Sri P.govardhan

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Prl District Courts, Chittoor · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

SRI P.GOVARDHAN, IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 519 court orders on record since 2011. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, MC cases.

519

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/400052/2012 Convicted

Asst.Inspector of Factories, Chittoor vs Karanam Surendra

01 Apr 2014

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR

PRESENT: SRI. P. Govardhan B.Sc., B.L.,

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS, CHITTOOR.

Tuesday, the 1 st day of April, 2014.

C.C.No. 52 of 2012

Between :

The State represented by The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Chittoor.

..Complainant.

And :

Karanam Surendra, age 54 years, S/o K. Arumugam Pillai, Depot Manager, APSRTC (Chittoor1) Depot Garage, Chittoor.

.. Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 27032014 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri P. Ravindranatha Reddy, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Chittoor filed complaint against accused for the contraventions U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories act, 1948.

2.The contents of complaint in brief are as follows :

On 20092011 at about 10 AM, T. Mohan, Mechanic met with serious accident, while he was checking the radiator hose pipe without switching 2 off the generator, his right hand middle finger caught in between the radiator fan blades, which was not guarded. The said Mohan sustained bleeding injuries and was admitted in CMC Hospital, Vellore for treatment and subsequently his right hand middle finger got amputated up to the above second phalange.

PW1 inspected the premises on 27092011 at 10.30 AM and found the accused being the Depot Manager, APSRTC (ChittoorI) Depot Garage,

Chittoor committed the contraventions U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 failed to provide secure guard to the

Fan blades of radiator of Diesel Generator; failed to allow the worker T. Mohan to repair generator without switching off the diesel generator and failed to give proper instructions and provide safety training and effective supervision to curb the unsafe method of work by the workers.

Accused failed to repair the walls of Diesel Generator shed within 15 days and failed to send the certificate of stability of the Diesel Generator shed to the office of Inspector of Factories and thereby committed the contravention

U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948.

Hence the complaint.

3.This case has been taken on file U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with

Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 against accused and numbered as CC No.52/2012 and he was furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr P C. The substance of accusation punishable U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 was readover and explained to accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Ex.D1 is the letter Dt.21092011 addressed by accused to the

Inspector of Factories is marked during course of cross examination of PW1.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined 3

U/Sec.313 Cr P C with regard to incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused reported no defence witnesses.

6.Heard and perused the written arguments filed by accused.

7. The points that falls for determination are : 1Whether prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 beyond reasonable doubt?

2To what order?

8.POINT No.1 :

The contraventions alleged against the accused are

U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of

A.P.Factories Act, 1948.

9.It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused failed to provide secure guard to the Fan blades of radiator of Diesel Generator, as such

T. Mohan, Mechanic who is one of the workers while checking the radiator hose pipe without switching off the generator, sustained serious bleeding injuries and his right hand middle finger caught in between the radiator fan blades, which was not guarded, as such his right hand middle ginger got amputated up to the above second phalange.

10.The prosecution also contends that as the accused who is the Depot

Manager and Manager of the Factory ie., APSRTC Depot I, Chittoor failed to give proper instructions and provide proper safety training and effective supervision to curb the unsafe method of work by the workers and he is liable for the contraventions U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and

U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 r/w Sec.92 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948.

11.Prosecution also contends that Diesel Generator was installed long back and Diesel Generator shed was developed cracks, as such it is dangerous to the workers working in that area.

12.It is the contention of the learned counsel for accused that 4 victim/injured by name T. Mohan is an experienced worker as mechanic and has 36 years of experience as skilled labourer and it is due to negligence of the injured the accident occurred and accused is no way responsible for the accident.

13.Learned counsel for accused also contends that Inspector of

Factories has made all violations accident was occurred on 20092011 but the

Inspector of Factories inspected the premises on 27092011 even though he received Ex.D1, letter addressed by the accused on 21092011.

Learned counsel for accused further contends that Inspector of

Factories never received complaint directly from T. Mohan and the Inspector of

Factories only inspected the premises without there being any complaint from T.

Mohan.

Hence learned counsel further contends that accused is working as

Manager of the APSRTC depot and has been promptly supervising the works in the depot, as such seeks acquittal for the alleged contraventions.

14.Ex.D1 is the letter addressed by the Depot Manager dt. 20092011 and it was sent on 21092011 and as per Ex.D1, letter an intimation was given to the Inspector of Factories. PW1 during course of cross examination admits that his Office received letter from Depot Manager, Chittoor on 21092011 and he further deposed that he was in charge of Inspector of Factories, Chittoor and regular charge of Inspector of Factories, Nellore as such he saw Ex.D1 subsequently. The Inspection of Factory by PW1 is not in dispute. However the delay for intimation is questioned by the accused. But during course of cross examination of PW1 he deposed that he saw Ex.D1,letter subsequently as he was holding regular charge at Nellore and it is quite satisfactorily explained.

PW1 deposed that after receipt of information that a worker met with accident on 20092011, he proceeded to the Factory on 27092011 and the factory is

APSRTC Depot I which is registered under Factories Act. He deposed that he noted the particulars of workers who were working in the factory and accused is

Depot Manager and Manager of the Factory. Ex.P1 is the Inspection report 5 given by PW1. In Ex.P1, PW1 mentioned all the contraventions noted by him during course of inspection.

15.PW1 also deposed that T. Mohan who was one of the workers met with accident on 20092011 at 10 AM while he was checking the radiator, hose pipe of the diesel generator without switching off the generator which was not guarded. Another contravention alleged against accused is that accused failed to provide secure guard to the fan blades of radiator of Diesel generator.

16.Ex.P3 is the Copy of Inspection Order or notice, dt.07102011 sent to the accused along with Vice Chairman and Managing Director who is

Occupier of the factory. In the said notice it was specifically alleged that the accused failed to provide secure guard to the fan blades of radiator of Diesel generator and also failed failed to give proper instructions and provide proper safety training and effective supervision to curb the unsafe method of work by the workers. It was also alleged that accused failed to allow the worker T. Mohan to repair generator radiator without switching off the diesel generator.

