Sri Milind kamble

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

Kollapur, JCJ Court Complex · Nagarkurnool · Telangana

Sri Milind kamble, Prl JCJ cum JMFC, is posted at Kollapur, JCJ Court Complex, Nagarkurnool, Telangana, India. 44 court orders on record since 2016. 3 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/390/2013 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise sation Kollpur vs Turaka Babu Saheb

31 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KOLLAPUR

Wednesday, the 24th day of August , 2016.

Present:- D.V.R.Tejo Karthik Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur

C.C.No. 390 of 2013 Between:- State of A.P., represented through Prohibition and Excise Sub- Inspector, Kollapur. …Complainant Turaka Babu Saheb s/o Badamiya age 58 years, occ.Coolie r/o Chinnamarur village. …Accused

Nature of offence: - Illegal possession of ID liquor Without licence or permit

Section of law: - U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Proh.Act, 1995

Plea of the accused: - Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court: - Found not guilty

Sentence or order:. The accused is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. -o0o-

This case coming before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri. B.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector (PW3), Kollapur, alleged that on 6-2-2013 on receiving reliable information about sale of I.D liquor he along with his staff proceeded for conducting raid at Chinnamarur village and there they secured the presence of two panchas PW1 and

PW2. At about 2.45 P.M when they raided the house of the accused, the accused ran away on seeing them.

Then PW3 affixed a search memo on the doors of the house and during the search they found a plastic can containing 5 litres of I.D. liquor. Then PW3 seized the plastic can under cover of panchanama and drawn the samples into two bottles, and sealed them as per the procedure and brought the case property to the Excise

Station, Kollapur, for further investigation. Basing on the material, a case was registered in PCOR.No.855/2012-13,

U/sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused. The sample bottles have been deposited before the Court with a requisition to send one of the sample bottles for analysis and report and remaining I.D. liquor has been deposited in the office of Dy. Commissioner,

Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar. After completion of investigation and after receiving the chemical examiner’s report vide CE.No. 2146/2013/2, dt. 23-4-2013 wherein the chemical examiner opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose, PW3 filed charge sheet against the accused.

2. Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him u/s 207 Cr.P.C., and after furnishing copies of documents, the accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations.

Then a charge for the offence punishable u/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) 3 of AP Prohibition Act was framed and explained to the accused. On the question of plea the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove the case of the prosecution PWs 1 to 3 were examined as witnesses and Ex.P1 to P8 were marked as documents and MO.1 is marked as the material object.

Ex.P1 to P8 i.e., Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on panchanama, Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on

Panchanama, Ex.P3 is the Panchanama, Ex.P4 is the

PCOR , Ex.P5 is the List of property, Ex.P6 is the letter of advice, Ex.P7 is the search memo, Ex.P8 is C.E. report.

4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared against him, for which he denied.

On behalf of the accused no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

5. Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for accused.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act?

7. This is a case wherein it was mainly alleged that on 6-2- 2013 at about 2.45 P.M, PW3 being investigation officer seized 5 litres of ID liquor which was possessed by the accused in his house unlawfully and the same was seized in the presence of PW 1 and PW2 and in support of the prosecution PW1 and PW2 were examined as 4 independent witnesses wherein PW1 in his evidence stated that he does not know any facts of this case and the Excise officials did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. Witness further testified that the at the behest of excise officials he appended his signature. PW2 testified that the Excise Officials obtained his signature on a blank paper and he does not know any facts of the case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence. The witnesses were declared hostile and nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution to prove the seizure of I.D.

liquor.

8. The investigation officer was examined in this case as

PW3, who stated that when he along with his staff and

PW1 and PW2 raided the house of the accused and during the search they found a plastic can containing 5 litres of

I.D. liquor in the house of the accused and the same was seized in the presence of PW1 and PW2. Then he recorded the proceedings of seizure, then registered a case and referred one of the samples for chemical analysis. In his cross-examination PW3 denied the suggestion of foisting a false case for statistical purpose without seizure of illicitly distilled liquor from the house of the accused.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon vigilant analysis of entire evidence on record discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of seizure of illicitly distilled liquor 5 from the house of the accused in the presence of PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW3 is neither corroborated nor supported by the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

Therefore I am of the view that the sole testimony of PW3 cannot be relied for proof of seizure of ID liquor as PW3 is the person who detected the crime, issued PCOR, investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled, after expiry of 6 months as per section 437 A of Cr.P.,C.

The MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of August, 2016.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOLLAPUR.

Appendix of evidence For prosecution For defence PW1: Baleeshwaraiah-Nil- PW2: Venkataiah PW2: Narahari

Exhibits marked

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on panchanama, Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on Panchanama, Ex.P3 is the Panchanama, Ex.P4 is the PCOR , Ex.P5 is the List of property, Ex.P6 is the letter of advice, Ex.P7 is the search memo, Ex.P8 is C.E. report.

