Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

II Addl District Court Amalapuram · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L, Special Magistrate, Amalapuram, is posted at II Addl District Court Amalapuram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,275 court orders on record since 2013. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC cases.

1,275

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/137/2015 Acquitted

State Sub Inspector of Police,Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Mamidipalli Sathibabu

25 May 2022

Calendar and Judgment

District: East Godavari Calendar case tried by Sri M.Ramanbhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Wednesday the 25th day of May, 2022

Calendar Case No.137 of 2015

(Cr.No.44/2014 of Amalapuram Town P.S.) Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offence complaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion of released ment oftrial or accusedon bail trial order 4-2-2014 28-5-2014 28.1.2016 06-3-2014 13-5-2022 20-5-2022 25-5-2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay:No delay

Name and address of the complainant:State- Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S.

Name and address of the accused:Mamidipalli Sathi Babu, S/o Krishnamurthy (late), Age 26 years, Caste-Kapu, A.Vemavaram village, Amalapuram, Driver of Goods Auto Bearing No: AP 37 Y 1378 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section of law:Under Section 304-A IPC. Plea of the accused:Not guilty. Finding of the court:Not guilty. Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A,337 and 338 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bond shall stand cancelled.

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate Amalapuram Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Present : Sri M.Ramanbhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L., Special Magistrate,

Wednesday the 25th day of May, 2022

Calendar Case No. 137 of 2015

( Cr.No.44/2014 of Amalapuram Town P.S.)

Between:

State-Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S.. . .Complainant.

And

Mamidipalli Sathi Babu, S/o Krishnamurthy (late), Age 26 years, Caste-Kapu, A.Vemavaram village, Amalapuram, Driver of Goods Auto Bearing No: AP 37 Y 1378. . . Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 23-5-2022 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State complainant and of Sri M.Adinarayana Rao Advocate

for the Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court

delivered the following -:: JUDGMENT ::-

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate's court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police of Amalapuram Town Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A, 338, 337 IPC in Cr. No. 44/2014 said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows: The injured defacto-complainant by name Dunaboina Surekha is a resident of Magam village and another injured Dunaboina Divya is the sister of the defacto-complainant and the deceased Dunaboina Venkateswara Rao is their father. On 4-2-2014 the defacto-complainant, her sister and their father went to Amalapuram to purchase clothes on a motorcycle and after purchasing the clothes while they were returning on the said motorcycle and when they reached near black bridge at about 5.30 PM the accused drove the goods auto bearing No.AP3741378 in a rash and negligent manner while coming on opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the said accident, the defacto-complainant, her sister and their father fell on the road from the motorcycle sustained injuries. Their father sustained severe head injury and went into unconscious. The neighbours gathered and shifted the deceased person to the Area Hospital, Amalapuram and other injured, defacto- -2- complainant and her sister were shifted to KIMS Hospital, Amalapuram. Later, the deceased was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Kakinada on 6-3-2014 and subsequently he died on 27-5-2014.

The Head Constable of Amalapuram Town Police Station registered a case on 4-2-2014 at 9 PM in Cr.No.44/2014 under sections 338 and 337 IPC. Basing on the hospital intimation and the statement of the defacto-complainant he conducted investigation. During course of investigation he examined seven witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police verified the investigation made by the Head Constable and basing on the death intimation the

Sub-Inspector of Police altered the section of law into 304-A IPC, 337 and 338 I.P.C on 28.5.2014 at 11 AM. Later, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The Motor

Vehicle Inspector to inspected the crime vehicle and issued his report. On 6-2-2014 the Sub-

Inspector of Police arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody. Subsequently , after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

4.The case was taken on file Under Section 338, 337, 304-A IPC against the accused by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Amalapuram.

5.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents were supplied to him. The accused when examined later under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied of having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the time of trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses.

7.After the evidence of the prosecution is completed section 313 Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

8.As aforesaid, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 on behalf of the prosecution.

9. Now the point for determination in this case is Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. The case against the accused is that on the date of accident i.e. on 04-2-2014 he drove the Goods Auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased person

Dunaboina Venkateswara Rao and caused injuries to the P.Ws 1 and 2 by causing the accident.

-3-

11.In order to prove the case the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 5. Out of them P.Ws 1 and 2 are the injured persons. P.W.3 is the brother’s son of the deceased. P.Ws 4 and 5 are the alleged independent eye witnesses who turned hostile.

12. Coming to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on 4-2-2014 they and their father were returning on a motorcycle from Chandana Brothers, Amalapuram. After purchasing clothes and when they reached near Balayogi Gatt at Amalapuram one Auto dashed against their motor cycle and they fell down on the road from the motorcycle and sustained injuries. Later, they were shifted to Kims Hospital and their father was shifted to Area Hospital, Amalapuram. Later, police obtained P.W.1’s signature on a blanked paper and they do not know the accused as they did not notice the driver of the Auto. P.W.3 deposed that on the date of accident while he was present at his house he came to know his junior paternal uncle and P.Ws 1 and 2 met with Auto accident at Amalapuram and sustained injuries. He rushed to the place of accident and shifted the injured persons to the Area Hospital. Later, his junior paternal uncle shifted to Apollo

Hospital, Kakinada and P.Ws 1 and 2 was shifted to Kims Hospital, Amalapuram. He does not know the accused. P.Ws 4 and 5 deposed that he did not witness any accident and they do not know the deceased person and they do not know anything about this case.

