Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YEMMIGANUR

Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Yemmiganur (Taluka) · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YEMMIGANUR, is posted at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Yemmiganur (Taluka), Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,935 court orders on record since 2024. 16 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

1,935

Total Orders

Judgments

370

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/789/2022 Acquitted

The SHO Mantralayam PS vs Uppari Anjaneyulu and 4 others

14 Jun 2024

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, YEMMIGANUR.

PRESENT: Sri Sai Subhash M.L.,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

Friday, the 14th Day of June, 2024

C.C.No.789/2022

Between :

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mantralayam Police Station. .... Complainant

And

1.Uppari Anjineyulu S/o Mallesh, age 30 years.

2.Uppari Narasimhulu S/o Mallaiah, age 25 years.

3.Uppari Eranna S/o Mareppa, age 52 years All are residents of Idapanuru village of Raichur District.

4.Uppari Ramanjini of Alwala village of Yemmiganur mandal

.... Accused 1 to 4

This case coming before me for final hearing on this day i.e., on 11-06-2024 in the presence of A.P.P. for State and of Sri.P. Naganna,

Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.129/2020 for the offence punishable u/ Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 28.06.2020 at about 10.30 hours, LW1/Boya Jayanna, HC 2735,

LW2/R. Krishna Naik, PC 1974 and LW3/K. Sreeramulu, PC 3010 of

Mantralayam police station were left the Police Station in police jeep bearing

No. AP 9P 5491 with a view to collect illegal activities and visited

Madhavarama village, Mantralayam village and were proceedings towards

Madhavaram – Mantralayam Road at Petrol bunk, Mantralayam village and 2 mandal and and found three persons going towards to Mantralaym from

Madhavaram by motor cycle keeping white plastic super bag carrying by co- rider, and on seeing Police, accused tried move fast and they surrounded the accused. Then LW1 enquired the accused, and the accused revealed their identity particulars and about the white plastic super bag. Thereafter, LW1 examined the first plastic super bag which contains 90 Original Choice

Deluxe Whiskey tetra sachets (90 Ml. each) and the second plastic super bag contains 90 Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey tetra sachets (90 Ml. each) –

Totally 180 tetra Karnataka sachets. Then LW1 took one original choice deluxe whisky (180 Ml.) each bottles as sample for chemical examination and seized remaining contraband under the cover of Police Proceedings. Basing on the Police Proceedings, LW.4 registered a case in Cr.No.129/2020 u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. LW-4 arrested the accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

04.After appearance of the accused, case copies and relevant documents was furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 got marked

Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 on its behalf. Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.1,2 and 3.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,and the incriminating evidence from the testimonies of

PW1 were read over and explained to them, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for accused.

09.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether accused possessed or sold any intoxicant in

contravention of provisions of Excise Act without any valid license

or permit and thereby committed offence punishable under section

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968” ?

Point:

10. The learned APP fairly contended that the matter may be decided on merits. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and that no efforts were made to secure independent witnesses, that itself shows the police foisted false case against the accused for statistical purpose and as there is no testimony of independent witness, a benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused and he may be acquitted.

11. Section 34(a) read as follows as hereunder:

Penalties for illegal import etc:-Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under or any of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act:-

a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant, established or continued under this Act shall on conviction be punished.

12. According to the prosecution case, accused possessed liquor packets and tried to sell the same in contravention of provisions of Excise Act and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

13. P.W.1 in his evidence staunchly supported the case of prosecution and also deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered the crime, arrested the accused and after receiving analysis report he filed charge sheet.

14.Prosecution's case is that the accused confessed that he possessed the liquor without a valid license or permit. This part of evidence deposed by

P.W.1 with regard to the confession cannot be received into evidence because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is clearly stated that confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible. This part of evidence with regard to confession either in the evidence of P.W.1 or in Ex.P.1 is held inadmissible. According to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 every person is competent to testify. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly supported the prosecution case and remained un-shattered as to the facts witnessed by them.

