M.S.Karimulla

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

M.S.Karimulla, IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is posted at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,989 court orders on record since 2023. 9 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC, PRC cases.

1,989

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/4418/2025 Acquitted

State represented by Mandal Agricultural Officer, G.Konduru Mandal, NTR District. vs A1- M/S.Dheeraj Krishna Enterprized (Dealer)

17 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri M.S.Karimulla,

I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 24 th day of February, 2026

C.C.No.7150/2025

Between:

State:- Represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Nuzvid.

... Complainant

AND

1) Aluru Venugopalarao, S/o.Baburao, aged about 46 years, Proprietor of M/s.Sri Hanuman Agencies, D.No.3- 19, Nekkalam Gollagudem Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Pin: 521212.

2)K.K.N.V.S.Satyanarayana, S/o. K.L.Satyanarayana Murthy, aged about 53 years, Manager of M/s.Krishna Fertilizers&GeneralGoods,Bapulapadu, Hanumanjunction, Krishna District – 521105.

3)R.Ram Kumar, S/o.R.Rajaraman, aged about 38 years, Joint Manager (ZCL, PEG & ISO), Green Star Fertilizer Ltd., A-27, SPIC Nagar, Tuticorin-628005. A.1 to A.3

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 15.04.2026 in the presence of Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri S.Satish Kumar, Advocate for A.1 to A.3 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

C.C.No.7150/2025 2 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

J U D G M E N T

01. This complaint is filed by the complainant against A.1 to A.3 under

Section 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control

Order, 1985.

02. The averments of the complaint are as follows:-

A.1/A.Venugopalarao is the Dealer firm of M/s.Sri Hanuman Agencies,

Agiripalli Mandal, A.2/K.K.N.V.S.Satyanarayana is the Distributor and Manager of M/s.Krishna Fertilizers & General Good, Bapulapadu and A.3/R.Ram Kumar is the Manufacturer of M/s.Green Star Fertilizer Ltd., Tuticorin.

The P.W.1/P.Chennarao is Mandal Agricultural Officer cum Fertilizer

Inspector, Agiripalli Mandal at the time of offence in this case. P.W.2/D.Pavan

Kumar and P.W.3/J.Gopalarao who are mediators at the time of drawal of fertilizer sample and serving analysis report. L.W.4/G.Vidya Sagar, Assistant

Director of Agriculture, Nuzvid who filed this complaint.

Brief facts of the Prosecution case :-

On 8-11-2022 P.W.1/P.Chenna Rao, Mandal Agriculture Officer &

Fertilizer Inspector of Agiripalli Mandal, has inspected the the premises of

A.1/Dealer Firm M/s. Sri Hanuman Agencies at D.No:3-19, Nekkalam

Gollagudem Village along with mediators as a part of the inspection, he has verified the License, Stock Registers, Invoices & Bill books and later selected to draw three fertilizer samples for testing the quality of fertilizers kept for sale to the farmers.

C.C.No.7150/2025 3 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

One sample of fertilizer is drawn from the stock (5.0 Mts) of DAP batch no 10/2022 manufactured by Green star fertilizers limited(A-3) and distributed by Krishna fertilizers & general goods, Hanuman junction(A-2) vide invoice no

SKF/D/22-23/1153.dt 5-11-2022 another sample from the stock (20Kgs) of 13- 0-45(Potassium nitrate fertilizer) batch No. 1021 manufactured by Aries agro limited and distributed by Krishna agro vet marketing (P)Ltd Vijayawada vide invoice No:GMF/82 dt.18-08-2022 and another sample from the stock (20Kgs) of Boran 20(Di sodium octa borate tetra hydrate) batch ne. 1017 manufactured by Aries agro limited mumbai and distributed by Krishna agro vet marketing (P)Ltd Vijayawada vide invoice no GF/1474 di 31-10-22.

From the above stored said fertilizer stocks of DAP & 13-0-45 and Boran 20, three composite samples (each composite sample containing 3 portions) for each fertilizer were drawn duly following procedure laid down in schedule II.

Part-A and clause 28(1) (b) of Fertilizer control order. 1985, The three portions of the each sample were packed individually and sealed in prescribed manner.

For the three Fertilizer samples collected (each sample containing 3 portions), the 1 portion of DAP sample containing Form 'P' so sealed and dispatched to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional coding center,

Tadepalligudem for analysis along with a memorandum in Form K through

Courier on the same day under provisions of clause 30 (1) of Fertilizer control order 1985. The 2nd portion of samples(Guard Sample) along with Form -J &

Form-K were handed over to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular)

Nuzvid who is the custodian of the referee sample on 8-11 2022. The 3rd portion of sample was handed over to the Dealer (A1) along with Form-J and obtained dated Acknowledgements on 8-11-22.

C.C.No.7150/2025 4 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

All the relevant sampling procedures were done in presence of mediators i.e., P.W.3/D.Pavan Kumar and P.W.3/J.Gopalarao and all the proceedings were narrated by them in the mediators report.

The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional coding centre.

Tadepalligudem communicated the analysis report of one sample(DAP) Sri P

Chennaran, Agricultural officer, Agiripalli under a copy of Asst. Director of

Agriculture (R) Nuzvid (Memo No RCC/TPG/A/F/25/2022 dt.03-12-2022)

In the Analysis report of Fertilizer sample (Form L) dt 29-11-22 of Dr.

YSR Agri testing Lab Pulivendula) it is stated that the Fertilizer sample of

Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) is not according to specifications and fails in

Total phosphorous content. As per the analysis report the available phosphorous by weight is 42.99% against 46.00% minimum variation is (-) 3.01% and permissible tolerance limit is 0.50% and water soluble P205% weight is 36.86 as against 39.50 minimum (variation is (-)2.64 and permissible tolerance limit is (-)0.50%).

The P.W.1 on receipt of Form-L from the Deputy Director of Agriculture,

Regenal Coding Center, Tadepalligudem, served the Analysis report to the

A.1/Dealer on 06-12-2022 and verified the availability of the stock of non- standard Fertilizer(DAP) stock Registers, invoices, ball books etc. There was no stock of said Non-standard fertilizer to seize.

Later, the L.W.4/G.Vidya Sagar, Assistant Director of Agriculture (R)

Nuzvid has issued show cause notice to accused through Rc.No A/8/2022, dt.08.12.2022 the Dealer/A1, Distributor/A2 and Manufacturer/A3 of the said fertilizer. A.1 has furnished reply in Letter dt. 11-12-2022 in which he has informed that there are no complaints from farmers and the said non-standard fertilizer is not manufactured by him. The A.2/Distributor (Krishna fertilizers

C.C.No.7150/2025 5 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

and Fertilizers Manufacturer (Green stat general goods, Hanuman junctious limited, Tuticorn, Tamilnaduj has not famished their reply.

Thereafter, the L.W.4 addressed a letter to the dealer, distributor and manufacturer to submit name and address of the person responsible through

Roc No Lr.No 002 Fert/NZD/2024, dt. 06.03.2024 to initiate legal action for contravention of clause 19 (1) (1) FCO 1985.

Later, the P.W.1 inspected the premises of the A.1 on 06-12-2022 and verified fertilizers license, stock registers, bill books and invoices, verified the stocks of DAP and found nil stocks. After verification the Xerox copy of stock registers page No.51 and Tax invoice No; SKF/D/22-23 dt.5 Nov 22 were seized

On 28.01.2025 the A.3/manufacturer i.e., Green star fertilizer limited,

Tuticorin of the said Non-standard fertilizer submitted the details of person responsible in reply to the letter addressed by the Assistant Director of

Agriculture (R), Nuzvid on 06.03.2024.

On 20.11.2024 The A.2/distributor of the said Non-standard fertilizer submitted the details of person responsible in reply to the letter addressed by the L.W.4/Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Nuzvid.

It is humbly submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in

G.O.Rt. No. 989, Agriculture &Co-operation (FP.II) dept., dated 11-11-2003 have accorded permission to all Assistant Director of Agriculture working in the state to launch prosecution against the Accused who violated the provision of

Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 which are communicated by Commissioner &

Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Endt. No. Fert II (1) 495/2003, dt, 18-11-2003.

C.C.No.7150/2025 6 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

Hence, the A.1 to A.3 have committed offence under section 3 read with section 7(1)(a) (ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 for violating clause-19 (a) and (b) of

Fertilizer control order, 1985.

03. This case was taken cognizance for the offence Under Section 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 r/w.Sec.7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities

Act and issued summons to A.1 to A.3 and after their appearance, they were furnished with case copies U/s.207 Cr.P.C. Later, the A.1 to A.3 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence Under Section 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of

E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the charge has been framed for the offence 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 against A.1 to A.3 has been read over and explained to them in Telugu language and they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

04.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Exs.P.1 to P.17 were marked.

05.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the A.1 to A.3 were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against A.1 to A.3 has been read over and explained to them in telugu language and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

06.Heard arguments on both sides.

07. Now the Point for consideration before this Court is:

“Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the offence

Under Section 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer

Control Order, 1985. beyond all reasonable doubts”?

C.C.No.7150/2025 7 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

POINT:-

08.The learned APP submitted that the case of prosecution is established, as the Mandal Agriculture Officer is examined, who supported the case of prosecution and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. Even though, the P.W.2 and

P.W.3 mediators did not support the case of prosecution, the evidence of

P.W.1 can be relied who is public servant and his evidence appears to be trustworthy hence, it is prayed to convict the A.1 to A.3.

09.On the other hand, the learned counsel for A.1 to A.3 submitted that that the P.W.1 did not follow the mandatory procedure as contemplated under

Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 while lifting the sample, the P.W.1 also did not follow under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C at the time of search and seizure, the independent mediators i.e., PW.2 and P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution and the show cause notice and analysis report is not served on

A.3/Manufacturer Firm which is mandatory and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution and Analyst is not examined. Hence, it is prayed to acquit the A.1 to A.3.

10. It is pertinent to refer Sec.19(a) of Fertilizers Control Order 1985, which says that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacture or import for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock, exhibit for sale or distribute any fertilizer which is not of prescribed standard. If, any person violates Sec.19(a) of Fertilizers Control Order 1985, he or she shall be punished U/s.7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, with imprisonment of three months which may extend to Seven years or fine or both.

11.During the course of evidence of the of P.W.1, who is working as

Mandal Agricultural Officer who deposed in his chief examination about the

C.C.No.7150/2025 8 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

facts of the case as narrated supra and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 are marked through them. Ex.P1: Letter dt: 08: 11.2022 of PW-1 to Deputy Director Of Agriculture,

Regional Coding Center, Tadepalligudem. Ex.P2: Form No.J- 2ACA5ABF7720E0, dt 08.11.2022. Ex.P3: Form K dt: 08.11.2022. Ex.P4:

Form-P Dt: 08.11.2022. Ex.P5: Mediators Report dt: 08.11.2022. Ex.P6: DTDC courier consignment number No: H69609846, D1.08.11.2022. Ex.P7: Rc.

No.RCC/TPG/A/F/925/2022.dt.03.12 2022 of Deputy Director of Agriculture

Fertilizer coding Center, Tadepalligudem. Ex.P8: Form-L dt: 29.11.2022 of

Non-Standard Analysis Report of fertilizer sample from Dr.YSR Agri Testing

Lab, Muddanoor Road, AMC Premices, Pulivendula, Kadapa, AP, 516390.

Ex.P9: Mediators report dt: 06.12.2022. Ex.P10: Tax invoice no:SKF/D/22- 23/1153, dt :05.11.2022 of A2 to A1. Ex.P11: Copy of Form-N Page 51 of

Fertilizer Stock register. Ex.P12: Annexure VII, dt:06.12.2022. Ex.P13: Show cause Notice Rc No A/8/2022, dt 08.12 2022 of Assistant Director of

Agriculture. Ex.P14: A-1 Reply to Show cause notice Dt: 11.12.2022. Ex.P15:

Person Responsible details of M/s Krishna Fertilizer and General Goods.

Ex.P16: Person Responsible details of M/s Green Star Fertilizer Ltd. Ex.P17:

G.O.Rt.No.989, Agriculture & Co-operation (FP.II) dept., dt: 11-11-2003 of

Government of Andhra Pradesh communicated in Endt. No. Fert.ll (1) 495/2003, dt., 18-11-203. of the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture.

