Sri M. Pavan Kumar

Junior Civil Judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Sri M. Pavan Kumar, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,931 court orders on record since 2013. 7 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, PRC cases.

1,931

Total Orders

Judgments

280

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/209/2014 Acquitted

The Sub Inspector of POlice, Puttur P.S. vs C Muniraja

26 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT :- Sri. M.PAVAN KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2017.

C. C. No.209 of 2014.

Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur PS. (Cr.No.103/2014) …Complainant.

And:

1. C.Muniraja, Age: 37 years, S/o C.Kupparaju, Eswarapuram, Puttur Town and Mandal.

2. B.Rama Nayar, Age: 43 years, S/o B.Sankar Nayar, Srinivasa Nagar, Rajupalem,

Puttur town and Mandal.... Accused.

This case is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Gali suresh Babu for Accused no 1 and of Sri V.M.Narendra

Kumar for Accused no:2, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur PS filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in Cr.No.103/2014 of Puttur PS for the offence punishable u/Sec.171-E & 188 IPC and Sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

The then Sub Inspector of police of Puttur Police Station received credible information on 05.05.2014 at about 2.30 P.M about the distribution of liquor bottles to the voters by TDP party followers in order to cast their votes in favour of their party in Municipal elections at Govindapalem church compound situated on

Govindapalem area of Puttur town and Mandal. On receiving the said information, the Station House officer took the active assistance of his staff i.e., L.w.1 V.Ganesh, L.w.2 R.Mohan who are working as Police constables at Puttur Police station and that raided to the scene of offence and found the accused no 1 and 2 in possession of some card board boxes in a Auto bearing Reg no: AP 03 TB 1853. on verification it was found that there are One box MC Brandhy and four boxes Honey Bee Brandhy. Basing on the confession made by the accused that they are present there to distribute the liquor bottles to the voters for the purpose of bribing for encashing the votes, the

Station House Officer drafted a police proceedings on the spot and that basing on the same he seized the Auto bearing Reg no: AP 03 TB 1853 so also 240 quarter bottles under the cover of the police proceedings. Adverting to the above basing on the police proceedings a case in Cr.no: 103/2014 before Puttur Police station was registered against the accused no: 1 and 2 for the offences under sec.171-E and 188 IPC so also under Sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed accordingly.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence u/sec.171-E & 188 IPC and Sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act against the accused no 1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused 1 and 2, the case copies of the documents furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., the substance of the offence u/sec.171-E & 188 IPC, Sec 34(a) of AP

Excise Act against the accused, read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P3 so also MO1 and MO2.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused 1 and 2 are examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which they denied. On behalf of accused, no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the Point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused 1 &2 for the offences punishable u/Sec.

171E & 188 IPC and Sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act

beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise.

10.POINT:

In this case, the prosecution examined the then Sub Inspector of

The prosecution also got marked the MO1 i.e., 240 quarter bottles and MO.2 i.e., Auto bearing Reg no: AP 03 TB 1853 through PW.1 Vide

CPR no's : 148/2014 and 113/2014.

11. During the course of cross examination the PW1 admitted that he did not examine any of persons in and around the scene of offence though at the time of drafting of police proceedings there is availability of men in and around the scene of offence as the scene of offence is a busy locality. The Pw.1 further admitted that he did not secure any independent witnesses at the time of seizure of liquor bottles so also the seizure of Auto from the possession of the accused. On the other hand the Investigating officer did not submit a seizure list to the accused before the seizure. It also came to the light of the court that the Investigating office did not mention about the lifting of samples from the contraband and the quantity there on in his police proceedings. It was further elicited that the Investigating officer did not obtain the signatures of the accused on Ex.P1 proceedings.

12. After analysis of evidence and marshalling of facts what emerges clear is that the PW1 is the Investigating Officer who took up the investigation and that who filed the charge sheet in this case. Hence his evidence has to be scanned with great care and caution. The testimony of PW1 is that on receiving the information through his credible sources, he along with active assistance of his staff raided to the Govindapalem church compound and that found gathering of public at that place. His version is also that the accused no 1 and 2 are found in possession of MO.1 i.e., 240 quarter bottles and one Auto i.e., MO.2.. Added to this the PW1 seized the MO1 and MO2 under the cover of Police Proceedings. Here the point germane for determination is whether the prosecution is successful in proving the

Police Proceedings. For this the PW1 categorically deposed that though at the scene of offence there is availability of men in and around the scene of offence, he did not make any attempt to examine any of the independent witness at the scene of offence. Despite this the PW1 drafted a Police Proceedings on the spot and that under the cover of Police Proceedings he seized MO1 with out mentioning the lifting of sample from the contraband. On the other hand the investigating officer also failed to obtain the signatures of the accused no 1 and 2 on the proceedings which creates a doubt on the story of the prosecution. Hence after agglomeration of the evidence on record, when the prosecution fail to establish the Police

Proceedings, there cannot be a case for the prosecution as the entire case of the prosecution is edificed on the Police Proceedings. Thus the evidence available on record pertaining to PW1 alone is not inspiring the confidence of this court to proceed against the accused for the accusation levelled against him. As the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the POINT is determined in favour of the accused.