15.P.W.1 categorically deposed that he witnessed the possession of liquor by the accused and he seized them. But, according to Section 59 of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968, the police at the time of seizure of property, must follow the procedure enshrined in Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. i.e., the police shall secure the presence of independent witnesses and during their presence as mediators, the police shall seize the contraband. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

But, there is no piece of evidence on record that police tried to secure the presence of independent witnesses. No reason was specified either in the charge sheet or in the prosecution evidence for non-issuance of written notices to the persons around the scene of offence. The failure of the prosecution to comply Section 59 of A.P. Excise Act and Section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused that a hefty attempt was made by the police to drag the accused into the web of alleged crime.

16. No independent witnesses were present and were examined in this case.

Except police officials, no other independent evidence supported the prosecution case. Ex.P3 and Mo.1 merely shows that the contraband seized is Indian made liquor, that itself does not mean that the accused possessed or sold the same. In these circumstances, this court is of opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of police officials and to convict the accused. Therefore, this Court opines that, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for Acquittal.

17. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Mo.No.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of June 2024.

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ComplainantFor Defence

Pw1: U. Venugopala, S.I Mantralayam P.S -None- Mantralaym Police Station

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For ComplainantFor Defence:

Ex.P.1: Police Proceedings. Nil Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report.

Ex.P.4: Destruction Proceedings Ex.P5: Destruction Panchanama

Material Objects

M.O.1: One sample tetra packets (90 ml) of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky.

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, YEMMIGANUR.

C.C.No.789/2022

1Date of Offence28.06.2020 2Date of Complaint28.06.2020 3Date of apprehension of the accused 28.06.2020 Sec.41A Cr.P.C Notice 4Date of release on bail28.06.2020 5Date of Commencement of Trial07.06.2024 6Date of Close of Trial10.06.2024 7Date of Judgment14.06.2024

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.789/2022 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur.

ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Police Station Cr.No.129/2020 of Mantralayam Police Station. Accused1.Uppari Anjineyulu S/o Mallesh, age 30 years.

2.Uppari Narasimhulu S/o Mallaiah, age 25 years.

3.Uppari Eranna S/o Mareppa, age 52 years All are residents of Idapanuru village of Raichur District.

4.Uppari Ramanjini of Alwala village of Yemmiganur mandal Section of LawU/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. FindingA1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Sentence of OrderIn the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Mo.No.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. // True /

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

CC/796/2022 Acquitted

The SHO Mantralayam PS vs Vs1.Boya Nagaraju and 2.Chakali Hussain,

20 Jun 2024

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, YEMMIGANUR.

PRESENT: Sri Sai Subhash M.L.,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

Thursday, the 20 th Day of June, 2024

C.C.No.796/2022

Between :

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mantralayam Police Station. .... Complainant

And

1.Boya Nagaraju, S/o Boya Bajari, age 26 years, Ibrahimpuram village, Nandavaram mandal.

2.Chakali Hussain S/o late Dullaiah, age 52 years of Malkapuram village, Raichur district, Karnataka state.

.... Accused 1 & 2

This case coming before me for final hearing on this day i.e., on 16-06-2024 in the presence of A.P.P. for State and of Sri.P. Rashidulla,

Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.154/2020 for the offence punishable u/ Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 29.07.2020 at about 18.00 hours, LW3/U. Venugopal Raja, S.I of

Police, Mantralayam P.S. along with his staff LW1/J. Chenna Basappa, PC 700 of Mantralayam P.S. and LW2/A. Govinda Rajulu, PC 2863 of Mantralayam P.S.

left the Police Station in police jeep bearing No. AP 9P 5491 on credible information reached near Nadhikairavadi pump house at outskirts of

Mantralayam village and found one persons with white bag on motorcycle bearing No.AP 39 CZ 3708, Hero Honda HF deluxe near Nadikairavadi Pump