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

12.The P.W.1/ Mandal Agriculture Officer deposed in his chief-examination by reiterating the facts of the case as narrated above and he also stated in his cross examination that they have to follow FCO Rules while lifting the sample, they have to mention each and every minute aspect in the mediator-nama with regard to drawing of sample but P.W.1 stated that Ex.P.5/mediator report is silent about the selection of bag and also method and manner of drawing sample and also how the sample was sent to Analyst. P.W.1 also stated that

Ex.P.5/mediator report does not disclose the batch number of the fertilizer

C.C.No.7150/2025 9 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

lifted in this case. The Ex.P.5 mediator report shows and P.W.1 also deposed that he lifted the sample in polythene cover and tied the same with a thread and the polythene cover cannot be equated to an air tight container. Neither

Ex.P.5 mediator report nor P.W.1 stated that she paid amount for lifting the sample from A.1’s shop and no receipt is filed to that effect. The

Ex.P.5/mediator report also does not disclose with which probe the P.W.1 lifted the sample i.e., either steel or brass and it also does not disclose allotting

Code number to the sample by P.W.1. There is no document to show that the

Analyst received the same sample which was lifted by P.W.1. The

Ex.P.5/mediator report also does not disclose the procedure followed by P.W.1 while lifting the sample. Therefore, the P.W.1 did not follow the strict procedure while lifting the sample and the procedure is not mentioned meticulously in

Ex.P.5/mediator report which gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

It is held in a case between Srinivasan, Production Manager,

M/s.Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited (A3) Vs. State, represented by

the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular) Ponnur, Guntur District, which is reported in 2006 (3) ALT Crl. 12 (AP), wherein, our Hon’ble High

Court held that when the prescribed mandatory procedure is not complied while drawing the samples and non-compliance of the same may vary the result and a reasonable doubt would cast on the prosecution and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

This case law is applicable aptly to the present case on hand because

P.W.1 did not draw the sample by using either steel or brass probe in a dry container and thus P.W.1 did not adhere to the strict procedure while lifting the sample.

13.The P.W.1/Mandal Agricultural Officer also did not follow the mandatory procedure under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C while conducting search and seizure at

C.C.No.7150/2025 10 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

A.1/dealer firm. The P.W.1 did not issue any notice to the local inhabitants or neighbours of A.1 Firm requesting to come and act as mediators. Moreover, independent mediators i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the time of lifting the sample and serving show cause notice on A.1 dealer firm did not support the case of prosecution. The P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are the persons picked up as mediators on Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.9 mediator reports even though there is a gap of almost one month in between them which also gives doubt on the case of prosecution. Thus, there is no corroboration from the independent mediators to the version of P.W.1 in respect of lifting the sample with due procedure meticulously which gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

It is also held in a case between M/s.Godavari Fertilizers and

Chemicals Limited, Nellore Region represented by Uppalapu Veera

Venkata Satyanarayanaraju Vs. State of A.P, which is reported in 2004 (2)

ALT (Crl.) 669 (AP), wherein, our Hon’ble High Court held that when there are discrepancies in lifting sample and no independent evidence has been let in by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and non-examination of the witnesses to corroborate the lifting of samples gives adverse inference to the case of prosecution.

Here in this case also, the independent mediators i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution which is amounting to no corroboration to the P.W.1 which gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

14.The P.W.1 also stated in his cross-examination that they have serve analysis report on all accused along with show cause notice. No document is filed showing that A.3/manufacturing firm received show cause notice and analysis report. Non-serving show cause notice and analysis report on all accused is also fatal to the case of prosecution which is mandatory as the A.3 lost opportunity seeking for reanalysis.

C.C.No.7150/2025 11 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

It is held in a case between Tropical Agro System Pvt Ltd, Madras

Rep. By its Director Vs. State of A.P Rep. by Director of Agriculture,

Guntur that a copy of the report of the insecticide analyst shall be delivered to all the accused against whom it is sought to be used or else the prosecution will be vitiated and it is fundamental principal of natural justice enabling all the accused to challenge its correctness or authenticity as per Sec.24 (2)(3) of

Insecticide Act.

This case law is aptly applicable to the present case on hand also because the prosecution did not file any proof that they supplied analyst report on A.3/Manufacturing Firm in this case. Hence, the prosecution failed to comply the mandatory requirement under the enactment.

15.The P.W.1 also stated in his cross-examination that they did not receive any complaint from the farmers and the Analyst report does not disclose the procedure or methodology followed by Analyst. There is no document filed by the prosecution to show that the Analyst received the sample sample which was lifted by P.W.1 and in such circumstances non-examination of author of

Analyst report is also fatal to the case of prosecution. P.W.1 also stated that by the time she visited the shop of A.1 there was no stock and admittedly no complaints are received from the farmers regarding the alleged lifted fertilizer which also gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

It is also held in a case between M/s.Visakha Agro Chemicals Pvt.

Ltd, and Others Vs. Fertilizer Inspector-Cum-Assistant Director of

Agriculture (Regular), Visakhapatnam and another, which is reported in 1997 (2) Crimes 648, wherein, it is held that non-examination of the author of the analyst reports is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

C.C.No.7150/2025 12 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

Here in this case, the non-examination of analyst is fatal o the case of prosecution because as per Sec.293 Cr.P.C there are six category of officers under the head of a Government scientific expert who issued certain documents and their documents have to be accepted by the Court as valid documents even without examining the authors of the documents. The

Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 does not exempt the author of the documents being examined in Court. So, the non-examination of the author of the document i.e., analysis report fatal to the case of prosecution when prosecution relies only on the report as in the instant case. Hence, the A1 to

A3 are found not guilty and conviction is set aside.

This case law is also aptly applicable to the present case on hand as the prosecution failed to examine the author of the analysis report.

16. Therefore, in the light of above and circumstances of the case and also above case laws, as P.W.1 did not follow the strict procedure while lifting the sample, as P.W.1 did not follow under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C at the time of search and seizure, as the independent mediators i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution, as the analysis report is not served on A.3 manufacturer firm, as the evidence of L.W.4/Asst. Director of Agriculture is closed basing on memo stating that he was bedridden, as no complaints are received from any of the farmers against the A.1 to A.3 even though there was no stock and Analyst is not examined as a witness in this case. Hence, the A.1 to A.3 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

17. Therefore, in the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the offence

Under Section 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 r/w.Sec.7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act beyond all reasonable doubts and they are entitled for acquittal.

C.C.No.7150/2025 13 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

18. In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted

U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/s.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:- P.W.1:- P.Chennarao P.W.2:- D.Pavan Kumar P.W.3:- J.Gopalarao

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- – None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1: Letter dt: 08: 11.2022 of LW-1 to Deputy Director Of Agriculture, Regional Coding Center, Tadepalligudem.

Ex.P2: Form No.J-2ACA5ABF7720E0, dt 08.11.2022

Ex.P3: Form K dt: 08.11.2022.

Ex.P4: Form-P DI: 08.11.2022.

Ex.P5: Mediators Report dt: 08.11.2022.

Ex.P6: DTDC courier consignment number No: H69609846, D1.08.11.2022.

C.C.No.7150/2025 14 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

Ex.P7: Rc. No.RCC/TPG/A/F/925/2022.dt.03.12 2022 of Deputy Director of Agriculture Fertilizer coding Center, Tadepalligudem

Ex.P8: Form-L dt: 29.11.2022 of Non-Standard Analysis Report of fertilizer sample from Dr.YSR Agri Testing Lab, Muddanoor Road, AMC Premices, Pulivendula, Kadapa, AP, 516390.

Ex.P9: Mediators report dt: 06.12.2022.

Ex.P10: Tax invoice no:SKF/D/22-23/1153, dt :05.11.2022 of A2 to A1.

Ex.P11: Copy of Form-N Page 51 of Fertilizer Stock register.

Ex.P12: Annexure VII, dt:06.12.2022.

Ex.P13: Show cause Notice Rc No A/8/2022, dt 08.12 2022 of Assistant Director of Agriculture.

Ex.P14: A-1Reply to Show cause notice Dt: 11.12.2022.

Ex.P15: Person Responsible details of M/s Krishna Fertilizer and General Goods.

Ex.P16: Person Responsible details of M/s Green Star Fertilizer Ltd.

Ex.P17: G.O.Rt.No.989, Agriculture & Co-operation (FP.II) dept., dt: 11-11- 2003 of Government of Andhra Pradesh communicated in Endt. No. Fert.ll (1) 495/2003, dt., 18-11-203. of the Commissioner & Director of Agriculture. Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

//True copy//

I ACJM,VJA.

C.C.No.7150/2025 15 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.7150/2025

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of

offence Apprehens Release Commencem Closure of Sentence or

ion of on bail ent of trial trial order accused 08.11.2022–--07.04.202615.04.2617.04.2026

1. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :

State:- Represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Nuzvid.

2. NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

1) Aluru Venugopalarao, S/o.Baburao, aged about 46 years, Proprietor of M/s.Sri Hanuman Agencies, D.No.3-19, Nekkalam Gollagudem Village, Agiripalli Mandal, Pin: 521212.

2)K.K.N.V.S.Satyanarayana, S/o. K.L.Satyanarayana Murthy, aged about 53 years, Manager of M/s.Krishna Fertilizers & General Goods, Bapulapadu, Hanumanjunction, Krishna District – 521105.

3)R.Ram Kumar, S/o.R.Rajaraman, aged about 38 years, Joint Manager (ZCL, PEG & ISO), Green Star Fertilizer Ltd., A-27, SPIC Nagar, Tuticorin-628005.

3. OFFENCE : U/s.3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

4. FINDING : A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty

5. SENTENCE : A.1 to A.3 are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.,

C.C.No.7150/2025 16 I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

Under Section 239 Cr.P.C, for the offence U/s.3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the charge has been read- over and explained to them in telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 07.04.2026 P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined in chief and Exs.P.1 to P17 were marked. A.1 to A.3 were examined Under Section 313 (b) of Cr.P.C on 15.04.2026 and reported no defence evidence, hence, defence was closed.Arguments heard on 17.04.2026. Judgment was

pronounced in open court on 24.02.2026. Hence the delay.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

//True copy//

I ACJM,VJA.

CC/660/2026 Acquitted

State rep by Asst. Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs M/s Sri Venkateswara Agro Products rep by Smt. Dasam Nagalakshmi

17 Apr 2026

C.C.No.660/2026 - 1 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri M.S.Karimulla,

I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 17 th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.660/2026

Between: State represented by the Mandal Agricultural Officer and

Seed Inspector, Gudivada Sub Division, Krishna District.... Complainant

AND

1) Dealer: M/s.Sri Venkateswara Agro Products, D.No.2-2, Chinalingala Village, Nandivada Mandal represented by its Proprietor Smt.Dasam Nagalakshmi, W/o.Ankineedu, aged about 48 years, D.No.3-39, Chinalingala Village.

2)Distributor & Producer:

M/s.Kartikeya Seeds & Processors, Plot No.1081(P), Veeravalli, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, AP – 521105 Represented by its person responsible proprietor Lingamaneni Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Venkata Krishna Rao, aged about 52 years, D.No.6-152, Veeravalli, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, AP.

… A.1 & A.2

*** * ***

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 15.04.2026 in the presence of Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri S.Satish Kumar, Advocate for the A.1 and A.2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

C.C.No.660/2026 - 2 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

JUDGMENT.

This is a complaint filed by the complainant i.e., Assistant Director of

Agriculture (Regular) Gudivada Sub-Division, Krishna District against A.1 and

A.2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(b) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seed Act and

Clause 14(1) (c) of Seed Control Order 1983.

A.1/Smt.Dasam Nagalakshmi is the Dealer M/s.Sri Venkateswara Agro

Product at Nandivada Mandal and A.2/L.Srinivasa Rao is Distributor and

Manufacturer of M/s.Karthikeya Seeds and Producers at Bapulapadu Mandal of Krishna District.

The P.W.1/N.Bhanu Prakash is Seed Inspector and Agricultural Officer,

Nandivada Mandal, P.W.2/A.Samba Siva Rao and P.W.3/D.Subbaiah are mediators at the time of drawal of paddy seed and serving analysis report on accused and P.W.4/N.Ramadevi is working as Assistant Director of

Agriculture, Gudivada Sub Division who filed complaint in this case.

2. The Case of the Prosecution is as follows:-

On 13-06-2024, PW-1/N.Bhanu Prakash, Seeds Inspector and

Agricultural Officer, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District has inspected the retail seed dealer premises of A.1 Firm M/s.Sri Venkateswara Agro Products,

D.No.2-2, Chinalingala Village, Nandivada rep., by its Proprietor Smt.Dasam

Nagalakshmi and served Form -VI and has drawn Paddy seed sample (Dhan)

MTU 1318 T/L Lot Nos. 1081(P)R1806 produced and supplied by A.2 Firm i.e.,

M/s. Kartikeya Seeds & processors Bapulapadu Mandal rep., by its

Manufacturer by name L.Srinivasa Rao, which were kept for sale.