17.Learned counsel for accused contends that non switching of the diesel generator was the fault of technician and that accused is not responsible for the accident. However assuming for a moment, that the said contention is true, with regard to other aspects attracting the other two contraventions ie., failure to provide secure guard to the fan blades of radiator of Diesel Generator and failure to give proper instructions and provide proper safety training and effective supervision to curb the unsafe method of work by the workers which are major aspects which have to be taken in to account by any Manager of the

Factory. Ex.P5 is the crucial document is it was addressed by the accused to the

Inspector of Factories. As per Ex.P5 at Para 2 it was specifically mentioned by the accused that the Diesel generator was installed in the year, 1990 and as per the instructions safe guard to the fan blades of Radiator provided and requested to drop further action against him. He himself admits that Diesel generator was installed in the year, 1990 and safe guards were subsequently provided to the Fan 6 blades of radiator and it shows that as on the date of inspection no mesh to safe guard to the fan blades of radiator and diesel generator were provided.

18.Even during course of cross examination of PW1, it was elicited that he cannot say whether mesh provided to fan blades were removed or not. Even the accused had not specifically put a suggestion with regard to mesh which was provided to fan blades, whether it was provided right from the date of installation of Generator or subsequently after the date of inspection or from which relevant point of time.

18.Ex.P5, letter makes clear that after inspection made by the

Inspector of Factories, mesh to safe guard the fan blades was provided.

Therefore, prosecution has to established that failure to provide mesh to the safe guard of fan blades of the radiator of Diesel Generator is a contravention and it will lead to further consequences like accidents which happened in this case too

19.Now it is for the accused to show that he is carrying out his duty and safe guard of mesh was provided even on the date of accident and when the diesel generator was working. The defence of accused depends on the aspect that he provided sufficient safe guard to the radiator of the diesel generator but he puts a suggestion with regard to point of removal of mesh which was previously provided to the Generator but he did not specifically say at what point of time mesh was removed and at what point of time the same were replaced. Therefore, accused cannot absolve his liability by pleading ignorance of removal of mesh provided to the fan blades of radiator of Diesel generator and it is for the accused to take appropriate precautions prior to the inspection of factory by PW1 and ensure safety to the workers in that place.

20.Accused puts a suggestion that non switching of the diesel generator was the fault of technician but the accused was not responsible for the accident.

However all the provisions of Factory Act makes Manager of the factory responsible for the safety of other coworkers or any other worker who is working in the factory. Accused himself who is the Manager of the factory 7 which is APSRTC Depot is responsible for any act or any other provisions which took place during course of inspection by the Inspector of Factories. Under Ex.P 6, prosecution sanction order was given by the Inspector of Factories and charge sheet was filed by Assistant Inspector of Factories and the same was proper compliance Under Sec.105(1) of Factories Act, 1948.

21.Record discloses that admittedly T. Mohan sustained injuries in the accident and his right hand middle finger got amputated up to the above second phalange as such the victim T. Mohan sustained serious bodily injury. Further accused himself admits under Ex.P5 that Diesel Generator shed was installed in the year, 1990 and it substantiated the evidence of Factories Inspector that

Diesel Generator shed walls are developed with cracks. Therefore at the time of inspection, no safe guard was provided to the fan blades of the radiator of Diesel generator and the diesel generator shed walls are developed with cracks and certainly it is dangerous for the workers to work in that area.

22.Hence due to non providing of mesh to the fan blades of radiator of

Diesel generator, creates a circumstance for the occurrence of the incident, as such T. Mohan who was checking the radiator hose pipe of the Diesel generator without switching off the Generator, sustained bleeding injuries as his right hand middle finger caught in between the radiator fan blades which was not guarded and right hand middle finger got amputated up to the above second phalange.

23.Hence with the sole testimony of Inspector of Factories who deposed as PW1 is coherent, consistent and believable and nothing was elicited from his cross examination to discredit his testimony. Therefore, Ex.P1, report given by PW1 is relied upon. Ex.P1 coupled with other documents proves beyond all reasonable doubt that T. Mohan who is working in the factory, for which accused is the Manager, sustained serious injuries and his right hand middle finger got amputated up to the above second phalange.

24.Accordingly, prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the 8 said two contraventions alleged against the accused U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with

Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948.

Accordingly Point is answered.

25.POINT No.2 :

In the result, accused is found guilty of the contraventions

U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of

A.P.Factories Act, 1948.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

Accused is heard with regard to quantum of sentence.

He stated that injured/Victim,T. Mohan was paid compensation of

Rs.1,40,000/ under Workmen Compensation Act and further states that as a

Depot Manager he is required to take care of each and every aspect, as such requested to take lenient view in sentencing him.

In view of the nature of offences proved against the accused, it is not a fit case to be dealt with the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act,

Accordingly in the light of mandatory requirement provided

U/Sec.92 of the Factories Act, 1948 that for any bodily injury sentence includes

Imprisonment or fine which is not less than Rs.5000/.

As it is admitted by the Inspector of Factories that compensation of

Rs.1,40,000/ was already paid to the injured/victimT.Mohan, for his bodily injuries under Workmen’s Compensation Act, considering that aspect, it is a fit case to take lenient view in sentencing the accused.

Therefore, accused is convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr P C for the contraventions U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and

U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 and accused is sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.8000/ for the contravention U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 9 61 F(3) in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.

Accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/ for the contravention

U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

Dictated to the PersonalAssistant, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 1 st day of April, 2014.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 : V. Ramakrishna Reddy. NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 : Inspection report,dt.27092011 at 10.30 AM. Ex.P2 : Show cause notice,dt.07102011 Ex.P3 : Copy of inspection Order or Notice, dt.07102011. Ex.P4 :Acknowledgment given by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor I Depot. Ex.P5 :Reply given by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chittoor I Depot,dt.22102011. Ex.P6 :Prosecution sanction Order given by PW1 u/Sec.105(1) of Factories Act, 1948. DEFENCE :

Ex.D1 :Letter addressed by Depot Manager dt.21092011 to the Inspector of Factories, Chittoor. Material Objects marked NIL

IV AJFCM CHITTOOR.

Draft Judgment in CC No.52/2012

Dt.01042014 10

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, CHITTOOR

CALENDER IN C.C.No.52 of 2012

Date of offence : 20092011

Date of complaint: 19122011

Date of apprehension of accused : 19072012

Date of taken on file : 02022012

Date of commencement of trial: 27062013

Date of close of trial: 27032014

Date of Sentence or Order: 01042014

Complainant : The Assistant Inspector of Factories, Chittoor.

Name of the accusedFather’s NameAge

Karanam SurendraS/o K. Arumugam Pillai54 years

Village Mandal ReligionCalling

APSRTC Chittoor I ChittoorHinduDepot Manager Depot

U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and Section of law U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948.

Failed to provide secure guard to the Fan blades of radiator of Diesel Generator; failed to allow the worker T. Mohan to repair generator without switching off the diesel generator and failed to give proper instructions and provide safety training and effective supervision to Nature of offence curb the unsafe method of work by the workers.

Failed to repair the walls of Diesel Generator shed within 15 days and failed to send the certificate of stability of the Diesel Generator shed to the office of Inspector of Factories.

Accused is found guilty of the contraventions U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read Finding of the Courtwith Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948.

In the result, accused is found guilty of the contraventions Sentence or order U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948. Accused is heard with regard to quantum of sentence. Accordingly, accused is convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr P C for the contraventions U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) and U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 and accused is 11 sentenced to pay fine of Rs.8000/ for the contravention U/Sec.21(1)(iv)(b) read with Section 41 and Rule 61 F(3) in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/ for the contravention U/Sec.40 of A.P.Factories Act, 1948 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

CC/400243/2013 Acquitted

SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs M.D.Shareef

01 Apr 2014

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR

PRESENT: SRI. P. Govardhan B.Sc., B.L.,

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS, CHITTOOR.

Tuesday, the 1 st day of April, 2014.

C.C.No. 243 of 2013

Between :

The State represented by The SubInspector of Police, Chittoor I Town PS. Cr.No.149 of 2013 of Chittoor I Town PS.

..Complainant.

And :

M.D.Shareef, age 48 years, S/o Ghouse Mohiddin, D.No.5225, Dongabhavi Street, Santhapet, Chittoor, Caste : Muslim.

.. Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 28032014 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri G.P.Chetty, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The SubInspector of Police, Chittoor I Town PS, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.149 of 2013 of Chittoor I Town PS.

2.The contents of charge sheet in brief are as follows:

On 19062013 upon the credible information about downloading of blue films, PW4 secured PW2 and PW3, reached near Sree Musical Centre,

Municipal Complex, Old Bus stand, Chittoor and on seeing the same, accused tried to escape but he was detained. On interrogation by PW4 accused 2 voluntarily confessed the offence and admitted the offence. PW4 asked accused to open blue films from his computer in the presence of panchayatdars, and accused opened his computer and showed the blue films. PW4 arrested accused, seized 1)Supercom Company CPU; 2) HCL Company monitor; 3) Zebronic company key board from the possession of accused under cover of mahazar at 5

PM on 19062013 duly attested by PW2 and PW3.

PW4 brought the accused, seized computer to Chittoor II Town PS on 19062013 at 6.30 PM and registered a case in Cr.No.149 of 2013 U/Sec.292

IPC.

During course of investigation, PW4 prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and released him on bail.

Hence the case.

3.This case has been taken on file U/Sec.292 IPC against accused and numbered as CC No.243/2013 and he was furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr P C. The substance of accusation punishable U/Sec.292 IPC was readover and explained to accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and MO1 to MO4.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr P C with regard to incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused reported no defence witnesses.

6.Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. The points that falls for determination are : 1Whether prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec.292 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

2To what order?

8.POINT No.1 :

PW1 is the Police Constable who deposed that on 19062013 at 5

PM, Head Constable who is the then Station House Officer, I Town PS, Chittoor secured presence of panchayatdars ie, PW2 and PW3 and they proceeded to Sree

Musical Shop near Old bus stand where accused was arrested and porn blue films were recovered from Computer in FDrive and the same were seized under

Ex.P2,Mahazarnama. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in Ex.P2, mahazarnama.

He also deposed that all the computer accessories were seized by the police.

9.In this case, PW2 and PW3 are said to be the panchayatdars who in one voice deposed that they have proceeded to the police station where police asked them to sign in the mahazar which was already drafted and Ex.P3 and

Ex.P4 are the respective signatures of PW2 and PW3 in the mahazar.

10.It is contended by the learned counsel for accused that PW2 and

PW3 have signed the mahazar in the police station and police never proceeded to the shop of Sree Musical shop and no porn material was seized from the computers.

11.PW1 deposed that PW2 and PW3 were secured on the way to Sree

Musical shop. PW2 and PW3 deposed that they were called to the police station and police asked them to sign in the mahazar.

12.It is the evidence of PW4 that he secured the presence of panchayatdars ie., PW2 and PW3 and arrested the accused. He also deposed that

Ex.P2, mahazarnama which was prepared at the shop of accused and Ex.P5 is the relevant portion in Ex.P2,mahazarnama incorporating the details of seizure made based on the information given by the accused. MO1 is the HCL Monitor.

MO2 is the keyboard. MO3 is the CPU and MO4 is the mouse. PW4 deposed that they were seized under the cover of Ex.P2, mahazar and basing on the strength of mahazar he registered Ex.P6, FIR and prepared Ex.P7, rough sketch.