House at outskirts of Mantralayam village and on suspicion the police 2 stopped the jeep and caught hold of the accused. Then LW1 enquired the accused, and the accused revealed their identity particulars and about the white plastic super bag. Thereafter, LW3 enquired him the accused revealed his name and identity and voluntarily stated that the bag contains 160

Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey tetra sachets (90 Ml. each) of Karnataka state. Then LW3 took one original choice deluxe whisky (90 Ml.) as sample for chemical examination and seized remaining contraband under the cover of Police Proceedings. Basing on the Police Proceedings, LW.3 registered a case in Cr.No.154/2020 u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation LW3 filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

04.After appearance of the accused, case copies and relevant documents was furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

05.The accused were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 got marked

Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 on its behalf. Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.1 and 2.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence from the testimonies of

PW1 were read over and explained to them, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for accused.

09.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether accused possessed or sold any intoxicant in

contravention of provisions of Excise Act without any valid license

or permit and thereby committed offence punishable under section

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968” ?

Point:

11. Section 34(a) read as follows as hereunder:

a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant, established or continued under this Act shall on conviction be punished.

14.Prosecution's case is that the accused confessed that he possessed the liquor without a valid license or permit. This part of evidence deposed by 4

15.P.W.1 categorically deposed that he witnessed the possession of liquor by the accused and he seized them. But, according to Section 59 of A.P.

Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused that a hefty attempt was made by the police to drag the accused into the web of alleged crime.

16. No independent witnesses were present and were examined in this case.

Except police officials, no other independent evidence supported the prosecution case. Ex.P3 and Mo.1 merely shows that the contraband seized is Indian made liquor, that itself does not mean that the accused possessed or sold the same. In these circumstances, this court is of opinion 5 that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of police officials and to convict the accused. Therefore, this Court opines that, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for Acquittal.

17. In the result, A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of June 2024.

SD/- Sai Subhash.M.L.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ComplainantFor Defence

Pw1: U. Venugopala, S.I Mantralayam P.S -None- Mantralayam Police Station

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For ComplainantFor Defence:

Ex.P.1: Police Proceedings. Nil Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P.4: Destruction Proceedings Ex.P5: Destruction Panchanama

Material Objects

M.O.1: One sample tetra packets (90 ml) of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky.

SD/- Sai Subhash.M.L.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, YEMMIGANUR.

C.C.No.796/2022

1Date of Offence29.07.2020 2Date of Complaint29.07.2020 3Date of apprehension of the accused 28.06.2020 Sec.41A Cr.P.C Notice 4Date of release on bail 5Date of Commencement of Trial07.06.2024 6Date of Close of Trial14.06.2024 7Date of Judgment20.06.2024

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.796/2022 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur.

ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Police Station Cr.No.154/2020 of Mantralayam Police Station. Accused1.Boya Nagaraju, S/o Boya Bajari, age 26 years, Ibrahimpuram village, Nandavaram mandal.

2.Chakali Hussain S/o late Dullaiah, age 52 years of Malkapuram village, Raichur district, Karnataka state. Section of LawU/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. FindingA1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Sentence of OrderIn the result, A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 4 are ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

// True /

SD/- Sai Subhash.M.L.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

CC/1403/2022 Acquitted

The SHO Peddakadabur PS vs Boya Nagappa

14 Jun 2024

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, YEMMIGANUR.

