Smt.P. Saisudha

Judl.Magistrate of 1st class Spl.Mobile Court

Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam · Srikakulam · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.P. Saisudha, Judl.Magistrate of 1st class Spl.Mobile Court, is posted at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 149 court orders on record since 2013. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC cases.

149

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/132/2014 Acquitted

Shriram City Union Finance litd. vs Kothakota Aruna

07 Sep 2016

1 ` CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 132/2014 Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

DATE OF

offence: 20-04-2013

Complaint or report14-05-2013

Apprehension of accused:--

Release on bail:--

Commencement of trial:22-09-2015

Close of trial08-06-2016

Sentence or order:07-09-2016 Explanation for delay and remarks: This Court received the case on 21-06-2014 from J.F.C.M. Court, Srikakulam as per the District Court proceedings in Dis.No.1464 dated 21-03-2014. Hence the delay. Name of the complainant company: Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Represented by its Authorized Person, Surapu Rama Rao, S/o Pakeeru, age 35 years, Opp.Punjab National Bank Near Bashyam Public School, Srikakulam Town and District. Name of the AccusedAgeFather/Husband Religion Name 1.Sri Durga Malleswara 38yearsW/o NagarajuHindu Rao Ayyappa Ice Kothakota Aruna Represented its Proprietor 2.Kothakota Aruna callingResidenceTalukDistrict

BusinessJonnalapadu SrikakulamSrikakulam Village Offence u/s 138 of N.I.Act: The cheque issued by accused was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds.

Finding: Found guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and hence he is acquitted under Section 255(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall execute fresh bond u/S.437-A CrPC.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court,Srikakulam Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam //TRUE COPY // 2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM

Present : Smt. P.SAI SUDHA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Special Mobile Court,Srikakulam.

Dated this the Wednesday 7th day of September, Two thousand and Sixteen.

C.C.NO. 132/2014

Between : Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Represented by its Authorized Person, Surapu Rama Rao, S/o Pakeeru, age 35 years, Opp.Punjab National Bank, Near Bashyam Public School,

Srikakulam Town and District. ... complainant

And: 1.Sri Durga Malleswara Rao Ayyappa Ice factory, Represented its Proprietor, Kothakota Aruna. 2.Kothakota Aruna, W/o Nagaraju, age 38 years, R/o D.No. 4-78, Jonnalapadu Village,

Srikakulam Mandal and District. .....Accused

This case is coming on 24.08.2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri.N.Vijay Kumar, counsel for the complainant company and of Sri.S.Rajeswara Rao, counsel for the accused and having stood over for determination till this day this court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

1. The accusation against the accused is that she issued a cheque, dated 15.02.2013 for an amount of Rs.14,833/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand and

Eight hundred and thirty three), drawn on Syndicate Bank, Srikakulam towards part payment and it was returned unpaid, due to “ Funds Insufficient” in her accountand thereby committed the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.(for short “N.I.Act”)

2.The brief facts, as unfolded in the complaint, in a nutshell, are that, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant company to improve her business and agreed to repay the same with interest. On repeated demands, the accused issued a cheque bearing no.173867, drawn on 3

Syndicate Bank, Srikakulam dated 15.02.2013 for an amount of Rs.14,833/- towards principal amount borrowed from the complainant company. On presentation of the same cheque for its collection by the complainant company through its bank, it was returned unpaid due to “ Funds Insufficient” in his account and a return memo was issued by the said bank. The complainant company issued a registered legal notice as required under

Section 138(b) of N.I. Act calling upon the accused to make good the amount covered under the cheque in question. The accused received the notice, but did not choose to repay the amount. Hence, the complainant company company filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Srikakulam to punish the accused for the offence punishable u/s 138 of

N.I.Act.

3.The court took cognizance of the Complaint under Section 142 of N.I.

Act and issued process to the accused.

4. On appearance of accused before the court, she was examined under

Section 251 Cr.PC putting the substance of accusations levelled against the accused. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To substantiate its case, the complainant company got examined P.W.1 and marked documents Exs. P1 to P5.

6.The Assistant Legal Manager of complainant company, as P.W.1 affirmed on oath, by submitting an affidavit in lieu of chief examination that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from Shriram City Union

Finance Limited and issued Ex.P.1 cheque and it was dishonoured due to

Funds Insufficient.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 CrPC, and incriminating evidence appearing against her was explained to her. The plea of the accused is total denial, and she stated that she has no defence evidence.

8.The learned counsel for the complainant company submitted the accused borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant company and issued

Ex.P1 cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.s P1 to P5 clearly established the case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused and sentence him accordingly.

9.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not borrow any amount from the complaint and in order to have wrongful gain the present case was foisted against the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

10.After hearing the rival submissions by both the parties, the points that arise for determination are :

(i) Whether the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability?

(ii) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.Point No.(i):It is a settled proposition of Law that the initial burden lies on the drawee i.e. the complainant company to prove that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability due to him. Once, the complainant company is discharged from its initial burden, the onus of proof shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability.

12. The complainant company has examined its Assistant Legal Manager by giving him an authorization, as PW1, and he affirmed on oath, that the accused No.1 is Sri Durga Malleswara Ayyappa Ice, Represented its Proprietor has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the company for the purpose of improvement of business as per the trade agreement bearing no.