13. Therefore, in this case P.Ws 1 to 5 failed to give any incriminating evidence against the accused. Even during cross-examination of P.Ws1 and 2 and P.Ws 4 and 5 by the prosecution, nothing incriminating material is elicited against the accused.

14.Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-, 337 and 338 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bond shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 25th day of May, 2022.

sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram -4-

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:Defence: none P.W.1 dt. 13.5.2022Dunaboina Surekha P.W.2 dt. 13.5.2022 Dunaboina Divya P.W.3 dt. 13.5.2022 Dunaboina Veera Babu P.W.4 dt. 20.5.2022 Ryali Sathibu P.W.5 dt.20.5.2022 Nellilmarla Veera Raghavulu

Documents marked for

Prosecution: Ex.P.1 04.2.2014Signature of P.W.1 Dunaboina Surekha Ex.P.2 28.5.2014 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.2 Dunaboina Surekha recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town Police Station

Ex.P.3 28.5.2014 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.2 Dunaboina Divya recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town Police Station Ex.P.4 04.2.2014161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3 Dunaboina Veerababu recorded by Station House Officer, Amalapuram Town Police Station Ex.P.5 28.5.2014161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4 Ryali Sathibabu recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town Police Station Ex.P.6 05.2.2014161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.5 Nellimarla Veeraraghavulu recorded by Station House Officer, Amalapuram Town Police Station

Defence: Nil M.Os marked nil

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

CC/200415/2016 Acquitted

Koppisetti Madhava Rao, vs Uppada Jayalakshmi

13 Jun 2022

Calendar and Judgment

District: East Godavari Calendar case tried by Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Monday, the 13th day of June, 2022

Calendar Case No.415 of 2016

Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OffencecomplaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion of releasedment oftrial or accusedon bailtrial order 28-1-2016 07-10-2016 23-1-2016 –04-1-2022 09-6-2022 13-6-2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay :No delay

Name and address of the complainant:Koppisetty Madhavarao, S/o Late Satyanarayana, Age 48 years, Magham village, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District, S.H.O. Ainavilli P.S. Limits.

Name and address of the accused:Uppada Jaya Lakshmi, W/o Yadla Satya Vara Prasad Chittibabu @ Chittiah, D/o Parasayya, Age 55 years, Teacher, M.P.P. School, Anathavaram village, Mummidivaram Mandal, East Godavari District, S.H.O. Mummidivaram P.S. Limits. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section of law :Under Section 138 of N.I.Act Plea of the accused :Not guilty Finding of the court :Not guilty Sentence or order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L.,

Special Magistrate

Monday, the 13th day of June, 2022

Calendar Case No.415 of 2016

Between:

Koppisetty Madhavarao, S/o Late Satyanarayana, Age 48 years, Magham village, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District, S.H.O. Ainavilli P.S. Limits.– Complainant

And

Uppada Jaya Lakshmi, W/o Yadla Satya Vara Prasad Chittibabu @ Chittiah, D/o Parasayya, Age 55 years, Teacher, M.P.P. School, Anathavaram village, Mummidivaram Mandal, East Godavari District, S.H.O. Mummidivaram P.S. Limits.– Accused

This case coming on for hearing before me on 09-6-2022 in the presence of Sri Nalla Prabhakar Advocate for the complainant and of Sri N.Venkanna Advocate for the accused, upon hearing the Arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate's court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act, said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant on 24-12-2014 and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Subsequently, the accused issued a cheque dt.28-1-2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant towards part payment of the said pronote debt and the said cheque was drawn on State Bank of India, Mummidivaram. The complainant presented the said cheque in

Andhra Bank, Moberlipeta on 28-1-2016 for collection of the amount. But the said cheque was returned dishonoured on 29-1-2016 due to reason “Funds Insufficient” in the account of the accused. Later, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.04-3-2016 to the accused demanding her to pay the cheque amount. The accused received the said notice but failed to make payment. Hence, the complaint.

-2-

4.The case was taken on file under Section 138 of N.I.Act by the Addl.Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

5.After taking cognizance, when the accused appeared before the court copies of documents were supplied to her. The accused when examined later under Section 251Cr.P.C., she denied of having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, the prosecution examined only P.W.1.

7.After the evidence of the prosecution is completed the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material to her. The plea of the accused is one of total denial and when called upon to enter upon her defence, the accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

8.Heard the Arguments.

9.As aforesaid, the prosecution examined only P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P8 on behalf of the prosecution. None were examined on the side of defence.

10.Now the point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT:- In order to prove the case, the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1.

In support of the oral evidence of P.W.1 he filed the promissory note, cheque, two cheque return memos, office copy of legal notice, postal acknowledgement, office copy of rejoinder legal notice and it’s postal acknowledgement and got them marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8 respectively.

