Currently Serving

Sri P.J.Theja Saai

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur

Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur (Taluka) · Kadapa · Andhra Pradesh

Sri P.J.Theja Saai, Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur (Taluka), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India. 856 court orders on record since 2024. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, STC cases.

856

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/276/2021 Convicted

Ramireddy Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs Turaka Sivanandini

11 May 2026

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 1 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

APKD0D0006712021IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAILWAY KODUR

PRESENT: Sri. P J THEJA SAAI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.276 of 2021

Between

Ramireddy Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o Raja Reddy, aged about 35 years,

Resident of Door No.8/234-2, Ram Nagar,

Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

... Complainant

And

Turaka Sivanandini, W/o Ramana, D/o Kumara Swamy, aged about 30 years,

Residing at Door No.5/385-1, 1st Floor,

Beside Lakshmi Narasimha Agencies,

Ankamma Nagar, Railway Kodur Town & Mandal,

YSR Kadapa District. ….. Accused

This case came up before me on 31-03-2026 & 07-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A Venkata Rama Raju, Learned Counsel for the

Complainant and Sri P Nagarjunudu, Learned counsel for the Accused and upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon considering the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 2 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

1.The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 200 of the

Criminal Procedure Code to punish the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as “NI Act, 1881”).

2.The brief allegations in the complaint are as follows:

a.That the complainant is working as Software Engineer at Bangalore.

That the complainant and the accused are well known to each other and are residing in the same locality. That in view of the acquaintance between the complainant and the accused, the accused had requested the complainant to lend an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for her family necessities and promised to repay the same within a short time. That the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant and in consideration of the same, the accused gave post dated cheque bearing number 553601 dated 15.05.2020 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Railway Kodur

Branch.

b.That the said cheque was presented for collection on 07.08.2020 and the same was returned to the complainant by the State Bank of India,

Railway Kodur branch along with cheque return memo with an endorsement that "Funds Insufficient" and "Drawer's signature differs". That the complainant approached the accused and asked about the cheque amount and informed the accused about the bouncing of the said cheque but the accused did not give proper reply. That the complainant sent a legal notice

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 3 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

dated 01.09.2020 requesting the accused to clear the cheque amount and

the accused received the said legal notice on 03.09.2020.

c.Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking to punish the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act, 1881.

3.On consideration of the Sworn Affidavit filed by the complainant and the complaint, this case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act, 1881.

4.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the accusation for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act, 1881. She denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1, besides examining Kambai Rama Krishna Reddy, as PW.2. Exhibits P1 to P5 are marked on behalf of the complainant. The complainant got Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Railway Kodur Branch, as PW.3 pursuant to order in

Crl.M.P.No. 725 of 2025 dated 13-05-2025. Exhibits C1 to C3 are marked

through PW.3.

6.After closure of the evidence of complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., this court read over and explained the incriminating material against her. She denied the same and reported evidence in defence.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 4 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

7.Crl.MP No.08 of 2026 under section 315 of Cr.P.C, was allowed on 07-01- 2026, permitting the accused to be examined as a witness. Accused was examined as DW.1. No exhibits were marked on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard Sri A Venkata Rama Raju, Learned Counsel for the Complainant and Sri P Nagarjunudu, Learned counsel for the Accused.

9.The arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

a)That the complainant proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act, 1881 and the same is substantiated by oral testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3, coupled with Exhibits P1 to P5, C1 to

C3.

b)That it shall be presumed that the cheque vide Exhibit P1 was issued for discharge of debt/liability as per Section 139 of NI Act, 1881.

c)That the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act would come into play, once the complainant discharged the initial burden of execution of Cheque vide Exhibit P1.

d)That the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, based on her sole oral testimony and the cross examination of complainant (PW.1) & PW.2.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 5 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

e)That the version of the accused that she gave oral complaint to the police about the missing cheques and that she did not pursue the matter on the assurance of police that the missing cheques will be retrieved, does not inspire confidence.

f)That the accused has not chosen to give any reply notice to the legal notice of the complainant, despite receipt of the same vide Exhibit P5.

g)That the cheque was returned vide Exhibit P2 with an endorsement that "Funds Insufficient" and "Drawer's signature differs". That the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi

Dyechem vs State of Gujarat and others reported in 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 823 (SC), to contend that “Drawer’s signature differs” would also constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of NI Act.

h)Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

10.The arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Accused, in brief, is as follows:

a)That when the accused visited her mother’s house at Railway Kodur, there was a galata between the complainant along with his relatives and the parents of the accused and after the said galata, the accused noticed that two cheque leafs were missing from her cheque book which was kept on the table in their house at Railway Kodur.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 6 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

b)That the accused gave complaint to the police about the missing cheques and that accused did not pursue the matter for two reasons – i) the police assured that the missing cheques will be retrieved from the complainant or his relatives, and, ii) the accused was looking after her father, as her father’s health deteriorated.

c)That the signature on cheque vide Exhibit P1 does not belong to the accused which is evident from the deposition of PW.3, coupled with Exhibits

C1 to C3.

d)That the “Drawer’s signature differs” does not attract the liability under section 138 of NI Act. That the question of “Funds Insufficient” does not arise, once the “Drawer’s signature differs”.

e) That the signature on acknowledgment vide Exhibit P5 does not belong to accused and the same is forged by the complainant, by managing the postal authorities.

f)That the cheque vide Exhibit P1 is not supported by consideration and the complainant has misused the missing cheque.

g)Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

11.Now the points for determination are:

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 7 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

I. Whether the complainant could bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881?

i.Whether the accused issued cheque and the complainant is a holder of the said cheque?

ii. Whether such cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or other liability?

iii. Whether such cheque has been presented to the bank within 3 months from the date of issuance?

iv. Whether the bank of the accused returned such cheque, unpaid for insufficiency of funds or that amount exceeds the

arrangement made by the accused with the bank?

v. Whether the complainant gave notice in writing to the accused, demanding the payment of the said amount of money under cheque, within 30 days from the date of receipt of return memos by the bank?

vi. Whether the accused failed to make payment of the said amount of money under cheque, within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice?

Point No. I (i):

“Whether the accused issued cheque and the complainant is a holder of

the said cheque?”

12.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the accused gave cheque vide Exhibit P1, to the complainant.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 8 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

13.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that when the accused visited her mother’s house at Railway Kodur, there was a galata between the complainant along with his relatives and the parents of the accused and after the said galata, the accused noticed that two cheque leafs were missing from her cheque book which was kept on the table in their house at Railway Kodur.

14.It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused gave complaint to the police about the missing cheques and that accused did not pursue the matter for two reasons – i) the police assured that the missing cheques will be retrieved from the complainant or his relatives, and, ii) the accused was looking after her father, as her father’s health deteriorated.

15.Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2 deposed that the accused issued cheque vide Exhibit P1 to the complainant. Nothing material is elicited in the cross examination of Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2, to discredit their evidence.

16.Accused (DW.1) deposed that two cheque leafs were missing from her cheque book, after a galata in her house. It is pertinent to mention that the accused (DW.1) has not deposed in her chief examination that one of the said two missing cheque leafs is the cheque vide Exhibit P1.

17.This court is of the view that the accused ought to have instructed the bank to stop payment with respect to the missing cheque leafs but the accused has not chosen to do the same, for the reasons best known to her.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 9 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

This court is of the view that the accused ought to have given a “written” complaint to the police with respect to the missing cheque leafs but the accused has not chosen to do the same, for the reasons best known to her.