C.C.No.660/2026 - 3 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

1.2 Kgs of each of the samples were drawn and packed in 3 Portions of 400 gms each as per procedure laid down under section 15(1) & (2) of Seed Act 1966 and Schedule(under Claure-13) of Seed Control order 1983 for the purpose of testing the germination Percentage. The Samples were packed,

Sealed in Cloth bags and affixed by P.W.1 seal in presence of mediators i.e.,

P.W.2/A.Samba and D.Subbaiah and A.1.

One portion (400gms) of samples were delivered to A-1 and second portion of samples were sent to the Deputy Director of Agriculture. Regional

Coding Centre. Tadepalligudem for analysis on 13-06-2024 through DTDC

Courier No H78261805 along with Form V and 3rd portion of samples were kept as referee samples with the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular)

Gudivada.

Later, the Deputy Director of Agriculture. Regional Coding Centre,

Tadepalligudem received the samples for analysis and has communicated the analysis reports of Paddy seed sample (Dhan) MTU 1318 T/L Lot No 1081(P)R1806 in Form VII through Memo Coding ID: 1ADC8696C378D8, Dt:

05-07-2024 to P.W.1. The report stated that the sample does not confirm to prescribed standard of germination. The germination percentage of Paddy seed sample MTU 1318 T/L Lot 1081(P)R1806 is 65% at against prescribed standards of 80% and failed in germination. Hence declared "SUB-

STANDARD".

On 05-07-2024, PW-1 has received the analysis report and later on the same day he inspected A-1 premises and served the said seed analysis report along with producer copy to A-1 in the presence of mediators and at the time of serving of analysis report. Thereafter, P.W.1 has verified the premises for the balance Stock of Substandard Seed and found Nil balance of Paddy seed (Dhan) MTU 1318 T/L. Lot No 1081(P)R1806. In absence of Seed Stock,

P.W.1 has seized the original Invoice No 10 Dt 06-06-2024, Form C Licence

C.C.No.660/2026 - 4 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

copy bearing No KRI/41/JDA/SD/2020/16806 valid up to 17-06-2025 and extract copy of Seed Stock Register Book page no. 2 and has given receipt in form IV as per section 14(1)(d) of Seed Act 1966.

Thereafter, P.W.1 got issued Show cause Notice Rc.No. C1/133/2024

Dt 11.07.2024 to A-1 & A-2 by District Agricultural Officer, Krishna,

Machilipatnam through Agricultural Officer & Seed Inspector, Nandivada

Mandal for which A-1 and A-2 have submitted reply to Show Cause Notice on 19-07-2024 and 30-07-2024 respectively stating that no complaints were received from farmers regarding poor germination and the seed supplied had 65% germination.

Then, the A.1 and A.2 further stated that they have followed procedures and standards as laid down in the Seeds Act 1966 and requested to drop charges. A1 and A.2 have requested for reanalysis of the sample as they have no credibility on the analysis report and hence upon their request. Dealer sample placed with A1 and Referee sample placed with the Assistant Director of Agriculture (R) Gudivada for safe custody. Hence, the complaint.

3.Upon perusal of the record, Cognizance of the case was taken for the offences U/Sec.7(b) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seed Act and Clause 14(1) (c) of Seed

Control Order 1983.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., to the A1 and A.2, the A.1 and A.2 are examined as per Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., for the offences U/Secs.7(b) r/w 14(1)(d) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seeds Act, 1966. and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/Secs.7(b) r/w 13(1)(C) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seeds Act, 1966, was read over and explained to them in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No.660/2026 - 5 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

5.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.20. Ex.P1 : Covering letter dt. 13.06.2024 of the Mandal Agricultural Officer Nandivada Krishna

District Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding Centre,

Tadepalligudem. Ex.P2 : Form No. VI, dated 13.06.2024. Ex.P3 : Form No.

VIII, dated 13.06.2024. Ex.P4 : Form No.V dated 13.06.2024. Ex.P5 :

Information slip to accompany the sample dated 13.06.2024. Ex.P6 :

Mediators Report dated 13.06.2024-at the time of drawl of Sample. Ex.P7 :

Inspection report of Dt 13.06.2024 along with stock report of A1 at the time of drawal of Sample. Ex.P8 : T/L seed Tag of Paddy seed (Dhan) MTU 1318 Lot

No 1081(P)R1806 of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agro Products Nandivada

Mandal. Ex.P9 : DTDC Couriers Slip No H7826180 Dt 13.06.2024. Ex.P10 :

Form VII through Memo No RCC/TPG/A/S/167/2024, Dt: 03-07-2024 of the

Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding Centre, Tadepalligudem.

Ex.P11 : A1 acknowledged copy of Form VII Dt: 01-07-2024 of the Deputy

Director of Agriculture, Agri Testing Lab, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. Ex.P12 : Mediators report dt: 05.07.2024-at the time of serving the analysis reports.

Ex.P13 : Form-IV (Seizure of records) dated 05.07.2024. Ex.P14 : Inspection report Dt 05.07.2024 along with stock report of A1 at the time of serving the analysis reports. Ex.P15 : Invoice No. 10 Dt: 08-06-2024, of M/s Kartikeya

Seeds & processors. Ex.P16 : Copy of Seed Stock Register Book Page No 02 of M/s Sri Venkateswara Agro Products Chinalingala village, Nandivada

Mandal. Ex.P17 : A1 Acknowledged Show Cause Notice Rc. No. C1/133/2024

Dt 11.07.2024 of The District Agricultural Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Ex.P18 : Reply of Show cause Notice by M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agro Products

Chinalingala village, Nandivada mandal on 19.07 2024. Ex.P19 : Reply of

Show cause Notice by M/s. Kartikeya Seeds & processors Dt 30.07.2024.

Ex.P20 :Copy of letter from M/s Karthikeya seeds and processers for person responsible.

C.C.No.660/2026 - 6 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the A.1 and A.2 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C for which they denied the same and reported that there is no evidence on their behalf and as such the defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the A.1 and A.2. Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point that arise for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for

the offences U/Secs.7(b) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seed Act and Clause 14(1)

(c) of Seed Control Order 1983.?”

9.The learned APP submitted that the case of prosecution is established as the P.W.1/Mandal Agriculture officer-cum-Seeds Inspector and

P.W.4/N.Rama Devi, Asst. Director of Agriculture, supported the case of prosecution in respect of lifting the sample and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20.

The learned APP also submitted that even though, the independent mediators i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the time of lifting the sample and serving analysis report on A.1 did not support the case of prosecution, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 can be relied whose evidence appears to be trustworthy. Hence, it is prayed to convict the A.1 and A.2 for the offence U/Secs.7(b) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seeds Act, 1966.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel for A.1 and A.2 submitted that the P.W.1/Mandal Agriculture Officer-cum-Seed Inspector did not follow the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the Seeds Act and

Seeds Rules 1968, while lifting the sample, P.W.1 also did not follow under

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C at the time of search and seizure, the prosecution failed to establish who scribed Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.12 mediators reports and the P.W.1 did

C.C.No.660/2026 - 7 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

not lift the sample in an air tight container and the same is lifted in a cloth bag and Analyst report is not served on A.2/Manufacturing Firm which is fatal to the case of prosecution and Analyst is not examined. Hence, it is prayed to acquit the A.1 and A.2.

11. In order to prove the offence U/Sec.7(b) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seeds Act, 1966., the complainant must establish the following points:

1. Whether the complainant/P.W.1 lifted the sample and dispatched

the same to analyst according to the rules contemplated under the Seeds

Act?

2. Whether the A1 to A.3 are liable for punishment U/Sec.7(b) r/w 14(1)

(d) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seeds Act, 1966.?

As both points are inter related, they are taken commonly for discussion for better appreciation of facts.

12.POINTS 1 & 2:

As per Rule 29 of the Seeds Rules 1968 the container of sample for analysis shall be sent to the Seed Analyst either by registered post or by hand in a sealed packet enclosed together with a memorandum in Form-V in an outer cover addressed to the Seed Analyst. But, in this case on hand the

P.W.1/Mandal Agriculture Officer deposed in his chief examination that out of three samples he sent one sample to Seed Testing Laboratory on 13.06.2024 by way of courier and the courier receipt is marked as Ex.P.9. Therefore, the

P.W.1 Mandal Agriculture Officer/Seed Inspector did not follow Rule 29 of

Seeds Rules, 1968 in sending the lifted sample to the analyst either by way of registered post or by hand which gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

C.C.No.660/2026 - 8 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

13.The Ex.P.6 mediators report, dated 13.06.2024 does not reveal that

P.W.1 wore hand gloves while lifting the sample. Moreover, P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that he lifted the paddy seed sample in a cloth bag. The

P.W.1 did not use clean and dry container as per Rule 24 of Seed Rules. The

P.W.1 also did not use air tight container and thick paper as required under

Sec.25 of Seed Rules while lifting the sample.

It is held in a case which is reported in Sumer Singh Bhati Vs State of

Rajasthan & Anr which is reported in [2012 (2) Rajastan LW 1013 : 2012(1)

Crimes 729]“When Seed Inspector has not followed procedure prescribed for taking sample of seeds and took the samples in cotton bags which cannot be said to be air tight and good enough to prevent moisture which ultimately resulted in reduction of germination capacity of seed. Therefore, order of taking cognizance for offence U/Sec.7 is quashed”.

This case law is aptly applicable to the present case on hand in which the P.W.1 Mandal Agricultural Officer/Seed Inspector also took the samples in cotton bags (cloth bags) and the same cannot be said to be air tight and good enough to prevent moisture which ultimately resulted in reduction of germination capacity of the sample seeds seized which also gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

14. P.W.1 did not follow under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C at the time of search and seizure. The P.W.1 did not give either notice or summons to P.W.2 and P.W.3 to come and as act as mediators. Moreover, the P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are said to be independent mediators on Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.12 mediator reports at the time of lifting the sample and serving analysis report on A.1, did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. Moreover, Ex.P.6 and

Ex.P.12 mediators reports do not disclose by whom they were scribed. The

P.W.2 and P.W.3 are one and the same persons were picked up at the time of

Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.12 even though there is a gap of twenty two days which also

C.C.No.660/2026 - 9 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

gives doubt on the case of prosecution. Thus, there is no corroboration to the version of P.W.1 with regard to lifting the sample with due procedure which also gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

It is also held in a case between M/s.Godavari Fertilizers and

Chemicals Limited, Nellore Region represented by Uppalapu Veera

Venkata Satyanarayanaraju Vs. State of A.P, which is reported in 2004 (2)

P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution which gives doubt on the case of prosecution. .

The P.W.1 stated in his cross-examination that he did not serve

Analysis report on A.2/manufacturer firm. Thus, A.2 had lost opportunity to prefer second sample for Analysis at Central Lab. It is settled principle of law that non-serving show cause notice and Analysis report on all accused is also fatal to the case of prosecution.

It is held in a case between Tropical Agro System Pvt Ltd, Madras

Rep. By its Director Vs. State of A.P Rep. by Director of Agriculture,

Guntur that a copy of the report of the Seed analyst shall be delivered to all the accused against whom it is sought to be used or else the prosecution will be vitiated and it is fundamental principal of natural justice enabling all the accused to challenge its correctness or authenticity as per Sec.24 (2)(3) of

Insecticide Act.

This case law is aptly applicable to the present case on hand also because the prosecution did not file any proof that they supplied analyst report

C.C.No.660/2026 - 10 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

on A.1/Manufacturing Firm in this case. Hence, the prosecution failed to comply the mandatory requirement under the enactment.

15.The P.W.1 also stated that they did not receive any complaint from the farmers regarding the sample tested in this case against A.1 and A.2. As per the evidence of P.W.1 there was no stock by the time P.W.1 visited the shop of A.1/Dealer Firm to serve show cause notice and Analysis report. The

Analysis report does not disclose the procedure followed by him for analysis of the paddy seed. In such circumstances, non-examination of Analyst is fatal to the case of prosecution.

It is also held in a case between M/s.Visakha Agro Chemicals Pvt.

Ltd, and Others Vs. Fertilizer Inspector-Cum-Assistant Director of

Agriculture (Regular), Visakhapatnam and another,which is reported in 1997 (2) Crimes 648, wherein, it is held that non-examination of the author of the analyst reports is fatal to the case of the prosecution because as per

Sec.293 Cr.P.C there are six category of officers under the head of a

Government scientific expert who issued certain documents and their documents have to be accepted by the Court as valid documents even without examining the authors of the documents. The Seeds Act not exempt the author of the documents being examined in Court. So, the non-examination of the author of the document i.e., analysis report is fatal to the case of prosecution when prosecution relies only on the report as in the instant case.

Hence, the accused is found not guilty and conviction is set aside. This case law is also aptly applicable to the present case on hand as the prosecution failed to examine the author of the analysis report.