PRESENT: Sri Sai Subhash M.L.,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

Friday, the 14th Day of June, 2024

C.C.No.1403/2022

Between :

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Peddakadbur Police Station. .... Complainant

and

Boya Nagappa, age 39 years, S/o.Boya Bheemaiah, Kambaladinne Village, Peddakaduburu Mandal

.... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on this day i.e., on 11-06-2024 in the presence of A.P.P. for State and of Sri.P. Raja Rathnam,

Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Peddakadubur Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.41/2022 for the offence punishable u/ Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 21.05.2022 morning 07.50 hours on credible information, LW1/M/

Satyaraju, PC 2800 and LW.2/G.Nagaraju, PC 2931 on motor cycles and reached near Batta Maremma temple, Outskirts of Kambaladinne village and found accused standing by holding one white bag and on seeing Police, accused tried skulk away from the place, then L.W.1 and L.W.2 surrounded and caught hold of the accused. Then L.W.3 enquired the accused, and the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to purchase liquor bottles from unknown person of Karnataka state at lower 2 rates and selling them in his village for higher rates and preparing to sell the same. Then they verified the bag and found 18- Original Choice deluxe whisky 90 ml tetra packets of Karnataka state. Then LW3 send LW1 to

Kambaladinne village for panchayatdars but none came forward to act as

Panchayatdar. Then LW.3 took 1-90 ml as sample and seized remaining contraband under the cover of police proceedings and arrested the accused.

Basing on the Police Proceedings, LW.3 registered a case in

Cr.No.41/2022 u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted the copies ot all the concerned. After completion of investigation, L.W.3 filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

04.After appearance of the accused, case copies and relevant documents was furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.No.1 on its behalf. Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW1 and LW2.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,and the incriminating evidence from the testimonies of

P.Ws.1 and 2 were read over and explained to him, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for accused.

09.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether accused possessed or sold any intoxicant in

contravention of provisions of Excise Act without any valid license

or permit and thereby committed offence punishable under section

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968”?

Point:

11. Section 34(a) read as follows as hereunder:

a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant, established or continued under this Act shall on conviction be punished.

13. PW1 in his evidence staunchly supported the case of prosecution. P.W.1 deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered the crime, arrested the accused and after receiving analysis report and he filed charge sheet.

14.Prosecution's case is that the accused confessed that he possessed the liquor without a valid license or permit. This part of evidence deposed by

P.W.1 with regard to the confession cannot be received into evidence 4 because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is clearly stated that confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible. This part of evidence with regard to confession in the evidence of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 is held inadmissible. According to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 every person is competent to testify. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly supported the prosecution case and remained un-shattered as to the facts witnessed by them.

15.P.W1 categorically deposed that they witnessed the possession of liquor by the accused and he seized them. But, according to Section 59 of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the police at the time of seizure of property, must follow the procedure enshrined in Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. i.e., the police shall secure the presence of independent witnesses and during their presence as mediators, the police shall seize the contraband. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality.

Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused that a hefty attempt was made by the police to drag the accused into the web of alleged crime.

16. No independent witnesses were present and were examined in this case.

Except police officials, no other independent evidence supported the prosecution case. Ex.P3 and Mo.1 merely shows that the contraband seized is Indian made liquor, that itself does not mean that the accused possessed or sold the same. In these circumstances, this court is of opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of police officials and to convict 5 the accused. Therefore, this Court opines that, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for Acquittal.

17. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused is ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of June, 2024

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ComplainantForDefence

Pw1: K. Srinivasulu, S.I of Police, Peddakadubur P.S. -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For ComplainantForDefence:

Ex.P.1: Special Report Nil Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P.4: Confiscation Proceedings Ex.P5: Destruction Proceedings

Material Objects

M.O.1: Sample tetra packet (90 ml) of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky.

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur 6

CALANDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: YEMMIGANUR.

C.C.No.1403/2022

1Date of Offence21.05.2022 2Date of Complaint21.05.2022 3Date of apprehension of the accused 21.05.2022 4Date of release on bail25.05.2022 5Date of Commencement of Trial04.08.2023 6Date of Close of Trial07.06.2024 7Date of Judgment14.06.2024

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1403/2022 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur.

ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Kosigi Police Station Cr.No.41/2022 of Peddakadbur Police Station. AccusedBoyaNagappa, age 39 years, S/o.Boya Bheemaiah, Kambaladinne Village, Peddakaduburu Mandal Section of LawU/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. FindingAccused found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Sentence of OrderIn the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused is ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437- A of Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. // True /

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

CC/1266/2022 Acquitted

SHO of Mantralayam PS vs Boya Rajashekar

14 Jun 2024

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, YEMMIGANUR.