12. Especially to prove the case for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused issued the cheque for the discharge of legally recoverable debt, the cheque has been presented to the Bank within the period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. The payee or holder in due course of the cheque as the case may be makes a demand for the payment of cheque amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of receipt of intimation by him from the Bank regarding the return of cheque as unpaid and the drawer of cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of receipt of the said notice.

-3-

13. In this case, it is the main contention of the accused that she never borrowed any amount from the complainant and she never issued Ex.P.2 cheque in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the alleged debt.

14. It is the evidence of P.W.1 as per chief examination affidavit that the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from him under Ex.P.1 promissory note. Subsequently, the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- towards part payment of the pronote debt. He presented the said cheque in his bank for collection of the amount but the said cheque was returned dishonoured due to reason “Funds Insufficient”. Later, he issued a legal notice to the accused and the accused received the said notice and failed to make payment. In this case, even though P.W.1 stated in his chief examination affidavit that Ex.P.2 cheque was issued by the accused towards part payment of the debt borrowed on 24-12-2014, coming to the cross- examination he categorically stated that he obtained a blanked cheque from the accused as a security for the previous debt and he also categorically admitted that Ex.P.2 cheque was not issued towards part payment of the debt borrowed on 24-12-2014 and the same was obtained as a security. Therefore, in this case the evidence on record clearly revealed that Ex.P.2 cheque was not issued by the accused towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. On the other hand the oral evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the contents of the complaint. Once the prosecution failed to prove that Ex.P.2 cheque was issued towards repayment of legally recoverable debt, it cannot be said that the accused has committed the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 13th day of June, 2022.

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

-4-

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: none

P.W.1 dt.04-1-2022 Koppisetty Madhavarao (complainant)

Documents marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 24-12-2014 Promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the accused

Ex.P.2 28-01-2016Cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- issued by the accused

Ex.P.3 29-01-2016 Cheque return memo issued by State Bank of India, Amalapuram

Ex.P.4 18-02-2016Cheque return memo issued by Andhra Bank, Amalapuram

Ex.P.5 04-3-2016 Office copy of legal notice

Ex.P.6 21-3-2016Postal acknowledgement

Ex.P.7 11-04-2016Office copy of rejoinder legal notice

Ex.P.8 16-04-2016Postal acknowledgement

Defence: nil

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

CC/200397/2016 Acquitted

State Sub Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptham P .S. vs Mudupudi Madhubabu

21 Jun 2022

Calendar and Judgment

District: East Godavari Calendar case tried by Sri M.Ramanbhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Tuesday the 21st day of June, 2022

Calendar Case No.397 of 2016

(Cr.No.34/2016 of Uppalaguptam P.S.) Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offencecomplaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion of released ment oftrial or accusedon bailtrial order 24-2-201624-2-201610-5-2018 27-2-201610-6-2022 17-6-2022 21-06-2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay:No delay

Name and address of the complainant:The State- represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S.

Name and address of the accused:Mudupudi Madhubabu S/o Satyanarayana, Age 22 years, Caste SC-Madiga, Meena Nagaram village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District, Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-5 TX 2727 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section of law:Under Section 304-A IPC Plea of the accused:Not guilty. Finding of the court:Not guilty. Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate Amalapuram Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Present : Sri M.Ramanbhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L., Special Magistrate,

Tuesday the 21st day of June, 2022

Calendar Case No. 397 of 2016

( Cr.No.34/2016 of Uppalaguptam P.S.)

Between:

The State-Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S.. . .Complainant.

And

Mudupudi Madhubabu S/o Satyanarayana, Age 22 years, Caste SC-Madiga, Meena Nagaram village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District, Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-5 TX 2727. . . Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 20-6-2022 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State complainant and of Sri K.Satyanarayana Advocate for the Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following -:: JUDGMENT ::-

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police of Uppalaguptam Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC in Cr. No.34/2016 said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows: The deceased person Varada Veera Venkata Satyanarayana is a resident of Razole village.

On 24-02-2016 deceased person while he was proceeding towards Razole from Nimmakayala

Kothapalli village on his TVS XL moped motorcycle and when he reached near Gollavilli bridge, the accused drove the lorry bearing No.AP05 TX 2727 in a rash and negligent manner coming from his opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of the said accident the deceased person fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries and the motorcycle was also crushed. The neighbours gathered and the injured was shifted to KIMS hospital, Amalapuram in 108 Ambulance. On receipt of the hospital intimation the S.H.O Amalapuram Taluk Police Station visited the KIMS Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured on 24-02-2016 at 4.00 PM and forward the same to the Uppalaguptam Police Station. The Sub-Inspector of Police of Uppalaguptam

Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.34/2016 under section 338 I.P.C on 24-2-2016 at 7.00 PM and took up investigation. He examined the injured and recorded his statement. Later, he visited the -2- scene of offence and inspected the scene and got drafted scene observation report and prepared rough sketch of the scene. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, the injured was referred to Super Specialty Hospital, Kakinada and subsequently he died in the hospital.