The P.W.1 also stated that he did not obtain any bill from A.1 to show that he purchased paddy sample from A.1’s shop and he did not file any document to show that he is competent to lift the sample which also gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

C.C.No.660/2026 - 11 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

16.Therefore, in the light of above facts and circumstances of the case and also above case laws, as the P.W.1 did not follow the strict procedure while lifting the sample and dispatching the same to analyst, as P.W.1 did not follow under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C at the time of search and seizure, as the independent mediators i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the time of lifting the sample and serving analysis report on A.1 did not support the case of prosecution, as Ex.P.6 and

Ex.P.12 mediators reports do not disclose by whom they were scribed, as there is no corroboration to the version of P.W.1 in respect of lifting the sample and dispatching the same to the analyst, as the seed is lifted in the cloth bag which cannot be equated with an air tight container, as P.W.1 did not serve analysis report on A.2 manufacturer firm and as analyst is not examined.

Hence, the A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, the A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.7(b) r/w 14(1)(d) r/w Sec.19(a) of Seeds Act, 1966 and Clause 13(1)(c) of Seeds Control Order, 1983 and they are acquitted Under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/s.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Partly typed to my dictation to the Grade II Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-For Accused:-

P.W.1: N.Bhanu Prakash None.

C.C.No.660/2026 - 12 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

P.W.2: A.Sambasiva Rao P.W.3: D.Subbaiah P.W.4: N.Rama Devi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:- For Accused:- NIL

Ex.P1 : Covering letter dt. 13.06.2024 of the Mandal Agricultural Officer Nandivada Krishna District Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding Centre, Tadepalligudem.

Ex.P2 : Form No. VI, dated 13.06.2024.

Ex.P3 : Form No. VIII, dated 13.06.2024.

Ex.P4 : Form No.V dated 13.06.2024.

Ex.P5 : Information slip to accompany the sample dated 13.06.2024.

Ex.P6 : Mediators Report dated 13.06.2024-at the time of drawl of Sample.

Ex.P7 : Inspection report of Dt 13.06.2024 along with stock report of A1 at the time of drawal of Sample.

Ex.P8 : T/L seed Tag of Paddy seed (Dhan) MTU 1318 Lot No 1081(P)R1806 of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agro Products Nandivada Mandal.

Ex.P9 : DTDC Couriers Slip No H7826180 Dt 13.06.2024.

Ex.P10 : Form VII through Memo No RCC/TPG/A/S/167/2024, Dt: 03-07-2024 of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding Centre, Tadepalligudem.

Ex.P11 : A1 acknowledged copy of Form VII Dt: 01-07-2024 of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Agri Testing Lab, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District.

Ex.P12 : Mediators report dt: 05.07.2024-at the time of serving the analysis reports.

Ex.P13 : Form-IV (Seizure of records) dated 05.07.2024.

Ex.P14 : Inspection report Dt. 05.07.2024 along with stock report of A1 at the time of serving the analysis reports.

Ex.P15 : Invoice No. 10 Dt: 08-06-2024, of M/s Kartikeya Seeds & processors.

C.C.No.660/2026 - 13 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

Ex.P16 : Copy of Seed Stock Register Book Page No 02 of M/s Sri Venkateswara Agro Products Chinalingala village, Nandivada Mandal.

Ex.P17 : A1 Acknowledged Show Cause Notice Rc. No. C1/133/2024 Dt 11.07.2024 of The District Agricultural Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Ex.P18 : Reply of Show cause Notice by M/s. Sri Venkateswara Agro Products Chinalingala village, Nandivada Mandal on 19.07 2024.

Ex.P19 : Reply of Show cause Notice by M/s. Kartikeya Seeds & processors

Dt 30.07.2024.

Ex.P20 :Copy of letter from M/s Karthikeya seeds and processers for person responsible.

Material Objects:- NIL

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

//True Copy//

I ACJM,VJA.

C.C.No.660/2026 - 14 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.660/2026

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of

offence Apprehens Release on Commenc Closure of Sentence or

ion of bail ement of trial order accused trial 13.06.2024–--23.03.202615.04.202617.04.2026

1. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :

State represented by the Mandal Agricultural Officer and Seed Inspector, Gudivada Sub Division, Krishna District.

2. NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

2)Distributor & Producer:

3. OFFENCE : U/Secs.7(b) r/w Sec.19 (a) of Seeds Act, 1966.

4. FINDING : A1 and A.2 are found not guilty

5. SENTENCE : A1 and A2 are acquitted Under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.,

6. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : Cognizance of case was taken for the offence Under Section U/Secs.7(b) r/w Sec.19 (a) of Seeds Act, 1966 against the A.1 and A.2 on 03.02.2026. On 03.03.2026 on appearance of A1 and A2, copies of case documents furnished to them Under Section 207 Cr.P.C and on 17.03.2026 the A.1 and A.2 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C, for the offence Under Section 19 (a) (b) of Seeds Act and the accusation levelled against them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to try the case. On 13.03.2026 P.W.1 to P.W.3 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P20 were

C.C.No.660/2026 - 15 - I ACJM Court

Date: 17.04.2026 VJA.

marked. A.1 and A.2 were examined Under Section 313 (b) of Cr.P.C on 15.04.2026 and reported no defence evidence, hence, defence was closed and arguments heard on the same day. Judgment was pronounced in open court on 17.04.2026. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Vijayawada.

//True Copy//

I ACJM,VJA.

CC/657/2026 Acquitted

State rep by Asst. Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs M/s Coromandal International Limited rep by (Area Manager Retail Operations) Sri Ch.Ramu

28 Apr 2026

N THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri M.S.Karimulla,

I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 28 th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.657/2026

Between:

State:- Represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Pamarru, Krishna District.

... Complainant

AND

Dealer (1).M/s/Coromandal International Limited Represented by (Area Manager Retail operations) Sri Ch.Ramu, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged about 37 years, Mana Gromor Retail Centre, C/o.Coromandal Institutional Limited, D.No.10/116, under survey No.178/3, Main road, Gudlavalleru Village and Mandal – 521356, Krishna District, AP.

Manufacturer (2) M/s.Coromandal International Limited Represented by Senior Officer, Sri Kommaraju Sreeramurthy, S/o.K.Venkata Rao, aged about 52 years, Coromandal International Limited, SND Plant, Vakalapudi Beach Road,Kakinada District.A.1 and A.2

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 27.04.2026 in the presence of Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri J.R.Satyanrayana Prasad, Advocate for A.1 and A.2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

C.C.No.657/2026 2 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

J U D G M E N T

01. This complaint is filed by the complainant against A.1 and A.2 under

Section 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control

Order, 1985.

02. The averments of the complaint are as follows:-

A.1/Ch.Ramu is the Dealer firm of M/s.Coromandal International

Limited, Gudlavalleru Mandal and A.2/K.Sreerama Murthy is the Manufacturer firm of M/s.Coromandal International Limted, Kakinada.

The P.W.1/B.Ananthalakshmi is Mandal Agricultural Officer cum

Fertilizer Inspector, Gudlavalleru Mandal at the time of offence in this case.

P.W.2/P.Ravindra and L.W.3/N.Bhanu Prasanna Kumar who are mediators at the time of drawal of sample, P.W.3/P.Venkateswara Rao is mediator at the time of serving Analysis report. P.W.4/B.Padmaja, Assistant Director of

Agriculture (Regular), Pamarru who issued show cause notice on A.1 and A.2 and P.W.5/B.Swarnalatha, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Pamarru who filed this complaint.

Brief facts of the Prosecution case :-

On 11-01-2022 P.W.1/B.Ananthalakshmi had inspected the premises of

A-1 i.e., M/s.Coromandal International Limited Rep., by it’s Dealer by name

Ch.Ramu at D.No.10/116, under Survey No.178/3, Main Road, Gudlavalleru

Village and Mandal as a part of inspection and she had drawn the sample of

Fertilizer of the following description which was kept for sale.

C.C.No.657/2026 3 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

Name of sample:19:19:19 (Water soluble mixture)

Active ingredients:N(T)-19%,PO(ws)-19%,KO(ws)-19%

Manufactured date.:November 2021.

Quantity of stock available: 166 kgs

Batch No.:Q112021

From the above said fertilizer stock, one composite sample (containing 3 portions) was drawn duly following procedure laid down in Schedule II-Part 'A' of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the three portions of the each sample were packed individually and sealed in prescribed manner.

The 1st portion of sample containing Form-P' so sealed was dispatched to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Code Center, Visakhapatnam for Analysis through Courier service under provisions of clause 3)(1) of FCO, 1985.

The 2nd portion of sample along with Form -J & Form -K was handed over to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular) Pamarru who is the custodian of the Referee sample.

The 3rd portion of sample was handed over to the Dealer (A-1) along with Form J, Dt: 11-01-2022 and obtained dated Acknowledgement from the store manager appointed by the Coromandel International Limited present on behalf of A.1 at the time of drawl of sample.

All the relevant sampling procedures were done in presence of two mediators i.e., P.W.2/P.Ravindra and L.W.3/N.Bhanu Prasanna Kumar and all the proceedings were narrated by them in the mediators report.

C.C.No.657/2026 4 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

Later, the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding Center,

Visakhapatnam has sent the Analytical report of sample through Memo No. Rc

No. F/A/1/2021-22, Dt.04.02.2022 along with Form-L No: Roc. No 51/2022, Dt:

04-02-2022 with opinion that the sample is not according to specification and

Fails in moisture, the moisture is 1.48 as against 0.50 with a variation of (+) 0.98; water soluble phosphorous (as P205) % by wt as per analysis it is 17.61 against 19 with a variation of (-)1.39 and and water soluble potassium contents (as K20) % by wt as per analysis it is 17.32 as against 19.0 with a variation of (-)1.68.

Thereafter, the P.W.1 on receipt of Form -L from the Deputy Director of

Agriculture, Regional Coding Center, Visakhapatnam, inspected the premises of A-1 and served the analysis report in the presence of mediators on 14.02.2022. Then, P.W.1 verified the availability of the said stock of Fertilizer and found no balance of stock as per the stock register and ground balance is also found to be nil. There upon, PW-1 seized the Original Delivery Challan

No: PD107IN2122/6089, Dt: 13-12-2021, Extract copy of page No:14-15 of

Stock Register and copy of certificate of registration.

Later, P.W.4/B.Padmaja, Asst. Director of Agriculture, Pamarru has

Issued show-cause notice to the A.1 through Rc.No. 24/2021 dated 23.02.2022 to the Dealer of the said fertilizer i.e., M/s Coromandal

International limited, Mana Gromor Retall centre, D.No.10/116 under survey no. 178/3. Main road. Gudlavalleru Village & Mandal, 521356, Krishna District.

Andhra Pradesh. The she furnished reply in Letter Dt.08.10.2022 and has requested to send sample for re-analysti without paying any reanalysis fee.

After repeated oral instructions of P.W.1 he had paid the reanalysis fee of 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) by submitting the demand draft bearing number: 024664, Dr.22-03-2022 exceeding the re-analysis permit limit of 30

C.C.No.657/2026 5 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

days. Hence P.W.1 rejected the reanalysis request of the dealer due to late drawl of demand draft and informed to dealer via letter dated 22.03.2022.

It is humbly submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in

G.O.Rt.No.989, Agriculture & Co-operation (F.P.11) Department. Dated. 11- 11-2003 have accorded permission to all the Assistant Directors of Agriculture working in the state to launch prosecution against the accused who violated the provision of Fertilizer Control order, 1985 which are communicated by the

Commissioner & Director of Agriculture. Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad with

Endt. No. Fert.ll (1) 495/2003, DI. 18/11/2003.

Hence, the A.1 and A.2 have committed offence under section 3 read with section 7(1)(a) (ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 for violating clause-19 (a) and (b) of

Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

03. This case was taken cognizance for the offence Under Section 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 r/w.Sec.7 (1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities

Act and issued summons to A.1 and A.2 and after their appearance, they were furnished with case copies U/s.207 Cr.P.C. Later, the A.1 and A.2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence Under Section 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of

E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the charge has been framed for the offence 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 against A.1 and A.2 have been read over and explained to them in Telugu language and they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

04.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and Exs.P.1 to P.13 were marked.

C.C.No.657/2026 6 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

05.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the A.1 and A.2 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against A.1 and A.2 has been read over and explained to them in telugu language and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

06.Heard arguments on both sides.

07. Now the Point for consideration before this Court is:

“Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the

offence Under Section 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b)

of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. beyond all reasonable doubts”?

POINT:-

08.The learned APP submitted that the case of prosecution is established, as the Mandal Agriculture Officer is examined as P.W.1 and Assistant

Directors of Agriculture are also examined as P.W.4 and P.W.5, who supported the case of prosecution and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. Even though, the P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are mediators did not support the case of prosecution the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 can be relied who are public servants and their evidence appears to be trustworthy hence, it is prayed to convict the A.1 and A.2.