Material object.

MO.1: is the sample bottle.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOLLAPUR.

CC/406/2013 Acquitted

Sai Kumar Veerabomma vs Mohd Jahangeer

31 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KOLLAPUR

Wednesday , the 24th day of August, 2016.

Present:- D.V.R.Tejo Karthik, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur

C.C.No. 106 of 2013 Between:- State of A.P., represented through Prohibition and Excise Sub- Inspector, Kollapur. …Complainant Mohd. Jahangeer s/o Rahaman age 32 years, occ. Labour r/o Sathapur village. …Accused

Nature of offence: - Illegal possession of ID liquor Without licence or permit

Section of law: - U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Proh.Act, 1995

Plea of the accused: - Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court: - Found not guilty

Sentence or order:. The accused is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. -o0o-

This case coming before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri. P.Govind, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector (PW2), Kollapur, alleged that on v 21-6-2013 on receiving reliable information about sale of I.D liquor he along with his staff proceeded for conducting raid at Sathapur village and there they secured the presence of two panchas PW1 and

LW2 B. Raju At about 9:30 A.M. When they raided the house of the accused. The doors of the house were kept open and none were found. On enquiry the officials came 2 to know the name of the accused. Then PW2 affixed search memo on the doors of the house of the accused and during the search they found a plastic can containing 10 litres of I.D. liquor. Then PW2 seized the plastic can under cover of panchanama and drawn the samples into two bottles, and sealed them as per the procedure and brought the case property to the Excise Station, Kollapur, for further investigation. Basing on the material, a case was registered in PCOR.No.321/2013-14, U/sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused. The sample bottles have been deposited before the Court with a requisition to send one of the sample bottles for analysis and report and remaining I.D. liquor has been deposited in the office of Dy. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise,

Mahabubnagar. After completion of investigation and after receiving the chemical examiner’s report vide CE.No.

5239/2013/12, dt. 10-9-2013 wherein the chemical examiner opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose, PW2 filed charge sheet against the accused.

Then a charge for the offence punishable u/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act was framed and explained to the accused. On the question of plea the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove the case of the prosecution PWs 1 and 2 were examined as witnesses and Ex.P1 to P7 were marked as documents and MO.1 is marked as the material object.

The prosecution filed certificate issued by V.R.O. Sathapur wherein it was stated in the certificate that the whereabouts of LW2 Raju is not known and LW2 Raju is not residing in the village. Hence the evidence of LW2 Raju was closed.

4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared against him, for which he denied.

On behalf of the accused no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case for the offence U/s 7 A r/w 8(e) of

A.P.P. Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. This is a case wherein it was mainly alleged that on 21-6- 2013 at about 9:30 A.M., PW2 being investigation officer seized 10 litres of ID liquor which was possessed by the accused in his house unlawfully and the same was seized in the presence of PW 1 and LW2 Raju and in support of 4 the prosecution PW1 was examined as independent witness wherein PW1 in his evidence stated that the

Excise officials obtained his signature on a blank paper and that he does not know any facts of the case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence. The witness was declared hostile and nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution to prove the seizure of I.D. liquor.

9. The investigation officer was examined in this case as

PW2, who stated that when he along with his staff and

PW1 and LW2 Raju raided the house of the accused, on seeing them the accused and during the search they found a plastic can containing 10 litres of I.D. liquor in the house of the accused and the same was seized in the presence of PW1 and LW2 Raju. Then he recorded the proceedings of seizure, then registered a case and referred one of the samples for chemical analysis. In his cross-examination PW2 denied the suggestion of foisting a false case for statistical purpose without seizure of illicitly distilled liquor from the house of the accused.

PW1. Therefore I am of the view that the sole testimony of PW3 cannot be relied for proof of seizure of ID liquor.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled, after expiry of 6 months as per S.437 A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of August, 2016.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOLLAPUR.

Appendix of evidence For prosecution For defence PW1: Saikumar(Veerabomma) -Nil- PW2: L.Shivaiah

Exhibits marked

Ex.P1: is the signature of PW1 on Panchanama, Ex.P2: is the Panchanama Ex.P3: is the PCOR -Nil- Ex.P4: is the List of property Ex.P5:is the letter of advice Ex.P6: is the search memo Ex.P7: is C.E. report.

Material object.

MO.1: is the sample bottle.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOLLAPUR.