18.Therefore, this court is of the view that the version of the accused that two cheque leafs were missing after a galata and she did not pursue the same, after assurance from the police, is not trustworthy and does not inspire confidence of this court.

19. Therefore, it can be held that the accused issued cheque vide Exhibit P1, based on the testimonies of Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2.

20.Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2 deposed that the accused issued cheque vide Exhibit P1 to the complainant. It is relevant to refer to Section 118 (g) of the NI Act that stipulates that the court shall presume that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course. Nothing material is elicited in the cross examination of Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2 to rebut the presumption under Section 118 (g) of the NI Act and to establish that the complainant is not a holder of the cheque vide Exhibit P1.

21.Therefore, this court is of the view that the complainant is a holder of the cheque vide Exhibit P1.

22.Having regard to the above discussion, this court is of the view that the accused issued cheque vide Exhibit P1 and the complainant is a holder of the cheque vide Exhibit P1.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 10 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

23.Hence, the Point no. I (i) is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Point No. I (ii) :

“Whether such cheque was issued towards discharge of legally

enforceable debt or other liability?”

24.It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant and in consideration of the same, the accused gave post dated cheque bearing number 553601 dated 15.05.2020 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Railway Kodur

Branch.

25.Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2 deposed that Exhibit P1 was issued by the accused to the complainant towards discharge of indebited amount of

Rs.3,50,000/-.

26.In view of finding in Point No. I (i), this court deems it relevant to refer to

Section 139 of the NI Act that stipulates that it shall be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless contrary is proved. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the accused issued cheque vide Exhibit P1 to the complainant towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt, by virtue of Section 139 of the NI Act. It is also relevant to mention that it has to be presumed that the cheque vide Exhibit P1 was drawn for consideration as per Section 118 (a) of NI Act.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 11 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

27.In such a scenario, this court is of the view that the onus is on the accused to prove that the cheque vide Exhibit P1 was not issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the cheque vide Exhibit P1 was not drawn for consideration.

28.This court has to determine whether the accused rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act by ‘Preponderance of probabilities’.

29.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that two cheque leafs were missing from her cheque book after a galata in her house and the accused gave complaint to the police about the missing cheques and that accused did not pursue the matter for two reasons – i) the police assured that the missing cheques will be retrieved from the complainant or his relatives, and, ii) the accused was looking after her father, as her father’s health deteriorated.

30.As held supra, the version of the accused that two cheque leafs were missing after a galata and she did not pursue the same, after assurance from the police, is not trustworthy and does not inspire confidence of this court.

31.As stated supra, accused (DW.1) has not deposed in her chief examination that one of the two missing cheque leafs is the cheque vide

Exhibit P1.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 12 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

32.The accused is unable to show any reason or circumstance to disbelieve the testimonies of Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2. As held supra, nothing material is elicited in the cross examination of Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2 to discredit their evidence.

33.This court is of the view that the presumptions under section 118 (a) of

NI Act and section 139 of NI Act are neither diluted nor vanished, based on the cross examination of Complainant (PW.1) & PW.2 and sole oral testimony of

Accused (DW.1). This court is of the view that the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act even by ‘Preponderance of probabilities’.

34.Therefore, this court is of the view that the oral testimonies of

Complainant (PW.1) and PW.2 coupled with Exhibit P1, are sufficient to prove that the accused issued cheque vide Exhibit P1, to the complainant towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

35.Hence, the Point no. I (ii) is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Point No. I (iii):

“Whether such cheque has been presented to the bank within 3 months

from the date of issuance?”

36.Exhibit P1 is the Original Cheque bearing No.553601 dated 15-05-2020.

Exhibit P2 is the Cheque Return Memo of SBI, Railway Kodur Branch dated 07-

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 13 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

08-2020. A combined perusal of Exhibits P1 and P2 show that the cheque vide

Exhibit P1 has been presented to the bank within 3 months from the date of issuance.

37.PW.1 also deposed that Exhibit P1 was presented for collection on 07-08- 2020.

38.Therefore, this court is of the view that the oral testimony of PW.1, coupled with Exhibits P1 and P2 are sufficient to prove that the complainant presented the cheque vide Exhibit P1, within 3 months from the date of issuance.

39.Hence, the Point no. I (iii) is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Point No. I (iv):

“Whether the bank of the accused returned such cheque, unpaid for

insufficiency of funds or that amount exceeds the arrangement made by

the accused with the bank?”

40.Exhibit P2 is the Cheque Return Memo of SBI, Railway Kodur Branch

dated 07-08-2020. A perusal of Exhibit P2 discloses that the cheque vide Exhibit

P1 has been returned, unpaid for "Funds Insufficient" and "Drawer's signature differs".

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 14 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

41.PW.3 (Branch Manager, SBI Bank) deposed in his chief examination that the cheque vide Exhibit P1 was returned for the reason “Insufficient Funds” and the same is reflected in their cheques referred & returned register vide

Exhibit C1. PW.3 deposed in his cross examination that a cheque can be returned for multiple reasons and also deposed that there is difference in the signature of Shivanandini Thuraka (accused) on cheque vide Exhibit P1 with that of her signature on account opening form vide Exihibit C3.

42.A perusal of Exhibits C1 and C2 reveal that there are no sufficient funds in the bank account of the accused, as on the date of presentation of the cheque vide Exhibit P1.

43.Therefore, this court is of the view the oral testimony of PW.3, coupled with Exhibits C1 to C3 are sufficient to hold that the cheque vide Exhibit P1 has been returned, unpaid for "Funds Insufficient" and "Drawer's signature differs".

44.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that “Drawer’s signatures differs” would also constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of NI Act and relied upon the judgment in Laxmi

Dyechem (Supra).

45.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the “Drawer’s signature differs” does not attract the liability under section 138 of

NI Act and that the question of “Funds Insufficient” does not arise, once the “Drawer’s signature differs”.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 15 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

46.This court is of the view that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Dyechem (Supra) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such “Drawer’s signature differs” is a species of genus “Funds Insufficient” and as such, the endorsement “Drawer’s signature differs” would also constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of NI Act.

47.Therefore, this court is of the view that the oral testimony of PW.3, coupled with Exhibits P2, C1 to C3, is sufficient to prove that the bank of the accused returned the cheque vide Exhibit P1, unpaid for “Funds Insufficient”.

48.Hence, the Point no. I (iv) is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Point No. I (v):

“Whether the complainant gave notice in writing to the accused,

demanding the payment of the said amount of money under cheque,

within 30 days from the date of receipt of return memo by the bank?”

49.Exhibit P2 is the Cheque Return Memo of SBI, Railway Kodur Branch

dated 07-08-2020. Exhibit P3 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dated 01-09-

2020. Exhibit P4 is the Postal Receipt dated 01-09-2020. PW.1 deposed that he gave legal notice vide Exhibit P3 to the accused.

50.This court is of the view that the oral testimony of PW.1, coupled with

Exhibits P2 to P4 are sufficient to prove that the complainant gave valid legal notice in writing vide Exhibit P4 to the accused, demanding the payment of the

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 16 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

said amount of money under cheque, within 30 days from the date of receipt of return memo.

51.Hence, the Point no. I (v) is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Point No. I (vi):

“Whether the accused failed to make payment of the said amount of

money under cheque, within 15 days from the date of receipt of such

notice?”

52.Exhibit P3 is the Office copy of Legal Notice dated 01-09-2020. Exhibit P4 is the Postal Receipt dated 01-09-2020. Exhibit P5 is the Served

Acknowledgment dated 03-09-2020.

53.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the signature on acknowledgment vide Exhibit P5 does not belong to accused and the same is forged by the complainant, by managing the postal authorities.

Accused (DW.1) has not even deposed in her chief examination that her signature on Exhibit P5 is forged. This court is of the view that the contention that signature of accused on Exhibit P5 is forged, is not substantiated by the accused.

54.PW.1 deposed that the accused failed to make payment of the said amount of money under cheque vide Exhibit P1, within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice vide Exhibit P3.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 17 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

55.The flow of cross examination of PW.1 do not indicate that the accused has made any payment under cheque vide Exhibit P1, within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice vide Exhibit P3.

56.This court is of the view that the oral testimony of PW.1, coupled with

Exhibits P3 to P5 are sufficient to prove that the accused has failed to make payment of the said amount of money under cheque vide Exhibit P1, within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice.

57.Hence, the Point no. I (vi) is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

FINDING:

58.Having regard to the material on record and the aforesaid discussion, the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3, coupled with Exhibits P1 to P5, C1 to C3 are sufficient to prove - (i) that the accused issued cheque vide Exhibit P1 and the complainant is a holder of the cheque vide Exhibit P1, (ii) that the accused issued cheque vide Exhibit P1 to the complainant towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt, (iii) that the complainant presented the cheque vide

Exhibit P1 within 3 months from the date of issuance, (iv) that the bank returned the same vide Exhibit P2 unpaid for ‘funds insufficient’, (v) that the complainant gave notice in writing vide Exhibit P3 to the accused within 30 days from the date of receipt of return memo and (vi) that the accused has failed to make payment of the said amount of money under cheque vide

Exhibit P1, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 18 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

59.Hence, this Court holds that the complainant established the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. Point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

60.In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and she is convicted for the same under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed in my personal laptop, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

P J THEJA SAAI

Date: 2026.05.11 14:34:03 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur Quantum of Sentence (Dated 11-05-2026)

1.When questioned regarding quantum of sentence to be imposed against the accused, the accused stated that she has one and half year baby who needs her constant attention and she has to take care of her 80 year old mother-in law. The accused further stated that she has to be with her family, without which her family cannot survive. The accused further stated that if maximum punishment is imposed, then her family would be ruined. Therefore, the accused prayed to take lenient view.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 19 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

2.This court is of the view that this is not a fit case to invoke Section 360 of

Cr.P.C or the provisions under Probation of Offenders Act.

3.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the accused, this court is of the view that it would be just and reasonable to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence against the accused instead of imposing maximum sentence prescribed for the offence under

Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4.Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) monthsand to pay of fine of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month.

5.The simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month in default of payment of fine shall run in addition to the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months under Section 30 (2) of Cr.P.C.

6.The entire fine amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty

Thousand only) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant i.e., PW.1 under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.

7.The accused has not undergone any remand period and the accused is classified as a ‘casual’ convict as per Rule 179 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 20 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

8.Free copy of the judgment is given to the accused. The accused is informed about her right to appeal against the judgment and sentence passed against her by this court.

Typed in my personal laptop, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

P J THEJA SAAI

Date: 2026.05.11 14:35:15 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence

PW.1 Ramireddy Vijaya Bhaskar ReddyComplainant

PW.2Kambai Rama Krishna ReddyWitness

PW.3C. Raghunath KumarBranch Manager, SBI

FOR ACCUSED:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence

DW.1T. SivanandiniAccused

FOR COURT:

- NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 21 of 21 C.C.No.276 of 2021

Dt: 11.05.2026

Sr.No. Sr.No.Rank Description

1.Exhibit P1/PW.1 Original Cheque bearing No.553601 dated 15-05- 2020

2.Exhibit P2/PW.1 Cheque Return Memo of SBI, Railway Kodur Branch

dated 07-08-2020

3.Exhibit P3/PW.1 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 01-09-2020

4.Exhibit P4/PW.1 Registered Postal Receipt dated 01-09-2020

5.Exhibit P5/PW.1 Served Acknowledgment dated 03-09-2020

FOR ACCUSED:

- NIL -

FOR COURT:

Sr.No. Sr.No.Rank Description

1.Exhibit C1/PW.3 Attested copy of the Extract of cheques referred and returned register

2.Exhibit C2/PW.3 Attested copy of the account statement of

Shivanandini Thuraka (Accused) from 04-08-2020 to 10-08-2020

3.Exhibit C3/PW.3 Attested copy of the account opening form of

Shivanandini Thuraka (Accused)

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Digitally Signed by

P J THEJA SAAI

Date: 2026.05.11 14:35:44 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur

CC/192/2021 Acquitted

State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Obulavaripalli Ps vs Salava Thyagaraju

14 May 2026

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 1 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

APKD0D0004032021 IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAILWAY KODUR

PRESENT: Sri. P J THEJA SAAI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur

Thursday, the 14th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 192 of 2021

(in Cr.No.88 of 2021 of Obulavaripalli P.S.)

Between

The State:

Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Obulavaripalli Police Station ... Complainant

And

1. Salava Thyagaraju, S/o Narasimha Raju, aged 40 years, Farmer,

Chalampalem Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal.

2. Polepalli Siva Raju, S/o Mani Raju, aged 26 years, Private Job,

Chalampalem Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal.

3. Polepalli Mani Raju, S/o Chengal Raju, aged 55 years, Farmer,

Chalampalem Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal. ….. Accused

This case came up before me on 07-04-2026, 21-04-2026 & 27-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Chinna Babu, Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution, Sri M Sankaraiah, Learned counsel for the Accused no.1 and no.3 and Sri P Nagarjunudu, Learned counsel for the

Accused no.2 and upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon considering

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 2 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Obulavaripalli Police Station, filed

Report against the accused no.1 to no.3 in Cr.No.88 of 2021, dated 09-05-2021 of Obulavaripalli P.S. for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as “IPC”).

2.The brief allegations in the Report are as follows:

a.That on 09-05-2021, at about 1:00 PM, on the ground that the PW.1 helped one Guduru Sai Teja and one Guduru Sai Jeevan who are having land dispute with accused no.1 to no.3, accused no.1 attacked PW.1 to PW.4 and

LW.5. That accused no.1 attacked PW.1 with his fist and torn his shirt, due to which PW.1 sustained dumb injuries all over his body. That accused no.1 bet

PW.2 and PW.3 with stick, due to which PW.2 received bleeding injury over his right wrist and swelling injury on his back. That accused no.3 bet PW.4 with hands and legs and tore his shirt, due to which PW.4 sustained dumb injuries all over his body and swelling injury on his neck. That accused no.1 to no.3 abused LW.5 in filthy language and also threatened that they will kill

PW.4. That LW.6 and LW.7 witnessed the offence.

b.Basing on the report of PW.1, FIR in Cr.No.88 of 2021 was registered against the accused no.1 to no.3 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 3 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

c.Accused no.1 to no.3 were served with notice under Section 41-A of

CrPC. After completing investigation, the present charge sheet is filed against the accused no.1 to no.3 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken against the accused no.1 to no.3 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused no.1 to no.3 as required under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused no.1 to no.3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. The

Charges for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6. Exhibits P1 to P7 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. The

Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.5 to LW.7.

7.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused no.1 to no.3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., this court read over and explained the incriminating material against them. They denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 4 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel

for the Accused no.1 and no.3 and the Learned Counsel for Accused no.2.

9.During the course of arguments, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved that the accused no.1 to no.3 had committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of

IPC and the same is substantiated by oral testimonies of PW.1 to PW.6, coupled with Exhibits P1 to P7. Hence, prayed to punish the accused with maximum sentence.

10.The Learned Counsel for the Accused no.1 and no.3 argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused no.1 and no.3 argued - (i) that there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.4, (ii) that there is no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution, (iii) that the wound certificates issued by

PW.5 do not have any sanctity, as they are issued for generalized body pains,

(iv) that the present case is falsely foisted against the accused. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused no.1 and no.3.

11.The Learned Counsel for the Accused no.2 argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused no.2 argued - (i) that there is no independent witness to support the case of the prosecution, (ii) that the accused no.2 has been implicated to ruin his future, (iii) that the Investigating officer did not conduct proper investigation. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused no.2.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 5 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

12.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution could

bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 to no.3 for the offences

punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

Point:

13.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.6, coupled with Exhibits P1 to P7.

14.Exhibit P1 is the Report dated 09-05-2021. Exhibit P2 is the wound certificate of PW.1. Exhibit P3 is the wound certificate of PW.2. Exhibit P4 is the wound certificate of PW.3. Exhibit P5 is the wound certificate of PW.4. Exhibit

P6 is the FIR in Crime No.88 of 2021. Exhibit P7 is the Rough Sketch. PW.1 to

PW.4 are the injured. PW.5 is the doctor who issued wound certificates vide

Exhibits P2 to P5. PW.6 is the Investigating Officer.

15.This court noticed the following discrepancies in the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.4 and report vide Exhibit P1, after going through the material on record:

i.PW.1 in his report vide Exhibit P1 stated that accused no.1 to no.3 abused LW.5 in filthy language, whereas PW.1 to PW.4 omitted to mention the same in their chief examination.

ii. PW.1 in his report vide Exhibit P1 stated that accused no.2 beat PW.2 with a stick, whereas PW.2 deposed in his chief examination that accused

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 6 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

no.1 to no.3 bet him and he sustained dagger injury on his right hand wrist by accused no.1.

iii. PW.1 in his report vide Exhibit P1 stated that accused no.3 beat PW.4 with hands and kicked with legs and torn the shirt of PW.4, whereas PW.3 omitted to mention the presence of PW.4 at the scene of offence, in her chief examination.

iv. PW.1 in his report vide Exhibit P1 stated that accused no.3 beat PW.4 with hands and kicked with legs, whereas PW.4 deposed in his chief examination that accused no.1 to no.3 bet him.

v. PW.1 and PW.2 in their chief examination deposed that accused no.1 to no.3 abused PW.1 to PW.4 in filthy language at the scene of offence, whereas PW.3 omitted to mention the same in her chief examination and

PW.4 deposed in his chief examination that accused no.1 abused PW.1 in filthy language.

vi. PW.1 deposed in his cross examination that he went to the police station at about 04:30 PM to 05:00 PM, whereas PW.4 deposed in his cross examination that they went to the police station at about 03:00 PM.

vii. PW.1 in his report vide Exhibit P1 stated that he received invisible dumb injuries, whereas PW.1 deposed in his cross examination that he sustained swelling injuries on his stomach and all over his backside of the body.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 7 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

16.Having regard to the above discrepancies, the testimonies of PW.1 to

PW.4 do not inspire confidence of this court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this context, this court is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Trilok Chand and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 2328, wherein it was held as follows:

“Contradictions in the statement of the witnesses are fatal for the case, though minor discrepancies or variance in their evidence will not disfavour [See: State of

H.P. v. Lekh Raj MANU/SC/0714/1999 : (2000) 1 SCC 247]. Considering the circumstances of the case on hand, it can be said that the discrepancies are comparatively of a major character and go to the root of the prosecution story.

We cannot therefore ignore them to give undue importance to the prosecution case. It is well settled that the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence [See: Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0561/2001 :

(2001) 8 SCC 86].”

17.It is no more res integra that if the testimonies of the injured witness are trustworthy and reliable, then non-examination of other witnesses is not by itself fatal to the prosecution case. However, the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.4 do not inspire confidence of this court for the reasons stated supra. Therefore, the present facts and circumstances of the case warrant corroboration by a independent witness.

18.It is relevant to mention that PW.2 deposed in his cross examination that there were 50 to 60 persons present at the scene of offence and PW.4 deposed in his cross examination that entire villagers were present at the scene of offence but none of such persons have been examined as a witness in the

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 8 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

present case.It is also relevant to mention that PW.1, PW.2, PW,3 and PW.4 are close relatives.

19.Therefore this court is of the opinion that non-corroboration by a independent witness, is fatal to the case of the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the present case, more specifically in view of presence of independent witnesses at the scene of offence. In this context, this court is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Takhaji

Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 2328, wherein it was held as follows:

“19. So is the case with the criticism leveled by the High Court on the prosecution case finding fault therewith for non-examination of independent witnesses. It is true that if a material witness, which would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness which though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non- examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the

Court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The Court of facts must ask itself -- whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 9 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

from their mouth is unimpeachable the Court can safely act upon it uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of other witnesses.”

20.PW.5 deposed in her chief examination that there are no external injuries on PW.1 vide Exhibit P2, whereas PW.1 deposed in his cross examination that he sustained swelling injuries on his stomach and all over his backside of the body. PW.1 deposed in his chief examination that PW.2 and PW.3 sustained bleeding injuries. PW.3 deposed in her cross examination that she sustained lacerated injury on the middle of her head and dumb injuries on her back as well as on her right side of the neck which is contrary to her wound certificate vide Exhibit P4. It is also relevant to mention that PW.5 deposed in her cross examination that she observed “body pains” in Exhibit P2, as PW.1 stated the same to her.

21.This court is of the view that the version of PW.1 to PW.4 is not tallying with the wound certificates vide Exhibits P2 to P5 and as such, this court is not inclined to consider the wound certificates vide Exhibits P2 to P5, issued by PW.5.

22.This court is of the view that - (i) the contradiction in the testimonies of

PW.1 to PW.4, (ii) the non-examination of independent witnesses present at the scene of offence, and (iii) the injuries on wound certificates of PW.1 to PW.4 vide Exhibits P2 to P5, being contrary to the version of PW.1 to PW.4, raise a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 10 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

23.In this context, this court is placing reliance on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai. reported in AIR 2007 SC

77, wherein it was held as follows:

“Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common-sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.”

FINDING:

24.Having regard to the material on record and the aforesaid discussion, the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.6 coupled with Exhibits P1 to P7 are not sufficient to prove that the accused no.1 to no.3committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

25.Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 to no.3 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

26.Point is answered in favour of the accused no.1 to no.3 and against the prosecution. Therefore, the accused no.1 to no.3 are entitled for acquittal.

27.In the result, the Accused no.1 to no.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and they

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 11 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

are acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to no.3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision under Section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. No order as to property, as no property was seized and produced before this Court.

Typed in my personal laptop, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

P J THEJA SAAI

Date: 2026.05.14 13:05:36 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence

PW.1D. NareshComplainant

PW.2S. Sailakar Injured Witness

PW.3S. TejaswaniInjured Witness

PW.4D. NarasaiahInjured Witness

PW.5Dr.K.Bramha Kumari Doctor

PW.6 S.G.Hemadri, S.I of PolicePolice Witness

FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL –

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 12 of 12 C.C.No.192 of 2021

Dt:14.05.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Sr.No. Sr.No.Rank Description 1Exhibit P1/PW.1Report dated 09-05-2021 2Exhibit P2/PW.5Wound Certificate of D.Naresh/PW.1.

3Exhibit P3/PW.5Wound Certificate of S Sailakar/PW.2.

4Exhibit P4/PW.5Wound Certificate of S.Tejaswani/PW.3 5Exhibit P5/PW.5Wound Certificate of D.Narasaraju/PW.4 6Exhibit P6/PW.6FIR in Crime No.88/2021 7Exhibit P7/PW.6Rough Sketch

FOR DEFENCE:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

Digitally Signed by

P J THEJA SAAI

Date: 2026.05.14 13:05:59 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur

CC/375/2023 Acquitted

SHO. Rly.Kodur PS. vs Naveen Bhadur

13 Jun 2025

JMFC, Railway Kodur C.C.No. 375 of 2023

Dt:13.06.2025

APKD0D0006682023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR

PRESENT: Sri. P J THEJA SAAI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur

Friday, this the 13 th day of June, 2025

C.C.No.375 of 2023

(in Cr.No.371 of 2022 of Railway Kodur P.S)

Between

The State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Railway Kodur Police Station .. Complainant

And

Naveen Bhadur S/o Tula Ram, age:38 years, resident at D.No.L-428, Shakurpur,

Saraswathi Vihar, North West Delhi, Now at Chandigar Dhaba, Kukkaladoddi

Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, Annamayya District.

….. Accused

This case came up before me on 29.05.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri B.Venkata

Ramanaiah, Learned counsel for the Accused and upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon considering the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JMFC, Railway Kodur C.C.No. 375 of 2023

Dt:13.06.2025

JUDGMENT

1. The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Kodur P.S., filed Report against the accused in Cr.No.371 of 2022, dated 22.11.2022 of Railway Kodur Police

Station for the offences punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Act, (hereinafter referred as “AP Excise Act”).

2. The brief allegations in the Report are as follows:

a.That on 22-11-2022, at about 04:00 P.M, near Chandigar Dhaba,

Kukkaladoddi Village, Railway Kodur Mandal during the raids conducted by

PW.2 and staff, they found the accused with one plastic bag containing 10 –

Southern Blue (Supreme Whisky) liquor bottles 180 ml each. One sample bottle was drawn to send for chemical analysis and seized the property under the cover of proceedings drafted on the spot.

b.That a case in Crime No.371/2022 was registered against the accused and the accused sent to Judicial custody. The chemical examiner opined that the sample collected from the accused is “Indian Liquor”. Thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 34 (a) of

AP Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to the Accused, as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the charge in Telugu for the offence under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

JMFC, Railway Kodur C.C.No. 375 of 2023

Dt:13.06.2025

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 &

PW.2. Exhibits P1 to P3 are marked on behalf of the prosecution and MO.1 is also marked. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.1, LW.3, LW.4 & LW.5.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of Accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with, as there is no incriminating material against him.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the Accused.

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as PW.1 and PW.2 in one voice stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exhibits P1 to P3 and MO.1. Hence, prayed to convict the accused with the maximum sentence under the sections.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.1 & PW.2 are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators in the present case and the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

11.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offence under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

Point:

12.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimonies of PW.1 & PW.2 coupled with Exhibits P1 to P3 and MO.1. The case of

JMFC, Railway Kodur C.C.No. 375 of 2023

Dt:13.06.2025

the prosecution effectively rests on the testimonies of PW.1 & PW.2, coupled with

Exhibits P1 to P3 and MO.1.

13.PW.1 and PW.2, in one voice deposed that on 22.11.2022, at about 04:00

P.M, near Chandigar Dhaba, Kukkaladoddi Village, Railway Kodur Mandal during the raids conducted by PW.2 and staff, they found the accused with one plastic bag containing 10 – Southern Blue (Supreme Whisky) liquor bottles 180 ml each and seized the liquor and lifted MO.1 sample from the seized liquor. Thus, except the self serving testimonies of PW.1 & PW.2, the prosecution did not produce any independent witness to corroborate as to the seizure of liquor from the accused and lifting MO.1 sample from the seized liquor.

14.There is no reason forthcoming from the prosecution as to why the inhabitants near the scene of offence were not secured as mediators. The evidence of PW.1 & PW.2 reveal that they have not made any serious attempts to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the accused was caught. This court is of the view that the procedure contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C was not followed.

15.This also raises a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution that the alleged liquor was seized from the possession of the accused. In this context, this court is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai. reported in AIR 2007 SC 77, wherein it was held as follows:

JMFC, Railway Kodur C.C.No. 375 of 2023

Dt:13.06.2025

possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common-sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.”

FINDING:

16.Having regard to the above referred judgment, the material on record and the aforesaid discussion, the testimonies of PW.1 & PW.2, coupled with Exhibits P1 to

P3 and MO.1 are not sufficient to prove that the alleged liquor was seized from the possession of the accused.

17. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

18.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e. sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed my dictation by Stenographer Grade - III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- P.J.Theja Saai

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence

PW.1G.Chandra Sekhar Police Witness

PW.2J.Mohan Kumar GoudPolice Witness FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL –

JMFC, Railway Kodur C.C.No. 375 of 2023

Dt:13.06.2025

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Sr.No.Sr.No.RankDescription 1Exhibit P1/PW.2Police Proceedings dated 22-11-2022 2Exhibit P2/PW.2FIR in Cr.No. 371/2022 dated 22-11-2022 3Exhibit P3/PW.2Analysis Report dated 25.01.2023 FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Sr.No. Rank Description 1MO.1Sample Bottle FOR DEFENCE: -NIL –

Sd/- P.J.Theja Saai

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur

// True Copy //

Sd/- P.J.Theja Saai

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Railway Kodur.

JMFC, Railway Kodur C.C.No. 375 of 2023

Dt:13.06.2025

APKD0D0006682023

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT:KADAPA

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class:Railway Kodur.

Date of

OffenceReportApprehensioReleaseCommencemeClose of trialJudgment n of Accusedon bailnt of trial 22.11.202222.11.202223.11.202228.11.202208.10.202421.04.202513.06.2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.375/2023 on the file of J.F.C.M. Court,Railway Kodur.

Complainant: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Kodur Police Station in Cr.No.371/2022.

Name of the accused with father’s NameAgeCallingResidence 1234

Naveen Bhadur Age:38--Resident at D.No.L-428, yearsShakurpur,Saraswathi S/o Tula Ram, age:38 years, Vihar, North West Delhi, Now at Chandigar Dhaba, KukkaladoddiVillage, Railway Kodur Mandal, Annamayya District. Offence : U/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e. sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- P.J.Theja Saai

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Railway Kodur

Remarks:

Explanation for the delay

From:

The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Railway Kodur.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

// True Copy //

Sd/-P.J.Theja Saai

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Railway Kodur.

CC/54/2023 Acquitted

SHO. Rly.Kodur PS. vs Chittipireddy Venkata Subbaiah

12 May 2026

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 1 of 7 C.C.No. 54 of 2023

Dt:12.05.2026

APKD0D0000832023 IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAILWAY KODUR

PRESENT: Sri. P J THEJA SAAI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur

Tuesday, the 12th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 54 of 2023

(in Cr.No.207 of 2021 of Railway Kodur P.S)

Between

The State: Represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, Railway Kodur Police Station

.. Complainant

And

Chittipireddy Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Naraiah, age 43 years, Nethivaripalli Village, Chitvel Mandal, YSR District Kadapa Now R/o Kukkaladoddi Village, RailwayKodurMandal,YSR District,Kadapa.

….. Accused

This case came up before me on 29-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Chinna Babu, Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri M.S. Sankar Reddy, Learned counsel for the Accused and upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon considering the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The State: Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Kodur P.S., filed Report against the accused in Cr.No.207 of 2021, dated 18.06.2021 of Railway

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 2 of 7 C.C.No. 54 of 2023

Dt:12.05.2026

Kodur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 34 (a) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act (hereinafter referred as “AP Excise Act”).

2.The brief allegations in the Report are as follows:

a.That on 18-06-2021, at about 08:30 A.M, near Kukkaladoddi

Government School, Railway Kodur Mandal, during the raids conducted by PW.3 and staff, they found the accused to be in possession of (I) 6- Celebrity Brandy bottles of 180 ml each and (ii) 6 – Hyderabad Blue bottles of 180 ml each, (iii) 10 – Andhra Gold

Whiskey bottles of 180 ml each. Three sample bottles were drawn to send for chemical analysis and seized the property under the cover of proceedings drafted on the spot.

b.That a case in Crime No.207/2021 was registered against the accused and the accused was produced before the Court and was subsequently sent to Judicial Remand. The chemical examiner opined that the samples collected from the accused are “Indian Liquor”.

Thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under

Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 34

(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to the Accused, as required under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the charge in Telugu for the offence under Section 34 (a) r/w

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 3 of 7 C.C.No. 54 of 2023

Dt:12.05.2026

34(1)(i) of AP Excise Act, 1968. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.3. Exhibits P1 to P5 are marked on behalf of the prosecution and MO.1 to MO.3 are also marked. The Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.2, LW.3, LW.4, LW.5, LW.7 & LW.9.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., this court read over and explained the incriminating material against him from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in Telugu. He denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned

Counsel for the Accused.

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as PW.1 and PW.3 in one voice stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exhibits P1 to P5 and MO.1 to M.O.3. Hence, prayed to convict the accused with the maximum sentence under the sections.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.1 &

PW.3 are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators in the present case and the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 4 of 7 C.C.No. 54 of 2023

Dt:12.05.2026

11.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution

could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1) (I) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968,

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point:

12.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3 coupled with Exhibits P1 to P5 and

MO.1 & MO.2.

13.PW.2 is the panchayatdar for the destruction of case property in the present case. Therefore, this court is of the view that oral testimony of PW.2 and Exhibit P1 will not be helpful to the case of the prosecution.

14.The case of the prosecution effectively rests on the testimonies of

PW.1 & PW.3, coupled with Exhibits P2 to P5 and MO.1 to MO.3.

15.PW.1 and PW.3, in one voice deposed that on 18-06-2021, at about 08:30 A.M, near Kukkaladoddi Government School, Railway Kodur

Mandal, during the raids conducted by PW.3 and staff, they found the accused containing (I) 6- Celebrity Brandy bottles of 180 ml each and (ii) 6 – Hyderabad Blue bottles of 180 ml each, (iii) 10 – Andhra Gold Whiskey bottles of 180 ml each and lifted MO.1 to MO.3 samples from the seized liquor. Thus, except the self serving testimonies of PW.1 & PW.3, the prosecution did not produce any independent witness to corroborate as to the seizure of liquor from the accused and lifting MO.1 to MO.3 sample from the seized liquor.

16.There is no reason forthcoming from the prosecution as to why the inhabitants near the scene of offence were not secured as mediators. The evidence of PW.1 & PW.3 reveal that they have not made any serious

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 5 of 7 C.C.No. 54 of 2023

Dt:12.05.2026

attempts to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the accused was caught. This court is of the view that the procedure contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C was not followed.

17.This also raises a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution that the alleged liquor was seized from the possession of the accused. In this context, this court is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai. reported in AIR 2007

SC 77, wherein it was held as follows:

FINDING:

18.Having regard to the above referred judgment, the material on record and the aforesaid discussion, the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3, coupled with Exhibits P1 to P5 and MO.1 to MO.3 are not sufficient to prove that the alleged liquor was seized from the possession of the accused.

19. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1) (I) of AP Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is answered in

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 6 of 7 C.C.No. 54 of 2023

Dt:12.05.2026

favour of the accused and against the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1) (I) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 to M.O.3 i.e. 180 ML sample bottles shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

P J THEJA SAAI

Date: 2026.05.12 19:09:45 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Rank Name Nature of Evidence

PW.1V. Venkataiah, Constable Police Witness

PW.2K. SubramanyamPanch Witness

PW.3B. Pedda Obanna, Sub- Inspector of Police Police Witness

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Sr.N Sr.No.Rank Description o.

JMFC, Railway Kodur Page 7 of 7 C.C.No. 54 of 2023

Dt:12.05.2026

1Exhibit P1/PW.2 Destruction Panchanama dated 25-08-2022 2Exhibit P2/PW.3 Police Proceedings dated 18-06-2021 3Exhibit P3/PW.3 FIR in Cr.No. 207/2021 dated 18-06-2021 4Exhibit P4/PW.3 Letter of Advice 5Exhibit P5/PW.3 Analysis Report dated 02-08-2021

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Sr.No. Rank Description 1MO.1180 ML Sample Bottle 2MO.2180 ML Sample Bottle 3MO.3180 ML Sample Bottle

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL –

Digitally Signed by

P J THEJA SAAI

Date: 2026.05.12 19:10:14 +0530

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Railway Kodur

OS/105/2024

Obili Srinath vs Chennamsetty Narasamma

16 Jun 2025

CJ (JD), Railway Kodur O.S.No. 105 of 2024

Dt:16.06.2025

APKD0D0006362024

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

RAILWAY KODUR

PRESENT: Sri. P J THEJA SAAI,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Railway Kodur

Monday, the 16 th day of June, 2025.

O.S.No.105 of 2024

Between

Obili Srinath S/o Ramu aged about 33 years, resident at Srinivasa Nagar, Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, Annamayya District.

….. Plaintiff

And

Chennamsetty Narasamma W/o Seenu @ Srinivasulu aged about 52 years, resident at D.No.2/162, Anjaneya Swammy Temple Street, Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, Annamayya District.

... Defendant

This suit came up before me on 16.05.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.C.Suresh Babu, Learned Counsel for the

Plaintiff and the defendant had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, upon considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

CJ (JD), Railway Kodur O.S.No. 105 of 2024

Dt:16.06.2025

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs. 171,933/- basing on the promissory note dated 18.12.2021, subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint, is that: the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from plaintiff’s father on 18.12.2021 for his personal and family expenses and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with an interest of 24% per annum, either to the plaintiff’s father or his order on demand. The plaintiff’s father transferred the promissory note to the plaintiff on 28.09.2024, after receiving principle and interest from plaintiff and endorsed the transfer on the backside of the promissory note. Subsequently, in spite of several oral demands by the plaintiff to repay the debt amount, the defendant has not chosen to repay the amount due on promissory note to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff got issues legal notice to the defendant on 28.11.2024 for repay the amount due on pronote with interest but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to institute the present suit.

3.Despite substitute service of summons, the defendant called absent and there was no representation. Hence, the defendant was set ex-parte on 24.04.2025.

4.During course of trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as

PW.1. The Plaintiff, as PW.1, got marked (i) the original promissory note dated 18.12.2021, as Ex.A1, ii) Original transfer endorsement

dated 28.09.2024 as Ex.A2, iii) Office copy of legal notice with postal

CJ (JD), Railway Kodur O.S.No. 105 of 2024

Dt:16.06.2025

receipt dated 28.11.2024 as Ex.A3, iv) Served acknowledgment card on the husband of the defendant as Ex.A4.

5.Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the points for determination are:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?

(ii) To what relief?

Point No.I:

7. To prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and his chief examination was filed by way of affidavit. PW.1 testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from plaintiff’s father on 18.12.2021 for his personal and family expenses and executed promissory note vide Ex.A1. PW.1 further testified that his father transferred the promissory note to him vide Ex.A2. PW.1 also testified that he demanded the defendant to repay the amount due under Ex. A1 multiple times but in vain. Therefore, plaintiff is constrained to institute the present suit for recovery of debt amount under Ex.A1 to the tune of Rs.1,71,933/-.

8.The defendant did not contest the matter and remained ex- parte, due to which PW.1 was not cross examined. Therefore, the testimony of PW.1 remain un-rebutted.

9.This Court has no option except believing the testimony of

PW.1. The oral evidence of PW.1, coupled with the Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 show that the defendant borrowed the money and executed the promissory note.

CJ (JD), Railway Kodur O.S.No. 105 of 2024

Dt:16.06.2025

10.Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant, to recover the suit amount from the defendant.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Point No.II:

11.In view of the finding of this court in point no.I, the suit is to be decreed, as prayed for. However, this court is not inclined to grant future interest at the rate of 24% per annum, as claimed by the plaintiff. This court is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice, if interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount, is granted.

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,71,933/- (Rupees one lakh seventy one thousand nine hundred thirty three only) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Typed my dictation by Stenographer Grade - III corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- P.J.Theja Saai

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Railway Kodur.

CJ (JD), Railway Kodur O.S.No. 105 of 2024

Dt:16.06.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1:Obili Srinath

FOR DEFENDANT: -NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 18.12.2021 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A2: Original transfer endorsement dated 28.09.2024

Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt dated 28.11.2024.

Ex.A4: Served acknowledgment card on the husband of the defendant

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL -

Sd/- P.J.Theja Saai

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Railway Kodur

Order Record 801 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/192/2021	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Obulavaripalli Ps vs Salava Thyagaraju	14 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/192/2021	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Obulavaripalli Ps vs Salava Thyagaraju	14 May 2026	Other	Acquitted
CC/54/2023	SHO. Rly.Kodur PS. vs Chittipireddy Venkata Subbaiah	12 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/54/2023	SHO. Rly.Kodur PS. vs Chittipireddy Venkata Subbaiah	12 May 2026	Other	Acquitted
CC/276/2021	Ramireddy Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs Turaka Sivanandini	11 May 2026	Judgement	Convicted
CC/276/2021	Ramireddy Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs Turaka Sivanandini	11 May 2026	Other	—
OS/55/2024	Malliboina Venkatesh vs Chagalamarri kAMESWARI	08 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/98/2025	Dasaraju Chandra Raju vs Kirtipati Chandra Raju died his LRs Kirtipati Siva Sankar Raju	08 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/153/2023	Burru Kondaiah vs Sonti Anil Kumar	08 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/3/2020	Nookanaboyana Sudhakar vs Nookanaboyana Subbarayudu	07 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/6/2026	KASTURI SUJATHAMMA vs KOLLA NAGESWAR NAIDU	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/270/2019	The Forest Range Officer, Kodur Range vs Ummadi Babu	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/270/2019	The Forest Range Officer, Kodur Range vs Ummadi Babu	04 May 2026	Other	—
CC/242/2021	Akepati Parvathi vs Kudumula Sudheer Kumar Reddy	01 May 2026	Other	—
CC/242/2021	Akepati Parvathi vs Kudumula Sudheer Kumar Reddy	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/169/2025	Ari Venkata Ramana vs Darla Ananda Babu	30 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/104/2019	Kataru Murali vs Kasavaraju Maruthi Narasimham	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/104/2019	Kataru Murali vs Kasavaraju Maruthi Narasimham	23 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/280/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Rly Kodur PS vs Syed Khadar	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/280/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Rly Kodur PS vs Syed Khadar	23 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/332/2023	SHO. Obulavaripalli PS vs Gadikota Mohan	23 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/332/2023	SHO. Obulavaripalli PS vs Gadikota Mohan	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/8/2026	Gadikota Vijayalakshmi vs Konduru Jayachandra Raju	21 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/9/2026	Gadikota Bhaskar Naidu vs Konduru Jayachandra Raju	21 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/150/2025	The Branch Manager, reptd by Tirupati Kasireddy vs Poli Anjanamma	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/154/2025	The Branch Manager, reptd by Tirupati Kasireddy vs Kotha Aruna	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/157/2025	The Branch Manager, reptd by Tirupati Kasireddy vs Pandeti Padmavathamma	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/160/2025	The Branch Manager, reptd by Tirupati Kasireddy vs Anamala Narasamma	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/69/2025	Canara Bank (esrtwhile Syndicate Bank) vs Darla Penchalamma	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/142/2025	The Branch Manager, reptd by Tirupati Kasireddy vs Kuppam Penchalaiah	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/147/2025	The Branch Manager, reptd by Tirupati Kasireddy vs Kotha Siddaiah	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/149/2025	The Branch Manager, reptd by Tirupati Kasireddy vs Kotha Siddeswar	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/50/2021	Singamsetty Ramanaiah vs Pasupuleti Krishnaveni	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/87/2023	Ireddi Nagaiah Naidu vs Pandra Suresh Kumar	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/186/2025	SHO. Obulavaripalli PS. vs Sharwan Lal Anwla	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/186/2025	SHO. Obulavaripalli PS. vs Sharwan Lal Anwla	06 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/175/2025	SHO. Proh., and Excise PS, Rly. Kodur vs Mallisetty Narasaramaiah	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/175/2025	SHO. Proh., and Excise PS, Rly. Kodur vs Mallisetty Narasaramaiah	02 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/185/2025	SHO. Proh., and Excise PS, Rly. Kodur vs Ragala Chengamma	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/185/2025	SHO. Proh., and Excise PS, Rly. Kodur vs Ragala Chengamma	02 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/202/2025	SHO, Proh., and Excise Station, Railway Kodur. vs Ojala Subba Rao	02 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/202/2025	SHO, Proh., and Excise Station, Railway Kodur. vs Ojala Subba Rao	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/203/2025	SHO, Proh., and Excise Station, Railway Kodur. vs Savaram Srinivasulu	02 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/203/2025	SHO, Proh., and Excise Station, Railway Kodur. vs Savaram Srinivasulu	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/34/2019	Billa Chengaiah vs Pokala Sivaiah	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/46/2024	SHO. SEB Station, Rly. Kodur vs Chintala Srinivasulu	01 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/46/2024	SHO. SEB Station, Rly. Kodur vs Chintala Srinivasulu	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/494/2023	The Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Rly.Kodur vs Bandi Chinnaiah	01 Apr 2026	Other	—
CC/494/2023	The Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Rly.Kodur vs Bandi Chinnaiah	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/2/2025	Maddina Eswaraiah vs Kotapati Venkata Ramana	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/49/2025	Mukka Changamma vs Mallu Ammulamma	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/176/2025	Tallapaka Siddeswara Reddy vs Kambham Raja Reddy	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/272/2025	SHO. Railway Kodur PS. vs A1.Sammeta Sairam	30 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/272/2025	SHO. Railway Kodur PS. vs A1.Sammeta Sairam	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/310/2023	SHO. Obulavaripalli PS. vs Bommi Ram Prasad	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/310/2023	SHO. Obulavaripalli PS. vs Bommi Ram Prasad	24 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/109/2025	Pandeti Siva Kumar Varma vs Surapuraju Muraga Raju	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/436/2018	Kondeti Krishnaiah vs Gadigota Jayachandra	17 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/436/2018	Kondeti Krishnaiah vs Gadigota Jayachandra	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/35/2018	Penagaluru Suresh Babu vs Muddapolu Subramanyam	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/92/2025	Mannuru Raja Manohar Naidu vs Kolla Nageswara	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/27/2019	The Sub Inspector of Police, Rly.Kodur PS vs Mallu Jayakumar Reddy	09 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/27/2019	The Sub Inspector of Police, Rly.Kodur PS vs Mallu Jayakumar Reddy	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/204/2025	SHO, Proh., and Excise Station, Railway Kodur. vs Varla Narasimhulu	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/204/2025	SHO, Proh., and Excise Station, Railway Kodur. vs Varla Narasimhulu	09 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/251/2024	The Sub-Inspector of police, Rly Kodur P.S vs Sreeramula Rajendra	09 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/251/2024	The Sub-Inspector of police, Rly Kodur P.S vs Sreeramula Rajendra	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/343/2023	SHO. SEB.Rly.Kodur vs Majjiga Nagaraju	09 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/343/2023	SHO. SEB.Rly.Kodur vs Majjiga Nagaraju	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/493/2022	SHO. SEB, Rly.Kodur vs Mekala Jayaramaiah	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/493/2022	SHO. SEB, Rly.Kodur vs Mekala Jayaramaiah	09 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/48/2024	SHO. SEB Station, Rly. Kodur vs Shaik Mastan	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/48/2024	SHO. SEB Station, Rly. Kodur vs Shaik Mastan	06 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/53/2024	SHO. SEB Station, Rly. Kodur vs Shaik Anwar Basha	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/53/2024	SHO. SEB Station, Rly. Kodur vs Shaik Anwar Basha	06 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/71/2024	SHO. SEB, Rly.Kodur Station. vs Murumutla Penchalaiah	06 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/71/2024	SHO. SEB, Rly.Kodur Station. vs Murumutla Penchalaiah	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/119/2025	SHO. Proh., and Excise Station, Rly. Kodur vs A2. Dhandu Subramanyam	06 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/119/2025	SHO. Proh., and Excise Station, Rly. Kodur vs A2. Dhandu Subramanyam	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/489/2023	The Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Rly.Kodur vs Chapala Penchalamma	06 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/489/2023	The Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Rly.Kodur vs Chapala Penchalamma	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/61/2018	Challa Mala Konda Reddy vs Giddaluru Bhanu Prakash	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/62/2018	Challa Bujjamma vs Giddaluru Bhanu Prakash	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/91/2023	Chamrthi Narendra Verma vs Yerragudi Gopal Krishnam Raju	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/171/2022	Kambham Lakshmi Devi vs Chinnamaru Venkata Subba Reddy	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/24/2015	Jetty Subbarayudu vs Guggilla Chalapathi	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/524/2022	SHO.Rly.Kodur PS. vs Gampala Hemanth @ Hemeswar	20 Feb 2026	Other	—
CC/524/2022	SHO.Rly.Kodur PS. vs Gampala Hemanth @ Hemeswar	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/1/2025	Gundluru Padmavathi or Padmavathamma vs Bodanapu Mahammad Valli	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/107/2025	Burra Ramakrishna vs Sayyad Mahaboob Basha	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/175/2025	Kancharla Venkata Reddy vs Kalavakuntla Ramachandra Reddy	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/114/2022	Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Rly Kodur vs Avulakunta Chinnaiah	18 Feb 2026	Other	—
CC/114/2022	Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Rly Kodur vs Avulakunta Chinnaiah	18 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/207/2019	penagaluru Suresh Babu vs Budigi Hari Prasad	18 Feb 2026	Other	—
CC/207/2019	penagaluru Suresh Babu vs Budigi Hari Prasad	18 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/240/2024	The Sub-Inspector of police, Rly Kodur P.S vs Bandaru sandeep	18 Feb 2026	Other	—
CC/240/2024	The Sub-Inspector of police, Rly Kodur P.S vs Bandaru sandeep	18 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/420/2023	SEB Station, Railway Kodur vs Bodepalli Venkata Ramana	18 Feb 2026	Other	—
CC/420/2023	SEB Station, Railway Kodur vs Bodepalli Venkata Ramana	18 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/432/2023	Sub-Inspector Police, SEB Station, Railway Kodur vs Nagineni Chinnaiah	18 Feb 2026	Other	—

Showing 100 of 801 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		15
Apr 2026		35
Mar 2026		36
Feb 2026		40
Jan 2026		29
Dec 2025		37
Nov 2025		24
Oct 2025		20
Sep 2025		15
Jun 2025		5
May 2025		48
Apr 2025		30

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri P.J.Theja Saai handled?

Sri P.J.Theja Saai has handled 856 court orders since 2024 at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 40 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri P.J.Theja Saai hear?

Based on available records, Sri P.J.Theja Saai primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur (Taluka).

Where is Sri P.J.Theja Saai currently posted?

Sri P.J.Theja Saai is posted as Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur (Taluka), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri P.J.Theja Saai available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Sri P.J.Theja Saai are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri P.J.Theja Saai dispose cases?

Sri P.J.Theja Saai disposes approximately 40 cases per month, based on 856 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur (Taluka).

Since when is Sri P.J.Theja Saai serving?

Sri P.J.Theja Saai has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur (Taluka) since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 56%

OS 21%

STC 18%

EP 3%

PRC 1%

MC 1%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Sep 2025 — Present

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur · 251 orders
Feb 2025 — May 2025

Principal Junior Civil Judge Rayachoty
Feb 2025 — Mar 2025

Additional Junior Civil Judge Rayachoty
Sep 2024 — Nov 2024

Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet · 13 orders
Aug 2024 — Jul 2025

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur · 592 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Closed 2

Convicted 2

Ex-parte Judgement 2

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur (Taluka)