13. In the result, this Court found the accused no 1 and 2 not guilty for the offence u/sec.171-E & 188 IPC and Sec 34(a) of AP

Excise Act thereby they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused no 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. The MO1 i.e., 240 quarter bottles out of which 192 are M.C Brandhy and 48 are Honey

Bee Brandhy, vide CPR 148/2014 shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time. The MO.2 ie., Auto bearing Reg no: AP 03 TB 1853 vide CPR no: 113/2014 which was already given to the accused no:2 through interim custody vide Crl.M.P no: 1724/2014 dated 10.07.2014 shall be made absolute to him after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M.Pavan Kumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of : Prosecution:

PW.1 : E.Ramanujaneyulu

Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Police Proceedings,dt.05.05.2014.

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report in Cr.No.103/2014 u/sec.171-E & 188 IPC and Sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act dated 05.05.2014. E.x.P.3: Analysis Report dated 03.07.2014.

Witnesses examined on behalf of :

Defence: None.

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Defence: Nil. Material Objects marked:

MO1: 240 quarter bottles out of which 192 are M.C Brandhy and 48 are Honey Bee Brandhy. MO.2: Auto bearing Reg no: AP 03 TB 1853.

Id/-M.Pavan Kumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

//True Copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

CC/142/2014 Acquitted

The Sub Inspector of Police, Puttur PS vs D.Shanmugam

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PUTTUR .

PRESENT:Sri. M.PAVAN KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

C.C. No.142 of 2014.

Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur Police Station.

(Cr.No.33/2014).. Complainant.

And:

D.Shanmugam, Age: 30 years, S/o D.Doraswamy, R/o Eppathangal village, Parameswaramangal,

Narayanavanam Mandal. .. Accused.

This case is presented before me for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri N.Murugeshan Reddy, Advocate for accused, and upon hearing arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.33/2014 of Puttur Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 338 IPC against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

The informant ie., Lw.1 A.Jayachandra is a resident of SBI colony,

Puttur and Mandal. The accused is the resident of Narayanvanam

Mandal. While so on 24.02.2014 at about 1.45 PM the accused being the rider of TATA ACE bearing Reg no: AP 03 TB 0643 proceeding in a rash and negligent manner from Puttur to Tirupathi road and that near the

Taduku Bridge, the accused lost control over the vehicle and that dashed the opposite coming motor cylce on which the injured ie., Lw.3 V.Sai krishnanath was travelling. As a result of the accident the injured fell down from the motor cycle and that he was shifted to the Government

Hospital at Puttur. Adverting to the above basing on the strength of the complaint given by the complainant a case in crime no: 33/2014 before

Puttur PS under Sec 337 IPC was registered against the accused and that after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed accordingly.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under 338

IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused the copies of the documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined under sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the accusation levelled against accused for the offence under sec 338 IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the accused for

the offence under sec338 IPC against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt or

otherwise.

10.POINT:

In this case the prosecution examined the injured as Pw.1. His testimony is that on 24.02.2014 while he was proceeding on a Motor cycle from Puttur to Tirupathi and that when he reached the Taduku bridge, one luggage Auto coming in a opposite direction dashed his motor cycle as such he fell down and sustained injuries. He added that some body at the scene of offence intimated the accident to his wife ie.,

Lw.2 Srilekha so also to his friend ie., Pw.3. His version is that after the accident he was unconscious as such he cannot say who shifted him to the Hospital. When Pw.1 was cross examined he clarified that on the date of the incident the bridge at the Taduku is under repair as such there is only single road for the vehicles.

11. The Pw.2 is the Medical Officer. He deposed that on 24.02.2014 he examined Pw.1 at about 2.30 PM and that he found moderate head injury, frontal and anterior temporal contusion so also right frontal parietal external hematoma and opined that the frontal contusion and right frontal hematoma is of grievous in nature. Ex.P.1 is the wound certificate of Pw.1.

12. The Pw3 is informant. He is none other than the friend of the Pw.1.

He is the circumstantial witness. His version is that after receiving the information from one unknown person at the scene of offence on 24.02.2014 that his friend ie., Pw.1 met with an accident at Taduku situated on Puttur to Tirupathi so also after knowing about the shifting of

Pw.1 to the Government Hospital at Puttur, he rushed to the Hospital at

Puttur and there from as per the advice of duty doctors the Pw.1 was referred to the higher authorities at Tirupathi. Ex.P.2 is the complaint marked through him.