The Sub-Inspector of Police altered section of law into 304 (A) I.PC. He visited the hospital, Kakinada on 28-2-2016 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and got drafted inquest report in the presence of panchayatdars. Later, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination to the Government General Hospital, Kakinada. He also referred the crime vehicle to the Motor Vehicle

Inspector. Subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police served notice to the accused under section 41 (1) Cr.P.C. Subsequently, after obtaining M.V.I report and Medical report he filed the charge sheet on completion of investigation.

4.The case was taken on file Under Section 304-A IPC against the accused by the Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate's court, Amalapuram.

5.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents were supplied to him.

When the accused examined later under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied of having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. At the time of trial, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses.

7. After the evidence of the prosecution is completed section 313 Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

8. As aforesaid, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 on behalf of the prosecution.

9. Now the point for determination in this case is

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. The case against the accused is that on the date of accident i.e. on 24-2-2016 he drove the Lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased person by name

Varada Veera Venkata Satyanarayana by causing the accident.

11. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4. Out of them P.W.1 is the alleged eye witness to the accident who turned hostile. P.W.2 is the cousin brother of P.W.1 is also an alleged eye witness to the accident who turned hostile. P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased who came to know subsequently about the accident and P.W.4 is also an alleged eye witnesses who turned hostile.

-3-

12. In this case, coming to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they do not know the deceased person in this case and no accident took place in their presence and they were not examined by the police. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that on the date of accident her father went to Razole on motor vehicle on his personal work. Later at about 12.00 Noon she received a phone message stating that her father met with lorry accident, and shifted to KIMS hospital. Her husband went to KIMS hospital and informed that her father died in the hospital. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that he does not know the deceased person in this case and he also does not know the accused. He did not witness any accident. He does not know anything about this case. Therefore, in this case P.Ws 1 to 4 failed to give any incriminating evidence against the accused and the alleged direct witnesses turned hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. Even during cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 by the prosecution nothing incriminating material is elicited against the accused. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me

in open court on this the 21st day of June, 2022.

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:Defence: none

P.W.1 dt.10-6-2022Mane Durgarao P.W.2 dt.10-6-2022Mane Ravikishore P.W.3 dt.10-6-2022 Sabbavarapu Yuvakumari P.W.4 dt.17-6-2022 Palivela Rambabu Documents marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 25.02.2016161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Mane Durgarao, recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S.

Ex.P.2 25.02.2016 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Mane Ravi Kishore, recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S.

Ex.P.3 25.02.2016 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 Palivela Rambabu recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S.

Defence: Nil -4-

M.Os marked nil

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

CC/200087/2016 Acquitted

Bandigupthapu Srinivasa Rao vs Uppada Jaya Lakshmi

13 Jun 2022

Calendar and Judgment

District: East Godavari Calendar case tried by Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Monday, the 13th day of June, 2022

Calendar Case No.87 of 2016

Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OffencecomplaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion of releasedment oftrial or accusedon bailtrial order 01-3-2015 01-3-2016 07-10-2016 –01-5-2019 09-6-2022 13-6-2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay :No delay

Name and address of the complainant:Bandiguptapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Satyanarayana Murthy, Hindu, Inam, Age 41 years, R/o Allavaram village, Allavaram Mandal, S.H.O. Allavaram P.S.

Name and address of the accused:Uppada Jaya Lakshmi, W/o Yadla Satya Vara Prasad Chittibabu @ Chittiah, D/o Parasayya, Age 55 years, Teacher, Mushini vari palem, H/o Mummidivaram, Mummidivaram Mandal, S.H.O. Mummidivaram P.S. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Section of law :Under Section 138 of N.I.Act Plea of the accused :Not guilty Finding of the court :Not guilty Sentence or order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L.,

Special Magistrate

Monday, the 13th day of June, 2022

Calendar Case No.87 of 2016

Between:

Bandiguptapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Satyanarayana Murthy, Hindu, Inam, Age 41 years, R/o Allavaram village, Allavaram Mandal, S.H.O. Allavaram P.S.– Complainant

And

Uppada Jaya Lakshmi, W/o Yadla Satya Vara Prasad Chittibabu @ Chittiah, D/o Parasayya, Age 55 years, Teacher, Mushini vari palem, H/o Mummidivaram, Mummidivaram Mandal, S.H.O. Mummidivaram P.S.– Accused

This case coming on for hearing before me on 09-6-2022 in the presence of Sri T.V.Prasada Rao Advocate for the complainant and of Sri N.Venkanna Advocate for the accused, upon hearing the Arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Addl.Judicial First Class

Magistrate's court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act, said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant on 23-2-2014 and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Subsequently on repeated demands of the complainant, the accused issued a cheque dt.01-3-2015 of Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Amalapuram in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the pronote debt. The complainant presented the said cheque in State Bank of India, Allavaram on 03-3-2015. But the said cheque was returned dishonoured due to reason “Insufficient Funds” in the account of the accused. After receiving dishonor intimation the complainant got issued a registered notice 31-3-2015 to the accused demanding her to pay the cheque amount. The accused received the said notice and failed to make payment. Hence, the complaint.

4.The case was taken on file under Section 138 of N.I.Act by the Addl.Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

-2-

6.During the trial, the prosecution examined only P.W.1

8.Heard the Arguments.

9.As aforesaid, the prosecution examined only P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P5 on behalf of the prosecution. None were examined on the side of defence.