NRTFSRK10E00058 and agreed to pay Rs.14,833/- as monthly installments for a period of 48 months and the accused issued ExP1 cheque bearing number 173867, dated 15-02-2013 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Srikakulam for an amount of Rs.14,833/- towards part payment of the amount borrowed from him. When it was presented through his Banker City Union Bank,

Srikakulam for collection, it was dishonoured for the reason “Funds

Insufficient”. The complainant company got issued Ex.P3 Legal notice to the

Sri Durga Malleswara Ayyappa Ice as A1 and its proprietor Smt.Kothakota

Aruna as A2, which was received by the accused. Ex.P4 is Postal

Acknowledgment.

13.As per S.141 of NI Act “ If the person committing an offence u/S.138 is 5 a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly”. It is the contention of the complainant company that the accused

No.1 Sri Durga Malleswara Ayyappa Ice represented by its proprietor ie., accused No.2 has borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the company for the purpose of improvement of business as per the trade agreement bearing no.

NRTFSRK10E00058 and agreed to pay Rs.14,833/- as monthly installments for a period of 36 months and Ex.P1 cheque dated 15-02-2013, issued by the accused was dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient”. In the case on hand, the learned defense counsel has contended that notice has not been served properly on the accused. But perusal of Ex.P3 ie., Office copy of legal notice, dated 30-03-2013, shows that the complainant company has followed the procedure contemplated u/S.138 NI Act by issuing notice to accused No.1 company and also its proprietor. Now it has to be seen whether there is legally enforceable debt or not.

14. The complainant company has submitted that they have given loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused as per the Trade Agreement

NRTFSRK10E00058 and agreed to pay Rs.14,833/- as monthly installments for a period of 36 months. But, no such Trade Agreement was filed by the complainant company to show that there exists a basis for lending amount to the accused. Further, a mere photo stat copy of authorization letter was filed by P.W.1 and hence, it does not confer any interest on P.W.1 to represent the complainant company. Further, more the complainant company has filed

Ex.P5 statement of account showing that the accused has paid installments till 15-01-2013, and fell due by 15-02-2013. As the statement of account is a computer generated document, it has to be annexed with statutory certificate under S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act and hence the same cannot be read in evidence. The complainant being a financial institution must be maintaining books of account and no such document was filed in this court.

15.Even if assuming for a movement that Ex.P5 statement of account can be relied upon, it shows that several cheques were issued by the accused and 6 the series of the cheque numbers give rise to a presumption that such cheques were issued at once. Further, the series of cheques bearing no. 173860 to 173866 show that the initial cheque bearing no. 173860 was encashed on 15- 08-2012. this indicates that the complainant company has obtained undated cheques from the accused and in order to stress for recovery it has filed the present case.

In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the complainant company has failed to show that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability.

16.Point No.(ii): From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt The points are accordingly answered.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and hence he is acquitted under Section 255(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall execute fresh bond u/S.437-A CrPC.

Typed to my dictation, by my Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 : Surapu Ramarao

FOR DEFENCE

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex. P-1 : Cheque bearing no.173867 for Rs.14833/- of Syndicate Bank, Srikakulam, dated 15-02-2013 Ex. P-2 : Cheque return memo dated 22-03-2013 with an endorsement of “ Funds Insufficient” Ex. P-3 : Office copy of Legal notice dt. 30-03-2013 Ex. P-4 : Postal acknowledgment dt. 09-04-2013 Ex. P-5 : Statement showing the payment made by the accused dt. 24-04- 2013.

FOR DEFENCE

Nil

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

//TRUE COPY // 8

CC/344/2015 Acquitted

S.I. of Police II Town P.S. vs Gunupuru Roja

22 Sep 2016

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 344/2015 Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

DATE OF

offence:28-02-2015 Complaint or report28-02-2015 Apprehension of accused:01-03-2015 Release on bail:01-03-2015 Commencement of trial:16-06-2016 Close of trial20-09-2016 Sentence or order:22-09-2016 Explanation for delay and remarks: This Court received the case on 04-11-2015 from Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam as per the District Court proceedings in Dis.No. 2157 dated 14.05.2015. Due to non Production witnesses hence the delay. Name of the Complainant: The Sub - Inspector of Police, II Town PS, Srikakulam.

Name of the AccusedAgeFather's /Husband Religion Name Gunupuru Roja36 years W/o lt. KumarHindu callingResidenceTalukDistrict LabourBondilipuramSrikakulamSrikakulam

Offence: u/s 324 I.P.C.: Whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting , stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death shall be punishable u/s 324 I.P.C. Offence u/s 323 I.P.C.: Who ever does any act with an intention of thereby causing hurt to any person which is punishable u/s 323I.P.C.