09.On the other hand, the learned counsel for A.1 and A.2 submitted that that the P.W.1 did not follow the mandatory procedure as contemplated under

Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 while lifting the sample, the P.W.1 also did not follow under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C at the time of search and seizure, the independent mediators i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution, the mediator reports do not disclose by whom they were scribed and the show cause notice and analysis report is not served on

C.C.No.657/2026 7 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

A.2/Manufacturer Firm which is mandatory and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution and Analyst is also not examined. Hence, it is prayed to acquit the

A.1 and A.2.

11.During the course of evidence of the of P.W.1, who is working as

Mandal Agricultural Officer and P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are working as

Assistant Directors of Agriculture who deposed in their chief examinations about the facts of the case as narrated supra and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 are marked through them. Ex.P.1 : Mediators report at the time of drawing sample on 11.01 2022. Ex.P.2 : Form-P Dt. 11.01.2022. Ex.P.3: Form-K Dt 11.01.2022. Ex.P.4: Form-J No 3456 Dt: 11.01.2022. Ex.P.5: Covering Letter

dated 11.01.2022 to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding

Centre, Visakhapatnam 530041. Ex.P.6: Courier slip of the DTDC couriers

date 12.01.2022 to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding

Centre, Visakhapatnam 530041. Ex.P.7 : Memo No: Rc No. F/A/1/2021-22,

D1.04.02 2022 of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional coding center,

Visakhapatnam . Ex.P.8: Form-L No: Roc No 51/20223, Dt: 04.02 2022 of

Non-Standard Analysis report. Ex.P.9 : Mediators report at the lime of serving analysis report (Form-L) on 14.02.2022. Ex.P.10: Annexure VII Dt: 14-02-2022 (Receipt for the seized books and accounts/Documents). Ex.P.11: Original

Delivery Challan No No PD107IN2122/6089, Dt: 13-12-2021 of Coromandel

International limited. Ex.P.12: Copy of Form-N Page No. 14-15 of stock

C.C.No.657/2026 8 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

register 2021-22. Ex.P.13: MAO Letter of rejection of reanalysis doted 22.03.2022. Ex.P.14 is the show cause notice dated 23.02.2022.

12.The P.W.1/ Mandal Agriculture Officer deposed in her chief-examination by reiterating the facts of the case as above and she also stated in her cross examination that any Fertilizer must be kept in a dry place but it must be air tight packed and should not be exposed either to rain or sunlight and she stated that she kept the lifted sample in polythene cover and closed it by stapling which show that the lifted sample is not air tight packed. There is every scope entering air and moisture in a polythene cover which was stapled.

P.W.1 also stated she has no knowledge which sample was sent by Deputy

Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding Centre, Visakhapatnam to

Anantapuram Lab and she did not send the same nor she received Analyst report directly from Anantapuram Lab but Ex.P.8/Analyst report shows that it was addressed to P.W.1. Therefore, the P.W.1 did not follow the strict procedure while lifting the sample and the procedure is not mentioned meticulously in Ex.P.1/mediator report which gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

It is held in a case between Srinivasan, Production Manager,

M/s.Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited (A3) Vs. State, represented by

the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular) Ponnur, Guntur District, which is reported in 2006 (3) ALT Crl. 12 (AP), wherein, our Hon’ble High

This case law is applicable aptly to the present case on hand because

P.W.1 did not draw the sample by using either steel or brass probe in a dry

C.C.No.657/2026 9 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

container and thus P.W.1 did not adhere to the strict procedure while lifting the sample.

13.The P.W.1/Mandal Agricultural Officer also did not follow the mandatory procedure under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C while conducting search and seizure at

A.1/dealer firm. The P.W.1 did not issue any prior notice to the mediators i.e.,

P.W.2 and P.W.3 in-writing before inspecting the shop of A.1. Moreover, the independent mediators/P.Ws.2 and 3 at the time of lifting the sample and serving show cause notice on A.1 dealer firm did not support the case of prosecution. Thus, there is no corroboration from the independent mediators to the version of P.W.1 in respect of lifting the sample with due procedure meticulously which gives doubt on the case of prosecution.

It is also held in a case between M/s.Godavari Fertilizers and

Chemicals Limited, Nellore Region represented by Uppalapu Veera

Venkata Satyanarayanaraju Vs. State of A.P, which is reported in 2004 (2)

14.The P.W.1 stated in her cross-examination that they did not file any document to show that they served Ex.P.8/Analysis Report on A.1 and A.2.

P.W.4/Asst. Director of Agriculture also stated she did not know whether any proof is filed to show that she served show cause notice on A.1 and A.2. Non-

C.C.No.657/2026 10 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

serving show cause notice and analysis report on all accused is also fatal to the case of prosecution which is mandatory as the A.2/Manufacturer lost opportunity seeking for reanalysis.

It is held in a case between Tropical Agro System Pvt Ltd, Madras

Rep. By its Director Vs. State of A.P Rep. by Director of Agriculture,

Insecticide Act.

This case law is aptly applicable to the present case on hand also because the prosecution did not file any proof that they supplied analyst report on A.2/Manufacturing Firm in this case. Hence, the prosecution failed to comply the mandatory requirement under the enactment.

15.The P.W.1 also stated in her cross-examination that some columns in

Ex.P.8/Analyst report are computer typed and some columns are written manually and they did not receive any complaint from the farmers in the village regarding the Fertilizer in this case, the Ex.P.8 Analyst report also does not disclose the methodology and procedure followed by Analyst and in such circumstances non-examination of author of Ex.P.8 is also fatal to the case of prosecution.

It is also held in a case between M/s.Visakha Agro Chemicals Pvt.

Ltd, and Others Vs. Fertilizer Inspector-Cum-Assistant Director of

C.C.No.657/2026 11 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

A3 are found not guilty and conviction is set aside.

This case law is also aptly applicable to the present case on hand as the prosecution failed to examine the author of the analysis report and that too there is inconsistency in between 1st and 2nd analysis reports.

16. Therefore, in the light of above and circumstances of the case and also above case laws, as P.W.1 did not follow the strict procedure while lifting the sample, as P.W.1 did not follow under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C at the time of search and seizure, as the independent mediators i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution, as the analysis report is not served on A.2 manufacturer firm, the Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.9 Mediator Reports do not disclose by whom they were scribed, as no complaints are received from any of the farmers against the A.1 and A.2 even though there was no stock as per

Ex.P.9/Mediator Report and Analyst is not examined as a witness in this case.

Hence, the A.1 and A.2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

17. Therefore, in the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence

Under Section 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 r/w.Sec.7 (1) (a) (ii)

C.C.No.657/2026 12 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

of Essential Commodities Act beyond all reasonable doubts and they are entitled for acquittal.

18. In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted

U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence 3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/s.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade II, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1:- A.Lakshmi P.W.2:- P.Ravindra P.W.3:- P.Venkateswara Rao P.W.4:- B.Padmaja P.W.5:- B.Swarna Latha

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- – None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1: Mediators report at the time of drawing sample on 11.01 2022.

Ex.P.2 : Form-P Dt. 11.01.2022.

Ex.P.3: Form-K Dt 11.01.2022.

Ex.P.4: Form-J No 3456 Dt: 11.01.2022.

C.C.No.657/2026 13 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

Ex.P.5: Covering Letter dated 11.01.2022 to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding Centre, Visakhapatnam 530041.

Ex.P.6: Courier slip of the DTDC couriers date 12.01.2022 to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional Coding Centre, Visakhapatnam 530041.

Ex.P.7 : Memo No: Rc No. F/A/1/2021-22, D1.04.02 2022 of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Regional coding center, Visakhapatnam.

Ex.P.8: Form-L No: Roc No 51/20223, Dt: 04.02 2022 of Non-Standard Analysis report.

Ex.P.9 : Mediators report at the lime of serving analysis report (Form-L) on 14.02.2022.

Ex.P.10: Annexure VII Dt: 14-02-2022 (Receipt for the seized books and accounts/Documents).

Ex.P.11: Original Delivery Challan No No PD107IN2122/6089, Dt: 13-12-2021 of Coromandel International limited.

Ex.P.12: Copy of Form-N Page No. 14-15 of stock register 2021-22.

Ex.P.13: MAO Letter of rejection of reanalysis doted 22.03.2022.

Ex.P.14: Show cause notice dated 23.02.2022.

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

//True copy//

I ACJM,VJA.

C.C.No.657/2026 14 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.657/2026

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of

offence Apprehens Release Commencem Closure of Sentence or

ion of on bail ent of trial trial order accused 11.01.2022–--07.04.202627.04.2628.04.2026

1. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :

State:- Represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Pamarru.

2. NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Manufacturer

2) M/s.Coromandal International Limited Represented by Senior Officer, Sri Kommaraju Sreeramurthy, S/o.K.Venkata Rao, aged about 52 years, Coromandal International Limited, SND Plant, Vakalapudi Beach Road,Kakinada District.

3. OFFENCE : U/s.3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985.

4. FINDING : A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty

5. SENTENCE : A.1 and A.2 are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.,

C.C.No.657/2026 15 I ACJM Court

Date: 28.04.2026 VJA.

6. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : Cognizance of case was taken for the offence Under Section U/s.3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 against the A.1 and A.2 on 03.02.2026. On 09.03.2026 on appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of case documents furnished to them Under Section 207 Cr.P.C and on 24.03.2026 they were examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C, for the offence U/s.3 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act and Sec. 19 (a) (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and the charge has been read-over and explained to them in telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On07.04.2026 P.W.1 was examined, on 13.04.2026 P.W.2 to P.W.5 were examined. A.1 and A.2 were examined Under Section 313 (b) of Cr.P.C on 13.04.2026 and reported no defence evidence, hence, defence was closed.Arguments heard on the same day. Judgment was pronounced in open court on 27.04.2026. Hence the delay.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

//True copy//

I ACJM,VJA.

CC/3748/2022 Acquitted

The Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram, Police Station vs Mulla Abdul

24 Apr 2026

C.C.No.3748/2022 - 1 - I ACJM Court

Date: 24.04.2026 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri M.S.Karimulla,

I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 24 th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.3748/2022

Between: State:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada.

... Complainant

AND

1.Mulla Abdul Gafoor, S/o.Abdul Azeez, aged about 65 years, Muslim, D.No.51/967, A6, Illuru Nagar, Near Pump House, S.A.P. Camp KNL, Kurnool Andhra Pradesh.

2.Kondamudi Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o.Ramulu, aged about 47 years, Ho.No.24-24-14, Durga Puram,

CITU State Secretary, Vijayawada. A1 and A2

3.Mopati Murali, S/o.Yedukondalu, aged about 45 years, Agnikulakshatriya, Chinnapuram Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

4.Shaik Baji, S/o.Moulali, aged about 42 years, Muslim, near Chinna Ramalayam, DYFI Office, Padamata Lanka, Vijayawada.

(The A.3 and A.4 are convicted on 01.08.2022 in split up case in C.C.No.3750/2019 on admission)

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

5.Remalle Rajasekhar, S/o.Vijay, aged about 28 years, near Chinna Ramalayam, Padamata, Vijayawada.

6.Chittamsetti Venkateswarlu, S/o.Sundaraiah, aged about 39 years, Kaikala, near Puduru High School, Puduru Village, Naidu Peta Mandal, Nellore District.

7.Rayapu Penchalaiah, S/o.Penchalaiah, aged about 42 years, Mala, Chilamattur Village, Naidupeta Mandal, Nellore District.

9.Macherla Anil, S/o.Samson, aged about 32 years, Mala, Nehrupeta, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

(The A.5, A.6, A.7 & A.9 are convicted on12.07.2019 in split up case in C.C.No.5963/2018 on admission) 8.Javvadi Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Chaltari Reddy, aged about 38 years, Reddy, Midday Meal, ZP High School, Darimadugu Village, Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District.

(The case against A.8 is convicted in split up case in C.C.No.3748/2022 on 28.02.2022 on admission) … Accused

*** * ***

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 22.04.2026 in the presence of Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for A1 and A2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT.

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station,

Vijayawada City, filed charge sheet against A.1, A.2 and others in

Cr.No.386/2018 for the offence under Secs.143, 341,290, 188 r/w 149 IPC.

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

02.A.1 is resident of Kurnool and A.2 is resident of Vijayawada and the offence took place near Alankar Center, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada, which is within the limits of Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

The P.W.1 namely Talluri Srinivasa Rao is VRO, L.W.2/P.Ajay,

L.W.3/V.Naidu, L.W.4/Ch.Anil Kumar who are independent eye witnesses and

P.W.2/Abdul Salam, SI of Police, Satyanarayanapuram PS who registered this case, did investigation and filed charge sheet.

The Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The defacto complainant/P.W.1 T.Srinivasa Rao who was working as

VRO to Gandhinagar area, Vijayawada at the time of incident. On 06.08.2018 at 1.00 PM the A.1, A.2 and some others who are Communist Party leaders by forming into an unlawful assembly were conducting Dharna at Alankar Centre by sitting in the middle of the road as a protest by suspecting that the then

Government was going to privatize the mid-day meal scheme and also by demanding increase of mid-day meal commission and raised slogans against the Government and caused hindrance to public peace and traffic by violating the orders of police which caused inconvenience to the general public. Hence,

P.W.1 came to police station and gave a written report.

Basing on the written report of P.W.1, P.W.2/Abdul Salam the then SI of

Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.386/2018 for the offences under

Secs. 143, 341,290, 188 r/w 149 IPC and he examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1, L.W.2 to L.W.4 and he also prepared rough sketch at

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

scene of offence. He served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on A.1 and A.2 on 20.08.2018 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.My learned Predecessor took cognizance of the case for the offence under Sec.143 IPC.

4.The copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. were furnished to the A.1 and A.2.

5.The A.1 and A.2 were examined as per Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., for the offence under Sec.143 IPC and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Sec.143 IPC were read over and explained to them in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The evidence of

L.W.2 to L.W.4 is given up by prosecution as their whereabouts are not known.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the A.1 and A.2 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., for which they denied the same and reported that there is no evidence on their behalf and as such the defence evidence was closed.

8.The learned APP submitted that the case of prosecution is established as the defacto complainant/P.W.1 who is VRO and Public Servant has supported the case prosecution and Investigation Officer/P.W.2 is also examined and the prosecution got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Even though,

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

there is no independent evidence from the neighbours the evidence of P.W.1 can be relied who is public servant and who evidence appears to be trustworthy. Hence, it is prayed to convict the A.1 and A.2 for the offence under Sec.143 IPC.

9.On the other hand, learned counsel for A.1, A.2 vehemently submitted that there is no piece of document filed by the prosecution to show that P.W.1 was on duty on 06.08.2018 at 1.00 PM at the place of offence, the evidence of independent eye witnesses i.e., L.W.2 to L.W.4 is given up by the prosecution as their whereabouts are not known and thus there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 from independent eye witness, the evidence of P.W.2 who is Investigation Officer is not sufficient to connect A.1 and A.2 in this case, the

P.W.2 did not secure any CC camera footage or any photo or any video in respect of the alleged Dharna made by A.1 and A.2 and prosecution also did not mark any proceedings under Sec.30 of Police Act and so also proceedings under Sec.144(2) Cr.P.C and P.W.2 cannot register the offence under Sec.188

IPC and investigate the matter. Hence, it is prayed to acquit the A.1 and A.2.

10.Now the point that arise for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offences under Sec. 143 IPC?”

11.In order to prove the offence under Sec.143 IPC the prosecution must establish that:

(i) A.1 and A.2 are members of an unlawful assembly consist of five or more persons;

(ii) there must be common object of the said assembly is one of the five crimes specified in the Sec.141 IPC i.e., (i) to overawe by criminal force or

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

show of criminal force, the Central or State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or any Public Servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant or

(ii) to resist the execution of any law or of any legal process or

(iii) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence or

(iv) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right or

(v) by means of criminal force or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation:- An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

12.During the course of trial the defacto complainant/P.W.1/T.Srinivasa

Rao who was VRO by the date of incident in this case deposed that on 06.08.2018 at 1.00 PM their higher officer i.e., Mandal Revenue Officer instructed him to go to Alankar centre to monitor a Dharna which was being held at that time. But, the prosecution did not file any document showing that

MRO instructing P.W.1 to go to the Alankar Centre and P.W.1 was on duty on 06.08.2018 at 1.00 PM near Alankar Centre. The P.W.1 also stated he noticed nearly 200 people belong to Communist Party of India who were conducting

Dharna on the road for which he questioned them conducting Dharna without permission but either Ex.P.1 report which is marked through him or his 161

Cr.P.C statement do not disclose the P.W.1 questioning P.W.1 the accused persons for conducting Dharna and the same is an omission.

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

13.The P.W.1 also deposed that the police people told the agitators to disburse the said place but in vain and the said fact is also not mentioned in

Ex.P.1 report nor he stated before police in his 161 Cr.P.C statement and the same is also an omission. The P.W.1 stated A.1 and A.2 and others caused disturbance to the public but the independent eye witnesses i.e., L.W.2 to

L.W.4 are not examined and there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of causing disturbance to the general public and the evidence of

L.W.2 to L.W.4 is given up by prosecution as their whereabouts are not known.

14.It is also elicited from cross-examination of P.W.1 that Alankar Centre is meant for expressing grievances regarding public issues and a separate chowk was also established and he did not know specifically the orders issued by the police on the date of incident and he did not know whether any permission obtained by A.1 and A.2 and others or not to conduct Dharna. In the absence of any document to show that the P.W.1 was on duty on 06.08.2018 and in the absence of any corroboration from independent witnesses, the sole evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to connect the A.1 and

A.2 for the offence under Sec.143 IPC.

15.The P.W.2/Abdul Salam the then SI of Police deposed in his chief examination that he registered a case in Cr.No.386/2018 under Secs.143, 341, 290, 188 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.32 of Police Act and he examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1, L.W.2 to L.W.4 and prepared rough sketch and served 41- A Cr.P.C notice on A.1 and A.2. The FIR and Rough Sketch are marked Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 through him. The P.W.2 stated in his cross- examination that he did not receive any complaint from the inhabitants of the alleged scene of offence with regard to obstruction of their movements. He also stated that he did not receive any directions from his superior officers with

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

regard to violation of any promulgated orders and he also stated that he did not file any CC camera footage or video or photos in respect of conducting alleged Dharna by A.1 and A.2.

16.There is a bar under Sec.195 (1)(a)(iii) of Cr.P.C for conducting investigation relating to the offence under Sec.188 IPC and once the main offence comes under the above said bar, the other offences cannot be split up in view of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between State of

Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604 at para No.8 (f) and also in a case between Devendra Kumar Vs NCT Delhi (SC para No.59 dt.20.08.2025 respectively.This case law is aptly applicable to the present case on hand as in this case also the FIR is registered for the offences under Secs.143, 341,290, 188 r/w 149 IPC.

17.Therefore, in the light of above facts and circumstances of the case and also the above case law as there is no piece of paper or document to show that P.W.1 was on duty on the date of offence, there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, as the evidence of L.W.2 to L.W.4 is given up by the prosecution, as the prosecution also miserably failed to establish that A.1 and

A.2 formed into an unlawful assembly with others with common object of the assembly is one of the above five crimes specified in the section knowing the said object, as prosecution did not file any document to show the participation of A.1 and A.2 with others such as video or photo or CC camera footage and no police proceedings are marked and so also no proceedings under Sec.144

Cr.P.C is marked and there is a bar under Sec.195(1)(a)(iii) to register a case under Sec.188 IPC and investigate. Hence, A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal.

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

18.In the result, the A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.143 IPC and they are acquitted Under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/s.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Grade II Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-For Accused:-

P.W.1: T.Srinivasa Rao None. P.W.2: Abdul Salam

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:- For Accused:- NIL

Ex.P.1 : Report given by P.W.1, dt.06.08.2018. Ex.P.2 : FIR in Cr.No.386/2018 of S.N.Puram PS. Ex.P.3 : Rough Sketch. Material Objects:- NIL

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

//True Copy//

I ACJM,VJA.

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.3748/2022

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of

offence Apprehens Release on Commenc Closure of Sentence or

ion of bail ement of trial order accused trial 06.08.2018–--14.10.202522.04.202624.04.2026

1. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada.

2. NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

1.Mulla Abdul Gafoor, S/o.Abdul Azeez, aged about 65 years, Muslim,

D.No.51/967, A6, Illuru Nagar, Near Pump House, S.A.P. Camp KNL,

Kurnool Andhra Pradesh.

2.Kondamudi Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o.Ramulu, aged about 47 years,

Ho.No.24-24-14, Durga Puram, CITU State Secretary, Vijayawada.

3.Mopati Murali, S/o.Yedukondalu, aged about 45 years, Agnikulakshatriya, Chinnapuram Village, Machilipatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

4.Shaik Baji, S/o.Moulali, aged about 42 years, Muslim, near Chinna Ramalayam, DYFI Office, Padamata Lanka, Vijayawada.

(The A.3 and A.4 are convicted on 01.08.2022 in split up case in C.C.No.3750/2019 on admission) 5.Remalle Rajasekhar, S/o.Vijay, aged about 28 years, near Chinna Ramalayam, Padamata, Vijayawada.

6.Chittamsetti Venkateswarlu, S/o.Sundaraiah, aged about 39 years, Kaikala, near Puduru High School, Puduru Village, Naidu Peta Mandal, Nellore District.

7.Rayapu Penchalaiah, S/o.Penchalaiah, aged about 42 years, Mala, Chilamattur Village, Naidupeta Mandal, Nellore District.

C.C.No.3748/2022 - - I ACJM Court

Date: 23.04.2026 VJA.

9.Macherla Anil, S/o.Samson, aged about 32 years, Mala, Nehrupeta, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

(The case against A.8 is convicted in split up case in C.C.No.3748/2022 on 28.02.2022 on admission)

3. OFFENCE : Under Sec.143 r/w 149 IPC.

4. FINDING : A1 and A2 are found not guilty

5. SENTENCE : A1 and A2 are acquitted Under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.,

6. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : This case was split up and the cognizance of case was taken for the offence Under Section under Sec.143 r/w 149 IPC against the A.1 and A.2 on 01.08.2022 and on appearance of A1 and A2, copies of case documents furnished to them Under Section 207 Cr.P.C and on 04.03.2024 the A.1 and A.2 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C, for the offences under Sec.143 r/w 149 IPC and the accusation levelled against them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to try the case. On 14.10.2025 P.W.1 is examined and on 21.04.2026 P.W.6 was examined and Exs.P.1 to P3 were marked. A.1 and A.2 were examined Under Section 313 (b) of Cr.P.C on 22.04.2026 and reported no defence evidence, hence, defence was closed and the arguments were heard on the same day. Judgment was pronounced in open Court on 24.04.2026. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Addl. District & Sessions Judge,Vijayawada. //True Copy//

I ACJM,VJA.

CC/7892/2019 Acquitted

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Senior Recovery Executive Sk. Nagurvali vs Parvatha Giri Rakesh Kumar

20 Apr 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE :

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri M.S. Karimulla,

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada,

Monday, this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.7892/2019

Between:-

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. By its Senior Recovery Executive and Power of Attorney Holder Sk.Nagurvali, S/o. Shaik Nana Saheb, Muslim, aged about 33 years, D.No.76-9-11/2, 2nd Floor of Andhra Bank, Crombay Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12, Krishna District.

.. Complainant

And

Parvatha Giri Rakesh Kumar, S/o.Ramesh Kumar, Hindu, aged about years, resident of Shop No.212, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural – 521225, Krishna District.

.. Accused.

This case is coming on this day i.e., 17.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant and of Sri M.Venkata Rao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The facts leading to the presentation of the complaint is that:

The Complainant is doing business under the name and style of

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, which is registered under the Indian Companies Act carrying on finance business by providing finance facility to purchase commercial vehicles under the scheme of lease/loan/hypothecation having its registered office at

No.123, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai and having branches all over

India, including one of such branch at Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada,

Krishna District.

The accused by name Parvatha Giri Rakesh Kumar approached the complainant Firm for getting loan for purchasing a lorry bearing

No.AP 16TB 6289 and executed a loan-cum- Hypothecation agreement in favour of the Complainant on 26.04.2018. The Complainant sanctioned a loan of Rs.10,28,191/- includes advance loan amount of Rs.7,50,000/- + Financial Charges of Rs.2,78,191/-) under the above said agreement.

The accused has agreed to repay the same in 36 monthly installments as per agreement. One Murali Mohan Rao Gangavarapu, s/o.Venkata

Ratnam stood as guarantor for the above said loan. Subsequent to the above loan the Complainant Firm has also sanctioned some other credit facilities for the maintenance of financed vehicle upon requests of accused.

Later, the accused has been irregular in payment of monthly installments and paid only an amount of Rs.97,560/- until 20.08.2019 towards installments and committed default of remaining installments. As there is no other option except to get back the vehicle under the Loan- cum-hypothecation agreement in order to sell the same to realize the loan amount by selling it. By the time the vehicle was taken by the complainant, the same was not in good working condition. Hence, the complainant sold the vehicle for an amount of Rs.6,25,250/- in open auction and still an amount of Rs.6,37,549/- was outstanding due as on 20.08.2019 (short fall amount) after remitting the sale proceeds to the

Accused account.

