Ms. N. Amaravathi

Principal Family Court

Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex · Medchal Malkajgiri · Telangana

Ms. N. Amaravathi, Principal Family Court, is posted at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana, India. 140 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles F, MC, G cases.

140

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CRLA/93/2025 Acquitted

Ratna Agro Vet Industries and another vs V.V. Muthyam S/o. V. Narayana

05 May 2026

1 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM- I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-II SPL.

SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE CASES RELATING

TO THE ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-FAMILY COURT,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Tuesday, this the 05th day of May, 2026

PRESENT: Ms.N.Amaravathi, II Addl. District and Sessions Judge- cum-I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-II Spl. Sessions Judge

for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Crl.Apl.No.93/2025

Between:

1.Ratna Agro Vet Industries, Represented by its Proprietor, Matta Thomas Alva Edison S/o.Matta Isaac, Aged : 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.137, H.No.11-15-116/3, Road No.4, Doctors Colony,Near White House, Kothapet, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District

2.Matta Thomas Alva Edison S/o.Matta Isaac, Aged : 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.137, H.No.11-15-116/3, Road No.4, Doctors Colony,Near White House, Kothapet, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District …Appellant/Accused

AND

1.V.V.Muthyam S/o.Late V.Narayana Aged about : 66 years, Occ : Business, R/o.Flat No.302, Pranathi Enclave, Road No.2, Prashanth Nagar, Medipally Mandal,Medchal-Malkajgiri District

2.State, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...Respondent/Complainant

2 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

AN APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

AND SENTENCE VIDE JUDGMENT DATED: 28.10.2025 DELIVERED

BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-IV ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI

DISTRICT, UPPAL AT L.B.NAGAR IN STC (NI) No.751 OF 2022

STC (NI) No.751 OF 2022

Between: V.V.Muthyam S/o.Late V.Narayana Aged about : 66 years, Occ : Business, R/o.Flat No.302, Pranathi Enclave, Road No.2, Prashanth Nagar, Medipally Mandal,Medchal-Malkajgiri District …Complainant

AND

2.Matta Thomas Alva Edison S/o.Matta Isaac, Aged : 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.137, H.No.11-15-116/3, Road No.4, Doctors Colony,Near White House, Kothapet,

Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District...Accused

This appeal come up for final hearing on 28.04.2026 in presence of Sri Y.Bala Subrahmanyam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant; and Sri Devender Reddy, Learned counsel for the Respondent; the matter having stood over the matter for consideration, this Court passed the following:

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

1.The appellant herein is the accused whereas the respondent herein is the complainant in the STC (NI). The present appeal has 3 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda preferred against the Judgment, dated: 28.10.2025 in STC (NI) No.751 of 2022 delivered by the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,

Uppal at L.B.Nagar. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the STC (NI) case.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows :

The complainant and the accused are acquainted with each other for the long time, out of such acquaintance, the accused A2 approached the complainant in 2nd week of December, 2019 and requested to arrange hand loan amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to meet his personal and business necessities. Then, the complainant arranged the same and paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in cash to the accused on 15.12.2019 at his house. At that time, the accused executed three demand promissory notes dated 15.12.2019 for Rs.10,00,000/- each infavour of the complainant in presence of the witnesses and the accused promised to repay the same on demand with interest @12% per annum.

ii.Thereafter, when the complainant requested and demanded the accused for repayment of the said amount, then the accused used to avoid the same on one pretext or the other. Atlast, the accused 4 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda voluntarily issued two cheques bearing No.0144779, dated 27.06.2022 for sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.014780,

dated 27.06.2022 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards discharge of part

payment of the said loan amount. When the complainant presented the same in the bank on 03.08.2022, then the same was returned with an endorsement as “other reason-88” in cheque return memo, dated 04.08.2022. Them, the complainant got issued Legal Notice, dated 16.08.2022 to the accused through RPAD and the same was received by the accused on 17.08.2022, he got issued reply notice dated 01.09.2022, with all false and flimsy allegations and failed to repay the cheque amount and thereby the accused is liable to be punished U/s.

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3.The Trial Court took cognizance for the Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. The accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C., by the learned Prl. Junior Civil

Judge-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.Before the Trial Court, the complainant, himself examined as

PW1 and the documents marked Ex.P1 to P11. The complainant 5 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda examined one D.Uma Shankar as PW2 as supporting witness. None were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked on his behalf.

5.The documents of the complainant is that :

Ex.P1 :Original cheque no.014779 for Rs.5,00,000/-, dated 27.06.2022.

Ex.P2 :Original cheque no.014780 for Rs.5,00,000/-, dated 27.06.2022.

Ex.P3 :Cheque return memo, dated 04.08.2022.

Ex.P4 :Cheque return memo dated 04.08.2022.

Ex.P5 :Office copy of the legal notice dated 16.08.2022.

Ex.P6 :Original postal receipts, dated 16.08.2022 (2 nos.)

Ex.P7 :Original postal acknowledgment cards, dated 17.08.2022 (2 nos.)

Ex.P8 :Reply notice dated 01.09.2022

Ex.P9 :Certified copy of demand promissory note for Rs.10,00,000/- dated 15.12.2019.

Ex.P10:Certified copy of demand promissory note for Rs.10,00,000/-, dated 15.12.2019.

Ex.P11:Certified copy of demand promissory note for Rs.10,00,000/-, dated 15.12.2019.

6.After conclusion of the Trial and after examining the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C and on hearing both sides, the Trial court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the 6 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

Negotiable Instruments Act by sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) to the complainant towards fine amount. On realization, of fine amount, an amount of

Rs.11,90,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs ninety thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.PC within six months from the date of judgment, in default, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be remitted to the State towards prosecution expenses.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused by reiterating the grounds of the appeal mentioned in the appeal and argued that:

1.The lower court failed to consider that there is no legally enforceable debt to be paid by the accused to the complainant

2.The lower court passed the judgment on presumptions and assumptions, failed to appreciate the truth elicited in the cross examination and passed the judgment as per its whims and fancies 7 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

3.The lower court failed to consider that the evidence of PW1 is inherently self contradictory, inconsistent and untrustworthy

4.The lower court failed to appreciate that the complaint averments are not supported by any cogent evidence

5.The lower court ought to have seen that the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt

6.The lower court erred in assessing the financial and lending capacity of complainant to lent the alleged amount to the accused

7.The lower court failed to consider that the respondent/ complainant is a habitual money lender without having license

8.The lower court erred in considering the facts that the complainant has failed to prove his financial capacity

9.The lower court failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the judgment and relied on the words of complainant instead of appreciating the facts and elicited truth in the cross examination

10.The lower court erroneously imposed the fine of

Rs.12,00,000/- contrary to law and insisted to pay Rs.10,000/- as fine to State towards prosecution expenses on the same day 8 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda for allowing suspension application

11.The lower court failed to appreciate the contradictions of the witness in deposing several aspects

12.The trial court passed a mechanical order without considering the material available on record in proper perspective but decided one sided.

13.The lower court failed to appreciate the probable defense raised by the accused through cross examination of PW1 regarding consideration of cheque in question, financial capacity of complainant etc., in appreciating the documents marked

14.The lower court failed to consider the reply notice given by the appellant/accused and the facts of the same were admitted by the respondent/complainant

15.The lower court erred in deciding the matter that the complainant failed to prove his averments but opined that the accused is liable to be punished.

9.No additional documents were marked on behalf of both sides and both parties not adduced any further evidence.

10.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

11.Now the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

9 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

1. Whether the complainant could establish the existence of legally enforceable debt under Ex.P1 and

P2/Cheques bearing No.014779 and 014780, dated 27.06.2022, for sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each?

2. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in STC NI No.751 of 2022 is legally and factually sustainable or required any interference?

3. To what relief?

12. POINT No.1:According to PW1, he himself and the accused are acquainted with each other for the long time and out of such acquaintance, the accused A2 approached him in the 2nd week of

December, 2019 and requested to arrange hand loan amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- to meet his personal and business necessities. Then, he arranged the same and paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in cash to the accused on 15.12.2019 at his house. At that time, the accused executed three demand promissory notes, dated 15.12.2019 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each in his favour in presence of the witnesses and the accused promised to repay the same on demand with interest @12% per annum, which is supported by the witness PW2.

13.In cross examination though the accused admitted the execution of promissory notes and cheques executed and issued by the accused 10 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda in the year 2012, as the counsel for accused gave suggestion to PW1 in cross examination. Thatmeans, the accused admitted the promissory notes and cheques obtained by the complainant/PW1 in the year 2012, towards security, when the complainant/PW1 gave amounts to the accused. The trial court concluded that, when once the execution of cheque is admitted then, Section 139 of the Act, mandates a presumption that, the cheque for the discharge of any debt or other liability. But PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that the content of the reply notice are true.

14.Although, Section 139 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that, the preponderance of probabilities.

Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act , reads –

Presumption in favour of holder:- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability.

15.To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the material 11 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.

Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties, but also by the reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. Section 139 imposed on evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden on the accused. As such, it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence.

Ex.P3. Then, the complainant got issued Legal Notice, dated 16.08.2022 under Ex.P5 to the accused through RPAD vide postal receipts under Ex.P6 and the same was received by the accused on 17.08.2022, through postal acknowledgment under Ex.P7. Then, the 12 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda accused got issued reply notice dated 01.09.2022 under Ex.P8, with all false and frivolous allegations and failed to repay the cheque amount.

17.The defence taken by the accused is that, the complainant is a money lender and got acquaintance to the accused as money lender and in the year 2012, he took an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees

Twenty lakhs only) from the complainant/PW1 and the complainant/

PW1 insisted him to execute three promissory notes. Then, he executed three promissory notes for sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each in the year 2012 without mentioning date, no witnesses signed, no scribe mentioned. The complainant/PW1 also obtained some cheques in the year 2012, towards security. Thereafter, the accused paid the entire amount to the complainant/PW1 within two (02) years in different spells by way of cash and no amount is due to the complainant/PW1.

The accused requested to return back the said 3 promissory notes and cheques, but the complainant/PW1 failed to return the said blank promissory notes and cheques and said that they were misplaced and promised to return the same, after trace out of the same and the same is clearly mentioned in the reply notice under Ex.P8.

18.Further, the accused taken the defence that, he maintained his bank accounts in Union Bank of India, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad 13 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda for his personal and business accounts. In the year 2014, due to business obligations, the accused changed his account from the said

Union Bank, Begumpet, Hyderabad to State Bank of India, SME,

Dilsukhnagar, Kothapet, Saroornagar Branch, Hyderabad. Subsequent to the year 2014, no cheques pertaining to the Union Bank of India issued by the accused, muchless, the alleged cheques of this case. The amount borrowed by the accused in the year 2012 were repaid by him and no existing liability to pay due amount to the complainant by the accused. As such, no enforceable debt is in existence. If any amount was not paid the same is barred by limitation and the said contents clearly mentioned in the reply notice under Ex.P8.

19.The complainant/PW1 categorically admitted that, he did not file any civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and also admitted that, the contents of the reply notice are true. Thatmeans, the complainant/ PW1 admitted the contents of the reply notice under

Ex.P8 which the defence taken by the accused. Section 138 Negotiable

Instruments Act, applies only when the cheque is issued to discharge of a legally enforceable debt under the Limitation Act, 1963, a debt is generally enforceable for only three years from the date it became due.

A debt originating in the year 2012, generally becomes time barred by the year 2015/2016. A cheque issued to pay a time barred debt does 14 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda not attract liability under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

20.Although, Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act creates a presumption that, a cheque was issued for a debt, is the rebuttable presumption. It is strange that, the complainant/PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that, the contents of reply notice are true. Then, the admission in cross examination is fatal, when the complainant/PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the instruments was issued years earlier than, claimed i.e., in the year 2012. So also the execution of promissory notes towards security for the debt obtained by the accused in the year 2012. There is clear mention in reply notice under Ex.P8 that, the execution of the promissory notes and issuance of cheques were given in the year 2012 as a security for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- borrowed by the accused and the same were already repaid.

21.According to PW1, the accused executed three promissory notes under Ex.P9 to P11, when he borrowed the alleged amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- from him on 15.12.2019. The admission in the cross examination of PW1 serves as the best evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, rendering the case is not maintainable as there was no subsisting 15 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda liability. Therefore, the complainant failed to establish the existence of legal enforceable debt under Ex.P9 to P11 and the accused issued cheques under Ex.P1 and P2 towards discharge of legal enforceable debt under Ex.P9 to P11. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered.

22. POINT No.2: Inview, of the above discussion, in point no.1, the court is of view that, the appreciation of evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the contents of documents under Ex.P8 reply notice and the admission of PW1 in his cross examination is not proper perspective to come to the conclusion, by the trial court, that the accused issued cheques under Ex.P1 and P2 towards legal enforceable debt and the accused is liable for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. As such, the interference by this appellant court is required and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in STC (NI) No.751 of 2022 is not correct. Accordingly, the point no.2 is answered.

23. POINT No.3: In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed by reversing the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar in STC (NI)

No.751 of 2022, dated 28.10.2025 for the offence under Section 138 16 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda of Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused already is on bail (sentence suspension).The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

(Partly written by me and typed by the Stenograph6er and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 05th day of May, 2026).

II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge-cum-I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge-cum-II Spl.

Sessions Judge for Fast tracking

the cases relating to the Atrocities against Women-cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

-None-

FOR THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

-NIL- 17 Crl.A.No.93 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

FOR THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

-NIL-

II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge-cum-I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge-cum-II Spl.

Sessions Judge for Fast tracking

the cases relating to the Atrocities against Women-cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

CRLA/94/2025 Acquitted

M. Thomas Alva Edison vs V. V. Muthyam S/o. Late V. Narayana

05 May 2026

1 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM- I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-II SPL.

SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE CASES RELATING

TO THE ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-FAMILY COURT,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Tuesday, this the 05th day of May, 2026

PRESENT: Ms.N.Amaravathi, II Addl. District and Sessions Judge- cum-I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-II Spl. Sessions Judge

for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Crl.Apl.No.94/2025

Between:

Matta Thomas Alva Edison S/o.Matta Isaac, Aged : 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.137, H.No.11-15-116/3, Road No.4, Doctors Colony,Near White House, Kothapet,

Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District ...Appellant/Accused

AND

1.V.V.Muthyam S/o.Late V.Narayana Aged about : 66 years, Occ : Business, R/o.Flat No.302, Pranathi Enclave, Road No.2, Prashanth Nagar, Medipally Mandal,Medchal-Malkajgiri District

2.State, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...Respondent/Complainant

AN APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

AND SENTENCE VIDE JUDGMENT DATED: 28.10.2025 DELIVERED

BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-IV ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI

DISTRICT, UPPAL AT L.B.NAGAR IN STC (NI) No.752 OF 2022

2 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

STC (NI) No.752 OF 2022

AND Matta Thomas Alva Edison S/o.Matta Isaac, Aged : 67 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.137, H.No.11-15-116/3, Road No.4, Doctors Colony,Near White House, Kothapet,

Saroornagar Mandal, R.R.District...Accused

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

1.The appellant herein is the accused whereas the respondent herein is the complainant in the STC (NI). The present appeal has preferred against the Judgment, dated: 28.10.2025 in STC (NI) No.752 of 2022 delivered by the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District,

Uppal at L.B.Nagar. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the STC (NI).

3 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows :

The complainant and the accused are acquainted with each other for the long time, out of such acquaintance, the accused approached the complainant in 2nd week of December, 2019 and requested to arrange hand loan amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to meet his personal and business necessities. Then, the complainant arranged the same and paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in cash to the accused on 15.12.2019 at his house. At that time, the accused executed three demand promissory notes dated 15.12.2019 for Rs.10,00,000/- each infavour of the complainant in presence of the witnesses and the accused promised to repay the same on demand with interest @12% per annum.

ii.Thereafter, when the complainant requested and demanded the accused for repayment of the said amount, then the accused used to avoid the same on one pretext or the other. Atlast, the accused voluntarily issued three cheques bearing No.013530, dated 25.06.2022 for sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, another cheque bearing No.013531, dated 25.06.2022 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and another cheque bearing

No.0001604, dated 02.08.2022 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards discharge of part payment of the said loan amount. When the complainant presented the same in the bank account on 03.08.2022, 4 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda then the same was returned with an endorsement as “funds insufficient” in cheque return memos, dated 04.08.2022. Them, the complainant got issued Legal Notice, dated 16.08.2022 to the accused through RPAD and the same was received by the accused on 17.08.2022, he got issued reply notice dated 01.09.2022, with all false and flimsy allegations and failed to repay the cheque amount and thereby the accused is liable to be punished U/s. 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

Judge-cum-IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.Before the Trial Court, the complainant, himself examined as

PW1 and the documents marked Ex.P1 to P13. The complainant examined one D.Uma Shankar as PW2 as supporting witness. None were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked on his behalf.

5 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

5.The documents of the complainant are that :

Ex.P1 :Demand promissory note for Rs.10,00,000/- dated 15.12.2019.

Ex.P2 :Demand promissory note for Rs.10,00,000/- dated 15.12.2019.

Ex.P3 :Demand promissory note for Rs.10,00,000/- dated 15.12.2019.

Ex.P4 :Original cheque no.013530 for Rs.10,00,000/-, dated 27.06.2022.

Ex.P5 :Original cheque no.013531 for Rs.10,00,000/-, dated 27.06.2022

Ex.P6 :Original cheque no.001604 for Rs.6,00,000/-, dated 02.08.2022.

Ex.P7 :Cheque return memo, dated 04.08.2022

Ex.P8 :Cheque return memo, dated 04.08.2022

Ex.P9 :Cheque return memo, dated 04.08.2022

Ex.P10 :Office copy of legal notice dated 16.08.2022.

Ex.P11 :Original postal receipt, dated 16.08.2022.

Ex.P12 :Original postal acknowledgment card, dated 17.08.2022.

Ex.P13 :Reply notice dated 01.09.2022

7.After conclusion of the Trial and after examining the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C and on hearing both sides, the Trial court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act by sentencing him to suffer simple 6 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay an amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) to the complainant towards fine amount. On realization of fine amount, an amount of

Rs.29,90,000/- (Rupees twenty nine lakhs ninety thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3)

Cr.PC within six months from the date of judgment, in default, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

The remaining fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be remitted to the State towards prosecution expenses.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused by reiterating the grounds of the appeal mentioned in the appeal and argued that:

1.The lower court failed to consider that there is no legally enforceable debt to be paid by the accused to the complainant

2.The lower court passed the judgment on presumptions and assumptions, failed to appreciate the truth elicited in the cross examination and passed the judgment as per its whims and fancies

3.The lower court failed to consider that the evidence of PW1 7 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda is inherently self contradictory, inconsistent and untrustworthy

4.The lower court failed to appreciate that the complaint averments are not supported by any cogent evidence

5.The lower court ought to have seen that the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt

6.The lower court erred in assessing the financial and lending capacity of complainant to lent the alleged amount to the accused

7.The lower court failed to consider that the respondent/ complainant is a habitual money lender without having license

8.The lower court erred in considering the facts that the complainant has failed to prove his financial capacity

9.The lower court failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the judgment and relied on the words of complainant instead of appreciating the facts and elicited truth in the cross examination

10.The lower court erroneously imposed the fine of

Rs.30,00,000/- contrary to law and insisted to pay Rs.10,000/- as fine to State towards prosecution expenses on the same day for allowing suspension application 8 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

11.The lower court failed to appreciate the contradictions of the witness in deposing several aspects

12.The trial court passed a mechanical order without considering the material available on record in proper perspective but decided one sided.

14.The lower court failed to observe various inconsistencies and infirmities brought by the accused through cross examination of PW1 and PW2.

15.The lower court failed to consider the reply notice given by the appellant/accused and the facts of the same were admitted by the respondent/complainant

16.The lower court erred in deciding the matter that the complainant failed to prove his averments but opined that the accused is liable to be punished.

9.No additional documents were marked on behalf of both sides and both parties not adduced any further evidence.

9 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

10.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

11.Now the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

1. Whether the complainant could establish the existence of legally enforceable debt under Ex.P4 to P6/Cheques bearing No.013530, dated 27.06.2022

for sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, Cheque bearing

No.013531, dated 27.06.2022 for sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- and cheque bearing No.001604,

dated 02.08.2022 for sum of Rs.6,00,000/-?

2. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in STC NI No.752 of 2022 is legally and factually sustainable or required any interference?

3. To what relief?

12. POINT No.1:According to PW1, he himself and the accused are acquainted with each other for the long time and out of such acquaintance, the accused approached him in the 2nd week of

December, 2019 and requested to arrange hand loan amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- to meet his personal and business necessities. Then, he arranged the same and paid an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- in cash to the accused on 15.12.2019 at his house. At that time, the accused executed three demand promissory notes, dated 15.12.2019 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each in his favour, in presence of the witnesses and the accused promised to repay the same on demand with interest @12% per annum, which is supported by the witness PW2.

10 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

13.In cross examination though the accused admitted the execution of promissory notes and cheques executed and issued by the accused in the year 2012, as the counsel for accused gave suggestion to PW1 in cross examination. Thatmeans, the accused admitted the promissory notes and cheques obtained by the complainant/PW1 in the year 2012, towards security, when the complainant/PW1 gave amount to the accused. The trial court concluded that, when once the execution of cheque is admitted, then, Section 139 of the Act, mandates a presumption that, the cheque for the discharge of any debt or other liability. But PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that the content of the reply notices are true.

Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act , reads –

11 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

15.To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the material submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence.

16. According to PW1, when the complainant requested and demanded the accused for repayment of the said amount, then the accused used to avoid the same on one pretext or the other. Atlast, the accused voluntarily issued three cheques bearing No.013530, dated 25.06.2022 for sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under Ex.P4, another cheque bearing No.013531, dated 25.06.2022 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under Ex.P5 and another cheque bearing No.0001604, dated 02.08.2022 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- under Ex.P6 towards discharge of part payment of the said loan amount. When the complainant presented the same in his bank on 03.08.2022, then the same was returned with an endorsement as “funds insufficient” in cheque return memos, dated 04.08.2022 under Ex.P7 to P9. Then, the complainant 12 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda got issued Legal Notice, dated 16.08.2022 under Ex.P10 to the accused through RPAD vide postal receipts under Ex.P11 and the same was received by the accused on 17.08.2022, through postal acknowledgment under Ex.P12, he got issued reply notice dated 01.09.2022 under Ex.P13, with all false and flimsy allegations and failed to repay the cheque amount.

Twenty lakhs only) from the complainant/PW1 and the complainant/

The accused requested to return back the said three promissory notes and cheques, but the complainant/PW1 failed to return the said blank promissory notes and cheques and said that they were misplaced and promised to return the same, after trace out of the same and the same 13 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda is clearly mentioned in the reply notice under Ex.P13.

18.Further, the accused taken the defence that, he maintained his bank accounts in Union Bank of India, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad for his personal and business accounts. In the year 2014, due to business obligations, the accused changed his account from the said

Union Bank, Begumpet, Hyderabad to State Bank of India, SME,

Dilsukhnagar, Kothapet, Saroornagar Branch, Hyderabad. Subsequent to the year 2014, no cheques pertaining to the Union Bank of India issued by the accused, muchless, the alleged cheques of this case. The amount borrowed by the accused in the year 2012 were repaid by him and no existing liability to pay due amount to the complainant by the accused. As such, no enforceable debt in existence. If any amount was not paid the same is barred by limitation and the said contents clearly mentioned in the reply notice under Ex.P13.

19.The complainant/PW1 categorically admitted that, he did not file any civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and also admitted that, the contents of the reply notice are true. That means, the complainant/ PW1 admitted the contents of the reply notice under

Ex.P13 which the defence taken by the accused. Section 138

Negotiable Instruments Act, applies only when the cheque is issued to 14 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda discharge of a legally enforceable debt under the Limitation Act, 1963, a debt is generally enforceable for only three years from the date it became due. A debt originating in the year 2012, generally becomes time barred by the year 2015/2016. A cheque issued to pay a time barred debt does not attract liability under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

20.Although, Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act creates a presumption that, a cheque was issued for a debt, is the rebuttable presumption. It is strange that, the complainant/PW1 categorically admitted in his cross examination that, the contents of reply notice are true. Then, the admission in cross examination is fatal, when the complainant/PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the instruments was issued years earlier than, claimed i.e., in the year 2012. So also, the execution of promissory notes towards security for the debt obtained by the accused in the year 2012. There is clear mention in reply notice under Ex.P8 that, the execution of the promissory notes and issuance of cheques were given in the year 2012 as a security for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- borrowed by the accused and the same were already repaid.

21.According to PW1, the accused executed three promissory notes 15 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda under Ex.P1 to P3, when he borrowed the alleged amount of

Rs.30,00,000/- from him on 15.12.2019. The admission in the cross examination of PW1 serves as the best evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, rendering the case is not maintainable as there was no subsisting liability. Therefore, the complainant failed to establish the existence of legal enforceable debt under Ex.P1 to P3 and the accused issued cheques under Ex.P4 to P6 towards discharge of legal enforceable debt. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered.

22. POINT No.2: Inview of the above discussion, in point no.1, the court is of view that, the appreciation of evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the contents of documents under Ex.P13reply notice and the admission of PW1 in his cross examination is not proper perspective to come to conclusion by the trial court, that the accused issued cheque under Ex.P4 and P6 towards legal enforceable debt and the accused is liable for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. As such, the interference by this appellant court is required and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court in

STC (NI) No.752 of 2022 is not correct. Accordingly, the point no.2 is answered.

16 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Uppal at L.B.Nagar in STC (NI)

No.752 of 2022, dated 28.10.2025 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused already is on bail (sentence suspension). The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months.

(Partly written by me and typed by the Stenographer and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 05th day of May, 2026).

II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge-cum-I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge-cum-II Spl.

Sessions Judge for Fast tracking

the cases relating to the Atrocities against Women-cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

-None- 17 Crl.A.No.94 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

FOR THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED :

-NIL-

FOR THE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

-NIL-

II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge-cum-I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge-cum-II Spl.

Sessions Judge for Fast tracking

the cases relating to the Atrocities against Women-cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

CRLRP/29/2025

MD. Moshin Quershi vs Uppal P.S

04 May 2026

1 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM- I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-II SPL.

SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE CASES RELATING

TO THE ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-FAMILY COURT,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Monday, this the 04th day of May, 2026

PRESENT: Ms.N.Amaravathi, II Addl. District and Sessions Judge- cum-I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions

Judge-cum-II Spl. Sessions Judge

for Fast Tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against Women-cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

Crl.R.P.NO. 29/2025

BETWEEN:

Mohammad Moshin Quershi S/o.Mohammed Shabuddin Aged about : 36 years, Occ : Business, R/o.H.No.29-946, Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District …Crl.Revision Petitioner/Accused A2/ Owner of the property AND The State of Telangana,

Through P.S.Uppal ...Respondent/Complainant

REVISION AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.No.130 OF 2025 IN CC

No. 513 OF 2025, DATED 06.03.2025, COURT OF THE LEARNED

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - V ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, UPPAL, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025

IN

CC No.513 OF 2025

2 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

Between:

Mohammad Moshin Quershi S/o.Mohammed Shabuddin Aged about : 36 years, Occ : Business, R/o.H.No.29-946, Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, Medchal-Malkajgiri District …Petitioner/Accused A2/ Owner of the property AND The State of Telangana,

Through P.S.Uppal ...Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming before me on 18.03.2026 for final hearing and disposal, in presence of Sri K.Ravi

Kanth, Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused A2 and Learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor , Learned counsel for the Respondent/ complainant; and upon perusing the grounds of Revision Petition,

Order of Trial Court and material record of the case and arguments of the above counsels having stood over for consideration till this date the court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is the Criminal Revision Petition preferred under Section 438 of B.N.S.S. by the petitioner/accused A2/owner of the property against the order passed by the learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at

L.B.Nagar Vide Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025 in CC No.513 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025.

3 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

2.The Criminal Revision Petitioner herein is the accused A2/owner of the property, whereas the respondent herein is the complainant in

Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025 in CC No.513 of 2025. For the sake of

convenience the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the

Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025 in CC No.513 of 2025.

3. The averments of the petition filed by the petitioner/ accused A2 in brief are as follows :

The petitioner/owner of the case property is the owner of Ashok

Leyland Bada Dost Trolley Auto bearing No.TS09UD5983 seized by the police in Cr.No.129 of 2025 of Uppal police station under Section 5, 6

R/w.Section 10 of Prevention of Cow slaughter and Animal Protection

Act and Section 11 R/w.38 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and deposited before the court vide CPR No.23 of 2025. The petitioner involve in the above case as the accused A2 in this case. The petitioner is dire need of vehicle for his livelihood. The petitioner undertake that, he will produce the vehicle as and when directed by the court. The present cost of the vehicle is Rs.3,00,000/-. As such, seeking the relief to return the case property i.e., Ashok Leyland Bada

Dost Trolley Auto bearing No.TS09UD5983 for interim custody till the 4 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda disposal of the main case.

4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Gowshala pleaded that, the cattle was in their custody since 26.01.2025 till the day and the maintenance of each cattle is Rs.250/- and there are 11 cattle each day comes to Rs.2,750/- per day which was not received from the opposite party or from the State Government local authority as mandated by Law.

5.After hearing arguments of both sides, the trial court allowed the

Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025 in CC No.513 of 2025 on dated: 06.03.2025

with the following conditions i.e., “The vehicle i.e., Ashok Leyland

Bada Dost Trolley Auto bearing No.TS09UD5983 is directed to be handed over to the petitioner by name Mohammed Mohsin Qureshi,

S/o.N.Mohammed Shabuddin for interim custody on depositing an amount of Rs.1,07,250/- which can be withdrawn by any authorized person of Gowshala where the animals are detained and file its receipt

in the court. The police concerned is directed to conduct proper

panchanama, take photographs and obtain acknowledgment from the petitioner while handing over the case property to the petitioner and submit the same to the court, immediately”.

5 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

6.Aggrieved by the Order of the Court of II Addl. Junior Civil

Judge-cum-VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at L.B.Nagar, the petitioner/accused A2/owner of the case property preferred this revision by filing petition U/s.438 of

B.N.S.S. on following grounds:

GROUNDS OF APPEAL :

1.That the lower court failed to appreciate the hearing of the appellant. It is pertinent to mention that the alleged provisions of the order in Crl.M.P. No.130 of 2025 not attracting to the revision petitioner herein

2.That the lower court erred in passed order against the appellant/ petitioner vide Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025 petition filed for release of the property i.e., Ashok Leyland Bada Trolley auto bearing No.TS09 US 5983 U/Sec.497 R/w.503 of BNSS petition by imposing condition to pay the amount towards maintenance and care of the animals

3.That the lower court ought to have seen that the petition on record is wholly insufficient to come to a conclusion on the 6 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda part of the appellant/owner of the property not the owner of the animals in the main case.

4.The lower court failed to consider to direct the owner of the animals, who alleged involved recover the maintenance charges of Rs.1,07,250/- from them, inspite of it, the owner of the animals has plead guilty and paid meagre amount of fine of

Rs.150/-.

5.The lower court ought failed to consider that the narration of the petition and the preparation of petition are entirely self contradictory and the lower court allowed the petition. It is pertinent to mention that the court miserably failed in establishing the petition, the petition order passed by the lower court is not maintainable and deserves to be set aside partly.

6.The orders of the lower court are against the law and proper practice of perusal of evidence as such the same is liable to set aside and allow the petition.

7.That the revision petitioner herein eaking livelihood on transport of crime vehicle on the basis order placed by customer, 7 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda hence the question of maintenance towards animals does not arise, as such the criminal revision petitioner not doing any sort of business pertaining animals in any aspect, and having no criminal antecedents.

8.That the criminal case already disposed in Lokadalat, dated 05.03.2025, and since (04) months the crime vehicle kept in idle and its every possibility to rust and damage if kept idle.

7.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, counsel for the respondent/complainant contended that, the authorities of Gowshala/ learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that, the cattle was in their custody since 26.01.2025 till the day and the maintenance of each cattle Rs.250/- and there are 11 cattle each day comes to Rs.2,750/- per day which was not received from the opposite party or from the

State Government local authority as mandated by Law.

8.Upon careful examination of the material on record and the grounds urged in the revision coupled with the contentions raised on behalf of both sides, now the points that arise for consideration in the present revision petition is :

8 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

1. Whether the petitioner/accused A2 is entitled for the modification of the order passed by the learned II

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

at L.B.Nagar, in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025 in CC No.513 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025?

2. Whether the order in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025 in CC No.513 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025, passed by the II

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District

at L.B.Nagar, suffers from any infirmity or irregularity

and calls for any interference by this court?

3. To what relief?

9. POINT No.1:According to the petitioner/accused A2/owner of the vehicle that, the petitioner is the owner of Ashok Leyland Bada

Dost Trolley Auto bearing No.TS09UD5983 seized by the police and deposited before the court vide CPR No.23 of 2025. The petitioner involve in the above case as the accused A2 in this case. The petitioner is dire need of vehicle for his livelihood. The petitioner undertake that, he will produce the vehicle as and when directed by the court in

Cr.No.129 of 2025 of Uppal police station under Section 5, 6

R/w.Section 10 of Prevention of Cow slaughter and Animal Protection

Act and Section 11 R/w.38 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 9 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda 1960. The present cost of the vehicle is Rs.3,00,000/-. As such, seeking the relief to return the case property i.e., Ashok Leyland Bada

Dost Trolley Auto bearing No.TS09UD5983 for interim custody till the disposal of the main case.

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that, the cattle was in their custody since 26.01.2025 till the day and the maintenance of each cattle Rs.250/- and there are 11 cattle each day comes to Rs.2,750/- per day which was not received from the opposite party or from the State Government local authority as mandated by

Law.

11.The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.01.2025, around 6.00

AM, while the Sub-Inspector of police, Uppal Police station along with his staff were on duty vehicle checking at Uppal “X” road, at that time, they find one Ashok Leyland Mini DCM, bearing No.TS09UD5983 and stopped the same and found one person in the vehicle. Then, they apprehended him, as he is illegally transporting male calf-10 and cow- 1 in cruel manner by tying with ropes without providing food and water. On enquiry the driver of the DCM i.e., the accused A1 reveals his details and also the details of the owner i.e., the accused A2. That the 10 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda owner of the vehicle will purchase the cow, calf’s from open market at kuravi and sell the same to slaughter house and as usual he purchased male calf-10 and cow-01 at kuravi market and transporting the same in his mini DCM to slaughter house, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad and police seized the same and registered the case against the driver of the vehicle and owner of the case property.

12.In the present case, the trial court allowed the petitioner/owner of the case property for interim custody on depositing an amount of

Rs.1,07,250/- which can be withdrawn by any authorized persons of

Gowshala where the animals are detained and file its receipt in the court. As per Rule-5(5) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and

Maintenance of case property Animals) Rules, 2017, reads – “In case of offence relating to transport of animals, the vehicle owner, consignor, consignee, transporter, agents and any other parties involved shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and care of the animals”.

13.In the present case, the driver of the vehicle who is transporting the animals is the accused A1 and the petitioner/owner of case property herein is the accused A2. As can be seen from the record, the 11 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda case is ended in Lok Adalath on admission of the accused persons A1 and A2 on 05.03.2025. The animals are in Gowshala custody from 26.01.2025 and this petition filed on 29.01.2025. The trial court order for return of vehicle for interim custody on condition that, the petitioner/owner of the case property shall pay the charges required for daily maintenance as per the rates prescribed by the Government fixed by the Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department vide LR.No.3746/TSAWB /2003, dated 02.08.2022 i.e., Rs.250 x 11 animals = Rs.2,750/- x 39 days i.e., (from 26.01.2025 to 05.03.2025) = Rs.1,07,250/-.

14.As already read the Rule 5(5) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of case property Animals) Rules, 2017, that incase of offence relating to transport of animals and cruelty towards animals, the vehicle owner and also transporter shall be jointly and severally liable for the cost of transport, treatment and case of animals. Hence, the finding of the trial court, required interference/ modification of the order passed by it in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025. Therefore, the petitioner/owner of the case property i.e., the accused A2 and the transporter i.e., the accused A1 shall be jointly 12 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda and severally liable for the cost of the transport, treatment and care of animals as calculated by the trial court i.e., Rs.1,07,250/-. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered.

15. POINT No.2: Inview of the above discussion, the court is of view that, the order passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025,

dated 06.03.2025 needs interference/modification with respect to the

payment of amount towards transport, treatment and care of animals shall be paid by the petitioner/accused A2/owner of the case property modified as, an amount of Rs.1,07,250/- shall be paid jointly and severally by the petitioner/accused A2/owner of the case property and the transporter i.e., accused A1.

16. POINT No.3: In the result, the petition is partly allowed, modifying the orders passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.130 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025 that, the petitioner/owner of the case property i.e., accused A2 and the transporter i.e., the accused A1 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the deposit an amount of

Rs.1,07,250/-. Accordingly, the case property/vehicle Ashok Leyland

Bada Dost Trolley auto bearing No.TS09UD5983 shall be returned to the petitioner/owner of the case property for interim custody on 13 Crl.R.P.No.29 of 2025 dated 04.05.2026 II ADJ cum I MSJ cum II Spl.Sessions to Atrocities against Women cum Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda deposit of an amount of Rs.1,07,250/- by the petitioner/accused A2 and the accused A1/transporter jointly and severally. The remaining condition i.e., on such deposit, the amount can be withdrawn by any authorized person of Gowshala where the animals are detained and file its receipt in the court. The police concerned is directed to conduct proper panchanama, take photographs and obtain acknowledgment from the petitioner while handing over the case property to the petitioner and submit the same to the court, does not require any interference.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 04th day of May, 2026).

II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge-cum-I Addl. Metropolitan

Sessions Judge-cum-II Spl.

Sessions Judge for Fast tracking

the cases relating to the Atrocities against Women-cum- Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

F.C.O.P/141/2026

XXXXX vs XXXXX

29 Apr 2026

F.C.O.P/334/2026

CH. Santhosh Subudi vs Aishwarya Prusti

27 Apr 2026

Order Record 139 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CRLA/93/2025	Ratna Agro Vet Industries and another vs V.V. Muthyam S/o. V. Narayana	05 May 2026	judgement	Acquitted
CRLA/94/2025	M. Thomas Alva Edison vs V. V. Muthyam S/o. Late V. Narayana	05 May 2026	judgement	Acquitted
CRLRP/29/2025	MD. Moshin Quershi vs Uppal P.S	04 May 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/141/2026	XXXXX vs XXXXX	29 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/334/2026	CH. Santhosh Subudi vs Aishwarya Prusti	27 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/818/2023	XXXXX vs XXXXX	27 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/1883/2022	Vallaga Nayomi vs Vallaga Ravi Kumar	27 Apr 2026	order	—
G.W.O.P/84/2025	N Pushpalatha vs All Concerned	27 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/1481/2022	Venaganti Sudhakar vs Swapna	24 Apr 2026	order	—
G.W.O.P/80/2024	Md. Azghar vs Meharunnisa	23 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/151/2023	XXXXX vs XXXXX	22 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/310/2023	XXXXX vs XXXXX	22 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/1110/2022	Sudha Jha vs Sujit kumar jha	22 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/1273/2022	N. Narendra vs N. Usha kumari	22 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/309/2023	XXXXX vs XXXXX	21 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/614/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	21 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/708/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	21 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/456/2023	S.Sudheer Kumar vs S,Singupuram Aparna	20 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/615/2023	XXXXX vs XXXXX	20 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/1288/2022	Janjanam Ramesh vs Janjanam Siva Jyothi	20 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/327/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	17 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/450/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	17 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/532/2022	YELLA SAIRAM REDDY vs KONTHAM SARIKA	16 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/665/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	15 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/166/2023	XXXXX vs XXXXX	10 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/528/2023	XXXXX vs XXXXX	10 Apr 2026	order	—
G.W.O.P/96/2022	Amitha reddy vs Vidyasagar reddy	10 Apr 2026	order	—
MC/106/2024	Sirikonda @ Nyathani Gowthami vs Nyathani Hemanth Kumar	09 Apr 2026	order	—
MC/173/2023	Kalva Estheri Rani @ KAlva E. Rani vs Kalva Kasaiah	08 Apr 2026	order	—
G.W.O.P/43/2022	P. Vandana vs Puli Srikanth	08 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/556/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	07 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/653/2022	BANOTH LAZAR vs BANOTH LOHITA	07 Apr 2026	order	—
MC/81/2022	koora sunitah vs Vskoora mallikjarjun	06 Apr 2026	order	—
MC/136/2024	Kundella Swapna vs Kiran Lakka Raju	06 Apr 2026	order	—
MC/259/2022	cherukula geethika vs Vscherukula chandra shekar	06 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/482/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/522/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Apr 2026	order	—
MC/45/2022	G. SAI KEERTHIKA vs B. CHINTU	02 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/497/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	02 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/715/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	02 Apr 2026	order	—
MC/44/2022	N. SWETHA AND 2 OTHERS vs N.P. KUMAR	01 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/36/2021	XXXXX vs XXXXX	01 Apr 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/412/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	01 Apr 2026	order	—
AS/97/2019	D SATYANARAYANA vs D GANESH	31 Mar 2026	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/695/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	31 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/437/2025	B Ramakrishna Prasad vs G Sravanthi	30 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/726/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	30 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/353/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	26 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/353/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	26 Mar 2026	judgement	—
MC/118/2022	Tatiparthi Balamma vs Tatiparthi Narsimha REddy	25 Mar 2026	order	—
MC/36/2025	T Laxmi vs T Shiva	24 Mar 2026	order	—
MC/272/2022	Perka Saritha vs Perkja Vijay Shekar	24 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/609/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	24 Mar 2026	order	—
MC/19/2024	K SRI SUDHA vs K RAVIKRISHNA REDDY	23 Mar 2026	order	—
MC/131/2022	V. NIRMALA AND 2 OTHERS vs V. VASU	23 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/463/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	23 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/710/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	23 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/820/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	23 Mar 2026	order	—
G.W.O.P/40/2023	B.Ashok Kumar and another vs B.Bharathi Devi	23 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/763/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	17 Mar 2026	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/487/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	12 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/1254/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	12 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/1072/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	09 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/548/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Mar 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/810/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Mar 2026	order	—
MC/13/2022	URMILA RENU AND 2 OTHERS vs AJAY KUMAR	03 Mar 2026	order	—
OS/1130/2017	Ramidi Jyothi vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, And Others	27 Feb 2026	judgement	—
OS/1468/2014	Chunchu Mallaiah @ Chunchu Bandi Mallaiah and others vs M/s. Pooja Ventures Private Limited rep by Managing Director D. Showri Reddy	27 Feb 2026	judgement	—
AS/29/2020	G.V. NARSING RAO vs T.M. LAXMAIAH	26 Feb 2026	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/912/2024	G YUVATHI vs G AKAY	23 Feb 2026	order	—
G.W.O.P/97/2025	Y Madhusudhan vs All Concerned	23 Feb 2026	order	—
OS/868/2022	CHALLA VIJAY BHASKAR REDDY vs B. SANJEEV REDDY AND 4 OTHERS	20 Feb 2026	judgement	—
OS/965/2017	Sri D. Sitaram vs M/s Sree Reghavendra Constructions	20 Feb 2026	judgement	—
OS/1184/2015	J. Maxie D Souza vs Chirraboina Santosh Yadav	20 Feb 2026	judgement	—
AS/21/2022	K Chowdary vs Mohd.Afzal	19 Feb 2026	judgement	—
AS/67/2019	G. PADMAJA vs MOHD. AFZAL AND ANOTHER	19 Feb 2026	judgement	—
AS/84/2018	D Vijay Rao vs K Madhusudhan Rao	19 Feb 2026	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/633/2024	XXXXX vs XXXXX	19 Feb 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/509/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	11 Feb 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/796/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	10 Feb 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/100/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	09 Feb 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/676/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	09 Feb 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/712/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	06 Feb 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/561/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	05 Feb 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/966/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	05 Feb 2026	order	—
AS/383/2016	Pilli Rohith Kumar Yadav vs Pilli Sunitha Yadav	04 Feb 2026	judgement	—
OS/435/2012	P. Sulochana Devi and others vs Bulusu Venkata Narasimha	04 Feb 2026	judgement	—
F.C.O.P/1052/2024	D SATHISH KUMAR vs MUKKA KEERTHI	03 Feb 2026	order	—
G.W.O.P/60/2025	M Chandrakanth Chary vs Ch Tejaswini alias M Sharanya	30 Jan 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/495/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	29 Jan 2026	order	—
G.W.O.P/68/2025	Nimmala Sujitha vs All Concerend	29 Jan 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/433/2025	D Akshay Raj vs G Swathi Priya	12 Jan 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/579/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	12 Jan 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/475/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	09 Jan 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/461/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	07 Jan 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/516/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	07 Jan 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/521/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	07 Jan 2026	order	—
F.C.O.P/631/2025	XXXXX vs XXXXX	31 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/738/2022	XXXXX vs XXXXX	31 Dec 2025	order	—
F.C.O.P/401/2020	XXXXX vs XXXXX	30 Dec 2025	order	—

Showing 100 of 139 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		3
Apr 2026		40
Mar 2026		23
Feb 2026		23
Jan 2026		9
Dec 2025		31
Nov 2025		11

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms. N. Amaravathi handled?

Ms. N. Amaravathi has handled 140 court orders since 2025 at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms. N. Amaravathi hear?

Based on available records, Ms. N. Amaravathi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Appeal Suits) at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms. N. Amaravathi currently posted?

Ms. N. Amaravathi is posted as Principal Family Court at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex, Medchal Malkajgiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms. N. Amaravathi available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ms. N. Amaravathi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms. N. Amaravathi dispose cases?

Ms. N. Amaravathi disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 140 orders handled over their tenure at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms. N. Amaravathi serving?

Ms. N. Amaravathi has been serving at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex since 2025.

Case Types

F 69%

MC 10%

G 9%

OS 6%

AS 4%

CRLA 1%

CRLRP 1%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — Apr 2026

Principal Family Court
Nov 2025 — Present

II ADJ-Cum- I Addl MSJ -cum- II Spl Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to Atrocities against women-Cum- Family Court · 140 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. G.harika

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

244 orders

Sri L.Raju

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl Judicial Magi...

54 orders

Smt. J.prasanthi

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl Judicial Ma...

350 orders

Smt. Potedar Sarala Rekha

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

27 orders

Sri. V.Bala Bhaskar Rao

Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family C...

17 orders

Smt. Chittibomma Ashalatha

Fast Track Special Judge for expeditious trial and...

145 orders

Sri. B.Tirupathi

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge-cum-Addl.Family...

853 orders

Sri. D.kiran Kumar

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge

956 orders

Smt Rachapudi Sreedevi

Principal Family Court

0 orders

Smt. K. Uma Devi

Additional Family Court

0 orders

Sri. Sattu Ravinder

I Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Chief Judicial...

43 orders

← View all judges at Malkajgiri, PDJ Court Complex

Ms. N. Amaravathi

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM- I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-II SPL.

TO THE ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-FAMILY COURT,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Crl.Apl.No.93/2025

AN APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

AND SENTENCE VIDE JUDGMENT DATED: 28.10.2025 DELIVERED

BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-IV ADDL.

DISTRICT, UPPAL AT L.B.NAGAR IN STC (NI) No.751 OF 2022

STC (NI) No.751 OF 2022

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM- I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-II SPL.

TO THE ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-FAMILY COURT,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Crl.Apl.No.94/2025

AN APPEAL IS FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION

AND SENTENCE VIDE JUDGMENT DATED: 28.10.2025 DELIVERED

BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-IV ADDL.

DISTRICT, UPPAL AT L.B.NAGAR IN STC (NI) No.752 OF 2022

STC (NI) No.752 OF 2022

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

for sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, Cheque bearing

No.013531, dated 27.06.2022 for sum of

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-

CUM- I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-II SPL.

TO THE ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-FAMILY COURT,

MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA.

Crl.R.P.NO. 29/2025

REVISION AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.No.130 OF 2025 IN CC

No. 513 OF 2025, DATED 06.03.2025, COURT OF THE LEARNED

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM - V ADDITIONAL

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

IN

:: O R D E R ::

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Addl. Judicial

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Addl. Judicial

and calls for any interference by this court?

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO THE ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-FAMILY COURT, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA

Dated this the 27 th day of April, 2026

FCOP No.334 of 2026

O R D E R

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO THE ATROCITIES

AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-FAMILY COURT, MEDCHAL-

MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT AT KUSHAIGUDA

Dated this the 27 th day of April, 2026

FCOP No.334 of 2026

O R D E R