PRESENT: Sri Sai Subhash M.L.,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

Friday, the 14th Day of June, 2024

C.C.No.1266/2022

Between :

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mantralayam Police Station. .... Complainant

and

Boya Rajashekar, age 21 years, S/o.B. Nagaraju, Dharmapuram Village, Nandavaram Mandal

.... Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on this day i.e., on 11-06-2024 in the presence of A.P.P. for State and of Sri.U. Ranganath,

Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.128/2021 for the offence punishable u/ Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 29.06.2021 evening at about 18.00 hours LW3/U. Venu Gopal, S.I of Police, Mantralayam P.S. along with his staff LW1/G. Rangaswamy, PC 2953 and G. Paramesh, PC 3314 left Mantralayam village in police jeep bearing

No.AP 9P 5491 and reached Petrol bunk which is situated at Madhavaram road and conducted vehicle checking and found accused coming on motor cycle with one super bag. On suspicion they stopped the motorcycle and bearing registration number AP 39 BC 8920 and on search the bag they found 170 Haywards Cheeres Whisky (90 Ml.) of Karnataka State. Then LW.3 2 took 1-90 ml as sample and seized remaining contraband under the cover of police proceedings and arrested the accused.

Basing on the Police Proceedings, LW.3 registered a case in

Cr.No.128/2021 u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted the copies to all the concerned. After completion of investigation, L.W.3 filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

04.After appearance of the accused, case copies and relevant documents was furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.No.1 on its behalf. Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW1 and LW2.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,and the incriminating evidence from the testimonies of

P.W.1 were read over and explained to him, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for accused.

09.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether accused possessed or sold any intoxicant in

contravention of provisions of Excise Act without any valid license

or permit and thereby committed offence punishable under section

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968”?

Point:

11. Section 34(a) read as follows as hereunder:

a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant, established or continued under this Act shall on conviction be punished.

14.Prosecution's case is that the accused confessed that he possessed the liquor without a valid license or permit. This part of evidence deposed by

P.W.1 with regard to the confession cannot be received into evidence because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is clearly stated that confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible. This part of evidence with regard to confession in the evidence of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 is held inadmissible. According to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 4 every person is competent to testify. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly supported the prosecution case and remained un-shattered as to the facts witnessed by them.

15.P.W1 categorically deposed that they witnessed the possession of liquor by the accused and he seized them. But, according to Section 59 of

Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused that a hefty attempt was made by the police to drag the accused into the web of alleged crime.

16. No independent witnesses were present and were examined in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of June, 2024

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ComplainantFor Defence

Pw1: U.Venugopal Raju, S.I of Police, Mantralayam P.S. -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For ComplainantFor Defence:

Ex.P.1: Police Proceedings Nil Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P.4: Destruction Proceedings Ex.P5: Destruction panchanama

Material Objects

M.O.1: Sample tetra packet (90 ml) of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky.

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur 6

CALANDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: YEMMIGANUR.

C.C.No.1266/2022

1Date of Offence29.06.2021 2Date of Complaint29.06.2021 3Date of apprehension of the accused Sec.41-A Cr.P.C Notice 4Date of release on bail 5Date of Commencement of Trial07.06.2024 6Date of Close of Trial11.06.2024 7Date of Judgment14.06.2024

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1266/2022 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur.

ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Police Station Cr.No.128/2021 of Mantrayalam Police Station. AccusedBoya Rajashekar, age 21 years, S/o.B. Nagaraju, Dharmapuram Village, Nandavaram Mandal Section of LawU/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. FindingAccused found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Sentence of OrderIn the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused is ordered to be in force for a period of six months along with surety bonds as per Section 437- A of Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. // True /

Sd/-Sai Subhash M.L

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur

CIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-Cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

CC/415/2024 Convicted

SHO, Mantralayam P.S. vs Nallabothula Siraj Raju

11 Sep 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, YEMMIGANUR.

Present:- Sri. Sai Subhash M.L.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur.

Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024.

C.C.No.415 / 2024

Between:

State Represented by

The Station House Officer,

Mantralayam Police Station..... Complainant.

-Vs-

Nallabothula Sirill Raju, age 19 years, s/o.Nallabothula Raju, Ramapuram Village Mantralayam Mandal and Kurnool District.

Driver of Auto bearing No.AP21TZ7334. ….. Accused

This case coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant, the accused present in person; and upon hearing, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The S.H.O., Mantralayam Police Station filed the charge sheet against the Accused for the offence u/s.125 of B.N.S in Cr.No.85/2024.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief are that: The S.H.O. of Mantralayam P.S. filed charge sheet in Crime No.85/2024 for the offence u/s.125 B.N.S. against the Accused alleging that on 10-9-2024 at about 6-45 P.M., at the scene of offence i.e. Raghavendra Circle, while the H.C.1188 of Mantralayam P.S. along with his staff P.Cs.2911, 840 were discharging the duties, noticed Accused who was doing rash and negligent acts with Auto bearing No.AP21TZ7334 which endangers human life or the personal safety of others which amounts to an offence under section 125 of B.N.S. Upon the Police Proceedings, the police filed the charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/s.125 of B.N.S. against the Accused. The copies of case documents were furnished to Accused as contemplated u/s.230 B.N.S.S.

4.Accused was examined u/s.274 of B.N.S.S. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence u/s.125 of B.N.S. for which he voluntarily admitted the offence and pleaded the guilt. This court specifically warned the Accused that he may be convicted and sentenced to pay fine. There upon the Accused voluntarily pleaded, without any force, coercion,undue influence and mistake of fact or law.

5.IN THE RESULT, considering the admission made by the Accused, he is found guilty of the offence u/s.125 of B.N.S. and accordingly convicted u/s.275 of B.N.S.S. Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) for the offence u/s.125 of B.N.S., in default of payment of fine to undergo

Simple Imprisonment of two days. The unmarked case property if any shall be disposed off in accordance of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of September, 2024.

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur.

Appendix of Evidence, witnesses examined and documents marked - NIL -

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni. FAC Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur.