13. The Pw.4 is the by stander at the scene of offence. He testified that on 22.04.2014 while he was present at Taduku bridge for some mason work he noticed one accident that one TATA ACE vehicle dashed one two wheeler as such the rider of the motor cycle sustained head injury and was shifted to the hospital in 108 Ambulance. He clarified that after the accident the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle stopped the vehicle and escaped from the scene of offence.

14. The Investigating officer examined as Pw.4. His evidence in chief is in tune with records of the prosecution. Through him the crucial records of the prosecution ie., the First Information Report, the rough sketch received in evidence as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.

15. After analysis of evidence and marshalling of facts what emerges clear is that there is no evidence on the record submitted by the prosecution showing that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the accident and that due to the rash, negligent Act of the accused, the alleged accident took place leading to the injuries to Pw.1.

When the prosecution fail to prove the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle in the first instance, there cannot be a case for the prosecution.

16. Hence after agglomeration of the evidence, it is evident from the record that, when there is no acquaintance or identify intimacy among the accused and the eye witness, so also the material witness, their evidence cannot be looked into. Hence, this court is of the opinion that when the material witnesses are unable to identify the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident and have not given the actual account of rashness or negligence, there cannot be a case of prosecution. The prosecution also failed to establish the nexus between the accident and the accused vis a vis the crime vehicle. Hence in view of the discussion made supra, it can be safely said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. POINT is determined in favour of the accused.

17.In the result, this court found the accused not guilty for the offences under sec.338 IPC there by he is acquitted under Sec 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment.

Typed , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- M.Pavan Kumar,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of :

Prosecution:Defence:

PW.1: Sai Krishnanand. -None-

PW.2: Dr.P.Ravi Raju.

PW.3: A.Jayachandran.

PW.4: Srinivasulu.

Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : wound certificate of Pw.1 dt: 07.03.2014

Ex.P.2 : complaint given by Pw.3 dt: 24.02.2014. Ex.P.3: First Information Report in Cr.No: 33/2014 dt: 24.02.2014

before Puttur Police station.

Ex.P.4: Rough sketch dt: nil...

Defence: -NIL-

Material Objects marked ---NIL---

Id/- M.Pavan Kumar,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

//True Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

CC/178/2014 Acquitted

The Sub Inspector of POlice, Puttur P.S. vs K Kumar Reddy

25 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT :- Sri. M.PAVAN KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2017.

C. C. No.178 of 2014.

Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur PS. (Cr.No.47/2014) …Complainant.

And:

1. K.Kumar Reddy, Age: 50 years, S/o K.Changal Reddy, Sundarayya Nagar, M.D.Bhavan, Tirupathi.

2. G.Balasubramanyam, Age: 62 years, S/o G.Varadaraju, Madhurai Nagar, CIT Office at Tirupathi.

3. S.Jayachandra, Age: 30 years, S/o S.Anjanappa, Railway colony, Tirupathi.

4. R.Venkatesh, Age: 28 years, S/o Rosaiah, Nandhimangalam village, Puttur Mandal.

5. K.Muruga Reddy, Age: 48 years, S/o K.Krishna Reddy,NTR colony, Puttur.

6. U.Sunitha, Age: 37 years, W/o Kanniah, New street, Gate Puttur, town & Mandal.

7. J.Subhadhra, Age: 45 years, W/o J.Vijaya Kumar, New waivers colony,

Gate Puttur town and mandal.... Accused.

This case is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri S.Jayapalan, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur PS filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 7 in Cr.No.47/2014 of Puttur PS for the offence punishable u/Sec.171-h & 188 IPC so also against Sec 32 of AP Police

Act.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 13.03.2014 at about 12.30 PM the then Sub Inspector of police of Puttur Police Station along with his staff while conducting route watch at Puttur Town to maintain law and order as nominations are going on for MPTC and ZPTC elections so also for the assembly constituency found one rally consists of 7 members carrying CPM party flags raising slogans in favour of the party. The Station House

Officer objected in view of the election code obstructed the said rally.

Adverting to the above basing on the Police Proceedings drafted by the then Station House Officer at Puttur a case was registered against the accused no 1 to 7 in cr.no: 47/2014 before the Puttur police limits for the offences under Sec 171 h & 188 IPC so also under Sec 32 of

A.P.Police Act and that after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed accordingly.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence u/sec.171-h & 188 IPC against the accused no 1 to 7

4. On appearance of the accused no 1 to 7 the case copies of the documents furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused 1 to 7 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., the substance of the offence u/sec.171-h & 188 IPC against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2 so also MO1.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused 1 to 7 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which they denied. On behalf of accused, no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the Point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused 1 to 7 for the offences punishable u/Sec.