CC/60/2014 Acquitted

Kanna Ramaswamy vs Pathlavath Bojjamma

31 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KOLLAPUR

Wednesday, the 24th day of August, 2016

Present:- D.V.R.Tejo Karthik Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur

C.C.No. 60 of 2014 Between:- State of A.P., represented through Prohibition and Excise Sub- Inspector, Kollapur. …Complainant Pathlavath Bojjamma w/o Shivudu age 32 years, occ. Coolie r/o Thoomkunta thanda H/o Veepangandla village. …Accused

Nature of offence: - Illegal possession of ID liquor Without licence or permit

Section of law: - U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Proh.Act, 1995

Plea of the accused: - Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court: - Found not guilty

Sentence or order:. The accused is acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. -o0o-

This case coming before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri. T.Siva Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration and delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector (PW3), Kollapur, alleged that on 10-1-2012 on receiving reliable information about sale of I.D liquor he along with his staff proceeded for conducting raids at Goplapur village to

Singavaram village and there they secured the presence of two panchas PW1 and PW2. At about 9.00 A.M while conducting route watch in the presence of PW1 and PW2, 2

PW3 noticed the accused holding a plastic bottle in her hand in a suspicious manner and on search they found a plastic bottle containing 2 litres of I.D. liquor. Then PW3 seized the plastic bottle under cover of panchanama and drawn the samples into two bottles, and sealed them as per the procedure and brought the case property to the

Excise Station, Kollapur, for further investigation. Basing on the material, a case was registered in

PCOR.No.729/2011-12, U/sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused. The sample bottles have been deposited before the Court with a requisition to send one of the sample bottles for analysis and report and remaining I.D. liquor has been deposited in the office of Dy. Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise,

Mahabubnagar. After completion of investigation PW3 filed charge sheet.

2. Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her u/s 207 Cr.P.C., and after furnishing copies of documents, the accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations.

3. To prove the case of the prosecution PWs 1 to 3 were examined as witnesses and Ex.P1 to P6 were marked as documents and MO.1 is marked as the material object.

4. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating circumstances appeared against her, for which she denied. On behalf of the accused no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case for the offence U/s 7 A r/w 8(e) of A.P

P. Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

7. This is a case wherein it was mainly alleged that on 10-1- 2012 at about 9.00 A.M, PW3 being investigation officer seized 2 litres of ID liquor which was possessed by the accused in her possession unlawfully and the same was seized in the presence of PW1 and PW2 and in support of the prosecution PW1 and PW2 were examined as independent witnesses wherein PW1 in his evidence stated that the Excise officials obtained his signature on black paper and he does not know any facts of the case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence and

PW2 in his evidence stated that the Excise officials obtained his thumb impression on a blank paper and that he does not know any facts of the case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence. The witnesses were declared hostile and nothing was elicited 4 in favour of the prosecution to prove the seizure of I.D.

liquor.

9. The investigation officer was examined in this case as

PW3, who stated that while he in the presence of his staff,

PW1 and PW2 was conducting raids in Goplapur village to

Singavaram village he found accused coming in a suspicious manner holding a plastic bottle in her hand and on search of the plastic bottle he found the plastic bottle containing a plastic can which contained 2 litres of I.D.

liquor and the same was seized by him in the presence of

PW1 and PW2. Then he recorded the proceedings of seizure, then registered a case and referred one of the samples for chemical analysis. In his cross-examination

PW3 denied the suggestion of foisting a false case for statistical purpose without seizure of illicitly distilled liquor from the house of the accused.

10.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon vigilant analysis of entire evidence on record discussed above, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of seizure of illicitly distilled liquor from the possession of the accused in the presence of PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW3 was neither corroborated nor supported by the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Therefore I am of the view that the sole testimony of PW3 cannot be relied for proof of seizure of ID liquor from the possession of the accused since PW3 is the person who detected the crime, issued 5

PCOR, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, she is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The sureties are discharged. The MO.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of August, 2016.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOLLAPUR

Appendix of evidence For prosecution For defence PW1: Md.Hassad-Nil- PW2: K.Ramaswamy PW2: S.Narahari

Exhibits marked

Ex.P1: is the signature of PW1 on Panchanama Ex.P2: is the Panchanama Ex.P3: is the PCOR -Nil- Ex.P4: is the List of property Ex.P5:is the letter of advice Ex.P6: is C.E. report.