10.Now the point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT:- In order to prove the case, the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1.

In support of the oral evidence of P.W.1 he filed the cheque, promissory note, cheque return memo, office copy of legal notice and the certificate issued by postal department and got them marked as Exs.P.1 to P.5 respectively.

12. In order to prove the case for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, especially the prosecution has to establish that the accused issued the cheque for the discharge of legally recoverable debt, the cheque has been presented to the Bank within the period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. The payee or holder in due course of the cheque as the case may be makes a demand for the payment of cheque amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of receipt of intimation by him from the Bank regarding the return of cheque as unpaid and the drawer of cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount to the payee or as the case may be to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of receipt of the said notice.

13.It is the main contention of the accused in this case is that she never borrowed any amount from the complainant and she never issued Ex.P.1 cheque in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the alleged debt.

-3-

14. In the chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 he stated that the accused borrowed

Rs.3,00,000/- from him under promissory note. Subsequently, the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- towards part payment of the pronote debt. He presented the said cheque in his bank for collection of the amount but the said cheque was returned dishonoured due to reason “Funds Insufficient” in the account of the accused. Later, he got issued Ex.P.4 legal notice to the accused and the accused failed to pay the amount. In this case, even though

P.W.1 stated in his chief examination affidavit that the accused issued Ex.P.1 cheque towards part payment of the debt borrowed on 23-02-2014, coming to the cross-examination he categorically stated that he obtained a blanked cheque from the accused as a security for the old debt and he also categorically admitted that Ex.P.1 cheque was not issued by the accused towards part payment of the debt borrowed on 23-2-2014 and the same was obtained as a security. Therefore, in this case the evidence on record clearly revealed that Ex.P.1 cheque was not issued by the accused towards discharge of legally recoverable debt. On the other hand the oral evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to the contents of the complaint. Once the prosecution failed to prove that Ex.P.1 cheque was issued towards repayment of legally recoverable debt, It cannot be said that the accused has committed the offence under section 138 of N.I.Act as contemplated under the Act.Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 13th day of June, 2022.

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: none

P.W.1 dt.01-5-2019 Bandiguptapu Srinivasa Rao (complainant) -4-

Documents marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 01-3-2015 cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- issued by the accused

Ex.P.2 23-2-2014Promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the accused

Ex.P.3 09-3-2015 Cheque return memo

Ex.P.4 31-3-2015Office copy of legal notice

Ex.P.5 30-04-2015Certificate issued by Postal department

Defence: nil

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

CC/264/2015 Acquitted

State Sub Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptham P.S vs A1) Maridisetti Veera Veni

07 Jun 2022

Calendar and Judgment District: East Godavari Calendar case tried by Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L., Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Tuesday, the 7th day of June, 2022

Calendar Case No.264 of 2015

(Cr.No.10/2015 of Uppalaguptam P.S.)

Dates of: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - offencecomplaintApprehen-Accusedcommence-close ofSentence sion ofreleasedment of trial or accusedon bailtrial order 5-2-20156-2-201502-1-201729-4-2015 27-5-2022 03.6.202207.6.2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Explanation for delay:No delay

Name and address of the complainant:The State- Represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S.

Name and address of the Accused:1) Marisetty Veeraveni, W/o Veerababu, Age 30 years, Caste-Kapu, Vadaparru village, H/o Gadavilli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

2) Koduri Venkateswararao, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 40 years, Caste-Kapu, N.Kothapalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

3) Koduri Rambabu, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 38 years, Caste-Kapu, N.Kothapalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Section of law:Under Section 323, 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC Plea of the accused:Not guilty. Finding of the court:Not guilty. Sentence or order:In the result A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 323, 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble IInd Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Amalapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: AMALAPURAM

Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A.,B.L., Special Magistrate, Tuesday, the 7th day of June, 2022

Calendar Case No.264 of 2015

(Cr.No. 10/2015 of Uppalaguptam P.S.)

Between:

The State- Represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S. - -Complainant

and

1) Marisetty Veeraveni, W/o Veerababu, Age 30 years, Caste-Kapu, Vadaparru village, H/o Gadavilli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

2) Koduri Venkateswararao, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 40 years, Caste-Kapu, N.Kothapalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

3) Koduri Rambabu, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 38 years, Caste-Kapu, N.Kothapalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.- -Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 06.6.2022 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State complainant and of Sri M.Adinarayana Rao Advocate for the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 upon hearing the Arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1.This case was transferred to this court from the file of Additional Judicial 1st Class

Magistrate's court, Amalapuram for disposal according to law.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police of Uppalaguptam Police Station filed the charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 323, 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC in Cr. No.10/2015 said to have been committed by the accused.

3.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows: The defacto-complainant Nalla Vijaya Durga is a resident of Vadaparru village of

Uppalaguptam Mandal and the accused are also resident of same village.