171h & 188 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or

otherwise.

10.POINT:

In this case, the prosecution examined the then Sub Inspector of

Police at Puttur as PW1. His evidence in chief is in tune with the records of the prosecution. Through him the crucial records of the prosecution the Police Proceedings and the First Information Report received in evidence as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The prosecution also got marked the MO1 i.e., 7 plastic red colour papers showing the emblem of CPM party through PW1. Vide CPR no: 129/2014.

11. During the course of cross examination the PW1 admitted the scene of offence took place at Karvetinagar circle which comes under the purview of Puttur Mandal. It is evident from the record that Puttur

Mandal consists of MRO so also other official witnesses. It also came to the light of the court that the Investigating officer did not examine any of persons in and around the scene of offence though at the time of drafting of police proceedings there is a huge gathering of public.

The Pw.1 further clarified that basing on party emblems which are carrying by the accused, he arrested and registered a case against them.

12. After analysis of evidence and marshalling of facts what emerges clear is that the PW1 is the Investigating Officer who took up the investigation and that who filed the charge sheet in this case. Hence his evidence has to be scanned with great care and caution. The testimony of PW1 is that with out pressing in to service any of the independent witnesses in and around the scene of offence he completed the investigation under the guise that he drafted a police proceedings on the spot. The record also goes to show that there is no proof of violation of code for elections as the prosecution failed to examine any of the witnesses in order to fix the liability against the accused for the accusation levelled against them. On the other hand the Investigating officer categorically deposed that though at the scene of offence there is availability of men in and around the scene of offence, he did not make any attempt to examine any of the independent witness at the scene of offence. Despite this the PW1 drafted a Police Proceedings on the spot and that under the cover of

Police Proceedings he seized MO1 with out obtaining the signatures of the accused no 1 to 7 on the proceedings which creates a doubt on the story of the prosecution. Hence after agglomeration of the evidence on record when the prosecution fail to establish the Police

Proceedings, there cannot be a case for the prosecution as the entire case of the prosecution is edificed on the Police Proceedings. Thus the evidence available on record pertaining to PW1 alone is not inspiring the confidence of this court to proceed against the accused for the accusation levelled against them. As the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the POINT is determined in favour of the accused.

13. In the result, this Court found the accused no 1 to 7 not guilty for the offence u/sec.171-h & 188 IPC thereby they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no 1 to 7 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. The MO1 i.e., 7 plastic red colour papers showing the emblem of CPM party in CPR.No. 129/2014 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed , corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M.Pavan Kumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of : Prosecution:

PW.1 : E.Ramanjaneyulu.

Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Police Proceedings,dt.13.03.2014.

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report in Cr.No.47/2014 u/sec.171-h & 188 IPC and Sec 32 of AP Police Act dated 13.03.2014.

Witnesses examined on behalf of :

Defence: None.

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Defence: Nil.

Material Objects marked:

MO1- plastic red colour papers showing the emblem of CPM party ( 7 in number)

Id/-M.Pavan Kumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

//True Copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

CC/129/2014 Acquitted

S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs A.Gopi

24 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT :- Sri. M.PAVAN KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2017.

C. C. No.129 of 2014.

Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur PS. (Cr.No.90/2014) …Complainant.

And:

A.Gopi, Age: 45 years, S/o A.Desaiah, Vepagunta Harijanawada, Putur Mandal. …Accused.

This case is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri D.Seshachalam, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.90/2014 of Puttur PS for the offence punishable u/Sec.171-E & 188 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

The then Sub Inspector of police of Puttur Police Station received credible information on 11.04.2014 at about 1.00 P.M about the distribution of cash to the voters by TDP party followers in order to cast their votes in favour of their party in ZPTC elections at

Vepagunta cross. On receiving the said information, the Station

House officer took the active assistance of his staff ie., L.w.1

A.Bhaskar who is working as Police constable at Puttur Police station and that raided to the scene of offence and found the accused in possession of cash of Rs.5,300/- and that as the accused failed to account for the same, the Station House officer drafted a police proceedings on the spot and that basing on the same he seized the cash of Rs.5,300/- under the cover of the proceedings. Adverting to the above basing on the police proceedings a case in Cr.No: 90/2014

before Puttur Police station was registered against the accused for

the offences under sec.171-E and 188 IPC. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed accordingly.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence u/sec.171-E & 188 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused the case copies of the documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., the substance of the offence u/sec.171-E & 188 IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P.1 & P.2 so also MO1.