Material object

MO.1: is the sample bottle.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOLLAPUR

Order Record 44 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/60/2014	Kanna Ramaswamy vs Pathlavath Bojjamma	31 Dec 2016	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/390/2013	Prohibition and Excise sation Kollpur vs Turaka Babu Saheb	31 Dec 2016	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/406/2013	Sai Kumar Veerabomma vs Mohd Jahangeer	31 Dec 2016	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/342/2015	Sri. Boddupally Anjaneyulu vs Arragalla Kurumurthy	12 Dec 2016	Other	—
CC/190/2014	Smt. Mandla Renukha vs Mandla Kashaiah	18 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/3/2012	Moda Laxmamma vs Neeradi Prabhakar	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/6/2016	Mucha Chinnaiah vs Veerapaga Kurmaiah @ Kurmurthy	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/10/2015	Sri. Jinkala Narsimha vs Jinkala Ramulu	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/21/2012	Neeradi Prabhakar vs Neeradi Mahesh	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/22/2013	Rekulapadu Narayana vs Rekulapadu Shanthamma	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/23/2013	Sri.Rekulapadu Yadagiri vs Sri.Rekulapadu Narayana	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/45/2015	Meesala Anand vs Meesala Yellesh @ yellaiah	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/53/2016	Smt. Godugu Shivalaxmi vs Smt. Bayya Sunitha Alias Jyothi	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/72/2013	Kadthala Kurmaiah vs Kathala Chinna Buran	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/73/2013	Sri.Kadthala Balnarsimha vs Kadthala Kurmaiah	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/120/2014	Kommari Ranemma vs Kommari Balaram	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/128/2012	SK Jaffar vs Chand Pash	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/141/2013	Sri. Begini Mahesh vs Singanamoni Bakkanna	12 Nov 2016	Judgement	—
CC/142/2013	Sri Sanginamoni Raju vs Rachuri Parsharamulu	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/143/2014	Komire Balram vs Pasupula Kurumaiah	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/144/2016	Thalari Khaja vs B.Yellaiah	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/180/2014	Sankella Sheshaiah vs Sankella Saleshwaram	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/196/2014	Mandla Kashaiah vs Vanam Venkataiah	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/284/2014	Sanganamoni Anjaneyulu vs Erla Balakisti	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/299/2013	Ore mallaiah vs Bevine Mallaiah	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/312/2015	Jupally Srinivasa Rao vs Jinkala Telugu Sekhar	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/492/2015	Singarjula Ramaswamy vs Singarajula Kurmaiah	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/500/2015	Sri.Kille Surya Chandraiah vs Smt.Kille Laxmi Devamma	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/523/2015	Sigarajula Kurmaiah vs Singarajula Bichnna	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/543/2015	Markala Srisailam vs Markala Shanthaiah	12 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/410/2013	Smt. M.Venkatamma vs Suragouni Narayana Goud	10 Nov 2016	Judgement	—
OS/128/2014	Smt. B.Laxmidevamma vs G.Narayana Reddy	07 Nov 2016	Decree	—
OS/129/2014	Smt. B.Laxmidevamma vs G.Narayana Reddy	07 Nov 2016	Decree	—
CC/59/2016	Sri. Mandla Venkataiah vs Mandla Krishnaiah	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/152/2016	Sri. Patak Chetan vs Patak Pavan Kumar	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/153/2016	Patak Pavan Kumar vs Patak Chethan	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/168/2016	Ragula Mallesh vs Challa Pradeep Reddy	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/173/2016	Bankali Laxmamma vs Bankali Yesthera Alias Istharamma	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/174/2016	Smt. Bankali Yesthera vs Bankali Laxmamma	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/212/2013	Sukunavath Beemla Naik vs Gudemoni Venkataiah	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/215/2013	Sri.Katepally Dhilip Sharma vs Smt.Jagati Chennamma	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/367/2013	Vadlakonda Bokkalaiah vs Vadlkonda Yerraiah	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/368/2015	Sri.Bandari Bhagavanthu vs Bandari Maheswaram	05 Nov 2016	Other	—
CC/498/2015	Sri.Gujjula Venkataiah vs Gaddala Hanmanthu	05 Nov 2016	Other	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2016		4
Nov 2016		40

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Milind kamble handled?

Sri Milind kamble has handled 44 court orders since 2016 at Kollapur, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 17 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Milind kamble hear?

Based on available records, Sri Milind kamble primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Kollapur, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri Milind kamble currently posted?

Sri Milind kamble is posted as Prl JCJ cum JMFC at Kollapur, JCJ Court Complex, Nagarkurnool, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri Milind kamble available online?

Yes. 3 judgments by Sri Milind kamble are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Milind kamble dispose cases?

Sri Milind kamble disposes approximately 17 cases per month, based on 44 orders handled over their tenure at Kollapur, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri Milind kamble serving?

Sri Milind kamble has been serving at Kollapur, JCJ Court Complex since 2016.

Case Types

CC 95%

OS 5%

Posting History

Oct 2016 — Jan 2017

Prl JCJ cum JMFC · 44 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Mrs. Upanishadwani Dammu

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

522 orders

Ms. R.Sharnya

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

99 orders

← View all judges at Kollapur, JCJ Court Complex