13.Even though PW1 and PW4 have consistently deposed that they have proceeded to the shop of Sree Musical Shop where porn material were seized from the shop but the independent witnesses PW2 and PW3 who are said to have witnessed the seizure have not supported the version of prosecution and they in one voice deposed that their presence was secured at the Police station and they signed mahazar at the police station. Even other witnesses were not cited by the prosecution and even Investigating Officer did not take any steps to secure the presence of independent witnesses even though scene of offence is in busy locality.

14.Hence the self serving testimony of police officials viz., PW1 and

PW4 cannot be believed in view of major inconsistencies between their version and the version of independent witnesses viz., PW2 and PW2.

15.Therefore, in view of non examination of independent witnesses and also in view of evidence of PW2 and PW3 who had not supported the version of prosecution, with the evidence available on hand, it has to be held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly Point is answered.

16.POINT No.2 :

In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec.292

IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr P C. Bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

MO1 to MO4 HCL Monitor, keyboard, CPU and mouse as entered in CPR No.128 of 2013 is ordered to be given to accused after duly formatting the Hard disk in the CPU (after deleting the obscene films and pictures) on proper identification and acknowledgment. In case if there is no claim by the accused or the accused fails to take return of property with in prescribed time as per law the Computer and its accessories as entered in CPR No.128 of 2013 are ordered to be confiscated to the state by way of public auction after expiry of 5 appeal time.

Dictated to the PersonalAssistant, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 1 st day of April, 2014.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 : P. Jayakrishna. NIL PW2 :H. Dora Babu. PW3 :S. Jayashankar Reddy. PW4 :M. Mani.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 in Ex.P2, Mahazar. Ex.P2 : Mahazarnama. Ex.P3 : Signature of PW2 in Ex.P2, Mahazar. Ex.P4 :Signature of PW3 in Ex.P2, Mahazar. Ex.P5 :Relevant portion in Ex.P2, Mahazarnama. Ex.P6 :FIR in Cr.No.149 of 2013 of Chittoor I Town PS. Ex.P7 :Rough sketch. DEFENCE :

Nil. Material Objects marked MO1 :HCL Monitor. MO2 :Key Board. MO3 :CPU. MO4 :Mouse.

IV AJFCM CHITTOOR.

Draft Judgment in CC No.243/2013

Dt.01042014 6

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, CHITTOOR

CALENDER IN C.C.No.243 of 2013

Date of offence : 19062013

Date of complaint: 19062013

Date of apprehension of accused : 28102013

Date of taken on file : 26062013

Date of commencement of trial: 10032014

Date of close of trial: 28032014

Date of Sentence or Order: 01042014

Complainant : The SI of police, Chittoor I Town PS Cr.No.149 of 2013 of Chittoor I Town PS

Name of the accusedFather’s NameAge

M.D.ShareefS/o Ghouse Mohiddin48 years

Village Mandal ReligionCalling

D.No.5225, Santhapet, ChittoorMuslimBusiness. Dongabhavi Street

Section of lawU/Sec.292 IPC

Nature of offenceSale etc., of obscene books etc.

Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec.292 IPC and he is Finding of the Court acquitted of the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr P C.

In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec.292 IPC Sentence or order and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr P C. Bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled after six months. MO1 to MO4 HCL Monitor, keyboard, CPU and mouse as entered in CPR No.128 of 2013 is ordered to be given to accused after duly formatting the Hard disk in the CPU (after deleting the obscene films and pictures) on proper identification and acknowledgment. In case if there is no claim by the accused or the accused fails to take return of property with in prescribed time as per law the Computer and its accessories as entered in CPR No.128 of 2013, are ordered to be confiscated to the state by way of public auction after expiry of appeal time.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

CC/400136/2013 Acquitted

S.I Of Police Yadamari Police Staion vs K.Durvasulu

01 Apr 2014

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR

PRESENT: SRI. P. Govardhan B.Sc., B.L.,

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS, CHITTOOR.

Tuesday the 1 st day of April, 2014.

C.C.No. 136 of 2013

Between :

The State represented by The SubInspector of Police, Chittoor II Town PS. Cr.No.22 of 2013 of Yadamari PS.

..Complainant.

And :

1. K. Durvasulu, S/o Late K. Subramanyam, aged 45 years, R/o Kottalam Village and Panchayat, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, Yadava by Caste, business. (A1)

2. D. Chandra Babu, S/o D. Sampath, aged 42 years, R/o Dalavaipalle, now residing at Rasool Nagar, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, Yadava by Caste, Business (A2)

.. Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 27032014 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri K. Rajendran, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The SubInspector of Police, Yadamari PS, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.22 of 2013 of Yadamari PS.

2.The contents of charge sheet in brief are as follows:

On 02032013 at 6 AM at 12Kammapalle Village,Yadamari

Mandal, A1 and A2 with a common intention criminally trespassed in to the 2 house of PW2 and demanded him to come to coolie work, otherwise to repay his loan amount, for which PW2 A1 that he had settled the loan amount by doing coolie work and repayment of Rs.20000/ doesnot arise, for which A1 abused him in filthy language, kicked with legs and beat him with hands, and when the complainant PW1intervened, tried to rescue her husband PW2, A1 beat her with hands, thrown her away, resulting which tooth of PW1 was detached and fallen down and PW1 sustained bleeding injury and A1 and A2 beat PW2 with hands and legs and they were dragging outside PW2 from the house villagers intervened and rescued them from the accused.

Basing on the report given by PW1, a case in Cr.No.22 of 2013

U/Sec.448, 325, 323 r/w 34 IPC was registered by PW3 and during course of investigation, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements.

The Medical Officer who treated injured issued Wound Certificates opining that injuries to PW2 is simple in nature and injuries to PW1 are grievous in nature.

Hence the charge.

3.This case has been taken on file U/Sec.448, 325, 323 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 and numbered case as CC No.136 of 2013 and were furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207

Cr.P.C.

Accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr P C. Charge U/Sec.448,325 r/w 34 IPC against A1; Charge U/Sec.448,323 r/w 34 IPC against A2 was framed, readover and explained to accused, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During trial, the prosecution has examined PW1to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

5.A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr P C examination regarding the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which accused denied the evidence, pleaded not guilty and 3 reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. The points that falls for determination are : 1Whether prosecution has established the guilt of accused of the charge U/Sec.448,325 r/w 34 IPC against A1; Charge U/Sec.448,323 r/w 34 IPC against A2 beyond reasonable doubt?

2To what order?

8.POINT No.1 :

PW1 deposed that while she was sleeping infront of her house, some persons were quarrelling in the street and she woke up and tried to intervene and in the mean time one person pushed her and she sustained injury over her right tooth. She further deposed that accused are not the persons who injured her and she does not know the persons who injured her. Even though PW1 gave Ex.P1, report, she deposed that on suspicion she mentioned the name of accused in

Ex.P1. The evidence of PW1 itself is clear that she excluded the presence of accused by deposing that accused are not the persons who injured her. Even

PW2 is said to be another independent witness, does not depose incriminating material against accused. PW2 deposed that he does not know the persons who injured her and deposed that accused are not the persons who injured PW1.

Therefore, PW1 and PW2 have not supported the version of prosecution and eventually their respective 161 Cr P C statements are marked as Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 respectively through them.

9.PW3 deposed that he registered Ex.P1, report as a case in Cr.No.22 of 2013 U/Sec.448, 325, 323 r/w 34 IPC and subsequently prepared Ex.P5, rough sketch and recorded the statements of witnesses. He further deposed that after receipt of report, he examined PW1 and PW2 at Government Hospital,

Chittoor. He deposed that PW1 and PW2 stated before him as in Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 respectively. However they can be at best looked for the purpose of contradiction and they cannot form a substantive piece of evidence.

10.His evidence is not to the effect that accused participated in the commission of offence. PW1 and PW2 who are best witnesses have not deposed about the occurrence and excluded the presence of accused at the scene of offence, as such with the evidence available on hand, it has to be held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly point is answered.

11.POINT No.2 :

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the charge

U/Sec.448,325 r/w 34 IPC against A1; Charge U/Sec.448,323 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr P C. Bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

Dictated to the PersonalAssistant, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 1 st day of April, 2014.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 : Rahamat Bee.NIL PW2 :S. Wahab Saheb. PW3 :T. Bhaskarn. PW4 :P.Umamaheswara Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Statement given by PW1 to police. Ex.P.2 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr P C statement of PW1. Ex.P3 :Relevant portion of 161 Cr P C statement of PW2. Ex.P4 :FIR in Cr.No.22 of 2013 U/Sec.448,325,323 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P5 :Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P6 :Wound Certificate of PW1. Ex.P7 :Wound Certificate of PW2.

DEFENCE :

Nil.

Material Objects marked Nil

IV AJFCM CHITTOOR.

Draft Judgment in CC No.136/2013

Dt.01042014 6

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, CHITTOOR

CALENDER IN C.C.No. 136 of 2013

Date of offence : 02032013

Date of complaint: 02032013

Date of apprehension of accused : 11032014

Date of taken on file : 30032013

Date of commencement of trial: 25032014

Date of close of trial: 27032014

Date of Sentence or Order: 01042014

Complainant : The SI of police, Yadamari PS Cr.No.22 of 2013 of Yadamari PS

Name of the accusedFather’s NameAge

A1, K. Durvasulu S/o Late K. Subramanyam45 years

A2, D. Chandra Babus/o D. Sampath, 42 years

Village Mandal ReligionCalling

A1, R/o Kottalam Yadamari HinduCultivation Village and panchayat

A2, native of Yadamari Hindu Cultivation Dalavaipalle, now residing at Rasool Nagar

Section of law U/Sec.448,325, 323 r/w 34 IPC

House trespass; voluntarily causing grievous hurt; voluntarily Nature of offence causing hurt; sharing common intention.

A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the charge U/Sec.448,325 r/w 34 Finding of the Court IPC against A1; Charge U/Sec.448,323 r/w 34 IPC against A2

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the charge Sentence or order U/Sec.448,325 r/w 34 IPC against A1; Charge U/Sec.448,323 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr P C. Bail bond of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

CC/400278/2013 Convicted

S.I Of Police Thavanampalli Police Station vs J.Ramesh

01 Apr 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF I CLASS ::: CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri P.Govardhan B.Sc., B.L., IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

Tuesday, the 1 st day of April, 2014.

CALENDAR CASE No.278 of 2013

Between: The State rep.by Sub Inspector of Police, Thavanampalle PS. Cr.No.37 of 2013 of Thavanamapalle PS. …Complainant

And:

J. Ramesh, age 27 years, S/o J. Munirathnam, Edamalavaripalle Village, Thavanampalle Mandal. Driver of Tractor AP 35 T 9722 & Trailer AP 27 F 1519. … Accused

This case is coming on this day for disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the accused appeared in person and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Thavanampalle PS, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/S.338 and 279 IPC and U/Sec.146 r/w 196 and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act.

2. The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 16052013 at 9 AM while S. Masthan along with one Bujji

W/o Adikaram were going to Thimmasamudram of Irala mandal, to transport gravel in the tractor, while they were going near Punyasamudram cross, proceeding on the left side of the road on motorcycle bearing No.AP03 AQ 2 4795, accused being the driver of tractortrailer bearing No.AP35 T 9722 &

AP27 F 1519 dashed on their back of motorcycle, S. Masthan and Bujji fell down on the road and Bujji sustained bleeding injuries on her right leg knee, right foot and dumb injuries on the body and injured was shifted to 108

Ambulance.

Basing on the report given by S.Masthan a case in Cr.No.37/2013

U/Sec.337 & 279 IPC was registered and during course of investigation, arrested you, released on Bail and that the Medical Officer who treated injured

Bujji issued Wound Certificate opining that injuries are grievous in nature, basing on which Section of law was altered to Section 338,279 IPC, Sec.3 r/w 181 and 146 r/w 196 of MV Act.

Hence the case.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused U/Secs.338,279

IPC and U/Sec.146 r/w 196 and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act.

4. Accused present and is examined U/Sec.251 Cr P C. The substance of accusation for the offence U/Secs.338,279 IPC and U/Sec.146 r/w 196 and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act is readover and explained to the accused, for which accused pleaded guilty of the offence. His plea of guilt to my satisfaction is free and voluntary. Hence, accused is found guilty of the offence U/Secs.338,279 IPC and U/Sec.146 r/w 196 and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV

Act and he is convicted of the same u/s. 252 Cr.p.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC in default to suffer SI for a period of One week. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence

U/Sec.279 IPC in default to suffer SI for a period of 15 days. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/Sec.146 r/w 196 of MV

Act in default to suffer SI for a period of 15 days. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/ for the offence U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act in default to suffer

SI for a period of one week.

Total fine amount is Rs.3500/. Out of fine amount, an amount of

Rs.1000/ is ordered to be paid to the injured viz. LW2, A. Bujji, age 27 years,

W/o Adikaram,Srinivasapuram, Thenabanda, Chittoor U/Sec.357(2) Cr.P.C as compensation after appeal time is over.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 1 st day of April,

2014.

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

CHITTOOR.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, CHITTOOR

CALENDER IN C.C.No. 278 of 2013

Date of offence : 16052013

Date of complaint: 16052013

Date of apprehension of accused : 04032014

Date of taken on file : 09072013

Date of commencement of trial:

Date of close of trial:

Date of Sentence or Order: 01042014

Complainant : The SI of police , Thavanampalle PS Cr.No.37 of 2013 of Thavanampalle PS

Name of the accusedFather’s NameAge

J. Ramesh S/o J. Munirathnam27 years

Village Mandal ReligionCalling

Edamalavaripalle VillageThavanampalle Mandal Hindu Driver

Nature of offence Rash and negligent driving which endangers human life; not possessing valid insurance and driving without license

Section of lawU/Secs.279, 338 IPC and U/Sec.146 r/w 196 and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV

Act

Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

Accused present and is examined U/Sec.251 Cr P C. The substance of Sentence or order accusation for the offence U/Secs.338,279 IPC and U/Sec.146 r/w 196 and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act is readover and explained to the accused, for which accused pleaded guilty of the offence. His plea of guilt to my satisfaction is free and voluntary. Hence, accused is found guilty of the offence U/Secs.338,279 IPC and U/Sec.146 r/w 196 and Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act and he is convicted of the same u/s. 252 Cr.p.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC in default to suffer SI for a period of One week. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/Sec.279 IPC in default to suffer SI for a period of 15 days. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/Sec.146 r/w 196 of MV Act in default to suffer SI for a period of 15 days. Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/ for the offence U/Sec.3 r/w 181 of MV Act in default to suffer SI for a period of one week. Total fine amount is Rs.3500/. Out of fine amount, an 5 amount of Rs.1000/ is ordered to be paid to the injured viz. LW2, A. Bujji, age 27 years, W/o Adikaram,Srinivasapuram, Thenabanda, Chittoor U/Sec.357(2) Cr.P.C as compensation after appeal time is over.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

CC/400164/2013 Convicted

SI of Yadamiari PS vs V.Manigandan

01 Apr 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF I CLASS ::: CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri P.Govardhan B.Sc., B.L., IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

Tuesday, the 1 st day of April, 2014.

CALENDAR CASE No.164 of 2013

Between: The State rep.by Sub Inspector of Police, Yadamari PS. Cr.No.20 of 2013 of Yadamari PS. …Complainant

And:

V. Manigandan, aged 32 years, S/o V. Venkatesh Gounder, R/o H. No.374, Venugopalapuram, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. Driver of Car bearing No.KA 05 P 8343. … Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Yadamari PS, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/S.338 IPC.

2. The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 15022013 at about 12.15 PM on Chittoor – Gudiyattam road, near ZP High School, Yadamari, accused being the driver of Car bearing

No.KA 05 P 8343 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against K. Samba while he was purchasing watermelon, as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries on his person and was shifted to Government 2

Hospital, Chittoor.

From there he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment and basing on the MLC intimation and statement of injured a case in

Cr.No.20/2013 U/Sec.337 IPC was registered and during course of investigation witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded, rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared and during course of investigation, S.I of Police, Yadamari PS arrested you and the Medical Officer who treated injured issued Wound Certificate opining that Injury No.1,2 and 3 mentioned in Wound Certificate is grievous in nature.

Hence the case.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused U/Sec.338 IPC.

4. Accused present and is examined U/Sec.251 Cr P C. The substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC is readover and explained to the accused, for which accused pleaded guilty of the offence. His plea of guilt to my satisfaction is free and voluntary. Hence, accused is found guilty of the offence U/Sec.338 IPC and he is convicted of the same u/s. 252 Cr.p.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/Sec.338

IPC in default to suffer SI for a period of One week.

Total fine amount is Rs.1000/. The fine amount of Rs.1000/ is ordered to be paid to the injured viz. LW1, K. Samba, aged 27 years, S/o K. Sundaraiah, Dalavaipalle

Village, Yadamari Mandal, U/Sec.357(2) Cr.P.C as compensation after appeal time is over.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 1 st day of April, 2014.

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

CHITTOOR.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, CHITTOOR

CALENDER IN C.C.No. 164 of 2013

Date of offence : 15022013

Date of complaint: 15022013

Date of apprehension of accused : 28012014

Date of taken on file : 27042013

Date of commencement of trial:

Date of close of trial:

Date of Sentence or Order: 01042014

Complainant : The SI of police , Yadamari PS Cr.No.20/2013 of Yadamari PS

Name of the accusedFather’s NameAge

V. ManigandanS/o V. Venkatesh Gounder32 years

Village Mandal ReligionCalling

R/o H. No.374, Yadamari Hindu Driver Venugopalapuram,

Nature of offence Rash and negligent driving which endangers human life

Section of lawU/Sec.338 IPC.

Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

Accused present and is examined U/Sec.251 Cr P C. The substance of Sentence or order accusation for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC is readover and explained to the accused, for which accused pleaded guilty of the offence. His plea of guilt to my satisfaction is free and voluntary. Hence, accused is found guilty of the offence U/Sec.338 IPC and he is convicted of the same u/s. 252 Cr.p.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/ for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC in default to suffer SI for a period of One week. Total fine amount is Rs.1000/. The fine amount of Rs.1000/ is ordered to be paid to the injured viz. LW1, K. Samba, aged 27 years, S/o K. Sundaraiah, Dalavaipalle Village, Yadamari Mandal, U/Sec.357(2) Cr.P.C as compensation after appeal time is over.

IV ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHITTOOR.

Order Record 497 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/400052/2012	Asst.Inspector of Factories, Chittoor vs Karanam Surendra	01 Apr 2014	Order On Exgibit	Convicted
CC/400136/2013	S.I Of Police Yadamari Police Staion vs K.Durvasulu	01 Apr 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/400164/2013	SI of Yadamiari PS vs V.Manigandan	01 Apr 2014	Order On Exgibit	Convicted
CC/400243/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs M.D.Shareef	01 Apr 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/400278/2013	S.I Of Police Thavanampalli Police Station vs J.Ramesh	01 Apr 2014	Order On Exgibit	Convicted
CC/400495/2011	S.I Of Police CCS Police Station vs Gunjolu Govinda@Raghu	28 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400496/2011	The Inspector of Police, CCS, Chittoor. vs Gunjolu Govinda alias Raghu	28 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400110/2011	S.I of Police Irala vs K.Roja	27 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400241/2013	SI of pilice II Town PS,Chittoor vs S.Kala	27 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400416/2010	SI of police Irala PS, Chittoor District vs D.R.Bala Bhaskar	27 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400424/2013	S.I.of police Kanipakam PS vs A.Balaiah	27 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400571/2012	Asst. Inspector of Factories, Chittoor. vs S.N.Babu	27 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400068/2011	S.I of Police of Yadamari vs G.Govindaswamy	26 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400146/2013	S.I . of Police I town P. S.Chittoor vs M.Babu	26 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400184/2013	SI of Police, I town PS,Chittoor vs R.Jayavelu	26 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400879/2010	S.I Of Police Yadamari Police Staion vs R.Chinnaswamy	26 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/400009/2013	Smt.S.Rajeswari @ Chitti vs M.Ayyappa	26 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400084/2013	S.I Of Police Kanipakam Police Station vs C.Murugaiah	25 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400363/2013	S.I Of Police Yadamari Police Station. vs G.Jagannatha Reddy	25 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400913/2011	SI of Police Yadamari PS vs D.Murugesan	25 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400148/2013	SI of pilice II Town PS vs P.Subramanyam Reddy	21 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400310/2012	S.I Of Police Thavanampalli Police Station. vs A.Balakrishna	21 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400916/2011	SI of police, Yadamari PS vs D.Anjaiah	21 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400292/2012	Inspector of police , Chittoor I town P.S. vs K.Bala	20 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400311/2012	S.I . of Police I town P.S.Chittoor. vs K.Balu	20 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400277/2007	Drugs Inspectors vs MS Modern Laboratories,	14 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400001/2014	Inspector of police , Chittoor I town P.S. vs K.Bhaskar @ Chinna-A2	13 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400002/2014	Inspector of police , Chittoor I town P.S. vs K.Bhaskar @ Chinna-A2	13 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400055/2012	Asst.Inspector of Factories, Chittoor vs Smt C.Vanajakshi	13 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400499/2013	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor I Town ps vs Siva Prasad Reddy	13 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400635/2012	S.I Of Police Kanipakam Police Station. vs C.Babu	13 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400225/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs D.Theertha Prasad	12 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400032/2013	S.I.Of Police , Chittoor I Town P.S. vs S. Saradhi	10 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400226/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs T.Prakash	06 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400134/2013	S.I.of Police, Yadamari P.S. vs M.Manickyam	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400149/2013	SI of pilice II Town PS vs U.Dhananjaya	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400150/2012	SI of Police, Yadamari PS vs Naresh Kumar	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400204/2013	SI of police II Town PS vs K.Krishna	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400462/2013	S.I of Police Thavanampalle vs R.Prabhakar	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400463/2013	S.I of Police Thavanampalle vs S.Chandra Mohan	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400469/2013	S.I Of Police, Yadamari Police Staion. vs G.Sandanam	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400169/2013	Inspector of Police,Chittoor II town PS vs S.Yugandhar	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400170/2013	Inspector of Police,Chittoor II town PS. vs S.Yugandhar	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400174/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs Mekalathuri Chandra Babu	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400175/2013	SI of Police, I town PS,Chittoor vs S.Yugandhar	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400176/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs S.Yugandhar	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400177/2013	S.I . of Police I town P. S.Chittoor vs Mekalathuri Hari Babu	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400178/2013	SI of Police, I town PS,Chittoor vs Mekalathuri Chandra Babu	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400179/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs S.Yugandhar	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400181/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS.,Chittoor vs Mekalathuri Hari Babu	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400183/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs S.Yugandhar	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/400012/2013	E.Meenamma vs E.Munaswamy Naidu	26 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400025/2011	Drugs Inspectors vs Weismanna Health Cara Pvt Ltd	20 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400027/2014	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor II Town P.S. vs G.Chandrasekhar	20 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400290/2012	S.I Of Police Kanipakam Police Station. vs Shaik Musthafa	20 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400318/2010	Divisional Foresh Officer, Chittoor East WL Divis vs R.Lakshmaiah	20 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400360/2013	Inspector of Factories, Chittoor vs Sayed Tanzil Aga	20 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400451/2013	SI of Police, Yadamari PS vs M.Ponnaiah	20 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400131/2013	S.I . of Police I town P.S.Chittoor vs B.Damu	19 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400393/2013	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs K.Mohan	19 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400466/2011	S.I Of Police Kanipakam Police Station vs C.Suneel Babu	14 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400138/2013	S.I Of Police Yadamari Police Staion vs B.Nagaraja	13 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400428/2013	S.I of Police, Yadamari PS. vs D.Rajini @ D.Rajinikanth	13 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400918/2010	SI of police Thavanampalli PS vs Munirathnam	13 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/400040/2011	N.Vijaya @ Jayamma vs N.Adi Narayana	12 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400043/2013	S.I of Police of Gudipala Police Station. vs M.Sekhar	10 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400795/2011	S.I Of Police I Town Police Station vs K.Sivadekhar Reddy	07 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400457/2011	S.I Of Police Thavanampalli Police Station vs Jettipalle Sreenivasulu	06 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400749/2011	S.I Of Police Kanipakam Police Station vs V.Ramesh	06 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400385/2013	SI of Police Irala PS vs C.Hemanth	05 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400113/2013	AP State Rep by Asst.Inspector of factories,CTR. vs A.Prasad	30 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400341/2011	SI of police, Thavanampalli PS vs K.Lokanadha Reddy	30 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400384/2013	SI of Police Irala Ps vs Berre Ananda	30 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400889/2011	S.I Of Police Irala Police Station vs Gouni Nagamuni	30 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400510/2013	The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chittoor II Town PS vs B.Kaakul Basha	24 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/401011/2011	Drugs Inspector,-Hyd-Chittoor. vs MS Modern Laboratories	24 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400465/2012	Asst.Inspector of Factories, Chittoor. vs Smt.E.Dakshayani	23 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400535/2012	AP State Rep by Asst.Inspector of factories,CTR. vs Smt.E.Dakshayani	23 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400452/2013	S.I Of Police Yadamari Police Staion. vs Nitin Shinde	21 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400480/2013	S.I Of Police Yadamari Police Staion vs M.Suresh	21 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400230/2013	SI of police Gudipala PS vs S.Jhony Basha	20 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400044/2013	S.I . of Police I town P.S.Chittoor. vs S.Manjunath	10 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400045/2013	S.I . of Police I town P. S.Chittoor vs S.Manujunath	10 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400086/2012	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs G.Chengalrayulu	10 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400447/2013	S.I . of Police I town P. S.Chittoor vs Ramraj	08 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400119/2012	SI of Police, I Town PS, Chittoor vs N.Pavan Kumar	06 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400072/2013	S.I.of Police, Thavanampalli Ps vs B.Sekhar	02 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400166/2013	SI of Police Yadamari PS vs R.Gopi	02 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400323/2013	SI of Police, Thavanampalli PS vs D.Ramesh	02 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400324/2013	SI of Police, Thavanampalli PS vs M.Hemadri	02 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400401/2013	SI of police, Thavanampalli PS vs M.Guru Prasad @ Guru	02 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400448/2013	S.I of Police of Gudipala PS vs N.Chandrasekhar Reddy	31 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400095/2013	S.I Of Police Irala Police Station. vs K.Gajendra Naidu	30 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400098/2011	S.I.Of Police, Gudipala P.S. vs M.Shivakumar	30 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400180/2013	SI of Police, I town PS,Chittoor vs D.Hari @ Haridass	30 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400187/2013	S.I of Irala PS vs K.Somasekhar	30 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400780/2011	S.I Of Police II Town Police Station vs S.Khader Basha	30 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400157/2013	S.I Of Police Thavanampalli Police Station. vs A.Jayakiraman	27 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400270/2013	SI of pilice II Town PS,Chittoor vs A.Sethu Kumar	27 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400514/2010	S.I Of Police CCS Police Station vs B.V.Suresh	27 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 497 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2014		5
Mar 2014		46
Feb 2014		20
Jan 2014		21
Dec 2013		31
Nov 2013		13
Oct 2013		5
Sep 2013		1
Aug 2013		1
Jul 2013		40
Jun 2013		11
May 2013		8

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI P.GOVARDHAN handled?

SRI P.GOVARDHAN has handled 519 court orders since 2011 at Prl District Courts, Chittoor. The average disposal rate is 15 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI P.GOVARDHAN hear?

Based on available records, SRI P.GOVARDHAN primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Where is SRI P.GOVARDHAN currently posted?

SRI P.GOVARDHAN is posted as IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SRI P.GOVARDHAN available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by SRI P.GOVARDHAN are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI P.GOVARDHAN dispose cases?

SRI P.GOVARDHAN disposes approximately 15 cases per month, based on 519 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Since when is SRI P.GOVARDHAN serving?

SRI P.GOVARDHAN has been serving at Prl District Courts, Chittoor since 2011.

Case Types

CC 94%

STC 4%

MC 2%

Posting History

May 2011 — Apr 2014

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 519 orders

Outcomes on Record

Convicted 3

Acquitted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Aruna Sarika

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

373 orders

Sri K.Srinivasa Rao

I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Sri N.Sreenivasa Rao

VIII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

2 orders

Smt T. Haritha

VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Smt M.V.N. Padmaja

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

883 orders

K Ravi

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

75 orders

Ms. D. Uma Devi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,381 orders

Smt M. Madhavi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,387 orders

Boora Sirisha

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

22 orders

Sri Shaik Babajan

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,433 orders

Smt V Silpa

SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT

467 orders

P. Vennela

JFCM, SPL. MOBILE COURT

552 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Courts, Chittoor