7.On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which he denied. On behalf of accused, no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the Point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 171E

& 188 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise.

10.POINT:

In this case, the prosecution examined the then Sub Inspector of

92/2014.

11. During the course of cross examination the PW1 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality as it is situated with in a distance of 300 mts from kailasakona which is pilgrim place. It also came to the light of the court that the Investigating Officer came to know that the accused is the follower of the TDP party through some men in and around the scene of offence but he categorically deposed that though he examined the men at the scene of offence he cannot say their names.

Mo.1 ie., cash of Rs.5,300/-. Added to this the PW1 seized the MO1 under the cover of Police Proceedings. Here the point germane for determination is whether the prosecution is successful in proving the

Police Proceedings or not.. For this the PW1 categorically deposed that though at the scene of offence there is availability of men in and around the scene of offence and that inspite of examining them the

Investigating office failed to account for the name of persons who he examined and how he came to conclusion that the accused is the follower of the TDP party and that bribing the voters to support their party for casting the votes of general public in favour of the said party. The prosecution got miserably failed to establish that the accused is the follower of the TDP party and that he was present at the scene of offence for bribing the voters. There is no single piece of incriminating evidence in favour of the accused showing that he is the follower of the TDP party. The evidence of the Investigating agency though made an attempt to cover the latches on the part of the investigation made by the officer, it does not support the case of the prosecution as in the threshold there is no evidence on record to support the reasons for drafting the police proceedings and that proof of recovery under the cover of the police proceedings. Hence after agglomeration of the evidence on record when the prosecution fail to establish the Police Proceedings, there cannot be a case for the prosecution as the entire case of the prosecution is edificed on the

Police Proceedings. Thus the evidence available on record pertaining to PW1 alone is not inspiring the confidence of this court to proceed against the accused for the accusation levelled against him. As the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the POINT is determined in favour of the accused.

13. In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence u/sec.171-E & 188 IPC thereby he is acquitted under

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. The

MO1 i.e., cash of Rs.5,300/- in CPR.No. 92/2014 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

Typed , corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April , 2017.

Sd/-M.pavan Kumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of : Prosecution:

PW.1 : E.Ramanjuneyulu.

Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution: Ex.P.1 : Police Proceedings,dt.11.04.2014.

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report in Cr.No.90/2014 u/sec.171-E & 188 IPC dated 11.04.2014.

Witnesses examined on behalf of :

Defence: None.

Exhibits marked on behalf of: Defence: Nil.

Material Objects marked:

MO1-Cash of Rs. 5,300/-.

Id/-M.pavan Kumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

//True Copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

CC/35/2017 Acquitted

Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs G.Sreenu

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PUTTUR.

PRESENT:- Sri M.PAVAN KUMAR,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

C.C.No. 35 of 2017.

Between:

The State represented by The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Karvetinagar. (Cr.No.451/2010-11) ... Complainant.

Versus

1. G.Seenu, Age: 26 years, S/o Doraiswamy, R/o Billudhona Village, Karvetinagaram mandal.

2. N.Munirathnam, Age: 23 years, S/o Munikrishna Mandadi, R/o Kanikapuram village,

Karvetinagaram mandal. ... Accused.

This case is presented before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri B.Vasudeva Raju, Advocate for accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Karvetinagar has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.451/2010-11 of

Karvetinagar Police Station for the offence punishable u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 so also under sec 34(e) of AP.Excise

Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 29.11.2010 at about 12.00 Noon the Prohibition and Excise

Inspector at Karvetinagaram received credible information about the preparation of liquor at Gopisettipalle village. The Inspector immediately secured the presence of panchayatdars ie., Lw.1

P.Murugaiah, Lw.2 K.Vasudeva Reddy and that along with the active assistance of his staff raided to the place and that found two persons unloading the bags from one Mahendra Truck. On enquiry and on interrogation both the persons confessed that they are found in possession of black jaggery in order to prepare the ID liquor. On the dictation given by the Inspector of Excise, the Lw.4 Naggaiah drafted a panchanama on the spot in the presence of panchayathdars and that basing on the same they verified the said gunny bags and that found there are total 27 gunny bags which consists of 50 kgs of black jaggery in each gunny bag and also found 3 plastic cans, each can containing 35 litres of ID arrack( total of 105 litres of ID arrack). The prohibition party basing on the panchanama lifted a sample of 1 kg of black jaggery in total and 375 ml of ID liquor in total and that seized the contraband under the cover of the panchanama. Adverting to the above basing on the panchanama a case in Cr.No.451/2010-11 u/sec.