Then the Accused approached the Complainant firm on 09.08.2019 and requested not to initiate any legal action against both of them. The settlement amount is arrived for Rs.6.02.995/- and the same was accepted by the Accused also. In discharge of said settlement amount on the same day itself the accused has issued a cheque for

Rs.3,42,995/- bearing Cheque No.354098 dated 09.08.2019 drawn on

Andhra Bank, Vijayawada Wholesale Commercial Complex Branch,

Vijayawada in favour of the Complainant towards part satisfaction of the said settlement amount. The Complainant firm presented the above said cheque for collection through it’s banker through CMS Service at HDFC

Bank Ltd., Tickle Road branch, Vijayawada and surprisingly the said cheque was returned dishonored as unpaid as per the Cheque return memo dated 14.08.2019 for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and the same was intimated to the Complainant firm by it’s banker.

Subsequently, the complainant firm got issued a legal notice dated 12.09.2019 through it’s counsel informing the accused about the dishonour of cheque referred supra and thereby demanding the accused for payment of the said a cheque amount within the statutory period. The accused intentionally returned the said notice with false endorsement.

Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

3.The Cognizance of the case was taken on file for the offence under

Sec.138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.On appearance of accused, he was furnished with the copies of the case documents as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and he was examined under 251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of the accusation under

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, was read over and explained to accused in telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to substantiate the case of the complainant firm, the authorized person namely Sk.Nagur Vali is examined as P.W.1, and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. No witness is examined on behalf of accused but Ex.D.1 is marked through P.W.1 in his cross-examination.

6.After completion of complainant side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material in the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were put forth to the accused, for which he stated all as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.The learned counsel for complainant submitted that the case of the

Complainant Firm is established and proved that there is a legally enforceable debt owed by the accused to the complainant by way of examining it’s authorised person as P.W.1 and by marking Ex.P1 to

Ex.P8 and also proved issuance of Ex.P4 cheque to the complainant towards discharge of the above debt partly and the accused having received legal notice did not pay anything and their complaint is filed by complying all the essential ingredients required for the offence under section 138 N.I Act., hence, he prays to convict the accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused vehemently submitted that there is no legally enforceable debt of Rs.3,42,995/- as on the date of alleged issuance of Ex.P.4 cheque dated 09.08.2019 and the complainant miserably failed the said debt said to have been owed by accused to it by adducing any cogent oral evidence or by filing any documentary evidence and the Ex.P.4 cheque was not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt and the same was obtained by the complainant firm at the time of sanctioning loan as a security along with other cheques. Hence, accused is not liable for conviction and it is prayed to acquit the accused.

9.In order to prove the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant must establish that :

(1) Whether there is a legally enforceable of debt of Rs.3,42,995/-

said to have been owed by the accused to the complainant Firm by

09.08.2018?

(2) Whether the accused issued Ex.P.4 cheque dt.09.08.2019 for

Rs.3,42,995/- towards partly discharge of the legally enforceable

debt of Rs.6,02,995/- said to have been owed by the accused to the

complainant Firm ?

3) Whether the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act?

4) To what relief?

POINT Nos.1 to 3:

As points 1 to 3 are interrelated to each other, they are taken commonly for discussion for better appreciation of facts and also to come to a just conclusion.

10.It is the contention of the complainant that the accused availed a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from the complainant Firm under a Loan-cum-

Hypothecation Agreement dated 26.04.2018 for purchasing a lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 6289. One Ganapavarapu Murali Mohan Rao,

S/o.Venkata Ratnam stood as guarantor for the said loan of the accused.

The said loan i.e., advance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- + Rs.2,78,191/- towards financial charges totally Rs.10,28,191/- has to be repaid in 36 monthly installments as per the Agreement and accused paid only

Rs.97,560/- till 20.08.2019 and became default of remaining installments.

Hence, the complainant Firm sold the above vehicle for an amount of Rs.6,25,250/- in open auction and still an amount of Rs.6,37,549/- was outstanding due on 20.08.2019 (short fall amount) after remitting the sale proceeds to the account of accused. It is also the contention of complainant that the accused approached the complainant Firm on 09.08.2019 and requested it not to initiate any legal action against him and also his guarantor and a settlement is arrived for Rs.6,02,995/- and the same was accepted by complainant Firm. The accused towards discharge of settlement amount on the same day itself i.e., on 09.08.2019 had issued Ex.P.4 cheque for Rs.3,42,995/- bearing

No.354098 drawn on Andhra Bank, Vijayawada Wholesale Commercial

Branch, Vijayawada in favour of the complainant towards part satisfaction of the settled amount.

11.It is the contention of accused that he was not in due of any amount much less Rs.6,02,995/- as on 09.08.2019 and he did not issue

Ex.P.4 cheque to the complainant Firm towards discharge of any kind of debt partly and the said cheque apart from other cheques were obtained by the complainant Firm from him at the time of sanctioning loan only as a security. Even as per the case of complainant the accused paid

Rs.97,560/- until 20.08.2019 and admittedly complainant sold the vehicle for Rs.6,25,250/- and Ex.P.3 Statement account of accused shows that there was surplus amount of Rs.14,961.44 paise in the account of accused with the complainant Firm as on 04.05.2019 but filing this case against the accused as if he was in due of Rs.6,02,995/- as on 09.08.2019 i.e., in a span of three months time is not believable.

12.It is also elicited from the cross-examination of complainant/P.W.1 that accused had to pay Rs.28,256/- per month in 36 installments i.e., from 20.06.2018 to 20.05.2021 which includes principal amount as well as interest. The P.W.1 also admitted that there was surplus amount of

Rs.14,961-44 paise paid by accused by the month of May, 2019 and it is also elicited that they sold the vehicle for Rs.6,25,250/- on 20.08.2019 and P.W.1 also admitted that accused had paid Rs.97,560/- by the date they sold the vehicle and thus they got total amount of Rs.7,21,000/- by way of selling the vehicle and also by way of paying amount by the accused.

13.P.W.1 also admitted that there is only three months gap in between

Ex.P.4 cheque dated 09.08.2019 and the Ex.P.3 statement of account of accused dated 04.05.2019. P.W.1 also stated that he did not know who filled up the columns in Ex.P.4 cheque and he did not know whether their complainant Firm obtained six blank signed cheques from accused towards ECS clearing but he admitted generally their Firm obtains either cancelled cheques or signed cheques from the customers by the time of sanctioning loans. Therefore, it is safely concluded that even though the accused was not in due of the alleged Rs.6,02,995/- as on 09.08.2019 and issuance of Ex.P.4 cheque for Rs.3,42,995/- on 09.08.2019 by the accused to the complainant Firm towards part satisfaction is not believable and the complainant Firm filed this complaint falsely by taking advantage of signed cheques by the accused given at the time of availing loan by him.

14.The learned counsel for accused relied a case law of our Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in a case between Dashrathbhai Trikambhai

Patel Vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Anr.in Crl.Appeal No.1497

of 2022 dated 11.10.2022 which is reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 830 wherein it is held that if the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be sum represented on the cheque. Though a post- dated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing for the offence to be attracted under Sec.138 NI

Act, the cheque must represent a a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment.

This case law is also aptly applicable to the present case on hand as admittedly there was surplus amount of Rs.14,961 – 44 Paise in the account of accused under Ex.P.3 as on 04.05.2019 and issuance of

Ex.P.4 cheque for Rs.3,42,995/- towards discharge of a huge debt of

Rs.6,02,995/- within three months is not believable and the said cheque is not representing any legally enforceable debt and as the complainant failed to establish the alleged settlement arrived in between accused and complainant Firm as on 09.08.2019.

15.Therefore, in the light of above facts and circumstances of the case and also the above case law, the complainant miserably failed to establish that there is a legally enforceable of debt of Rs.6,02,995/- said to have been owed by the accused to the complainant Firm by 09.08.2018 and the accused issued Ex.P.4 cheque dt.09.08.2019 for

Rs.3,42,995/- towards part satisfaction of the above debt said to have been owed by the accused to the complainant Firm, hence the accused is not liable for punishment for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Point No.3: To what relief?

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.138 NI Act and he is acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Gr.II Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 20th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

P.W.1 : Sk.Nagurvali

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1Notarize copy of power of attorney, dated 27-02-2019

Ex.P.2Certificate of incorporation, dated 13.06.1979

Ex.P3Account copy of accused

Ex.P4Cheque bearing No.354098 for Rs.3,42,995/- dran on Andhra Bank, Vijayawada, whole sale commercial complex branch, Vijayawada issued by accused in favour of the complainant, dated 09-08-2019

Ex.P5Cheque return memo, dated 14-08-2019

Ex.P6Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the complainant to the accused along with postal receipt, dated 12-09-2019

Ex.P7Return cover, dated 16-09-2019

Ex.P8Certified copy of Award copy in Arbitration Case No.105/2020 passed against the accused passed by sole Arbitrator, dated 30-09- 2021

FOR ACCUSED :

Ex.D.1: Xerox copy of the cheque bearing No.031278, dt.09.07.2019.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada.

// TRUE COPY //

I ACJM, VJA.

CALENDER

ABSTRACT: Vijayawada

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY SRI M.S. KARIMULLA,

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

Monday, the 20 th day of April, 2026

C.C.No. 7892/2019

Date of Offence: 14-08-2019 Date of Complaint: 14-11-2019 1st appearance of the accused : 03-05-2024 Released on bail: –-- Commencement of trial: 07-02-2025 Closure of Trial: 15-04-2026 Order/Sentence: 20-04-2026

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witness.

Name of the complainant:

Name of accused:

Parvatha Giri Rakesh Kumar, S/o.Ramesh Kumar, Hindu, aged about years, resident of Shop No.212, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural – 521225, Krishna District.

Nature of offence : U/Secs.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act Plea of accused : Not Guilty Finding : Found not guilty

RESULT:-

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to

The Honl’ble II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

// TRUE COPY //

I ACJM, VJA.