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 323 IPC. Hence, she is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall execute fresh bond under S.437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam // TRUE COPY // 2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Smt. P.Sai Sudha Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Thursday, 22nd day of September, Two thousand and Sixteen

CALENDAR CASE NO.344/2015

Between : The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station,

Srikakulam. ..... Complainant

And: Gunupuru Roja, W/o lt. Kumar, age 36 years, Yadava by caste, Near New Employment Office,

Bondipuram, Srikakulam......Accused

This case is coming on 20-09-2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant-State and of Sri P.Gandhi, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station has filed the charge-sheet against the accused in crime no. 27/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 28-02-2015 at about 7.30am., while the defacto-complainant/Kallepalli Ramanamma was talking to one Joga Rao who is Municipal worker about dumping of wastage in drainage, the accused/Gunupuru Roja who is working in the neighbouring shop came and questioned the de-facto complainant for abusing her. Further, she has attacked the de-facto complainant with an Iron Rod on her head and all over the body. As its result, she sustained a bleeding on her head and swelling injury on her shoulders. She was taken to RIMS Hospital,

Srikakulam in an auto. The out post police recorded her statement. On its basis, the case was registered in crime no.27/2015 for the offences u/Ss. 324 3 and 323 IPC, and First Information Report was issued. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences referred above.

3.The court took cognizance of the offence u/S. 324 IPC, against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents were furnished to her, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and after hearing both sides, charge was framed against the accused for the offences u/Ss. 324 and 323 IPC, read over explained to her in Telugu. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused, P.W.'s 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P4 and MO1 were marked through them.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S. 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was explained to her. She denied it totally and stated that she has no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:

i) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offences u/Ss. 324 and 323 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Before proceeding to discuss the evidence let in by the prosecution, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are referred to as here under:

P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant, P.W.2 is eye witnesses to the incident,

P.W's 3 and 4 are mediators to the observation of scene of offfence.

11.It is the case of the prosecution, that on 28-02-2015, at about 7.30am., while the defacto-complainant/Kallepalli Ravanamma was asking the municipality workers to clean the drain properly near the tiffin bunk, the accused came there abusing her and beat her with hands and pulled her out side. Further, the accused took an Iron rod from her bunk and beat on her head and all over the body with it. As its result, she sustained injuries on the left 4 side of her head, left shoulder, left hand. She was taken to RIMS Hospital,

Srikakulam.

12.Point no. (i):-

The defacto-complainant/Kallepalli Ramanamma as P.W.1 has stated that on 28-02-2015 at about 7.30am., the accused has thrown the garbage in to the drainage as a result of which there was stagnation. She stated that when

Argi Joga Rao came to clean the drainage she has asked him to clean the drain stating that the accused has thrown the garbage. She stated that the accused shouted at her and abused her in a filthy language. She stated that while she was near her pushcart the accused attacked her with an iron Rod on her head and she sustained a bleeding injury. She stated that the accused also attacked her on her neck, on her left hand wrist. She stated that Gorinta Seetharam, Arji

Joga Rao and Korlakota Vijaya were present at the time of incident. She stated that on seeing the accused attacked her, Korlakota Vijaya was frightened. She stated that later, she was referred to Government Hospital, Srikakulam. The out post police recorded her statement. Ex.P1 and MO1 were marked through her.

During her cross-examination, she stated that she do not know for what purpose MO1 will be used. She denied the suggestion that on the day of incident while the accused was sweeping she has abused her for fining garbage in the drain and she herself fell down on the cement plat with Iron

Rod and sustained an injury on her head.

13.P.W.2/Gorentla Seetharam, who was said to be an eye witness to the alleged incident turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Ex. P2 was marked through him.

14.P.W.3/Ippili Naidu, the mediator to the observation of scene of offence turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Ex.P3 was marked through him.

15.P.W.4/Bathili Raja Rao, who was said to be another mediator to the observation of scene of offence, stated that on 28-02-2015, he was summoned by the police of II Town PS and went to the scene of offence. He stated that the police observed the scene and drafted the scene observation report, he signed on it and the police seized MO1 i.e., Iron Rod in his presence.

During his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not accompany the police at the time of observation of scene of offence and he has signed on the report at the police Station.

16.Inspite of several opportunities the prosecution has not examined who were said to be eye witness i.e., L.W.4/Korlakota Vijaya and also the prosecution has not examined the Doctor and Investigating Officer. P.W.1 alone supported the case of the prosecution. P.W's 2 and 3 who were said to be eye witness and mediator turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in material particulars. Further, nothing significant could be elicited from their testimony when the learned APP has put questions to them under S.154 of Indian Evidence Act, read with a proviso to S.162CrPC and

Exs.P2 and P3 were marked through them. P.W.4/Bathili Raja Rao who was said to be another mediator to the observation of scene of offence is not of much help to the evidence of the prosecution witness. In view of foregoing discussion this court is of opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused with which she is charged for.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 324 and 323 IPC. Hence, she is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall execute fresh bond under S.437-A Cr.P.C. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court,

this the 22nd day of September, 2016.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1: Kallepalli Ravanamma P.W.2: Gorinta Seetharam P.W.3:Ippili Naidu P.W.4:Bathili Raja Rao. FOR DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1/dt.28-02-2015: Report. Ex.P2/dt 28-02-2015: S. 161(3) CrPC Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3/dt 28-02-2015: Signature of P.W.3 on scene observation report. Ex.P4/dt 28-02-2015: Scene observation Report. FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1: Iron Rod.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY // 7

CC/30/2015 Acquitted

S.I. of Police,.Etecherla P.S vs Savaera Yerram naidu

08 Sep 2016

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 30/2015 Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

DATE OF

offence:20-05-2014

Complaint or report20-05-2014

Apprehension of accused:20-09-2014

Release on bail:20-09-2014

Commencement of trial:14-06-2016

Close of trial07-09-2016

Sentence or order:08-09-2016

Explanation for delay and remarks: This Court received the case on 28.07.2015 from Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam as per the District Court proceedings in Dis.No. 2157 dated 14.05.2015. Due to non- production of witnesses, there was delay.

Name of the Complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Etcherla PS, Srikakulam.

Name of the AccusedAgeFather's Religion Name/Husband Name

Savara Yerramnaidu40 yearsS/o lt. Appa RaoHindu callingResidenceTalukDistrict

DriverMabagam VillagePolaki Srikakulam

Offence u/s 304-A I.P.C.: Whoever causes the death of another due to rash or negligent act shall be punishable for the offence u/S.304-A IPC.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S 304-A IPC. Hence, he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall execute a fresh bond under S.437 -A Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam // TRUE COPY // 2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM

Present : Smt.P.Sai Sudha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Thursday, 8th day of September, Two thousand and Sixteen

CALENDAR CASE NO. 30/2015 Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Etcherla Police Station,

Srikakulam District. ....Complainant

And

Savara Yerramnaidu, S/o lt. Appa Rao, age 40 years, Velama by caste, Mabagam Village,

Polaki Mandal, Srikakulam District. ........ Accused

This case is coming on 07.09.2016 before me for final hearing and disposal on this day in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri. JSR counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Etcherla Police Station has filed the charge-sheet against the accused in crime no.180/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. (in short “IPC”).

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 20-05-2014 at about 6 hours while the deceased/Bendi Rama Rao was crossing the NH-16 road at

Seepamnaidupeta village, a lorry bearing no. AP 30 X 3411 driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against him. As its result, the deceased/Bendi Rama Rao died on the spot. Hence, the de-facto complainant/Bendi Raja Rao gave a report to the police. On its basis, the case was registered in crime no. 180/2014 for the offence u/S. 304-A IPC and issued First Information Report. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet for the offence referred above.

3.The court took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A IPC 3 against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 251 CrPC, by explaining particulars of the offence u/S. 304-A IPC levelled against him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused, P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined and

Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked through them.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313Cr.P.C and he has denied the incriminating evidence put to him and stated that he has no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

09.Now the point that arises for determination is :

(i) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence u/S 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Before proceeding to discuss the evidence let in by the prosecution, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are referred to as here under:

P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant, P.W's 2 and 3 are eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.4 is the mediator to the observation of scene of offence, P.W.5 is the Panchayatdar over the dead body of the deceased. P.W's 6 and 7 are

Investigating Officers.

11.Point no.(i):-

The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that about 2 years 2 months ago, on one day at about 6am., his son Rama Rao went to attend the calls of nature and at that time a lorry had hit him and he died on the spot. He stated that the accident took place near Seepannaidupeta village. He stated that P.W.2 was also present along with his son at the time of accident. He stated that the

President of Kusalapuram village informed him about accident and immediately, he rushed to the spot. He stated that later, the dead body was taken to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam and postmortem was conducted there. He stated that later, he lodged Ex.P1 report with the police.

12.P.W's 2 and 3 were said to be eye witnesses to the accident. They stated that in the year 2014, on one day at about 6am., while Bendi Rama Rao was 4 going to attend the nature call, a lorry bearing no. AP 30 X 3411, proceeding on the road leading from Visakhpatnam to Narasannapeta had hit him at

Seepannaidupeta. As its result, he died on the spot, and stated that they did not see the driver of the crime vehicle.

13.P.W.4/Seepana Atchutharao, mediator to the observation of scene of offence, stated that about 2 years ago, on one day at about 6 hours their villager Bendi Rama Rao met with an accident on NH-16 at Seepannaidupeta

Village, while he was going to attend the calls of nature. He stated that on being informed by one of their villagers, he went to the scene of offence and noticed that Bendi Rama Rao sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot. He stated that the police observed the scene of offence and drafted

Ex.P2 scene observation report in his presence.

14.P.W.5/Seepana Bhaskara Rao, who is the Panchayatdar over the dead body of the deceased, stated that on 20-05-2014, their villager Bendi Rama

Rao died in a road accident at Seepannaidupeta village. He stated that later, the dead body was shifted to Government Hospital, Srikakulam and inquest over the dead body was conducted. He stated that he acted as one of the

Panchayatdars to the inquest. Ex.P3, Inquest Report was marked through him.

15.P.W.6/P.Krishna Rao, the Investigating Officer, stated that on 20-05- 2014 at 7 hours, P.W.1 lodged a report. He stated that on its basis, a case was registered and issued Ex.P4 Original FIR. He stated that he has examined

P.W.1 and recorded his statement. He stated that he went to the scene of offence and observed the scene in the presence of mediators and drafted scene observation report and drew Ex.P5 rough sketch of scene of offence. He stated that on 20-09-2014, he has issued S.41-A CrPC notice to the accused. He stated that then then SI of police has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

16.P.W.7/P.V.B.Uday Kumar, SI of police, Etcherla PS, stated that he has received case file from P.W.7 and later, he has sent the crime vehicle to Motor

Vehicle Inspector for inspecting the crime vehicle. He stated that after receiving the Ex.P7 MVI Report he has filed the charge sheet against the accused.

17.The evidence of P.W.1 relates to lodging the report on receiving information about accident. The evidence of P.W's 2 to 5 is not of much help 5 to the case of the prosecution and they stated that did not see the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, this court opines that a safe conclusion cannot be reached with regard to rash or negligent act on the part of the accused. In view of these circumstances, this court is of view that benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused. Therefore, this court holds that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/S 304-A IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S 304-A IPC. Hence, he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall execute a fresh bond under S.437 -A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 8th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1: Bendi Raja Rao P.W.2: Seepana Appala Naidu P.W.3:Bendi Satyanrayana P.W.4:Seepana Atchuta Rao P.W.5:Seepana Bhaskara Rao P.W.6:P.Krishana Rao P.W.7: P.V.B.Uday Kumar. For Defense: None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1/dt. 20-05-2014 : Report Ex.P2/dt.20-05-2014 : Scene observation Report. Ex.P3/dt.20-05-2014: Inquest Report. Ex.P4/dt. 20-05-2014: Original FIR. Ex.P5/dt. 20-05-2014: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P6/dt.20-05-2014: PME Report. Ex.P7/dt. 19-01-2015: MVI Report. For Defence: NIL.,

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

CC/12/2016 Acquitted

S..I. of pOlice, Etcherla vs Nandiki venkata Reddy and another

22 Sep 2016

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 12/16 Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

DATE OF

offence:17-10-2014

Complaint or report17-10-2014

Apprehension of accused:20-10-2014

Release on bail:24-10-2014

Commencement of trial:14-07-2016

Close of trial20-09-2016

Sentence or order:22-09-2016 Explanation for delay and remarks: This Court received the case on 19.01.2016 from Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam as per the District Court proceedings in Dis.No. 2157 dated 14.05.2015. Due to non production of witnesses hence the delay. Name of the Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Etcherla P.S. Srikakulam. Name of the AccusedAgeFather's /Husband Religion Name

1. Nandiki Venkata Reddy28 years S/o ChinnavaduHindu

2. Suria Raju31 yearsS/o lt. Rajappadu callingResidenceTalukDistrict

DriverRagunadhapuram Etcherla Srikakulam Business. Chilakapalem Offence: u/s 447 I.P.C.: whoever commits criminal trespass with an intention shall be punished u/s 447 I.P.C. Offence u/s 379 I.P.C.: whoever commits theft shall be punished u/s 379 I.P.C. Offence u/s. 3(2) of : who ever committed theft and caused to damage the PDPP Act public property.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Ss.447, 379 of IPC, Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act. Hence, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled. The accused shall execute a fresh bond u/s.437-ACr.P.C.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam

// TRUE COPY //

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Smt.P.Sai Sudha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Thursday, 22ndday of September, Two thousand and Sixteen

CALENDAR CASE No.12/16

Between: The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Etcherla Police station, Srikakulam … Complainant

And:

1. Nandiki Venkata Reddy, S/o Chinnavadu, age 28 years, Reddika by caste, Raghunadhapuram Village, Etchera Mandal,

2. Suria Raju, S/o lt. Rajappadu, age 31 years, Nagavamsam by caste, Chilakapalem Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam

District. ...Accused

This case coming on 20-09-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Advocate for Complainant/State and of Sri ABVR, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Etcherla police station has filed the charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under sections 447, 379 of

Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and S. 3(2) of Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act,1984 (in short “PDPP Act”)

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 17-10-2014 at about 9.30am., while the SI of police, Etcherla PS and his staff were conducting vehicle checking on NH-16 Road at Chilakapalem Junction, they have seen a tractor cum trailer bearing no. AP 30 V 2167/ AP 30 V 2168 with a load of sand and when they stopped the vehicle and questioned the accused, then A1 disclosed that he committed theft of sand by trespassing into the Nagavali

River as per the instructions of A2. The SI of police asked him to show valid license, he stated that he do not have a license. An occurrence report was 3 drafted at the scene. On its basis, a case was registered in crime No.349/2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 of IPC,Sec. 3(2) of PDPP

Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences referred above.

3. The court took cognizance of offences under sections 447, 379 of

IPC,Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act, against the accused

4.On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, charges were framed against the accused for the offences u/Ss. 447, 379 of IPC, Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and

Ex.P1 was marked through them.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.,by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied it totally and reported that they have no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

i) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offences u/Ss. 447, 379 of IPC,Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The sum and substance of the evidence of PW1/Muddada Govinda Rao,

VRO of Dharmavaram Village, is to the effect on 20-10-2014 at about 3.30pm., they received a phone call from the Tahsildar and as per his instruction they went to Thamminaidupeta Village along with Basuru

Srininvasa Rao, VRO of Ponnada. He stated that they have observed the tyre marks of the tractor and he has drafted scene observation report to the dictation of police and he signed on it. Ex.P1 is Scene observation Report.

11. P.W.2/Palakonda Thatababu, VRO of Budham Village turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in material particulars.

12.The evidence of P.W.3/Baggu Satyanarayana, AEE of Irrigation 4

Department, is to the effect that, in the month of October, 2014, the SI of police Etcherla PS has enquired him whether there was approval for transportation of sand from Nagavali River bank at Thamminaidupeta Village which is under Kinthali Section. He stated that he has told him that they did not approve for transportation of Sand.

During his cross examination, he has admitted that Mines and Geology

Department is concerned about transportation of sand.