7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 so also Sec 34(e) of AP Excise

Act was registered against the accused before the Prohibition & Excise at Karvetinagar and that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed accordingly.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act and Sec 34(e) of AP Excise Act against the accused 1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused are examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 framed against the accused read over and explained to them in Telugu u/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4, so also M.O.1& 2.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused are examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which they denied.

On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused 1 & 2 for the offence u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sec 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise.

10. POINT:-

In this case, the prosecution examined the then Prohibition and

Excise Inspector as PW1. His evidence in chief in tune with the records of the prosecution. Through him the crucial records of the prosecution i.e.,

Ex.P1 to P4 so also MO1&2 received in evidence.

11. After analysis of evidence and marshalling of facts what emerges clear is that the Prohibition party secured the panchayatdars i.e., LW1-

P.Murugaiah and LW2-K.Vasudeva Reddy before going to the raid. The version of the PW1 is that the accused was found in possession of 27 gunny bags of black jaggery consists of 50 kgs in each bag so also found in possession of three plastic cans consists of 35 liters of ID arrack in each can at L.R peta which comes under the jurisdiction of

Gopichettipalle village panchayat. Admittedly the scene of offence is a busy locality. When perused the evidence of PW1 he testified that in the presence of panchayatdars i.e., LW1-P.Murugaiah and LW2-K.Vasudeva

Reddy, he drafted a panchanama on the spot and that basing on the panchanama he lifted the sample, seized the contraband. Here the point to be noted is that the prosecution in order to prove the panchanama fail to adduce the evidence of the panchayatdars whose evidence is crucial to the case of the prosecution. In the absence of the testimony of the independent witnesses i.e., panchayatdars, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the prohibition party i.e., PW1 alone as he is the person who conducted the investigation by securing the panch witnesses before going to the raid. Hence after agglomeration of the evidence it is clear that the prosecution fail to prove the panchanama on which the entire case of the prosecution is edificied. When the panchanama is not proved, there cannot be a case for the prosecution. Hence in view of the discussion made supra the evidence available on record i.e., PW1 alone is not inspiring the confidence of this court to proceed against the accused for the accusation levelled against him. Thus it can be safely said that the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt as such the POINT is determined in favour of the accused.

12. In the result, this Court found the accused 1 and 2 not guilty for the offence u/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 so also under sec 34(e) of AP Excise Act thereby they are acquitted u/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the judgment. The case property i.e., M.O.1 one kg of black jaggery and MO.2 ie., 375 ml of ID liquor received in

C.P.R.No.160/2010 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27 th

day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M.Pavan Kumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION :DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : S.Thirupathaiah. -None-.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Panchanama, dt.29.11.2010.

Ex.P2: First Information Report in Cr.No.451/2010-11 Karvetinagar Excise Station, dt. Nil.../

Ex.P3: Analysis Report, dt.04.12.2010.

Ex.P4: Proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Proh. &Excise, Chittoor in Rc.No.377/2009/A1., dt.17.06.2011.

DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : one kg of black jaggery. M.O.2: 375 ml of ID liquor.

Id/-M.Pavan Kumar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

//True Copy//

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PUTTUR.

