Haseena vs Md Shaboddin	11 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/412/2018	The state through PS Kamareddy vs Mommad Junaid Qadri	11 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/62/2015	Garide Bhuganga Rao vs Mallanolla Borra Rajaiah	10 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/41/2017	Ps Kamareddy vs Ankesh Mahesh	04 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/244/2016	PS Kamareddy vs Ankesh Mahesh	04 Dec 2018	Judgement	—
CC/258/2014	Md.Ameenoddin vs Vssshaik Yaseen	30 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/512/2009	Drug Inspector Kamareddy vs Sri Mallikarjuna medical	30 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/123/2013	PS Sadashivanagar vs Vadla Narimloo	27 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/252/2015	PS Kamareddy vs Bale Raju	27 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/302/2016	Ps bhiknoor vs Enkayala Raju	27 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/326/2018	State through PS Sadashivanagar vs Gummadi Swamy	26 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/575/2017	State through PS Kamareddy vs Smt. Padige Shravani	15 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/72/2015	Agaldeeti Rajini vs Agaldeeti Sharada	13 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/509/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Gangavath Ramchander	13 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/157/2015	Vydla Laxmi ZNarayana vs Mahannad Sahail @ Sudhaarshan Chary	12 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/203/2016	PS Kamareddy vs Anarasi Srinivas@Seenu	12 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/411/2018	State through PS Kamareddy vs Gadila Bhairaiah	08 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/495/2014	PS Sadashivanagar vs Maloth Basker	08 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/498/2014	G.Limba goud vs M.Bhaskar	08 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/562/2014	N.Srishailam vs A1-G.Bhairaiah, A2-G.Bhagyalaxmi	08 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/609/2017	State through PS Sadashivnagar vs Banoth Santhosh	08 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/529/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Polaskar Shantha Bai	05 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/709/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Bestha Karayagari Ramulu	05 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/128/2017	State through PS kamareddy vs Gudimela srinivas	02 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/129/2017	State through PS kamaredyy vs Gudimela srinivas	02 Nov 2018	Judgement	—
CC/46/2018	State through PS Ramareddy vs Gadila Bairaiah	30 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/180/2014	D.sathish reddy vs Gadila Dattu rao	30 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/330/2018	State through PS Kamareddy vs Gadila Bharaiah	30 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/811/2017	State through PS Kamareddy vs Gadila Bhairaiah	30 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/83/2015	PS Kamareddy vs Challa Suresh	29 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/274/2013	Drug Inspector Kamareddy vs Dr. S. Shiva Prasad	26 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/90/2015	PS Kamareddy vs Mekla Prasad	24 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/184/2015	Smt. Nazla Fathima vs Mohd Feroz	24 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/471/2014	G.Narsimlu vs Erukla Ramulu and others	23 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/127/2015	Mangggalampally Swamy vs Narsagalla Narsimulu	19 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/530/2014	Mudavath Ramesh vs Sampangi Narayana	12 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/341/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Annaram Venkati Goud	10 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/707/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Bejgum @ Veeramallu Krishnamurthy	10 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/428/2014	M.Bagaiah vs P.chandu	08 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/429/2014	S.Sidda goud vs P.chandu	08 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/555/2014	P.Balanarsu vs P.Chandu	08 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/214/2014	Rajeshwar goud vs Daravath chandu Naik	05 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/563/2014	K.Sandhyarani w.o Venkateshwar raao vs A1-K.Machender rao, A2-K.Pushpalatha,	05 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/280/2017	PS Sadhashiva Nagar vs Vsmallagari@lambadi Rajasheker	04 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/183/2013	PS Kamareddy vs Edagottu Pochaiah	03 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/745/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Bambothula gangagoud	03 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/774/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Middela Gangadhar	03 Oct 2018	Judgement	—
CC/5/2016	PS Kamareddy vs Pulluri Sampath	25 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
CC/343/2015	PS Bhiknoor vs Challaganige Narayana	25 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
CC/765/2017	State through PS Excise Kamareddy vs Gurjalla Rama Goud	25 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
CC/127/2018	State through PS Devanpally vs Abul Ayub Khan	24 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
CC/128/2018	State through PS Devanpally vs Abdul Ayub Khan	24 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
CC/147/2018	State through PS Devanpally vs Abdul Ayub Khan	24 Sep 2018	Judgement	—
CC/176/2018	State through PS Machareddy vs Shaik Waseem	24 Sep 2018	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 406 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Feb 2019		20
Jan 2019		17
Dec 2018		14
Nov 2018		20
Oct 2018		22
Sep 2018		26
Aug 2018		15
Jul 2018		25
Jun 2018		12
May 2018		21
Apr 2018		33
Mar 2018		11

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has M Kiran Mahi handled?

M Kiran Mahi has handled 406 court orders since 2017 at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 19 orders per month.

What types of cases does M Kiran Mahi hear?

Based on available records, M Kiran Mahi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is M Kiran Mahi currently posted?

M Kiran Mahi is posted as Prl. Junior Civil Judge court, Kamareddy at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Kamareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by M Kiran Mahi available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by M Kiran Mahi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does M Kiran Mahi dispose cases?

M Kiran Mahi disposes approximately 19 cases per month, based on 406 orders handled over their tenure at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is M Kiran Mahi serving?

M Kiran Mahi has been serving at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 93%

OS 5%

MC 2%

Posting History

May 2017 — Mar 2019

Prl. Junior Civil Judge court, Kamareddy · 406 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Ms. B. Deeksha

Addl JCJ Cum Spl Mobile Judge Kamareddy

497 orders

Dr. Ch. V.R.R. Varaprasad

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy

538 orders

K. Sudhakar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge court, Kamareddy

601 orders

Smt. Dr. S. Sumalatha

Senior Civil Judge

565 orders

← View all judges at Kamareddy, PDJ Court Complex