Order Record 1,955 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/657/2026	State rep by Asst. Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs M/s Coromandal International Limited rep by (Area Manager Retail Operations) Sri Ch.Ramu	28 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/3748/2022	The Station House Officer, Satyanarayanapuram, Police Station vs Mulla Abdul	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/7892/2019	M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd, Rep. by its Senior Recovery Executive Sk. Nagurvali vs Parvatha Giri Rakesh Kumar	20 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/660/2026	State rep by Asst. Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs M/s Sri Venkateswara Agro Products rep by Smt. Dasam Nagalakshmi	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/4418/2025	State represented by Mandal Agricultural Officer, G.Konduru Mandal, NTR District. vs A1- M/S.Dheeraj Krishna Enterprized (Dealer)	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/7150/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture Regular, Nuzvid. vs Aluru Venugopalarao	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/7151/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture Regular, Nuzvid. vs Kola Kishore Kumar	17 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/7146/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Gannavaram Sub Division, Krishna District. vs M/s.NG Feritlizers and Chemicals Private Limited	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/7148/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Gannavaram Sub Division, Krishna District. vs M/s.NG Fertilizers and Chemicals Private Limited	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/417/2023	Bommireddy Vanitha vs Golla Subrahmanyam	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/7142/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Nandigama. vs M/s.Coromandel International Limited	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/7143/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Nandigama. vs M/s.Sri Murali Krishna Traders	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1956/2024	Korivada Venkata Ratnam vs Kommu Venkata Satyana Rama Prasad	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/4954/2023	The State Rep. by the Insecticides Inspector and Assistant Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs Ravindra Srinu, Distributor and Dealer Point,	10 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1701/2021	The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram PS vs Vallapudasu Ajay @ DJ	09 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/7141/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Nandigama. vs M/s.Tulasi Seeds Private Limited, Rep.by K.Nagavara Prasad	06 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/9687/2025	Department of Agriculture rep by Asst Director of Agriculture(R), Jaggaiahpeta vs M/s Sri Kesa Purnachandra Roa and Co. rep by Kesa Karthik	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/655/2026	State rep by Asst. Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs M/S Gowri Sankar Fertilizers and Pesticides rep by Sri Sujanmulk Gowri Sankar	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/658/2026	State rep by Asst. Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs M/s Gowri Sankar Fertilizers and Pesticides rep by Sri Sujanmulk Gowri Sankar	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/488/2023	Thammisetti Devika vs Thammisetti Ramanjaneyulu	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/2745/2020	Inspector of police, Machavaram, Vijayawda vs Thalluri Kalebe Raju	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/9686/2025	Department of Agriculture rep by Asst Director of Agriculture(R), Jaggaiahpeta vs M/s Sri Vasavi Fertilizers and Pesticides rep by Gurram Venkata Lakshmi Sridhar	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/3672/2023	The State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala PS, vs Vijji Ramesh	25 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/19/2025	Pooja Jain vs R1-Safaf Ankeet Kumar Jain	25 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/7147/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Gannavaram Sub Division, Krishna District. vs M/s.Nagarjuna Feritilizers and Chemicals Limited	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/6220/2023	The State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala PS, vs Dudla Arjun	20 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/3082/2025	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. vs Kollipara Sri Hari Babu	18 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1013/2023	The State Rep. by Mandal Agricultural Officer, and Seed Inspector, vs Nallani Srinivasa Rao	16 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1/2026	The Station House Officer Gunadala Police Station vs Allam Ratna Sekhar	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/6150/2022	The station house officer, Machavaram, Vijayawada vs Narnneni Ramesh Babu	14 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/661/2026	State rep by Asst. Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs M/s Sri Dhana Lakshmi Fertilizers and Pesticides rep by P.Suresh Gandhi	13 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/662/2026	State rep by Asst. Director of Agriculture(Regular) vs M/s Sri Anjaneya Fertilizers and Pesticides rep by K.Ramaiah	13 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/195/2023	Pabhisetti Yamuna vs R1-Pabbisetti Divakar	11 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/4742/2025	The State represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture(regular) Avanigadda vs A1-Dealer Lakshmi Fertlizers and General agencies Rep Redroutu Venkateswara Rao	09 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/142/2024	Alla@Kolagani Siva Naga Durga vs R1-Alla Venkata Rao	09 Mar 2026	Order	—
DVC/187/2024	Shaik Haneefa Banu vs R1-Shaik Shahrun Ahmed	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/4654/2025	State represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture, Jaggaiahpet, NTR District. vs A1-M/s.Coromandel International Ltd., C/o.Mana, Gromor Centre (Retailer) Rep V.Mahesh	27 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/7149/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture Regular, Nuzvid. vs Guggilla Naga Hari Prasad	24 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/349/2023	Valiveti Hemalatha Lakshmi Kumari vs R1-Sappa Raja Sekhar	24 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/3575/2021	The Station House Officer, Machavaram, Police Station, vs Gudeti Rajendra Prasad	23 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/395/2021	Dharmapuri Mallikarjuna Rao vs Koppanati Rama Krishna	20 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/395/2021	Dharmapuri Mallikarjuna Rao vs Koppanati Rama Krishna	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/7137/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Nandigama. vs M/s.Besticides Minerals Private Limited, Nandgiama,	19 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/7144/2025	The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Nandigama. vs M/s.Besticides Minerals Private Limited	19 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/98/2025	The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. vs A1-Kunda Srikanth	18 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1853/2021	The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram PS vs Josyula Narayana Murthy	17 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/2945/2024	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. vs A1-Saladula Ravi Kishore	17 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/476/2024	State represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture(Regular) Nuzvid,. vs A1-Dara Ananda Seshagirirao	16 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/2917/2023	State Represented by Assistant Director of Agriculature (Regular) Vijayawada. vs A1-Manufacturer, T-Stanes and Company Ltd rep by Pamarthi Sreekanth	13 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/2918/2023	State represented by Assistant Director of Agriculature (Regular) Vijayawada. vs A1-Manufacturer, T.Stanes and Company Rep by Pamarthi Sreekanth	13 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/2919/2023	State represented by Assistant Director of Agriculature (Regular) Vijayawada. vs A1-T.Stanes and Company Rep Pamarthi Sreekanth	13 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/419/2023	Puppala Siva Durga Bhavani vs R1-Puppala Mani Prasad	13 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/1553/2023	The State Rep. by Assistant Director of Agriculture(Regular), vs T. Stanes and company Ltd., Rep. by Pamarthi Sreekanth	12 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/2507/2023	The State Rep. by Assistant Director of Agriculture(Regular, vs T. Stanes and Compnay Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Representative, Pamarthi Sreekanth	12 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1551/2023	The State Rep. by Assistant Director of Agriculture(Regular), vs T. Stanes and company Ltd., Rep. by Pamarthi Sreekanth	11 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1552/2023	The State Rep. by Assistant Director of Agriculture(Regular), vs T. Stanes and company Ltd., Rep. by Pamarthi Sreekanth	11 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/475/2019	Polagani Siva Leela vs Polagani Nagendra	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/9936/2025	The Station House Officer, Machavaram, Police Station, vs Gutta Sai Sahith	06 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/1209/2022	The Station House Officer, Machavaram, Police Station, vs Mukku Naga Malleswara Rao	05 Feb 2026	Judgment	—
CC/3574/2021	The Station House Officer, Machavaram, Police Station, vs Vinukonda Siva Roshi	19 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
DVC/183/2023	Chintapalli Krishna Kumari vs Chintapalli Naga Krishna	17 Dec 2025	Order	—
DVC/7/2024	Pabbathi Reddy madhuri vs Pabbathi Reddy Hemaraj Kumar	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
CC/3177/2021	The Station House Officer, Machavaram, Police Station, vs Nadella Tharun Chowdari @ Munna	12 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
CC/5981/2022	The Station House Officer, Machavaram, Police Station, vs Gondipothana Chowdary	10 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
CC/7865/2019	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company ltd, rep by A.Rajesh Babu vs Konatham Siva Rama Krishna	05 Dec 2025	Judgment	—
CC/397/2021	Smt.pudi Padma vs Ulava Srinivasarao	28 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1178/2021	Inspector of police, Mahcavaram, Vijayawada vs Veshupogu Ayyanna @ Yespogu Ayyana Kumar	28 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
DVC/49/2024	Lingam Lalita Kumari vs Lingam Suresh	28 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/4599/2022	The Station House Officer, Machavaram, Police Station, vs Bojja Siva	27 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/4727/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala, Police Station, vs Bolisetti Ramakrishna	27 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/475/2024	State represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture(Regular) Mylavaram, NTR District. vs A1-Gandham Rajesh Kumar	25 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1187/2024	The Sub-Inspectr of Police, Mavhavaram P.S., VIjayawada City (Split up from CC.5153/2023) vs A1-Padala Prasad	25 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1847/2024	Department of Agriculture, Represented by Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Nandigama and Noti vs A1-M/s.Coromandel Internation Lmt Rep S.N.Sravana Kumar	21 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/7984/2019	Staste Repesented by the insecticides Inspector and the Mandal agricultural Officer ,kaikaluru vs M/S Bayer crop Science Ltd Rep Sri Jitendra Patel and other 02	21 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/2251/2023	The State Rep. by the Insecticides Inspector and Assistnat Director of Agriculture(Regular), vs Jandyala Vishnu Vardhan	14 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/4330/2024	The Sub-Insepctor of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. vs A1-Abburi Seshagiri Rao	14 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/225/2024	The State Rep. by Agricultural Officer and Seeds Inspector, vs M/s Sri Prasananjaneya Traders,	13 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/3639/2024	The Sub-Inspector of Police Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. vs A1-Gutupalli Rupesh and 15 others	07 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/5090/2024	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. vs A1-Dhanala Aravind Babu	07 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1484/2024	Mppala Badrinarayana vs Paturi Prasad	03 Nov 2025	Judgment	—
DVC/314/2019	Dagani Sri Sirisha vs Korataluri Anil Kumar and two others	27 Oct 2025	Order	—
CC/2215/2025	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. vs Arepalli Durga Rao	22 Oct 2025	Judgment	—
CC/6215/2023	The State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gunadala PS, vs Dowari Srinivas	17 Oct 2025	Judgment	—
DVC/98/2021	Kadiyala Sowjanya vs Vemula Siva Naga Mahesh	17 Oct 2025	Order	—
DVC/392/2023	Kagitha Sandya Rani vs R1-Pamarti Krishna Murthi	16 Oct 2025	Order	—
DVC/478/2023	Anaparthi Lakshmi vs Anaparthi Appala Nayudu	15 Oct 2025	Order	—
DVC/389/2024	Gonnabathula Mehar Mounika vs R1-Kuppala Kiran	10 Oct 2025	Order	—
DVC/151/2024	Pedapudi Kavya vs R1-Nimmakuri Shaju Kumar	09 Oct 2025	Order	—
CC/3907/2020	Inspector of Police, Machavaram, Vijayawada vs Ganta madhu Krsihna	26 Sep 2025	Judgment	—
DVC/1/2025	Gudela Sravani vs Gudela Karthik	26 Sep 2025	Order	—
DVC/25/2019	Singamasetti Ramani vs Singamasetti Satyanarayana and 03 others	26 Sep 2025	Order	—
DVC/106/2021	Prathaparao Shanthi vs Prathaparao Chaithanya	25 Sep 2025	Order	—
DVC/131/2021	Singampalli naga Lakshmi vs Singampalli Srinivasa Rao	25 Sep 2025	Order	—
DVC/162/2023	Doguparthi Venkata Sai lakshmi vs R1-Doguparthi Sandeep Kumar	25 Sep 2025	Order	—
DVC/299/2024	Mora Sujatha vs Mora Rambabu	25 Sep 2025	Order	—
DVC/7/2025	Talasila Divya vs R1-Nimmagadda Ganesh	24 Sep 2025	Order	—
DVC/15/2025	Shaik Haseena vs Patan Nagur	24 Sep 2025	Order	—
DVC/498/2019	Uppuluri Haritha vs Uppuluri Somasundara Phanindra Pavan Kumar	23 Sep 2025	Order	—
CC/4384/2025	The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S., Vijayawada City. vs A1-Kolasani Prasad	22 Sep 2025	Judgment	—
DVC/161/2023	Kappala Veneela vs R1-Kappala Isaac Dharma Teja	18 Sep 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,955 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		21
Mar 2026		18
Feb 2026		24
Dec 2025		6
Nov 2025		19
Oct 2025		8
Sep 2025		81
Aug 2025		20
Jul 2025		32
Jun 2025		13
May 2025		39
Apr 2025		38

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has M.S.Karimulla handled?

M.S.Karimulla has handled 1989 court orders since 2023 at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada. The average disposal rate is 66 orders per month.

What types of cases does M.S.Karimulla hear?

Based on available records, M.S.Karimulla primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.

Where is M.S.Karimulla currently posted?

M.S.Karimulla is posted as IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by M.S.Karimulla available online?

Yes. 9 judgments by M.S.Karimulla are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does M.S.Karimulla dispose cases?

M.S.Karimulla disposes approximately 66 cases per month, based on 1989 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.

Since when is M.S.Karimulla serving?

M.S.Karimulla has been serving at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada since 2023.

Case Types

CC 80%

DVC 19%

PRC 0%

LPC 0%

Posting History

Feb 2026 — Feb 2026

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada
Dec 2024 — Jan 2025

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada · 3 orders
Sep 2023 — Nov 2023

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada · 1 orders
Aug 2023 — Present

I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada · 1,985 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Other Judges at this Court

M.Suneel Kumar

II Addl. District Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions...

15 orders

Smt. L. Thejovathi

III Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

0 orders

K.neelima

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

0 orders

G.Rajeswari

V Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

686 orders

Bandela Abraham

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) V...

620 orders

N.padmavathi

VIII Additional District and Session Judge (FTC)...

3 orders

Sri G.Subrahmanyam

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)...

3 orders

Smt M.Sudha

XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)...

7 orders

Smt K. Madhavi Devi

Principal Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

218 orders

Smt.K.Vani

I Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

458 orders

Smt.k.aruna

III Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

0 orders

Smt.M.Satya Kumari

IV Addl Senior Civil Judge cum V ACMM Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri K.P. Sai Ram

VI Addl Senior Civil Judge Vajayawada

408 orders

Sri.Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao

VII Addl Senior Civil Judge Vajayawada

377 orders

Sri Chapala Srinivasa Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Metropolitan Magis...

1,336 orders

Ms. G.devika

I Addl Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Metr...

301 orders

Sri S.Srikanth

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Additional Met...

0 orders

Shaik Rehana

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- III Additional...

969 orders

T.anjani S.s.rama Aditya Rishik

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- IV Additional M...

600 orders

Smt P Santhi

V Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- V Addition...

0 orders

B Radha Rani

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,518 orders

Smt.Nettem Radhika

II Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

319 orders

Sri.P.Tirumala Rao

III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,555 orders

Sri U.Ram Mohan

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

15 orders

Sri.Marapu Sridhar

VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawad...

0 orders

Sri P.Ramana Reddy

IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada

0 orders

KP Sai Ram

XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri Kandepu Seeta Rama Krishna Rao

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada

125 orders

A.anitha

Spl. Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases Relating to...

18 orders

N Radhika

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Vijaya...

70 orders

Kampa Jayalakshmi

Special Judge for POCSO Act Vijayawada.

0 orders

Sri G.Bhupal Reddy

Special Judge for Commercial Disputes Vijayawada

28 orders

← View all judges at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada