Sri. P.lokanadham

1

APAN0C0014102023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KADIRI

Present: Sri P. LOKANADHAM, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Wednesday, the 13 th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.790 of 2023

Between:

The Inspector of Police, O.D,.Cheruvu P.S.

... Complainant.

V/s.

Thummala Vijay Kumar, age 28 years S/O Venkatasubbaiah, D.No.1/821

Yarramukapalli, Gandhinagar, Kadapa District.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 8.5.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

M. Hanumanthu and Sri P. Reddappa, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, O.D. Cheruvu Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.157 of 2020 for the offence 2 punishable under section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act 1968.

2.Brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 25-6-2020 at 6-30PM PM on information LW.6 S.I. of Police,

O.D.Cheruvu P.S. and staff LWs 1&2 PCs 1520.3120, left P.S. went to

Mohammadabad cross of O.D.Cheruvu Mandal at 7-00 PM and conducting vehicle checking along with LWs 3&4 SPOs T,Suryanarayanareddy, Vinod one person was coming in a car from Bangalore side,. But LW 6 along with LWs 1 to 4 caught him and questioned him about his name and identity, he voluntarily without any pressure confessed that, his name is Tummala Vijaykumar, age 28 yrs S/o Venkatasubbaiah, Door No. 1/821 Yarramukapalli, Gandhinagar, Kadapa

Dist, he lives on business, on 25-6-2021 he went to his relatives house Bagepalli and return journey he purchase Karnataka liqueur in Bagepali wine shop for birth day function in his house In the same way today while he was coming from

Bagepalli along with liquor in his Car to go to his village, police came and caught him. Then LW.6 verified the boxes which was in his possession and found that 1)

SIDUS Premium port whine (750ML) 42, 2)Foosters strong bear (650ML) 6, 3)

Boom super strong beer (650ML) 6,Bira white low biheshess Tin wheat beer (500ML) 6 on each bottle FOR SALE IN KARNATAKA ONLY words are printed.

On examination Hundai Asta Car Reg. No is AP39BF 0475.and LW.6 seized the car, Then LW.6 told to the accused that selling of Karnataka state liquor in

Andhra Pradesh is an offence. Then LW.6 arrested him after informing the grounds for which he was arrested and pass on his arrest information to his relatives and seized one SIDUS Premium port whine (750ML), one Foosters strong bear (650ML), one Boom Super strong beer (650 ml) one Bird white low bitheshess Tin wheat beer (500 ml) for chemical analysis under cover of police 3 proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings, the present case is registered in the above crime number for the above said offence. During the course of investigation, samples of liquor bottle was sent for chemical analysis Lab, Chittor for opinion and analysis report and the chemical examiner opined that the sample are illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Thus, accused committed an offence punishable under section 8 (B)

(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968. Hence, the charge.

3.This court took cognizance of case for the offence punishable under section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure code.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet for which he denied.

Charge for the offence under section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 had been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried for the offence.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act 1968 the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P6. The evidence of remaining witness is given up by the APP.

4

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence against the accused for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is that “Whether the prosecution is

able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968

beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10.Point:-

In order to connect the crime to the accused prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 who deposed in the following manner.

11. P.W.1: T. Vijay Kumar, Constable deposed that on 25.06.2020 at about 6.30 p.m he along with L.W.6 and other staff went to Mohammadabad cross of

ODC mandal and conducting vehicle checking in the presence of mediators meantime the accused was found 1) SIDUS Premium port whine (750ML) 42, 2)Foosters strong bear (650ML) 6, 3) Boom super strong beer (650ML) 6,Bira white low biheshess Tin wheat beer (500ML) 6 on each bottle FOR SALE IN

KARNATAKA ONLY words are printed. The same was seized and arrested the accused.

12. P.W.2 . T. Vijay Kumar, S.I of police, deposed that on 25.06.2020 at about 6.30 am he along with L.W.1 to L.W.4 went to Mahammadabad cross where they found the accused in possession of 1) SIDUS Premium port whine (750ML) 42, 2)Foosters strong bear (650ML) 6, 3) Boom super strong beer (650ML) 6,Bira white low biheshess Tin wheat beer (500ML) 6 on each bottle 5

FOR SALE IN KARNATAKA ONLY words are printed. On the same day he issued Sec. 41 A Cr.P.c. to the accused.

13. P.W.3 K.Gopi S.I of police deposed that on 17.06.2021 he took the CD file from the P.W.2 for further investigation in this case and after completion of investigation, he field charge sheet in this case.

14. On careful perusal of evidence on record, the accused is alleged of offence punishable under section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act 1968. To substantiate the said allegation, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.w.1 to P.W.3 who deposed elaborately about conduction of raid, arrest of accused on confession about the crime, registration of crime, about sending sample for chemical analysis and also receipt of chemical analysis report and filing of charge sheet and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 . Though P.w.1 to P.W.3 deposed in the above manner, their evidence is not supported by any independent mediator. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is devoid of corroboration by independent witness. P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are all police officials and their evidence has no value. However, it is also not safe to rely upon the testimony of the police officials without corroboration of any independent mediator particularly in respect of alleged confession of accused as it cannot be proved against them by virtue of section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore in the said circumstances, it is clear that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act 1968 and accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) 6

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : V. Ramesh Babu, Constable -None- P.W.2: K.M. Linganna, S.I of police. P.W.3: K. Gopi, S.I of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Police proceedings. Ex.P.2: FIR Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6 Chemical analysis reports.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE

Nil.

M.Os. MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE

-NIL-

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

J.M.F.C.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri Date of

OffenceReportApprehen-ReleasedCommence-Close ofSentence sion of Ac-on bailment of trialtrial cused 25.06.202025.06.2020Sec. 41 (A)4.5.202613.05.2026 3.3.2026 25.06.2020 Cr.P.C.

Judgment in C.C.No.790 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri. Complainant :: The Sub Inspector of Police,O.D. Cheruvu P.s.

... Complainant.

V/s.

Thummala Vijay Kumar, age 28 years S/O Venkatasubbaiah, D.No.1/821

Yarramukapalli, Gandhinagar, Kadapa District.

... Accused.

Offence :-under section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968

Finding :-Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 8 (B) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act, Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

8

1 APAN0C0026082025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: KADIRI

Present: Sri P. LOKANADHAM, Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.1574 of 2025

Between:

The state:

Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nallacheruvu P.S. (Cr.No.25 of 2025) … Complainant.

and

1. Edagottu Shivasankar, age 32 years, S/O E. Venkatanarayana, (A.1).

2. Edagottu Venkatanarayana, age 59 years S/O Late Pedda

Gandulappa, (A.2).

3. Edagottu Lakshmi Devi, age 55 years W/O E. Venkatanarayana, (A3) …. Accused

This case is coming on 29.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri

P.C. Bhyrava Prasad, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallacheruvu Police Station filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 in crime No.25 of 2025 of 2 Nallacheruvu Police Station for the offence punishable Under

Sections 85 , 351 (2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS 2023 and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.

Act.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows;

L.W.1 Mankamutaka Rajitha is the complainant of Gajekhan palli village of Nallacheruvu mandal . In the year 2021 her parents performed her marriage with A.1. Her husband A.1 has been working as a teacher in APSWR school, Bestavaripalli vilalge of Pulivendula mandal. The couple has a male child and L.W.1 is presently six months pregnant. At the time of marriage as per the demand of her husband A.1 and in laws A.2 and A.3, her parents gave rs.3,00,000/- cash and 5 tulas of gold ornaments towards dowry. ., The matrimonial life went on cordially for about one year. Thereafter A.1 gradually began to harass her both physically and mentally demanding

additional dowry from her parental home. . On 13.03.2025 while she

was at their resident in Gajjalapagaripalli, Talupula mandal A.1 accused her of stealing Rs.500/- and despite her pregnancy, assaulted her along with A.2 and A.3 , she was humiliated in front of others and physically beaten. She stated that her husband A.1 and in laws A.2 and A.3 were conspiring to eliminate her by subjecting her to constant mental and physical torture for additional dowry which was witnessed by L.W.2 to L.W.4. Basing on the complaint, the present case is registered in the above crime number for the above said offences.

During the course of investigation, LW5 served notices to A.1 to A.3

U/Sec. 35 (3) of BNSS 2023. Hence Accused No.1 to 3 are liable to be punished Under Sections 85 , 351 (2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS 2023 and

Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

3

3.This court took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 85 , 351 (2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS 2023 and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act..

4.After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the same. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, a charge Under Sections 85 , 351 (2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS 2023 and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act was framed against accused. The same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

6. To establish the case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to

P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and accused have not chosen to lead evidence on their side.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available from the witnesses against the accused.

8.Heard on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is that whether the

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt or not?

4

10. This court perused the depositions and other relevant records placed by the prosecution.

11. P.W.1 M. Rajitha deposed that in the year 2021 her marriage was performed with A.1 at Kadiri in the presence of both side elders . She does not know the contents of the Ex.P.1. She was never harassed in the hands of A.1 to A.3 and they never demanded any additional dowry from her and her family memebrs. .

12. P.W.2 M. Ramachandra and P.W.3 M.Puspavathi deposed that they do not know the contents of the report given by P.W.1 before the police.

P.W.1 was never harassed in the hands of A.1 to A.3 and they never demanded any additional dowry from the family members of P.W.1. They do not know anything about the case facts and they all turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

13. Though P.W.1 to P.W.3 were cross examined by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor U/Sec.157 Of Indian Evidence Act, but nothing was elicited from their mouth as all of them resailed from their earlier statements did not support the case of the prosecution.

14. The learned counsel for the accused has emphatically argued that there is no incriminating evidence against the accused and P.W.1 to P.W.3 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution.

15 As the prosecution failed to put forth any other material evidence regarding the suggestions under which the alleged incident occurred wherein the accused harassed P.W.1 physically and mentally, de- manding additional dowry from her parental home, assaulted her along with A.2 and A.3 forced her to give statement on video. P.W.1 to 5 P.W.3 who are all material witnesses turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus for the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In the light of the above discussion, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against them. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 85 , 351 (2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS 2023 and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and they are acquitted U/sec.271 (1) of

BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: M. RAjitha -None-

PW2: M. Ramachandra

P.W.3: M. Puspavathi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 – Signature of the P.W.1 in the report. -NIL- 6 Ex.P2 – Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.180 (3) of BNS of P.W.1.

Ex.P3 – Sec. 180 (3) of BNS statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4: -Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. ( Sec.180 (3) of BNS of P.W.3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Nil. -NIL-

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Date of

OffenceReportApprehen-ReleasedCommence-Close of trialSentence sion of Ac-on bailment of trial cused

U/Sec. 3527.4.202629.04.202611.05.2026 11.04.202511.04.202509.05.2025 (3) of BNSS

Judgment in C.C.No.1574 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri. Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallacheruvu P.S. (Cr.No.25 of 2025) …Complainant.

and

1. Edagottu Shivasankar, age 32 years, S/O E.

Venkatanarayana, (A.1).

2. Edagottu Venkatanarayana, age 59 years S/O Late Pedda

Gandulappa, (A.2).

3. Edagottu Lakshmi Devi, age 55 years

W/O E. Venkatanarayana,(A3) …. Accused

Offence :-Under Sections 85 , 351 (2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS 2023 and Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P. Act

Finding :-Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sections 85 , 351 (2) r/w 3 (5) of BNS 2023 and

Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and they are acquitted U/sec.271 (1) of BNSS.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

8

OS.NO.448/2024FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.22.04.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADIRI

Present: Sri P.LOKANADHAM,

Principal Junior Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kadiri

FAC. Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadiri

Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.448 of 2024

Between:-

Godduvelagala Narayana, S/o. Narasappa, aged about 66 years, agriculturist, Door No.4-30, Alampur Village., Kadiri Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai

District …Plaintiff.

AND

1) Chopparam Ramakrishna, S/o. Obulesu, aged about 50 years;

2) Chopparam Narasimhulu, S/o. Obulesu, aged about 48 years;

3) Chopparam Gangulamma, W/o. Venkataramana, aged about 52 years;

All are agriculturists, residing at Alampur Village, Kadiri Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District … Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 22.04.2026 for Judgment in the presence of Sri V.Prasad Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration and this court, delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

1 1 ) ) N N a a t t u u r r e e o o f f t t h h e e S S u u i i t t : :PPeerrmmaanneennttIInnjjuunnccttiioonn..

2 2 ) ) R R e e l l i i e e f f s s c c l l a a i i m m e e d d : : ( ( a a ) )PPeerrmmaanneennttiinnjjuunnccttiioonnrreessttrraaiinniinnggtthhee ddeeffeennddaannttss,,tthheeiirrmmeennaannddaaggeennttssffrroommiinntteerrffeerriinnggiinnaannyymmaannnneerrwwiitthhtthhee

OS.NO.448/2024FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.22.04.2026

2 ppllaaiinnttiiffff’’ssppeeaacceeffuullppoosssseessssiioonnaannddeennjjooyymmeennttoovveerrtthheeppllaaiinnttsscchheedduullee pprrooppeerrttyy((b b ) )AAwwaarrddccoossttss;;aanndd( ( c c ) )FFoorrpprrooppeerrrreelliieeffss..

3. The brief averments of the plaint are that,

a) Gosala Narasamma, W/o.Gangaiah was the true and absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property and was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. Gosala Narasamma sold the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff for true and valid consideration of Rs.5,800/-under registered sale deed dated 14-03-1989 and inducted him in possession of the same. Thus the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property and he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right. The plaintiff has been cultivating the schedule mentioned property regularly. The name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records in respect of the schedule mentioned property and was also issued e-passbook after thorough enquiry and observing all formalities.

The plaintiff also obtained crop loan from State Bank of India (ADB), Kadiri by depositing his old pattadar passbook. The defendants are strangers to the schedule mentioned property and they have no right whatsoever in the schedule mentioned property.

b). There have been ill feelings between the plaintiff and defendants for the last one year. The defendants due to ill feelings and with a view to cause loss and hardship to the plaintiff have been trying to trespass into the schedule mentioned property. The defendants have been proclaiming in the village

OS.NO.448/2024FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.22.04.2026

3 from the past one month that they would dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule mentioned property. The defendants are powerful in the village and got large following. The plaintiff is a helpless person and he cannot resist the illegal acts of the defendants without the aid of the Hon'ble Court. The defendants have no right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the schedule mentioned property and the defendants are to be restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the schedule mentioned property by means of permanent injunction, as otherwise, the plaintiff will suffer great and irreparable loss and damage. The defendants have intensified their threats from the past two days. Hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants with regard to the plaint schedule mentioned property.

4.The defendants are set ex-parte.

5 5 . .TTooffoorrttiiffyytthheeccaasseeoofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff,,hheeggootteexxaammiinneeddppllaaiinnttiiffff--aassPPWW11 bbeessiiddeessggootteexxhhiibbiitteeddEExx’’ss..AA11ttooAA44..

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?”

8. Point:-

OS.NO.448/2024FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.22.04.2026

4

The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 14-03-1989 from the original owner, Gosala

Narasamma. It is further argued that the plaintiff has been in continuous, peaceful, and exclusive possession of the property since the date of purchase, as evidenced by the revenue records and the issuance of an e- passbook to substantiate the claim of possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff has relied upon the mutation of his name in the revenue records and the old pattadar passbook. The fact that the plaintiff successfully obtained a crop loan from the State Bank of India (ADB), Kadiri, by pledging these documents serves as strong circumstantial evidence of his active cultivation and recognized possession over the schedule land.

9. This court perused the plaint, exhibits and other relevant documents available on record.

10. Though the Court has given ample opportunities to defendants to file their written statement, they did not file their written statement since 17.12.2025.

The defendants D1 t o D3 neither filed costs memo by paying costs nor filed their written statement. Hence, right of filing written statement is forfeited. The evidence of the plaintiff unchallenged. Plaintiff is proved his case by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence.

OS.NO.448/2024FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.22.04.2026

5

11. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff filed exhibits, Ex.A.1 is rreeggiisstteerreeddssaalleeddeeeeddeexxeeccuutteeddbbyyGGoossaallaaNNaarraassaammmmaaiinnffaavvoouurroofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff ddtt..1144..0033..11998899,,E E x x . . A A 2 2 i i s see--ppaassssbbooookkiissssuueeddbbyytthheeTTaahhssiillddaarr,,KKaaddiirriiiinntthhee nnaammeeoofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff,,E E x x . . A A 3 3 i i s s11--BBeexxttrraaccttiissssuueeddbbyytthheeTTaahhssiillddaarr,,KKaaddiirriiiinn tthheennaammeeoofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffffaannddE E x x . . A A 4 4 i i s sAAddaannggaalleexxttrraaccttiissssuueeddbbyytthhee

TTaahhssiillddaarr,,KKaaddiirriiiinntthheennaammeeoofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff..

12. The Court observes that the plaintiff has successfully established a prima facie case regarding his title and settled possession over the plaint schedule property. It was argued that: The registered sale deed (Ex.A1)

dated 14-03-1989 conclusively proves the transfer of title from the previous

owner, Gosala Narasamma, to the plaintiff for a valid consideration. Revenue

Records: The mutation of the plaintiff's name in the revenue records, the issuance of the e-passbook, and the successful procurement of a crop loan from the State Bank of India (ADB), Kadiri, serve as robust evidence of the plaintiff’s long-standing, continuous, and exclusive possession. Since the defendants have been set ex-parte, the evidence of PW1 and the marked exhibits (Ex.A1 to A4) remain uncontroverted and unchallenged. The court must, therefore, accept the plaintiff’s version of the facts as established.

13. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence or record, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.

OS.NO.448/2024FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.22.04.2026

6

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants. Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-P.Lokanadham

FAC/ AJCJ, KADIRI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: G.Narayana NONE

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

Ex.A.1: rreeggiisstteerreeddssaalleeddeeeeddeexxeeccuutteeddbbyy GoossaallaaNNaarraassaamGmmmaaiinnffaavvoouurroofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff ddtt..1144..0033..11998899,,

E E x x . . A A 2 2 : : i i s see--ppaassssbbooookkiissssuueeddbbyytthheeTTaahhssiillddaarr,, KKaaddiirriiiinntthheennaammeeoofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff,, NIL E E x x . . A A 3 3 : :11--BBeexxttrraaccttiissssuueeddbbyytthheeTTaahhssiillddaarr,, KKaaddiirriiiinntthheennaammeeoofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff

E E x x . . A A 4 4 i i s sAAddaannggaalleexxttrraaccttiissssuueeddbbyytthhee TTaahhssiillddaarr,,KKaaddiirriiiinntthheennaammeeoofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff..

Sd/-P.Lokanadham

FAC/ AJCJ, KADIRI.

OS.NO.870/2023FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.24.04.2026

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KADIRI

Present: Sri P.LOKANADHAM,

Principal Junior Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kadiri

FAC. Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadiri

Friday, the 24th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.870 of 2023

Between:-

Chinnabathini Rajeswari, W/o. Anjaneyulu, aged about 46 years, Hindu, agriculturist, residing at Door No.1-1640, Chowdeswari Colony, Gorantla

Village & Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District …Plaintiff.

AND

1) Vatti Venkatalakshmamma, W/o. Venkataramanappa, aged about 68 years;

2) Nimmala Anjaneyulu, S/o.Ramachandra, aged about 43 years; Both are residing at Door No.1-214, Chowdeswari Colony, Gorantla Vil. & Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District … Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 24.04.2026 for Judgment in the presence of Sri V.Prasad Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration and this court, delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

1 1 ) ) N N a a t t u u r r e e o o f f t t h h e e S S u u i i t t : :PPeerrmmaanneennttIInnjjuunnccttiioonn..

2 2 ) ) R R e e l l i i e e f f s s c c l l a a i i m m e e d d : : ( ( a a ) )PPeerrmmaanneennttiinnjjuunnccttiioonnrreessttrraaiinniinnggtthhee ddeeffeennddaannttss,,tthheeiirrmmeennaannddaaggeennttssffrroommiinntteerrffeerriinnggiinnaannyymmaannnneerrwwiitthhtthhee ppllaaiinnttiiffff’’ssppeeaacceeffuullppoosssseessssiioonnaannddeennjjooyymmeennttoovveerrtthheeppllaaiinnttsscchheedduullee pprrooppeerrttyy((b b ) )AAwwaarrddccoossttss;;aanndd( ( c c ) )FFoorrpprrooppeerrrreelliieeffss..

OS.NO.870/2023FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.24.04.2026

2

3. The brief averments of the plaint are that,

(a) Vatti Gangulamma, W/o. Vatti Rangappa was the true and absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property and she was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and it was her self-acquired property Vatti

Venkataramanappa is the only son of Gangulamma. The defendant No.1 is the wife and the plaintiff is the only daughter of Vatti Venkataramanappa.

Vatti Gangulamma died and her husband predeceased her. Vatti

Venkataramanappa predeceased his father Vatti Rangappa. Thus on the death of Vatti Gangulamma, the plaintiff being the only daughter of her son

Vatti Venkataramanappa, succeeded the schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff took possession of the schedule mentioned property on the death of

Vatti Gangulamma and thus she became the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property and she has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.

(b) The defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 is the sister's son of the defendant No.1 and thus they are close associates.

The defendant No.1 being the mother of the plaintiff was managing the schedule mentioned property on behalf of the plaintiff and the name of the defendant no.1 was mutated in the revenue records with the consent of the plaintiff. While so, the plaintiff recently came to know that taking advantage of 1-B of the schedule mentioned property in the name of the defendant No.1, the defendants 1 and 2 colluded together and brought into existence the false

OS.NO.870/2023FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.24.04.2026

3 and nominal sale deed dated 25-09-2023 in the name of the defendant No.2 in respect of the schedule mentioned property. The alleged sale deed dated 25-09-2023 is a false and fabricated document and the recitals therein are false and incorrect. No consideration was passed and no delivery of possession was effected under the alleged registered sale deed dated 25-09- 2023. The defendant No.2 taking advantage of the alleged registered sale deed have been trying to obtain 1-B of the schedule mentioned property in the name of the defendant No.2 with a view to enter upon the schedule mentioned property. The defendant No.2 has no right, title or possession whatsoever over any portion of the schedule mentioned property and hence the defendant has no right to obtain 1-B of the schedule mentioned property in his name and enter upon the schedule mentioned property. So, the plaintiff also got issued a registered notice dated 20-10-2023 to the defendants 1 and 2 not to fabricate the revenue records. The defendants having received the notice have been denying the title of the plaintiff over the schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property and she has been in exclusive possession of the same. The defendants have no right, title or possession whatsoever over any portion of the schedule mentioned property. The defendants have no right to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule mentioned property. The defendants tried to trespass into the schedule mentioned property about two weeks ago by denying the title of the plaintiff

OS.NO.870/2023FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.24.04.2026

4 over the schedule mentioned property and intensified their threats about a two days ago. Hence the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

4.The defendants are set ex-parte.

5 5 . .TTooffoorrttiiffyytthheeccaasseeoofftthheeppllaaiinnttiiffff,,sshheeggootteexxaammiinneeddppllaaiinnttiiffff--aassPPWW11 bbeessiiddeessggootteexxhhiibbiitteeddEExx’’ss..AA11ttooAA33..

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?”

8. Point:-

The counsel for the plaintiff contended that originally belonged to her grandmother, Vatti Gangulamma, as her self-acquired property. The plaintiff is the daughter of Vatti Venkataramanappa (Gangulamma’s only son). Since the plaintiff's father and grandfather predeceased Gangulamma, the plaintiff succeeded to the property as the sole legal heir upon Gangulamma’s death.

The plaintiff further submits that while she is the absolute owner in possession, she permitted her mother (Defendant No.1) to manage the property, leading to the mutation of Defendant No.1’s name in revenue records. However, the defendants allegedly colluded to create a nominal and fabricated Sale Deed dated 25-09-2023 in favor of Defendant No.2.

OS.NO.870/2023FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.24.04.2026

5

The plaintiff asserts that no consideration was paid and possession was never delivered under said deed. Following threats of trespass and denial of title by the defendants, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 20-10-2023.

Hence, the plaintiff seeks a Permanent Injunction to protect her possession.

9. This court perused the plaint, exhibits and other relevant documents available on record.

10. Though the Court has given ample opportunities to defendants to file their written statement, they did not file their written statement, hence the defendant is set ex-parte on 15.09.2025. The evidence of the plaintiff unchallenged. Plaintiff is proved her case by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence.

11. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff filed exhibits, Ex.A1 is office copy of notice dt.20.10.2023 issued to the defendants, Ex.A2 is postal receipts (2) and Ex.A3 is returned registered postal cover of the defendant.

12. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence or record, this court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.

13.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant. Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering

OS.NO.870/2023FAC/A.J.C.J.(Jr.Divn.), KADIRI dt.24.04.2026

6 with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-P.Lokanadham

FAC/ AJCJ, KADIRI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: C.Rajeswari NONE

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

Ex.A.1: OOffffiicceeccooppyyooffnnoottiicceeiissssuueeddttootthhee ddeeffeennddaannttssddtt..2200..1100..22002233

E E x x . . A A 2 2 : :ppoossttaallrreecceeiippttss((22)) NIL E E x x . . A A 3 3 : :rreettuurrnneeddrreeggiisstteerreeddppoossttaallccoovveerroofftthhee ddeeffeennddaanntt..NNoo..11..

Sd/-P.Lokanadham

FAC/ AJCJ, KADIRI.

1

APAN0C0014102023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KADIRI

Present: Sri P. LOKANADHAM, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri

Wednesday, the 13 th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.92 of 2024

Between:

The Sub Inspector of Police, Gandlapenta P.S.

... Complainant.

V/s.

Ragimanu Rama Mohan, age 43 years S/O R. Ramanna., Somayajulapalli village, Gandlapenta mandal.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

P. Ravindra Babu and Sri K. Narendra, Advocates for the accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub inspector of police, Gandlapenta P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.8 of 2022 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2

2.Brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 28.01.2022 at about 3.30 p.m L.W.6 received credible information about making and illegal possessionof I.d. arrack one one Rama

Mohan wherein the accused was found one white plastic can containing 2 liters of I.D. arrack and 200 liters of I.D. wash On seeing the police officials, the accused escaped from the spot by leaving one white colour plastic can. Then

L.W.5 destroyed 200 liters of I.D. wash and making materials at the spot and also seized one white colour plastic can. Accused was arrested and seized the said property from his possession. Basing on the special report, the present case is registered in the above crime number for the above said offences.

During the course of investigation, samples of liquor bottle was sent for chemical analysis Lab, Chittor for opinion and analysis report and the chemical examiner opined that the sample are illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Thus, accused committed an offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Hence, the charge.

3.This court took cognizance of case for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure code.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, by explaining the accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet for which he denied.

Charge for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act had been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for 3 which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried for the offence.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P3. The evidence of remaining witness is given up by the APP.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating evidence against the accused for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is that “Whether the prosecution is

able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable

doubt ?”

10.Point:-

In order to connect the crime to the accused prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who deposed in the following manner.

11. P.W.1: K. Ravi Kumar constable depsoed that on 28.01.2022 at about 3.00 p.m he along with L.W.1 and other staff reached the outskirts of

Somayajulapalli village out skirts where they found one male person preparing the I.D. arrack for the purpose of selling to the public and on seeing the police, he tried to skulk away. The said contraband was seized .

12. P.W.2 . B. Mallikarjuna Reddy, S.I of police Gandlapenta P.S. deposed that on 28.01.2022 at about 3.00 p.m w he along with P.W.1 and other staff went to the outskirts of Somayajulapalli Gandlapenta mandal where they found one male person in possession of one white colour plastic can containing 2 liters of 4

I.D. arrack and 200 liters of FJ wash in the plastic drums. . He arrested the accused and seized the said contraband from his possession. He identified the accused person who present in the court hall.

13. On careful perusal of evidence on record, the accused is alleged of offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act. To substantiate the said allegation, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.w.1 and P.W.2 who deposed elaborately about conduction of raid, arrest of accused on confession about the crime, registration of crime, about sending sample for chemical analysis and also receipt of chemical analysis report and filing of charge sheet and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 . Though P.w.1 and P.W.2 deposed in the above manner, their evidence is not supported by any independent mediator.

Thus the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is devoid of corroboration by independent witness. However, it is also not safe to rely upon the testimony of the police officials without corroboration of any independent mediator particularly in respect of alleged confession of accused as it cannot be proved against them by virtue of section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore in the said circumstances, it is clear that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : K. Ravi Kumar, Constable -None- P.W.2: B. Mallikarjuna Reddy S.I of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Police proceedings. Ex.P.2: FIR Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE

Nil.

M.Os. MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE

-NIL-

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

J.M.F.C.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri Date of

OffenceReportApprehen-ReleasedCommence-Close ofSentence sion of Ac-on bailment of trialtrial cused 28.01.20228.01.2022Sec. 41 (A)04.05.202613.05.2026 28.01.202 12.02.2026 2 2Cr.P.C.

Judgment in C.C.No.92 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri. Complainant :: The Sub Inspector of Police, Gandlapenta P.S.

... Complainant.

V/s.

Ragimanu Rama Mohan, age 43 years S/O R. Ramanna., Somayajulapalli village, Gandlapenta mandal.

... Accused.

Offence :-under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act

Finding :-Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accused is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- P. Lokanadham,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kadiri.

7