13. POINT NO.(i):

Inspite of several opportunities the prosecution has not examined the other witnesses. Undoubtedly, P.W.1 is a Government Servant. The learned defense counsel submitted that P.W.1 is a stock witness to the police. Except the evidence of P.W's 1 and 3, who are Government servants, no independent witness was examined by prosecution. Moreover, no plausible explanation was offered by the prosecution for not securing independent mediators. P.W.2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is admitted by P.W.3 that Mines and Geology Department is concerned about transportation of sand. In view of these factors, it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Ss. 447, 379 of IPC,Sec. 3(2) of PDPP

Act, beyond all reasonable doubt .

14.In the result, the accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 447, 379 of IPC, Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act.

Hence, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall execute fresh bonds u/S.437-

A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2016.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : PW1: Muddada Govinda Rao P.W.2:Palakonda Thatababu PW3: Baggu Satyanarayana FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1/dt.20-10-2014: Scene observation Report. FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

CC/13/2016 Acquitted

S.I. of Police,.Etecherla P.S vs Baki Giribabu and another

22 Sep 2016

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 13/16 Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

DATE OF

offence:17-10-2014

Complaint or report17-10-2014

Apprehension of accused:20-10-2014

Release on bail:24-10-2014

Commencement of trial:14-07-2016

Close of trial20-09-2016

Name of the Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Etcherla P.S. Srikakulam.

Name of the AccusedAgeFather's Religion Name/Husband Name

1. Baki Giri Babu25 years S/o RamuHindu

2. Muni Santosh24 yearsS/o Dalappadu callingResidenceTalukDistrict

DriverAllinagaram Etcherla Srikakulam Business. Chilakapalem Offence: u/s 447 I.P.C.: whoever commits criminal trespass with an intention shall be punished u/s 447 I.P.C. Offence u/s 379 I.P.C.: whoever commits theft shall be punished u/s 379 I.P.C. Offence u/s. 3(2) of : who ever committed theft and caused to damage the PDPP Act public property.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Ss.447, 379 of IPC, Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act. Hence, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled. The accused shall execute a fresh bond u/s.437-ACr.P.C.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam

// TRUE COPY //

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Smt.P.Sai Sudha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Thursday, 22ndday of September, Two thousand and Sixteen

CALENDAR CASE No.13/16

Between: The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Etcherla Police station, Srikakulam … Complainant

And:

1. Baki Giribabu, S/o Ramu, age 25 years, Reddika by caste, Raghunadhapuram Village, Etcherla Mandal,

2. Muni Santosh, S/o Dalappadu, age 24 years, Nagavamsam by caste, Chilakapalem Village, Etcherla Mandal, Srikakulam

District. ...Accused

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Etcherla police station has filed the charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under sections 447, 379 of

Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and S. 3(2) of Prevention of Damage to

Public Property Act,1984 (in short “PDPP Act”)

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 17-10-2014, while the

SI of Police, Etcherla PS, HC and other PC's conducting vehicle checking on

NH-16 Road at Chilakapalem Junction, they have seen a tractor cum trailer bearing no. AP 30 X 5423/ AP 30 X 5422 with a load of sand and when they stopped the vehicle and questioned the accused, then A1 disclosed that he committed theft of sand by trespassing into the Nagavali River as per the instructions of A2. The SI of police asked him to show valid license, he stated that he do not have a license. An occurrence report was drafted at the scene.

On its basis, a case was registered in crime No.350/2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 379 of IPC,Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences referred above.

3. The court took cognizance of offences under sections 447, 379 of

IPC,Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act, against the accused

4.On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and

Ex.P1 was marked through them.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

i) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offences u/Ss. 447, 379 of IPC,Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The sum and substance of the evidence of PW1/Muddada Govinda Rao,

VRO of Dharmavaram Village, is to the effect on 20-10-2014 at about 4.45pm., they received a phone call from the Tahsildar and as per his instruction they went to Thamminaidupeta Village along with Basuru

11. P.W.2/Palakonda Thatababu, VRO of Budham Village turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in material particulars.

12.The evidence of P.W.3/Baggu Satyanarayana, AEE of Irrigation 4

During his cross examination, he has admitted that Mines and Geology

Department is concerned about transportation of sand.

13. POINT NO.(i):

Inspite of several opportunities the prosecution has not examined the other witnesses. Undoubtedly, P.W.1 is a Government Servant. The learned defense counsel submitted that P.W.1 is a stock witness to the police. Except the evidence of P.W's 1 and 3, who are Government Servants, no independent witness was examined by prosecution. Moreover, no plausible explanation was offered by the prosecution for not securing independent mediators. P.W.2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is admitted by P.W.3 that Mines and Geology Department is concerned about transportation of sand. In view of these factors, it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Ss. 447, 379 of IPC,Sec. 3(2) of

PDPP Act, beyond all reasonable doubt .

14.In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 447, 379 of IPC, Sec. 3(2) of PDPP Act. Hence, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The accused shall execute fresh bonds u/S.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2016.

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : PW1: Muddada Govinda Rao P.W.2:Palakonda Thatababu PW3 : Baggu Satyanarayana FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1/dt.20-10-2014: Scene observation Report. FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Spl.Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

// TRUE COPY //

Order Record 141 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/12/2016	S..I. of pOlice, Etcherla vs Nandiki venkata Reddy and another	22 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/13/2016	S.I. of Police,.Etecherla P.S vs Baki Giribabu and another	22 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/344/2015	S.I. of Police II Town P.S. vs Gunupuru Roja	22 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/30/2015	S.I. of Police,.Etecherla P.S vs Savaera Yerram naidu	08 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/132/2014	Shriram City Union Finance litd. vs Kothakota Aruna	07 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/7/2015	Voodi Sunitha vs Vadapalli Sarath Babu	06 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/420/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Ganagalla Raju and 3 others	06 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/348/2015	Kongarapu Kalyani vs Kongarapu Kishore kumar and 5 others	01 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/16/2016	SI of police,JR puram PS vs Patnana Thotayya @ Pothayya and 6 others	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/347/2015	S.I. of Police, J.R.Puram P.S. vs Yandava Appalanaidu	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/460/2015	S.I of police, J.R.Puram.SKL vs Patnana Ramarao and 5 others	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/14/2016	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Bora Suryanarayana and another	11 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/232/2015	S.I. of Police, Etcherla P.S. vs Boddepalli Dakshinamurthy and 5 others	11 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/1/2016	S.I. of Police, II town P.S. vs Kornu Sai Kishore	10 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/440/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Gonapa Krishna and 3 others	10 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/76/2012	Gullipalli Narayana Rao vs Baratam Suresh	04 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/447/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Korlapu Narasimhulu and 4 others	19 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/456/2015	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Kantali Atchutharao	14 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/345/2015	S.I of police, J.R.Puram.SKL vs Pisini Suribabu	05 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/221/2015	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Mandal Mohan	30 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/365/2015	S.I. of Police, Etcherla P.S. vs Marakan Mahesh and 4 others	28 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/66/2015	S.I. of Police, Laveru P.S vs Myalpalli Appanna	23 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/28/2015	S.I. of Police, rural P.S vs Palina Appanna	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/388/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Palla Raju @Eekala Raju	15 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/229/2015	S..I. of pOlice, Etcherla vs Sura Apparao and 8 others	07 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/213/2015	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Akula Suresh and another	19 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/231/2015	S.I. of Police,.Etecherla P.S vs Pathivada Venkatrao	19 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/367/2015	S.I. of Police, J.R.Puram P.S. vs MD Asabul	19 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/114/2014	Jannela Leela Ramanarao vs Balaga Yerramnaidu	18 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/91/2015	S.I of Police, I Town P.S. vs Kakala Anil Kumar and 5 others	17 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/337/2015	Modalavalasa Ajeya kumar vs Gondu Janaamma	17 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/135/2015	Chapara Kamaraju vs Vskommu Duraga Rao	12 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/157/2012	S.I. of Police, J.R.Puram P.S. vs Md.Asabul.	12 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/307/2015	Korada Ramesh vs Nallana sujatha and another	10 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/242/2015	S.I. Gara P.S. vs Cheedipalli Lakshmayya	05 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/233/2015	S..I. of pOlice, Etcherla vs Suvvari venkata Ramana and 5 other s	04 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/106/2015	SI of police,I Town PS vs Chantati@Santhata Nageswararao and other	03 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/119/2014	Satti Srinivasa Reddy vs Komali Srinivasa ramamurthy	03 May 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/29/2015	S.I of police, J.R.Puram.SKL vs Vasupalli Appanna	28 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/49/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Dakara Sanyasi Naidu and another	28 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/166/2014	S.I of Police, Traffic P.S vs Thota Bhanu	26 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/74/2014	Mallidi Vinod Reddy vs Ruppa Apparao	21 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/319/2015	Karri Madhusudershan Reddy vs Chinthada Srinivasa Rao	21 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/432/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Kinthali Lokeswararao	21 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/4/2015	Thotada Rama Rao vs Muddada Ramakrishna and another	20 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/40/2015	S.I of police, J.R.Puram.SKL vs Pradeep kumar sahu	20 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/244/2015	Konada Kanthamma vs Konada Kurma rao	20 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/156/2014	Ganeswara, Surya Rao vs T.Mangamma	19 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/84/2014	Shriram City Union Finance litd. vs Lakkoji Prakash Rao	12 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/216/2015	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Byri Govindarao and 2 others	12 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/223/2015	S.I. of Police, Etcherla P.S. vs Dunga Narasinga Rao	06 Apr 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/39/2015	S.I of police, J.R.Puram.SKL vs Piniminti Durga Rao	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/46/2015	S.I. of Police, rural P.S vs Tadi Ramakrishna	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/53/2015	S.I of Police, Laveru P.S. vs Vaddi Kamayya	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/70/2015	S.I of police, J.R.Puram.SKL vs Onimi Demudu	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/215/2015	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Karanam Vijaykumar and 2 others	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/248/2015	S.I. of Police, J.R.Puram P.S. vs Mungi Bhargav	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/422/2015	S.I. of Police Rural P.S., vs Baratam Santharao	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/437/2015	S.I. of Police Rural P.S., vs Velamala Srinivasarao and another	31 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/1/2010	Gangitla Venkata Ramana vs Narasipuram Kishorekumar	30 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/5/2015	S..I. of pOlice, Etcherla vs Pydi Sambhamurthy and others	30 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/28/2014	K.V.Arunasree vs J.Santhakumari	30 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400/2012	M. Venkata Ramana vs Narisipuram Kishore	30 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/124/2012	Inspector of Police, vs P.Ramesh Chandra,	24 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/38/2015	S.I. of Police II Town P.S. vs Koppala appayya and others	22 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/111/2012	SI. of Police, Etcherla P.S. vs Pappala Jyothi	16 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/98/2014	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Byri Sudarshnarao and others	15 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/98/2015	Naravala Narasamma vs Naravala Satyam	15 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/169/2014	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Achanta Venkata Nageswararao	10 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/180/2011	S.I. of Police Rural P.S., vs Latchupatula Ganapathirao	10 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/60/2015	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Dumpa Asirayya and others	09 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/23/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Vanjala Yerayya	08 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/71/2015	S.I of police, J.R.Puram.SKL vs Gujjeti Kamesh	03 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/52/2015	S.I. of Police, J.R.Puram P.S. vs Chilla Srinivasareddy	01 Mar 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/217/2015	S.I. Rural P.S.skl vs Kanchi Parayya and 2 others	25 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/48/2015	S.I. of Police, J.R.Puram P.S. vs Bandaru Jagadeesh @ Jagadeesh kumar and others	23 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/241/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Gudla Suresh and 2 others	23 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/322/2015	Shriram City Union Finance litd. vs Panda jSrinivas	23 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/6/2015	S.I. of Police, I town P.S. vs Gorle Prabhakara Rao and other	17 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/160/2014	S..I. of pOlice, Etcherla vs Chintha Srinivasarao and 17 others	16 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/31/2015	S.I of police Women P.S.SKL vs Namala Chakravarthy	11 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/58/2014	S.I of police, J.R.Puram.SKL vs Adapa Appalanaidu and others	11 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/63/2015	S.I. of Police,.Etecherla P.S vs Muddada Rambabu	09 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/76/2015	S.I of Police, women P.S. vs Bonela Ramana	09 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/192/2015	SriRam City Union Finance Ltd., vs Korrayi Appanna	09 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/343/2015	Shriram City Union Finance litd. vs Patnala Srinivasarao	09 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/401/2012	Satti Satyanarayana Reddy vs Garugubilli Raju	03 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/122/2015	Chapara Kamaraju vs Suvvri Madhusudhanarao	02 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/260/2015	Shriram City Union Finance litd. vs Korlana Kameswararao	02 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/426/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Dasari Jagadeesh and 6 others	27 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/436/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Dasari Bojjamma and 5 others	27 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/133/2011	Pasupureddi Perumalu vs Sheik Shabbir Ali	19 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/34/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Simma Asirodu and 4 others	13 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/56/2015	S.I. of police, Laveru P.S. vs Gedela Ramana	12 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/111/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Korada Bangari	12 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/12/2015	Chinta Kanki Reddy vs Yajjala Srinivas	07 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/235/2015	S.I. Gara P.S. vs Jalumuru Simhachalam	07 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/237/2015	S.I of Police, Gara P.S vs Potnuru Venkata Apparao	07 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/35/2014	Nallamilli Venkata Krishna Reddy vs Karumuri Sambasiva Rao	06 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/40/2014	Gudla Surya Prakashrao vs Vysyaraju Anandaraju and another	06 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 141 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2016		8
Aug 2016		8
Jul 2016		3
Jun 2016		7
May 2016		14
Apr 2016		13
Mar 2016		23
Feb 2016		15
Jan 2016		17
Dec 2015		14
Nov 2015		5
Oct 2015		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.P. Saisudha handled?