Order Record 1,873 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/451/2022	B.Narayana Reddy vs M.Shambulingappa	19 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/761/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Adoni rep by G.Rajesh vs Ashok Vardhan Reddy	14 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/687/2019	Sri Mallikarjuna Finance by its Proprietor E.Guru Reddy by its GPA Holder B.Paramesh vs B.Venkatesulu	12 May 2026	Judgment	—
EP/44/2024	T. SURESH BABU vs EDIGA GOPAL	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/1435/2022	N.S.Shaiksha vali vs P.Ranga Swamy	30 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
MC/53/2022	Kumbaru Hampanna vs Kumburu Saibanna	30 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/230/2022	III Town PS vs Bandari Anjali	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/476/2022	K.SUDHAKAR REDDY vs HANUMAIAH AND ANOTHER	22 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/1059/2022	SHO,Adoni I Town PS vs Gudur Ishak	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/66/2022	Adoni II Town Ps vs Bandi Fayaz @ Khader	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/804/2022	Adoni III town PS vs Bandari Chinna	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/436/2022	Taluq PS vs Chiluka hanumanthamma	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/812/2022	Adoni III town PS vs V.C. Chinna Nagaraju	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/890/2022	SHO Adoni I town PS vs Yellappa	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1200/2022	SHO, Adoni I Town P.S. vs B.Srinivasulu	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/103/2020	Dasari Aswani vs S.D.Janardhan	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/222/2023	Adoni II Town PS vs Boya Padma	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/235/2020	S.I. of Police, Adoni taluk P.S. vs Pedda Rangaiahgari Krishna	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/307/2023	SHO, Adoni II Town P.S. vs Boya Bheemalingadu @ Hulebeedu Bheemalimga	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/312/2020	SI of Police, Adoni II town PS vs Boya Veeresh and another	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/388/2020	SHO, Adoni Taluk P.S. vs Boya Mula Ramakrishna	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/696/2022	Adoni I Town PS vs Boya Eranna	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/813/2022	Adoni III town PS vs Chand Basha	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1092/2022	SHO,Adoni I Town PS vs Boya Suvarna	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1219/2022	SHO, Adoni III Town vs P.Abdul Nabi	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/218/2019	Abdi Khan Ghori vs M.Jiauddiun	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/30/2020	P.Sree Ramachandra vs Bandaru Lakshmi	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/173/2018	The SHO Adoni III Town P.S. vs N.Shabeer Ahmed and 2 others	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/240/2022	III Town PS vs P.Abdul Nabhi	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/318/2020	SI of Police, Adoni II town PS vs Harijana Maremma and 2 others	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/797/2022	Adoni III town PS vs Gosi Muniswamy	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/363/2025	Adoni P and E PS vs Shaik Noorjahan	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1086/2022	SHO,Adoni I Town PS vs Boya Uday Kumar	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
MC/10/2019	Bestha Malleswari vs M.Naresh Kumar	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/101/2023	B.BANDE NAWAZ vs S.MAHAMMED HANEEF	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/164/2023	ICICI BANK LTD, ADONI BRANCH, REP.BY ITS MANAGER C.CHITTI BABU, ADONI vs GURRAM PRABHAKAR REDDY AND ANOHER	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/233/2020	P.Sankar Rao vs V.Sujani	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/335/2023	K.M. MANIKESHWARI vs GAJJEHALLI HUSSAIN VALI AND 2-OTHERS	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/472/2025	MONEY-A.Mareppa vs V.Nagaraju	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/7/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Adoni I Town UPS. vs Mangali Veereshappa	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/14/2026	Inspector of Police, Adoni II town PS. vs Viswanath Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/62/2026	Sub Inspector of police, Adoni Rural PS. vs Pullammagari Sreenivasa Reddy Alias Golla Sreenivasulu	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/64/2026	Inspector of Police, Adoni II town PS. vs Boya Hanumanthu	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/65/2026	Inspector of Police, Adoni II town PS. vs Uday Alias Kurivelli Uligappa	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/93/2026	Inspector of Police, Adoni II Town PS. vs Sanjeev Alias Boya Sanjeev	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/96/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Adoni III Town UPS. vs Kurnool Nawaz	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/97/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Adoni Rural PS. vs Pullamma gari Hanumantha Reddy Alias Goll aHanumantha Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/112/2026	Inspector of Police, Adoni II town UPS. vs Hosur Mahendra	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/113/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Ayyali Sunkapa	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/114/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Mekadona Venkatesh	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/115/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Uppara Gangamma	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/116/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Madiga Saroja	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/117/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Jelli Anasuyamma	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/118/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs E.Malleshwari	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/119/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Gongali Raja Sekhar	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/120/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Kuruva Ravi	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/121/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Boya Rama Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/122/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Mekadona Rama Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/123/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Boya Vinay	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/124/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Boya Saroja	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/125/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Adavi Venkatesh	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/126/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Telugu Bheemudu	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/127/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Boya Jayamma	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/128/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Boya Obuleshu	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/129/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Kuruva Padmavathi	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/130/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Kattubadi Ravi	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/131/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Kuruba Samabaiah	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/132/2026	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Adoni. vs Gudisili Gopal	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/154/2024	G.Aruna vs Pankajakshi	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/185/2023	Adoni Taluq Ps vs Golla Kota Anjaneya	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/286/2024	Adoni II Town PS vs Krishna @ Usurupati Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/310/2017	The SHO Adoni II Town P.S. vs M.Renu Kiran and 4 others	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/313/2018	The SHO Adoni II town P.S. vs Boya Kodipetla Hanumanthu and 6 others	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/382/2025	Adoni II Town PS vs Ayub alias Soudagar Ayub	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/393/2021	S.Mohammed Rafia vs S.Vazeer Basha	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/407/2021	SHO I Town PS vs Vadde Venkatesh	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/424/2024	Adoni II Town PS vs C.Bharath KUmar	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/459/2024	Adoni I Town PS vs Sile Ayyali	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/470/2019	P.S.Gopal vs T.Thikkanna	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/595/2018	The SHO Adoni III town P.S. vs Gopi Raghupathi Lalsar and 5 others	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/643/2023	Adoni III Town PS vs Basireddy Jagadeeswara Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/675/2025	SHO, Adoni I town PS vs Matam Chenna Basava	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/703/2023	Adoni II Town PS vs Shaik Nabi	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/704/2023	Adoni II Town PS vs Shaik Mohammed Ghouse	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/3/2018	Y.Bharathi vs Mala Ranga Swamy and 6 others	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
MC/13/2025	Sirigiri Mahadevi alias Kavitha vs K.Dasthagiri	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
MC/33/2023	Dage Mamatha vs Nikkam Nuthan Rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/51/2026	Inspector of Police, Adoni II Town UPS, Kurnool District. vs Halvi Anjaneyulu	13 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1502/2022	Proh. Excise PS vs Boya Sreenivasulu	12 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/333/2023	M/s Sree Bhavani Finance Rep By it'ss proprietor vs V.Eranna	11 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/706/2019	M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Adoni rep by G.Rajesh vs M.Afsar Ali	11 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
PRC/10/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Adoni Rural P.S. vs Madasula Bhaskar	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/319/2020	SI of Police, Adoni II town PS vs Ediga Anji	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/593/2019	M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Company rep by G.Rajesh vs K.Karappa	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
MC/14/2021	Sai Sindhu and another vs Y.Ravi Kiran	03 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1749/2022	Proh. Excise Adoni vs Harijana Umadevi	02 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/85/2022	THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADONI II TOWN P.S. vs TALARI NARAYANA AND ANOTHER	27 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/115/2021	K.Manikanta vs M.Kiran Kumar	26 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1123/2022	N.Mohan Prasad vs Madukula Veera Swamy	26 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1770/2022	Proh. Excise Adoni vs Boya Ravi	26 Feb 2026	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 1,873 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		3
Apr 2026		12
Mar 2026		82
Feb 2026		97
Jan 2026		70
Dec 2025		263
Nov 2025		137
Oct 2025		29
Sep 2025		238
Aug 2025		37
Jul 2025		220
Jun 2025		63

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash handled?

Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash has handled 1935 court orders since 2024 at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Yemmiganur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 370 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash hear?

Based on available records, Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Yemmiganur (Taluka).

Where is Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash currently posted?

Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash is posted as JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YEMMIGANUR at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Yemmiganur (Taluka), Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash available online?

Yes. 16 judgments by Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash dispose cases?

Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash disposes approximately 370 cases per month, based on 1935 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Yemmiganur (Taluka).

Since when is Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash serving?

Sri. M. Leela Sai Subhash has been serving at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Yemmiganur (Taluka) since 2024.

Case Types

CC 90%

OS 5%

PRC 2%

MC 1%

EP 1%

STC 1%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Sep 2024 — Oct 2024

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YEMMIGANUR · 6 orders
Jul 2024 — Aug 2024

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YEMMIGANUR · 1 orders
May 2024 — Present

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 1,920 orders
May 2024 — Jun 2024

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YEMMIGANUR · 8 orders

Outcomes on Record

Convicted 5

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

P. Hema

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YEMMIGANUR

5 orders

← View all judges at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Yemmiganur (Taluka)