Order Record 1,914 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC.APT/15/2017	S.I. of Police, Karvetinagar P.S. vs R.Bharath Kumar	04 May 2017	Other	—
MC/6/2015	B.Rekha alias Avanthika vs K.Kishore	29 Apr 2017	Other	—
STC/1/2015	T.N. Viswanatha Reddy vs A. Gopala Krishna	29 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/35/2017	Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs G.Sreenu	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/55/2013	SI of Police, Narayanavanam P.S. vs Avinakshmi Harinath Reddy	27 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/142/2014	The Sub Inspector of Police, Puttur PS vs D.Shanmugam	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/209/2014	The Sub Inspector of POlice, Puttur P.S. vs C Muniraja	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
STC/204/2015	S.Sumathi vs K.Amanulla	26 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/67/2017	S.I.of Police, Puttur P.S. vs S.Venkatesan	25 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/68/2017	S.I.of Police, Puttur. vs S.Venkatesan	25 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/178/2014	The Sub Inspector of POlice, Puttur P.S. vs K Kumar Reddy	25 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/129/2014	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs A.Gopi	24 Apr 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/66/2017	S.I.of Police, Puttur vs S.Venkatesan	22 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/69/2017	S.I.of Police, Puttur P.S. vs S.Venkatesan	22 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/70/2017	S.I.of Police, Puttur P.S. vs S.Venkatesan	22 Apr 2017	Other	—
MC/4/2017	C.Latha vs C.Giri Shankar	22 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/334/2014	S.I.of Police, SR Puram P.S. vs T.Nataraj	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
STC/70/2017	Guddla Sridevi vs Chinthamanu Gopi	17 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/81/2017	Sub Inspector of Police, Puttur. vs D.Rajarajan alias D.Kadiravan	08 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/240/2016	S.I.of Police, S.R.Puram P.S., vs N.Viswanathan alias Viswanatham alias Viswa	08 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/305/2014	S.I.of Police, Vadamalapet P.S. vs B.Eswaraiah	31 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/95/2014	S.I. of Policce, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs B.Gopi	27 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/361/2015	S.I. of Police, Vedurukuppam P.S. vs A.1-P.Chandra Babu	24 Mar 2017	Other	—
CC/440/2016	S.I.of Police, Vedurukuppam P.S. vs Puli Naresh	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/48/2017	S.I.of Police, Puttur P.S. vs V.Nagarjuna	23 Mar 2017	Other	—
CC/64/2017	Proh. and Excise sub Inspector, Puttur vs G.Chandraiah	23 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/51/2015	S.I. of Police, Narayanvanam P.S. vs S.G.Balakrishna	22 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/63/2017	Proh. and Excise sub Inspector, Puttur vs Kambakutti Allimuthu	22 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/114/2014	S.I.of Police, Narayanavanam P.S vs K.Siva	21 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/234/2014	The sub Inspector of Police, Puttur. vs G Murthy Babu	21 Mar 2017	Other	—
PRC/21/2016	S.I. of Police, S.R.Puram P.S. vs P.Mahendra	21 Mar 2017	Other	—
CC/247/2014	The Sub INspector of Police, S.R.Puram P.S. vs T Gopi	20 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
MC/1/2017	V.Suguna alias S.C.Suguna vs S.C.Chitti Babu	20 Mar 2017	Other	—
CC/36/2014	S.I.of Police, Narayanavanam P.S vs G.Bhushamma	16 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/38/2017	Prohibition and Excise INspector, Karvetinagaram vs P.Ramachandraiah	16 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/39/2017	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs T.Sriramulu Reddy	16 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/37/2017	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs N.Vajram	15 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/282/2013	S.I. of Police, S.R.Puram P.S. vs N. Govindaraj	15 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/34/2017	Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs T.Kanthamma	14 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/36/2017	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs U.Rangaiah	14 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
PRC/5/2017	Inspector of Police, K.Nagar circle vs Anagalu Jayapal	14 Mar 2017	Other	—
CC/47/2014	S.I. of Police, Vedurukuppam P.S. vs T. Muanswamy	13 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/321/2013	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs K.Dhamu	13 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/40/2016	V.Sankar vs P.Venkatadri	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/243/2013	S.I.of Police, Narayanavanam P.S vs T.Venkatesh	03 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/316/2014	S.I. of Police, Karvetinagar P.S. vs C. Sivaiah	03 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/14/2015	S.I. of Police, SR Puram P.S. vs N.Lavanya	02 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/160/2014	The Sub Inspector of police, S.R.PUram P.S. vs V Sundara Babu	02 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/237/2015	S.I.of Police, SR Puram P.S. vs A.1-Ramadass	02 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/308/2014	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs D. Premkumar	02 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/380/2016	Prohibition and Excise INspector, Karvetinagaram vs K.Vyduryamma	02 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/12/2017	Prohibition and Excise SubInspector, Karvetinagarm vs G.Gangaiah	01 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/122/2014	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs G.Babu	01 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/219/2014	The Sub INspector of Police, Vedurukuppam P.S. vs D Govindu	01 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/11/2017	Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs S.Mabasha	28 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/33/2017	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs G.Kishore	28 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/10/2017	Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs A.Narasimhulu	27 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/249/2013	S.I. of Police, S.R.Puram P.S. vs K.A.Paramasivam	27 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/9/2017	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs M.S.Mohan Raju	23 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/146/2014	The Sub Inspector of Police, K.Nagar PS vs V.Subramanyam	23 Feb 2017	Other	—
PRC/24/2016	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs K.Prabhu	23 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/8/2017	Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagar vs P.Somaiah	22 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/7/2017	Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs T.Venu	21 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/357/2014	S.I. of police, R.C Puram, P.S vs E. Bhakathavatsalam Naidu	21 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/94/2014	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs B.Ramesh	20 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/6/2017	Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagar vs T.Anasuya	17 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/32/2014	S.I. of Policce, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs Jakkala Mahesh	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/473/2016	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs V.Govindaiah	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
PRC/22/2016	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs K.Ayyappa	16 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/202/2014	The Sub Inspector of Police, S.R.Puram P.S. vs G Subramanyam	15 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/472/2016	Prohibition and Excise INspector, Karvetinagaram vs T.Venu	15 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/20/2017	Proh. and Excise sub Inspector, Puttur vs P.Kadirivelu	14 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/302/2014	S.I. of Police, Karvetinagar P.S. vs B.Subramanyam	14 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/478/2016	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Karvetinagar P.S. vs C.Ramachandraiah	14 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/5/2017	Proh. and Excise sub Inspector, Puttur vs Thupakula Subbamma	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/5/2017	Proh. and Excise sub Inspector, Puttur vs Thupakula Subbamma	13 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/53/2013	SI of Police, Vedurukuppam P.S. vs V. Prabhakar	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/53/2013	SI of Police, Vedurukuppam P.S. vs V. Prabhakar	13 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/200/2014	The Sub INspector of police, Puttur P.S. vs P Sai Krishna	13 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/200/2014	The Sub INspector of police, Puttur P.S. vs P Sai Krishna	13 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
PRC/1/2017	Sub Inspector of Police, S.R.Puram P.S vs Subramani Sathyamurthy	13 Feb 2017	Other	—
PRC/23/2016	S.I. of Police, Karvetinagar P.S. vs A.Manivannan	13 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/8/2014	S.I. of Police, Karvetnagar P.S. vs D.Nagaraj	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/14/2017	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs K.Raja	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/18/2016	S.I. of Police, Narayanavanam P.S. vs Palaka Ashok	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/19/2015	S.I. of Police, Karvetinagar P.S. vs K. Nagaraju	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/23/2017	S.I.of Police, Puttur P.S. vs Arun Thangam Madan	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/24/2017	SI of Police, SR Puram P.S. vs T.Lokaiah	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/25/2015	S.I. of Police,Puttur P.S. vs K.Chandra alias Chandrasekhar	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/26/2016	S.I.of Police, Puttur P.S., vs J.Ramamurthy	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/30/2016	S.I. of Police, Narayanvanam P.S. vs R.Asmadh Basha	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/32/2017	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs P.Narayanamma	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/36/2016	S.I.of Police, Puttur P.S., vs V.Killivalavan Velayudham	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/40/2017	S.I. of Police, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs A.Om Narayana alias Hari	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/41/2017	S.I.of Police, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs Nalluri Nagaraju Naidu	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/42/2017	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs P.Dasaradha	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/43/2017	S.I. of Police, Karvetinagar P.S. vs Lokaiah alias Lokesh	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/46/2015	S.I. of Police, Narayanvanam P.S. vs N. Sekhar alias Gunasekhar	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/47/2013	SI of Police, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs Asamuru Sekhar	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/48/2015	SI of Police, Narayanavanam P.S. vs K Nagaiah	11 Feb 2017	Other	—

Showing 100 of 1,914 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2017		1
Apr 2017		19
Mar 2017		35
Feb 2017		141
Jan 2017		42
Dec 2016		19
Nov 2016		109
Oct 2016		37
Sep 2016		57
Aug 2016		29
Jul 2016		38
Jun 2016		45

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri M. Pavan Kumar handled?

Sri M. Pavan Kumar has handled 1931 court orders since 2013 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 280 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri M. Pavan Kumar hear?

Based on available records, Sri M. Pavan Kumar primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka).

Where is Sri M. Pavan Kumar currently posted?

Sri M. Pavan Kumar is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri M. Pavan Kumar available online?

Yes. 7 judgments by Sri M. Pavan Kumar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri M. Pavan Kumar dispose cases?

Sri M. Pavan Kumar disposes approximately 280 cases per month, based on 1931 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka).

Since when is Sri M. Pavan Kumar serving?

Sri M. Pavan Kumar has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka) since 2013.

Case Types

CC 72%

STC 22%

PRC 3%

MC 2%

DVC 1%

OS 0%

Posting History

Mar 2014 — Apr 2014

Junior Civil Judge · 2 orders
Sep 2013 — May 2017

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 1,929 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Dismissed Disposal Date: 25-03-2014 Junior Civil Judge 1

Abated 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Challa Janaki

Junior Civil Judge

224 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Nagari (Taluka)

Sri M. Pavan Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

C. C. No.209 of 2014.

J U D G M E N T

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused 1 &2 for the offences punishable u/Sec.

171­E & 188 IPC and Sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PUTTUR .

C.C. No.142 of 2014.

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the accused for

the offence under sec338 IPC against the

accused beyond reasonable doubt or

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

C. C. No.178 of 2014.

J U D G M E N T

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused 1 to 7 for the offences punishable u/Sec.

171­h & 188 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

C. C. No.129 of 2014.

J U D G M E N T

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 171­E

& 188 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

C.C.No. 35 of 2017.

J U D G M E N T

Typed, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27 th

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

171E & 188 IPC and Sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act

171h & 188 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or

accused for the offences punishable u/Sec. 171E