The A1 Marisetty Veeraveni is a neighbour of the defacto-complainant gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- to one Adapa Durga Rao. Later the said Durga Rao repaid the debt but he failed to pay the interest. On that A1 brought the matter to the notice of elders. On 05.2.2015 A1 approached husband of the defacto-complainant to collect the interest from Adapa Durga Rao but he told A1 that he has no time to do the same. On that A1 started abusing the husband of the defacto-complainant in filthy language. On that the defacto-complainant called A1 and questioned her about her indecent behavior. Suddenly A1 attacked the defacto-complainant caught hold of her tuft of hair and beat her with hands and the neighbours separated them. Later, A1 went to her parents house at N.Kothapalli -2- brought A2 and A3 who are the brothers and they are all criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto-complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Later, the defacto-complainant gave a report to the police. On receipt of the said report, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of

Uppalaguptam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.10/2015 under section 323, 448, 506 r/w 34

I.P.C on 06.12.2015 and took up investigation. He examined the defacto-complainant and recorded her statement. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, the Sub-Inspector of Police verified the investigation and took up further investigation. On 29.4.2015 the Sub-Inspector of Police arrested A1 to A3 and issued 41 Cr.P.C notice. Subsequently, on completion of Investigation he filed the charge sheet.

4.The case was taken on file under Section 323, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram.

5.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of documents were supplied to them. The accused when examined later under Section 251 Cr.P.C., they denied of having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6,At the time of trial, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses.

7. After the evidence of the prosecution is completed, section 313 Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

8.As aforesaid the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 on behalf of the prosecution.

9.Now the point for determination in this case is Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The case against the accused is that on the date of incident A1 to A3 trespassed into the house of the defacto-complainant and voluntarily caused hurt and also caused criminal intimidation to her infurtherance of common intention.

11. In order to prove the case the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4. Out of them P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant who turned hostile. P.Ws.2 to 4 are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident who turned hostile.

-3-

12.In this case, coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that at about seven years ago at about 8.30 PM there was some galata near the water tap by the time the elders came and pacified the matter. In the said galata she sustained small injuries but she does not know who caused the said injury. Later, the elders obtained her signature on blanked paper and nothing more than that was happened.

13.P.Ws 2 to 4 deposed that no incident took place in their presence and they do not know anything about this case. Therefore, in this case P.Ws 1 to 4 failed to give any incriminating evidence against the accused and all these witnesses turned hostile as they did not support the case of the prosecution. Even during cross-examination of P.Ws 1 to 4 by the prosecution nothing incriminating material is elicited against the accused. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 323, 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 7th day of June, 2022.

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:Defence: none P.W.1 Nalla Vijaya Durga P.W.2 Adapa Chittithalli P.W.3 Marisetty Venu P.W.4 Nalli Swamy Naidu Documents marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P.105-02-2015Signature of P.W.1 Nalla Vijaya Durga

Ex.P.206-02-2015161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Nalla Vijaya Durga, recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S. Ex.P.306-02-2015161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Adapa Chittithalli recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S.

-4-

Ex.P.406-02-2015161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3 Marisetty Venu recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S.

Ex.P.506.02.2015 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 Nalla Swamy Naidu recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptam P.S. Defence: nil

M.Os marked for nil

Sd/-M.Ramabhadra Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram.

Order Record 1,274 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/200003/2016	Amalakatta Govinda Raju vs Mangaala Anantha Lakshmi	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/200041/2015	Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. vs Isukapudi Veera veni	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/200070/2015	MS.Sriram city Union finance Ltd. vs Isukapalli veera veni	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
CC/200098/2015	State Sub-Inspect of Police Ambajipeta P.S vs Mattaparthi Swamy	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
CC/200429/2014	Asmitha Micro Finance Pvt.Ltd. Amalapuram vs Pulimi Subrahamanyam	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
CC/200397/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptham P .S. vs Mudupudi Madhubabu	21 Jun 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/374/2018	Saladi Venkateswara Rao vs Moka Rupaveni	15 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/200087/2016	Bandigupthapu Srinivasa Rao vs Uppada Jaya Lakshmi	13 Jun 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/200415/2016	Koppisetti Madhava Rao, vs Uppada Jayalakshmi	13 Jun 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/264/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptham P.S vs A1) Maridisetti Veera Veni	07 Jun 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/476/2018	Akula Srinivasarao vs Nimmakayala Narayanamurthy @ Bobby	07 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/200067/2014	Adapa Veera Venkata Satyanarayana@ China Babu vs Isukapudi Satyanarayana	31 May 2022	Other	—
CC/674/2017	Polisetti Venkateswara Rao vs Tadepalli Nageswara Rao	30 May 2022	Other	—
CC/137/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police,Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Mamidipalli Sathibabu	25 May 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/200292/2016	Dulipudi Subbarao vs Thoram Lakshman	25 May 2022	Judgment	—
CC/465/2016	Balla Viswanadham vs Grandhi Veerbhadra Rajesh Kumar	24 May 2022	Other	—
CC/200275/2016	Ramalakshmi Agencies, Amalapuram vs Sri Ganga Rama Agencies, Ravikampadu	24 May 2022	Judgment	—
CC/200425/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Ambajipet P.S. vs Pilla Prasad	17 May 2022	Judgment	—
CC/200318/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptham P.S. vs Vanga Narayudu	12 May 2022	Judgment	—
CC/200041/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police, Allavaram P.S. vs Mattaparthi Vinod Kumar	11 May 2022	Judgment	—
CC/52/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Arigela Veera Venkata Satya Naidu	10 May 2022	Judgment	—
CC/200444/2016	Ryali Venkata Rao vs Ravi Vara Prasad	10 May 2022	Other	—
CC/200007/2017	Peddireddy Veera Venkata Satayanrayana vs Vemuluru Salman Raj Kumar	02 May 2022	Other	—
CC/410/2018	Bandaru Gangadhararao vs Bonthu Raja Sekhar	29 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/200250/2015	Janga Sambha Siva Rao vs Nandyala Sathish	27 Apr 2022	Other	—
CC/200194/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Dommetti Balabalaji	26 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/479/2018	Menda Jagannadham vs Nukapeyyi Kumar	19 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/690/2018	Jakkampudi Adinarayana vs Paramsetty Satyaveni	18 Apr 2022	Other	—
CC/200479/2016	Malladi Prasad vs Munganda Veera Venkata Ramana	18 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/135/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Allavaram P.S. vs Nakka Srikanth	13 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/449/2017	Karneedi Surya Bhagavan vs Koppineedi Veeranjaneyulu	12 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/92/2015	Akula Rajalingeswara Rao vs Vaska Srinivasa Rao	08 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
CC/277/2018	Jakkampudi Adinarayana vs V. Salmanrajkumar	30 Mar 2022	Other	—
CC/200255/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Taluk P.S. vs Pilla Mohan Rao	29 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/200041/2017	Sriramcity union Finance Ltd. Amalapuram vs Thota Lakshmipathi Rao	28 Mar 2022	Other	—
CC/200408/2016	VAkapalli Srinivasa Rao vs Rajalapudi Ananda Kumar	28 Mar 2022	Other	—
CC/303/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S vs Kola suresh	22 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/550/2018	Guthula Bhavani vs Kagitapalli Sai Ram	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/666/2017	Saladi Venkateswara Rao vs Nukapeyyi Kumar	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/200045/2014	Gundumogula Srinivas vs Gudala Ramachandra Rao	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/200247/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police, Allavaram P.S. vs Kandikatla Parvathi	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/200540/2015	Valavala Sambha Siva Rao vs Bondala Ebinajar	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
CC/463/2018	Paramata Srinivasarao vs Mattaparthi Jayakrishna	07 Mar 2022	Other	—
CC/200205/2015	MS.Asmitha Micr.fin.Ltd vs Mutyala Peddi Raju	07 Mar 2022	Other	—
CC/16/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Taluk P.S. vs Peri Sriramachandra Murthy @ Rambabu	05 Jan 2022	Judgment	—
CC/487/2018	Gokarakonda Srinivasu vs Uppalapu Subrahmanyeswara Raju	03 Jan 2022	Other	—
CC/200264/2016	Chavatapalli Satyanarayana Murthy vs Sambathula Chandrahas	03 Jan 2022	Other	—
CC/200152/2017	State Sub Inspector of Police, Uppalaguptham P.S. vs Moka Srinivasas Rao	29 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200231/2015	Jayalaxmi Mom Cooperative SoceityLtd. vs Appari Venkanna	29 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/409/2017	Vanga Venkata Ratnaji vs Nandyala Satish @ Satyanarayana Murthy	15 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/200413/2016	Bandigupthapu Srinivasa Rao vs Sanaboyina Pallamsetti	15 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/245/2015	Pamu Venkata Satya Rajendra Prasad vs Sanaboina Pallamsetti	14 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/200601/2014	Bandigupthapu Srinivasa Rao vs Gutam Bharathiratnam	14 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/84/2018	Maddimsetty Venkateswara Rao vs Adapa Siva Sankara Vara Prasad	09 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200341/2016	Kumptla Vekata Srinivasa Rao, vs Karri Veera Venkata Satyanarayan Murthy	09 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200391/2016	Gummidi Neelakanta Raja Lingeswarra Rao vs Morampudi (Tatapudi) Sri Kumari	09 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/202/2018	Gelli Gopala Krishna Murthy vs Gubbala Ramkrishna	08 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/200129/2016	Yerramilli Pandu Ranga Rao vs Madarapu Sri Viajay	08 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/200224/2017	Pentapati Balaji vs Pentapati Kasiviswanadham	08 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/498/2018	Gokarakonda Venkata Swaminaidu vs Nakka Prabhakara Rao	07 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200313/2015	Kadali Bhoo Lakshmi vs Gubbala Veera Lakshmi	06 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/100282/2016	Kumpatla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs Nelli China Venkateswara Rao	01 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200414/2016	Bandigupthapu Srinivasa Rao vs Muthabathula Sowbhgyam	01 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200447/2016	Kanuboyina Bhaskara Murali Krishna vs Kandru Satyanarayana	30 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200147/2016	Bandigupthapu Srinivasa Rao vs Nukapeyyi Kumar	25 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200094/2016	Anipe Prasanna Kumar vs Mopuri Satya Brahmanudu	24 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200282/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta vs Perabattula Suryarao	22 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200191/2017	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Uriti Ramu	26 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200251/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Dommeti Parasu Ramudu @ Ramu	17 Sep 2021	Other	—
CC/100247/2015	Suda Rama Venkata Durgarao vs Moka Ravi Kumar	11 Sep 2021	Other	—
CC/200156/2017	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Saladi Aditya Kumar @ Aditya	11 Sep 2021	Other	—
CC/200289/2017	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Yanamadala Sudhakar	11 Sep 2021	Other	—
CC/200346/2016	State Sub Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta P.S. vs Jakkasetti Satyanarayana	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/200566/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta P.S. vs Viparthi Mose @ Venkataratnam	31 Aug 2021	Order	—
CC/379/2017	Kamisetti Sathiraju vs Nalla Jagannadhaswami	12 Apr 2021	Judgment	—
CC/178/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Paramata Bala Raju	16 Feb 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200436/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Taluk P.S. vs Pennada Varaprasad	11 Feb 2021	Judgment	—
CC/200216/2015	Chikkam Satyanarayana vs Geddam Jeevankumar	07 Nov 2020	Other	—
CC/200369/2015	Bula Appala Swamy vs Geddam Jeevan Kumar	07 Nov 2020	Other	—
CC/200319/2015	Statement Sub-Inspector of Police Amalapuram vs Vs1.Guttula Lovadurga,	30 Sep 2020	Other	—
CC/411/2017	Gundabathula Srinu Govindarao vs A1) Hemanth Enterprises	10 Mar 2020	Other	—
CC/221/2018	Margadarsi chit fund Pvt. Ltd. vs GVV Vamsi Krishna	03 Mar 2020	Other	—
CC/200079/2017	Kollati Seetharama Raju vs Vadlamudi Srinivasa Raju	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
CC/200369/2014	Chikkam Seetharamayya vs Nimmakayala Hanumanth Srinivasa Rao	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/200189/2015	State Sub-Inspector of Police Ambajipeta PS vs Perabathula Sai Prasad	24 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/65/2018	Yalla Satyanarayan Murthy vs Yanamadala Kumari	18 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/200198/2015	Rayapu reddy Srinivasa Rao vs Varasala Satyanarayana	17 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/200037/2015	State Sub-Inspector of police Amalapuram Town PS vs Vs1.Kolapalli Srinivasa Rao	11 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/19/2018	Pithani Saraswathi vs Kalvakolanu Adinarayana @ Tataji	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/407/2017	Badugu Ramakrishnarao vs Polamuri Sreedevi	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/527/2017	Tumu Madhu Srinivasu vs Nuvvula Venugopal	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/645/2017	Pithani Balakrishna vs Kalavakolanu Adinaryana @ Tataji	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/100468/2016	Abbireddi Ranga Babu vs Saladi Panduranga Rao	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/200242/2017	State Sub Inspector of Police, Ambajipeta P.S. vs Kadali Durga	08 Feb 2020	Other	—
CC/200353/2014	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. vs Mopuri Satyavathi	04 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/200117/2015	Konala Santharao vs Pandiri Subbaraju	23 Jan 2020	Other	—
CC/100100/2015	Gangabathula V.V.Satyanarayana vs Seeram Nageswararao	13 Jan 2020	Other	—
CC/200345/2015	State Sub-Inspect of Police Uppalaguptam P.S vs Vs1.Tananki Ramababu	13 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/412/2018	Kunche Lakshmi Devi vs Lankapalli Vijayalakshmi	06 Jan 2020	Other	—
CC/200023/2015	State Sub Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town PS vs Nalla Srinivasarao	06 Jan 2020	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 1,274 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jun 2022		11
May 2022		12
Apr 2022		9
Mar 2022		12
Jan 2022		3
Dec 2021		16
Nov 2021		4
Oct 2021		1
Sep 2021		5
Aug 2021		1
Apr 2021		1
Feb 2021		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L handled?

Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L has handled 1275 court orders since 2013 at II Addl District Court Amalapuram. The average disposal rate is 12 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L hear?

Based on available records, Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) at II Addl District Court Amalapuram.

Where is Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L currently posted?

Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L is posted as Special Magistrate, Amalapuram at II Addl District Court Amalapuram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L dispose cases?

Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L disposes approximately 12 cases per month, based on 1275 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl District Court Amalapuram.

Since when is Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L serving?

Sri M.Ramabhadra Rao, B.A, B.L has been serving at II Addl District Court Amalapuram since 2013.

Case Types

CC 99%

STC 1%

Posting History

Sep 2013 — Jul 2022

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram · 1,275 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

G.Chandramouleswari

II Additional District Judge Amalapuram

3 orders

Ganta Priyadarsini

XIV Additional District Judge Amalapuram

0 orders

Kethavath Moti Lal

Asst. Sessions and Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

4 orders

Mohammed Rahamtulla

Principal Civil Judge( Junior Division)-cum- J.M.F...

1,323 orders

Ms Sunkara Srirekha

Addl. Civil Judge( Junior Division)-Cum-Addl. J.M....

1,164 orders

Sri P.V. Prasada Rao

Special Magistrate, Amalapuram

545 orders

← View all judges at II Addl District Court Amalapuram