Smt.P. Saisudha has handled 149 court orders since 2013 at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam. The average disposal rate is 4 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.P. Saisudha hear?

Based on available records, Smt.P. Saisudha primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam.

Where is Smt.P. Saisudha currently posted?

Smt.P. Saisudha is posted as Judl.Magistrate of 1st class Spl.Mobile Court at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.P. Saisudha available online?

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

How fast does Smt.P. Saisudha dispose cases?

Smt.P. Saisudha disposes approximately 4 cases per month, based on 149 orders handled over their tenure at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam.

Since when is Smt.P. Saisudha serving?

Smt.P. Saisudha has been serving at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam since 2013.

Case Types

CC 100%

Posting History

Sep 2013 — Oct 2016

Judl.Magistrate of 1st class Spl.Mobile Court · 149 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Junaid Ahmed Moulana

Prl.District Judge

1,566 orders

Yamala Bennayya Naidu

I Addl.District Judge

0 orders

Sri B Sadhu Babu

II Addl.District Judge skl

0 orders

Sri Ch.Vivek Anand Srinivas

Family Court

451 orders

Sri S.M.Phani Kumar

V Addl. District Judge Lakshmipeta

0 orders

Ravi Shanthi Sree

Prl.Sr.civil Judge

0 orders

Shaik Ibrahim Sharief

Addl Sr.Civil Judge

0 orders

K.anurag

Prl.Junior Civil Judge

281 orders

Smt. Mohideen Zamruth Begum Kamaludeen

Addl Jr.Civil Judge

1,454 orders

Vasupalli Sahithi

Judl.Magistrate of 1st class Spl.Mobile Court

0 orders

Nakka Suneetha

Addl. District Judge POCSO Court Srikakulam

0 orders

Smt. K.m.zamruth Begum

Prl.Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Srikakulam

3 orders

← View all judges at Prl. District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam