Currently Serving

Parimi Alekya

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka) · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

PARIMI ALEKYA, I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 700 court orders on record since 2024. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, MC, PRC cases.

700

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/179/2023 Acquitted

The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Shaik Saida Vali

10 Dec 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

APGU0D0002112023

PRESENT Ms.PARIMI ALEKYA,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

C.C.No.179/2023

Between:-

State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB station,. . . Complainant Gurazala

And

Shaik Saida Vali, S/o.Khasin Saida, Age 36 Years, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal . . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 09-12-2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Ch. Koteswara rao Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gurazala has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.43/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:

On 28-03-2022 at near 20 meters from Masjid in Gamalapadu

Village of Dachepalli Mandal while conducting patrolling duty LWs 1 to 3/M.Srinivasa Rao, D.Mariya Das, K.Murali Krishna noticed the accused person carrying one white plastic can and upon seeing us she tried to run away from there but LW3/K.Murali Krishna apprehended the accused and seized 05 liters of ID Arrack from the possession of the accused.

Subsequently, LW3/K.Murali Krishna has prepared special report and basing on it he registered the case in Crime No.43/2022 under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.

During the course of his investigation, LW3 arrested the accused and sent the material objects for chemical analysis and obtained the chemical analysis report from the Government Chemical Examiner, wherein it was opined that the sample is Indian liquor. Later on the case was handed over to LW4/M.Jaya Rao who after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. Charge under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act Act beyond reasonable doubt.”

10. POINT :

(a) To substantiate its case, prosecution examined PW1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. PW1 is the police personnel, who said to have detected the crime.

(b) Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 deposed that on 28-03-2022 he received information as to illegal possession of contraband and he along with his staff LWs 1 and 2/ M.Srinivasa Rao and D.Mariya Das proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the accused carrying a white plastic can. That upon enquiry by PW1, he revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles and that upon verification by PW1, he found 05 liters of ID Arrack in the possession of the accused.

Upon being questioned by PW1 the accused failed to give accountability for possession of the liquor bottles and therefore PW1 seized the contraband from the possession of the accused. He prepared special report and on basis of that he registered the case in crime No.43/2022 under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, arrested the accused. During the course of his investigation he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis to

Chemical Examiner, Guntur and received report. Thereafter the case was handed over to LW4/M.Jaya rao who on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.

(c) During the cross examination of PW1, he categorically stated that scene of offence is a busy locality and he tried to secure the presence of mediators but none came forward and he did not try to secure the presence of revenue officials as mediators.

(d) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the evidence of

P.W.1 is nothing but replica of contents of charge sheet and who deposed as per the record. P.W.1 during his chief-examination stated as to the procedural aspect as to registering the case, sending the sample to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. PW1 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality and he tried to secure the presence of mediators but none came forward and he did not try to secure the presence of revenue officials as mediators.

(e) As per the case record, there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the Police official and therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. The evidence of P.W.1 could be considered for the procedural aspect to complete the investigation only.

(f) Adverting to the plea of defence counsel about arrest of accused and seizure of contraband in the absence of mediators, the prosecution case has entirely failed to mention reasons as to why the independent mediators could not be secured during the seizure of the alleged contraband from the accused and that PW1 in his cross examination stated that scene of offence is a busy locality and he tried to secure the presence of mediators but none came forward and he did not try to secure the presence of revenue officials as mediators, which makes it highly suspicious to believe their efforts to secure the presence of the mediators. According to the

Judgment of Hon’ble High court of AP in Yedduri Srinivasarao v/s State of

AP 2002(1) ALD criminal 347, wherein, while dealing with the application of

Section 100(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary.As per the case of prosecution though they tried to secure the mediators, none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband. When the place of offence is busy locality where there is movement of the public and there is every possibility to public to act as mediators, it is highly improbable to believe the version of prosecution that none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband.

In such circumstances it is not safe to place reliance on the interested testimony of PW.1. All these facts lead to inference that the police officials have failed to secure two or more independent or respectable inhabitants of locality for seizure of contraband. Consequently, the seizure of contraband as alleged from Ex.P1 – police proceedings vitiated.

(g) As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that P.W.1 did not make sufficient efforts to secure the presence of any independent witness or

Village Sarpanch, Ward Members, or V.R.O to act as mediators. Further more, LW4/Sub Inspector of Police who is the complainant in the case is the investigating officer. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the observations of Hon'ble High Court of AP in Podhuturi Satyam Reddy Vs.

State of AP reported in 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 66 AP wherein his lord ship held that:

“The position of law is well settled. In this case PW.1 was informant rather the complainant. He himself took up the investigation and filed charge sheet. Certainly, this is an infirmity in this case. This certainly reflects the credibility of the investigation done in the matter. The prosecution cannot rely upon the evidence of PW.1 solely. The courts below were not correct in relying upon this evidence. Hence, the benefit of this procedural irregularity is given to the accused”.

(h) The facts and circumstances of the above referred case are similar to the case on hand. In the present case as can be seen from Ex.P1,

LW4/Sub Inspector of Police is the investigating officer and complainant in the case. As rightly pointed out by the defence counsel it certainly effects the investigation. Even in a case between Gyam Singh and Ors v. State of U.P reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, the Hon'ble Apex

Court observed that conviction could not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an official witness.

(i) In view of the above decision, it can be rightly concluded that mere registering the crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of P.W.1 who is the police official and highly interested in securing the conviction for the accused, there is no other independent evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused.

(j) Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence with which she is charged. In the light of above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: K.Murali Krishna

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Special Report

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report

Ex.P.3 : Chemical Analysis Report vide RC.No.1345/2022, dt.08-08-2022.

Ex.P.4: Confiscation orders vide Rc.No.803/2022/C2, dt.30-09-2022

For Defence:

NIL

Material Objects:

M.O.1: Sample bottle

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

C.C.No.179/2023

Date of:

Date of Sentenc Report of Apprehe Commenc remand/41 Release Closure of e or Offence complain nsion of e-ment of -A Cr.P.C on bail trial ant accused trial order Notice 28-03-2228-03-2228-03-2228-03-2231-03-2505-12-2505-12-2510-12-25

Between:-

State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB station,. . . Complainant Gurazala

And

Shaik Saida Vali, S/o.Khasin Saida, Age 36 Years, R/o.Gamalapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal. . . . Accused

Crime Number43/2022 of SEB Gurazala

Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act Offence

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

Judgment:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

CC/99/2024 Acquitted

Sho Gurazala Ps vs Sankurathri Nageswara Rao@ Naga Raju

10 Dec 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

PRESENT Ms.PARIMI ALEKYA,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

C.C.No.99/2024

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala PS. . . Complainant

And

1. Sankurathri Nageswara Rao @ Nagaraju, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Age 30 Years, Madugula Village, Gurazala District

2. Manjula Anjaneyulu @ Anji S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Age 30 Years, 21st ward, Macherla Town. . . Accused

This case is coming before me on 08-12-2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.K.V.Nagarjuna Advocate for Accused No.1, Sri Ch.Anil Kumar Advocate

for the Accused No.2 and on hearing both the sides, this matter having

stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gurazala has filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Cr. No.29/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act altered to

Sec.7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows :

On 07-02-2023 at Madugula Village while conducting patrolling duty

LWs 1 to 3 and 6/M.Edukondalu, N.K.Raju, Amavasya Nageswara Rao and

T.Ashok Babu along with mediators Lws 4 and 5/Cheviti Venkateswarlu and

Yadala Venkateswarlu noticed A1 and A2 and upon seeing them they tried to run away from there but LW6/T.Ashok Babu apprehended A1 and A2 and seized 09-750ML, Royal Stag Whiskey bottles from the possession of

A1 and A2. Subsequently, LW6/ T.Ashok Babu has prepared mediatornama and basing on it he registered the case in Crime No.29/2023 under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act altered to Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act.

During the course of his investigation, LW6 arrested the accused and sent the material objects for chemical analysis and obtained the chemical analysis report from the Government Chemical Examiner. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act against A1 and A2.

4.On appearance of A1 and A2, they were furnished with the copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. Charge under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act has been framed against A1 and A2, read over and explained to them in vernacular, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.”

10. POINT :

(a) To substantiate its case, prosecution examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1.

(b) Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 deposed that on 07-05-2023 upon the instructions of LW6, he along with LW5 proceeded to the scene of offence at Madugula Village and LW6 seized 09-750ML, Royal Stag

Whiskey bottles from the possession of A1 and A2 in my presence and accordingly a mediatornama was drafted. PW2 also deposed in the same lines as PW1 and he further deposed that on basis of the mediatornama he registered the case in crime No.29/2023 under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP

Prohibition Act, arrested the accused. During the course of his investigation he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis to Chemical Examiner,

Guntur and received report and obtained confiscation proceedings. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act.

(c) During the cross examination of PW1, he categorically stated that he has not obtained any prior permission from his higher officials to act as mediator and Ex.P1 is drafted and signed at the police station but again denied the same. PW2 in his cross examination stated that he has not examined any persons in the scene of offence.

(d) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the evidence of

Chemical Examiner for analysis and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. PW1 admitted that he has not obtained any prior permission from his higher officials to act as mediator and Ex.P1 is drafted and signed at the police station but again denied the same. PW2 admitted that he has not examined any persons in the scene of offence.

(e) As per the case record, there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution, P.W.2 is the Police official and therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. The evidence of P.W.2 could be considered for the procedural aspect to complete the investigation only.

(f) Adverting to the plea of defence counsel about arrest of accused and seizure of contraband in the absence of mediators, the prosecution case has entirely failed to mention reasons as to why the independent mediators at the scene of offence could not be secured during the seizure of the alleged contraband from the accused instead securing the revenue officials as mediators and that Pws 1 and 2 in their cross examination stated that he has not obtained any prior permission from his higher officials to act as mediator and Ex.P1 is drafted and signed at the police station but again denied the same and PW2 has not examined any persons in the scene of offence, which makes it highly suspicious to believe their efforts to secure the presence of the independent persons at the scene of offence as mediators. According to the Judgment of Hon’ble High court of AP in

Yedduri Srinivasarao v/s State of AP 2002(1) ALD criminal 347, wherein, while dealing with the application of Section 100(4) of Criminal Procedure

Code, it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary.

When the place of offence is busy locality where there is movement of the public and there is every possibility to public to act as mediators, it is highly improbable to believe the version of prosecution that none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband instead securing revenue officials as mediators rather than examining the persons present in the scene of offence. In such circumstances it is not safe to place reliance on the interested testimony of Pws 1 and 2. All these facts lead to inference that the police officials have failed to secure two or more independent or respectable inhabitants of locality for seizure of contraband.

Consequently, the seizure of contraband as alleged from Ex.P1 – mediatornama vitiated.

(g) Further more, LW6/Sub Inspector of Police who is the complainant in the case is the investigating officer. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the observations of Hon'ble High Court of AP in Podhuturi Satyam Reddy

Vs. State of AP reported in 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 66 AP wherein his lord ship held that:

(h) The facts and circumstances of the above referred case are similar to the case on hand. In the present case as can be seen from Ex.P1,

LW6/Sub Inspector of Police is the investigating officer and complainant in the case. As rightly pointed out by the defence counsel it certainly effects the investigation. Even in a case between Gyam Singh and Ors v. State of U.P reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, the Hon'ble Apex

Court observed that conviction could not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an official witness.

(i) In view of the above decision, it can be rightly concluded that mere registering the crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of P.W.2 who are the police official and highly interested in securing the conviction for the accused, there is no other independent evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused.

(j) Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence with which he is charged. In the light of above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

11. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: Ch.Venkateswarlu

PW2: T.Ashok Babu

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Mediatornamma

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report

Ex.P.3 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P.4 :Chemical Analysis Report vide RC.No.526/2023, dt.10-03-2023.

For Defence:

NIL

Material Objects:

M.O.1: Sample bottle

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

C.C.No.99/2024

Date of:

Date of Sentenc Report of Apprehe Commenc remand/41 Release Closure of e or Offence complain nsion of e-ment of -A Cr.P.C on bail trial ant accused trial order Notice 07-02-2307-02-2307-02-23 07-02-2310-02-2304-12-2505-12-2510-12-25

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala PS. . . Complainant

And

1. Sankurathri Nageswara Rao @ Nagaraju, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Age 30 Years, Madugula Village, Gurazala District

2. Manjula Anjaneyulu @ Anji S/o.Srinivasa Rao, Age 30 Years, 21st ward, Macherla Town. . . Accused

Crime Number29/2023 of Gurazala PS

Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act Offence

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

Judgment:

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

CC/183/2023 Acquitted

The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Mogili Venkatamma

10 Dec 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

APGU0D0002152023

PRESENT Ms.PARIMI ALEKYA,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

C.C.No.183/2023

Between:-

State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB station,. . . Complainant Gurazala

And

Mogili Venkatamma, W/o.Chinna Venkateswarlu, Age 65 Years, R/o.D.No.6-63, Madugula Village, Gurazala . . . Accused Mandal, Guntur District.

This case is coming before me on 08-12-2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Sk.Jani Basha Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gurazala has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.27/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows :

On 21-02-2022 at Yeklavya statue of ST colony, Madugula Village, while conducting patrolling duty LWs 1 to 4/D.Mariyadas, U.V.Ramana

Kumari, V.Basaveswara Rao, K.Murali Krishna noticed the accused person carrying one white plastic can and upon seeing us she tried to run away from there but LW4/K.Murali Krishna apprehended the accused and seized 05 litres of ID Arraack from the possession of the accused. Subsequently,

LW4/K.Murali Krishna has prepared special report and basing on it he registered the case in Crime No.27/2022 under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP

Prohibition Act.

During the course of his investigation, LW4 arrested the accused and sent the material objects for chemical analysis and obtained the chemical analysis report from the Government Chemical Examiner, wherein it was opined that the sample is Indian liquor. Later on the case was handed over to LW5/M.Jaya Rao who after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, she was furnished with the copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. Charge under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to her in vernacular, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to her, for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act Act beyond reasonable doubt.”

10. POINT :

(a) To substantiate its case, prosecution examined PW1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. PW1 is the police personnel, who said to have detected the crime.

(b) Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 deposed that on 21-02-2022 he received information as to illegal possession of contraband and he along with his staff LW1/ D.Mariyadas proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the accused carrying ID arrack. That upon enquiry by PW1, he revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles and that upon verification by PW1, he found 05 litres of ID Arrack in the possession of the accused. Upon being questioned by PW1 the accused failed to give accountability for possession of the liquor bottles and therefore PW1 seized the contraband from the possession of the accused.

He prepared special report and on basis of that he registered the case in crime No.27/2022 under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act, arrested the accused. During the course of his investigation he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis to Chemical Examiner, Guntur and received report. Thereafter the case was handed over to LW5/M.Jaya Rao who on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act.

(d) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the evidence of

Judgment of Hon’ble High court of AP in Yedduri Srinivasarao v/s State of

AP 2002(1) ALD criminal 347, wherein, while dealing with the application of

Section 100(4) of Criminal Procedure Code, it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary. As per the case of prosecution though they tried to secure the mediators, none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband. When the place of offence is busy locality where there is movement of the public and there is every possibility to public to act as mediators, it is highly improbable to believe the version of prosecution that none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband.

(g) As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that P.W.1 did not make sufficient efforts to secure the presence of any independent witness or

Village Sarpanch, Ward Members, or V.R.O to act as mediators. Further more, LW5/Sub Inspector of Police who is the complainant in the case is the investigating officer. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the observations of Hon'ble High Court of AP in Podhuturi Satyam Reddy Vs.

State of AP reported in 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 66 AP wherein his lord ship held that:

(h) The facts and circumstances of the above referred case are similar to the case on hand. In the present case as can be seen from Ex.P1,

LW5/Sub Inspector of Police is the investigating officer and complainant in the case. As rightly pointed out by the defence counsel it certainly effects the investigation. Even in a case between Gyam Singh and Ors v. State of U.P reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, the Hon'ble Apex

Court observed that conviction could not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an official witness.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act and accordingly she is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: K.Murali Krishna

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Special Report

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report

Ex.P.3 : Chemical Analysis Report vide RC.No.919/2022, dt.21-04-2022.

Ex.P.4: Confiscation orders vide Rc.No.803/2022/C2, dt.30-09-2022

For Defence:

NIL

Material Objects:

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

C.C.No.183/2023

Date of:

Date of Sentenc Report of Apprehe Commenc remand/41 Release Closure of e or Offence complain nsion of e-ment of -A Cr.P.C on bail trial ant accused trial order Notice 21-02-2221-02-2221-02-2221-02-2223-02-2205-12-2505-12-2510-12-25

Between:-

State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB station,. . . Complainant Gurazala

And

Mogili Venkatamma, W/o.Chinna Venkateswarlu, Age 65 Years, R/o.D.No.6-63, Madugula Village, Gurazala . . . Accused Mandal, Guntur District.

Crime Number27/2022 of SEB Gurazala

Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of AP Prohibition Act Offence

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

Judgment:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) AP Prohibition Act and accordingly she is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

CC/118/2022 Acquitted

SHO SEB GURAZALA PS vs USTHELA DANAIAH

10 Dec 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

APGU0D0001272022

PRESENT Ms.PARIMI ALEKYA,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

C.C.No.118/2022

Between:-

State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB station,. . . Complainant Gurazala

And

Usthela Danaiah, S/o.Gopaiah, Age 53 Years, R/o.Muthyalampadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal, . . . Accused Guntur District.

This case is coming before me on 08-12-2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Chinna Koteswara rao Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Gurazala has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.41/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Amendment

Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows :

On 11-12-2018 at outskirts of Muthyalampadu Village of Dachepalli

Mandal, while conducting patrolling duty LWs 1 to 4/A.Raveendra Kumar,

A.Sreenivasa Rao, P.Sathyanarayana, E.Srinivasa Rao noticed the accused person carrying one white plastic bag and upon seeing us she tried to run away from there but LW4/E.Srinivasa Rao apprehended the accused and seized 09-180M.L, Double Kick Fine Whiskey bottles, 01- 750ML, Original Choice reserve whiskey bottle from the possession of the accused. Subsequently, LW4/E.Srinivasa Rao has prepared special report and basing on it LW5/D.Peeru Hussain registered the case in Crime

No.41/2018 under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

During the course of his investigation, LW5 arrested the accused and sent the material objects for chemical analysis and obtained the chemical analysis report from the Government Chemical Examiner, wherein it was opined that the sample is Indian liquor. Later on the case was handed over to LW7/Y.Mohan who after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. Charge under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs 1 and 2.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt.”

10. POINT :

(a) To substantiate its case, prosecution examined PW1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs 1 and 2. PW1 is the police personnel, who said to have detected the crime.

(b) Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 deposed that on 11-12-2018 LW4 received information as to illegal possession of contraband and LW4 along with his staff Lws 1 to 3/ A.Raveendra kumar, A.Sreenivasa rao,

P.Sathyanarayana proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the accused carrying a plastic bag. That upon enquiry by LW4, he revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles and that upon verification by PW1, LW4 found 09-180M.L, Double Kick Fine

Whiskey bottles, 01-750ML, Original Choice reserve whiskey bottle in the possession of the accused. Upon being questioned by LW4 the accused failed to give accountability for possession of the liquor bottles and therefore LW4 seized the contraband from the possession of the accused.

Accordingly, upon his instructions, he prepared special report and on basis of that he registered the case in crime No.41/2018 under Section 34(a) of

AP Excise Act, arrested the accused. During the course of his investigation he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis to Chemical Examiner,

Guntur and received report. Thereafter the case was handed over to

LW7/Y.Mohan who on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise

Act.

(c) During the cross examination of PW1, he categorically stated that he has not proceeded to the scene of offence and he has not secured the mediators.

(d) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the evidence of

Chemical Examiner for analysis and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. PW1 admitted that he has not proceeded to the scene of offence and he has not secured the mediators.

(f) Adverting to the plea of defence counsel about arrest of accused and seizure of contraband in the absence of mediators, the prosecution case has entirely failed to mention reasons as to why the independent mediators could not be secured during the seizure of the alleged contraband from the accused and that PW1 in his cross examination stated that he has not proceeded to the scene of offence and he has not secured the mediators, which makes it highly suspicious to believe their efforts to secure the presence of the mediators. According to the Judgment of Hon’ble High court of AP in Yedduri Srinivasarao v/s State of AP 2002(1) ALD criminal 347, wherein, while dealing with the application of Section 100(4) of

Criminal Procedure Code, it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary.

As per the case of prosecution though they tried to secure the mediators, none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband.

When the place of offence is busy locality where there is movement of the public and there is every possibility to public to act as mediators, it is highly improbable to believe the version of prosecution that none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband. In such circumstances it is not safe to place reliance on the interested testimony of PW.1. All these facts lead to inference that the police officials have failed to secure two or more independent or respectable inhabitants of locality for seizure of contraband. Consequently, the seizure of contraband as alleged from

Ex.P1 – police proceedings vitiated.

(g) As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that P.W.1 did not make sufficient efforts to secure the presence of any independent witness or

Village Sarpanch, Ward Members, or V.R.O to act as mediators. Further more, LW7/Sub Inspector of Police who is the complainant in the case is the investigating officer. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the observations of Hon'ble High Court of AP in Podhuturi Satyam Reddy Vs.

State of AP reported in 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 66 AP wherein his lord ship held that:

(h) The facts and circumstances of the above referred case are similar to the case on hand. In the present case as can be seen from Ex.P1,

LW7/Sub Inspector of Police is the investigating officer and complainant in the case. As rightly pointed out by the defence counsel it certainly effects the investigation. Even in a case between Gyam Singh and Ors v. State of U.P reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, the Hon'ble Apex

Court observed that conviction could not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an official witness.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure

Code. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: D.Peeru Hussaian

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Special Report

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report

Ex.P.3 : Chemical Analysis Report vide RC.No.1661/2019, dt.20-06-2019.

Ex.P.4: Confiscation orders vide Rc.No.29/2019/C2, dt.20-07-2019

For Defence:

NIL

Material Objects:

M.Os.1 and 2: Sample bottles

Sd/-Ms.ParimiAlekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

C.C.No.118/2022

Date of:

Date of Sentenc Report of Apprehe Commenc remand/41 Release Closure of e or Offence complain nsion of e-ment of -A Cr.P.C on bail trial ant accused trial order Notice 11-12-1811-12-1811-12-1811-12-18--05-12-2505-12-2510-12-25

Between:-

State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB station,. . . Complainant Gurazala

And

Usthela Danaiah, S/o.Gopaiah, Age 53 Years, R/o.Muthyalampadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal, . . . Accused Guntur District.

Crime Number41/2018 of SEB Gurazala

Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act Offence

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

Judgment:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Ms.ParimiAlekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

OS/215/2022

Bellamkonda Siva vs Mallala Srinivasa Rao

11 Dec 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GURAZALA

PRESENT: M S .P ARIMI A LEKYA ,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Thursday, this the 11th day of December, 2025

O.S.No.215/2022

BETWEEN: Bellamkonda Siva, S/o.Kotaiah, R/o.Karempudi Village and Mandal, Guntur District. . .Plaintiff

AND

Mallala Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Rama Swamy, R/o.Karempudi

Village and Mandal, Guntur District. . . .Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 10-12-2025 in the presence of Sri Ch.Koteswara raoAdvocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.2,07,645/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five only) being the principal and interest due on ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes dated.23.07.2021, for subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that :

(a) On 23.07.2021 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.69,000/- Sixty Nine

Thousand only) from the plaintiff for his family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed ‘A’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day.

(b) On 23.07.2021 the defendant has borrowed a further amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from the plaintiff for his family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed ‘B’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day.

(c) Plaintiff alleged that, in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount due under the said two promissory notes by postponing the repayment on one pretext or other. Hence the suit.

3. Summons were served on the defendant, but the defendant failed to cause his appearance and did not file written statement. Hence, defendant is set exparte.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and

Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked through him.

5. Heard counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6. Now, the points for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

7. POINT:

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of

Rs.2,07,645/- with future interest at 24% p.a. on the principal sum of

Rs.1,69,000/- from the defendant based on a promissory notes dated: 23-07- 2021 stated to have been executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff and promised to repay the same as and when demanded, but he did not do so.

Despite service of summons, the defendant did not choose to cause his appearance and file written statement, hence the defendant was set exparte.

In support of the case of the plaintiff, he himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dated 23-07- 2021 stated to have been executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff, having received Rs. 1,69,000 from the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the original promissory note dated 23-07-2021 stated to have been executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. This oral evidence of PW1 and the documentary evidence remained unrebutted.

From a perusal of evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 and A2 it is crystal clear that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,69,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory notes Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 in favour of the plaintiff but he failed to repay the same and hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly point is held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs. 2,07,645/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Seven Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five only) with interest, on the

principal amount due of Rs.1,69,000/-, at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the

date of decree and with future interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

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

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff: P.W.1:Bellamkonda Siva

For the Defendant: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1Suit promissory note dated:23-07-2021 for Rs.69,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A.2Suit promissory note dated:23-07-2021 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

For the Defendant: Nil.

Sd/-Ms.Parimi Alekya

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gurazala.

//True Copy//

ACJ(JD), GZL

Order Record 693 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/215/2022	Bellamkonda Siva vs Mallala Srinivasa Rao	11 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/99/2024	Sho Gurazala Ps vs Sankurathri Nageswara Rao@ Naga Raju	10 Dec 2025	judgement	Acquitted
CC/118/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA PS vs USTHELA DANAIAH	10 Dec 2025	judgement	Acquitted
CC/179/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Shaik Saida Vali	10 Dec 2025	judgement	Acquitted
CC/183/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Mogili Venkatamma	10 Dec 2025	judgement	Acquitted
CC/184/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Bhukya Saida Naik	10 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/188/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Jakkula subbulu	10 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/290/2023	SEB STATION GURAZALA vs KARPURAPU NAGESWARA RAO	10 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/247/2023	Thota Seshaiah vs Pothamsetty Kondalu	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/7/2025	Proh Ex Gurazala Ps vs Tammisetty Veeramma	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/12/2025	Proh Ex Gurazala Ps vs Kota vijaya Babu	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/19/2025	Proh Ex Gurazala Ps vs Komma Venkateswarlu	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/51/2025	Proh And Ex Gurazala vs Ramayanapu Naveen Kumar	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/53/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Gurazala vs Deekonda Sivakrishna	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/58/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Gurazala. vs Banavath Ramesh Naik	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/286/2018	SHO GURAZALA URBAN PS vs Gunja Appa rao and 6 others	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/360/2025	Proh And Ex Gurazala vs Patra Meri Babu	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/723/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA PS vs KETAVATH RANGA NAIK	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/729/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs MITTAPALLI LAKSHMAMMA	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/731/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs CHINTHALAPATI VENKARTESWARLU	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/739/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs SANKATI SIVA REDDY	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/740/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs JAKKA SRINIVASA RAO	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/745/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs THULLIBILLI ASHOK KUMAR	09 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/108/2025	Burri Annapurnamma vs Shaik Saida	08 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/240/2020	Parimi Rama Rao vs Ankala Syamsun	05 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/357/2022	SHO GURAZALA TOWN PS vs B BALA GUIRAVAIAH	04 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/852/2022	SHO GURAZALA PS vs CH NARASIMHA RAO	04 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/979/2022	SHO GURAZALA PS vs CHALLA VIJAYA	04 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/37/2023	Yarrabothula Malla Reddy vs Nagipogu Aruna	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/43/2025	Balinedi Venkata Reddy vs Madala Ganesh Babu	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/84/2025	Golakaaram Ramarao vs Kesanupalli Narasimha Rao	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/94/2019	Tenali Ramulamma vs Battula Nageswara Rao	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/101/2025	Potla Narasimha Rao alias Narasimha Rao vs Rayarapu Venkanna	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/188/2018	Potu Sambrajyam vs Potu Peraiah	03 Dec 2025	order	—
OS/215/2024	Marabathula Ramalakshmaiah vs Thodeti Ramarao	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/307/2023	Bhavanari Satish vs Videla Venkata Ramarao	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/103/2025	Sho Gurazala Ps vs Domathoti Baaji	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
CC/791/2025	Sho Dachepalli Ps vs Udatha Vijay Kiran Teja And 03 Others	03 Dec 2025	judgement	—
MC/56/2022	Bhukya Parvathi Bai vs BUKYA HANUMA NAIK	03 Dec 2025	order	—
MC/57/2019	Addanki Lakshmi vs Addanki Sreenu	03 Dec 2025	order	—
MC/62/2022	Gurram Dhana Lakshmi and other one vs Gurram Thirupathi Rao Sandeep	03 Dec 2025	order	—
OS/186/2018	Chitimireddy Eswaramma vs Chitimireddy Venkata Reddy	02 Dec 2025	order	—
CC/434/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Piduguralla vs Gandikota Vijayalakshmi	01 Dec 2025	judgement	—
OS/136/2021	Lella narasimha Rao died his LRs Lella Krishna Murthy vs Dasari Vengaiah	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
OS/265/2023	Potu Venkateswarlu vs Pammi Vasantha Reddy	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/660/2022	The SHO Rentachintala vs Vatti Lakshma Reddy	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/666/2022	The SHO Rentachintala vs Orsu Lakshmi Devi	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/668/2022	The SHO Rentachintala vs Komera Kotamma	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/674/2022	The SHO Rentachintala vs Peram Srinivasa Reddy	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/722/2021	Sho Rentachintala Ps vs Sankuratri Nageshwa Rao	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/743/2021	SHO GURAZALA vs GONAM MANIKANTA	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/826/2021	SHO SEB PIDUGURALLA PS vs INUMUKKALA VIKTOR BABU	26 Nov 2025	judgement	—
OS/222/2018	Vinukonda Mariyamma vs The Mandal Educational Officer, veldurthi Mandal, Veldurthi, Guntur District	25 Nov 2025	order	—
CC/67/2022	SHO GURAZALA PS vs BANAVATH PARVATHI BAI	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/177/2022	Sub Inspector, piduguralla vs Javangula Nagendramma	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/238/2021	SHO GURAZALA vs PAMULA CHINNA KRISHNA	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/239/2021	SHO GURAZALA vs NARAYANADASU CHINA THIRUPATHACHARI	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/374/2022	SHO SEB Station Piduguralla vs Chappidi Narasimha rao	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/375/2022	SHO SEB Station Piduguralla vs Kakani Srinivasa rao	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/376/2022	SHO SEB Station Piduguralla vs Pelluri Kotaiah	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/535/2021	SHO GURAZALA vs YENUMULA SRINADHA REDDY	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/593/2021	SHO GURAZALA PS vs MUTHANA VENKATESHWAR REDDY	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/662/2021	Sho Gurazala vs Vssk Nazar	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/664/2021	SHO GURAZALA vs PATHAKAMUDI NAGESWARA RAO	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/717/2021	SHO GURAZALA PS vs YANAMADALA VINODHKUMNAR	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/807/2021	SHO SEB PIDUGURALLA vs Vskundurti venkata narasimha	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/824/2021	SHO SEB PIDUGURALLA PS vs GELABOINA PARAMAIAH	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/828/2021	SHO SEB PIDUGURALLA PS vs KETAVATH BHEEMLA NAIK	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/829/2021	sho seb piduguralloa ps vs Vsakula srinivasa rao	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/831/2021	SHO SEB PIDUGURALLA PS vs GANTA SRINU	25 Nov 2025	judgement	—
STC/10/2023	VATTIKUNTA RAMAIAH vs CHAYREDDY SAMBASIVA RAO	25 Nov 2025	order	—
CC/351/2025	Sho Proh And Ex Gurazala Ps vs Thalla Narasimharao	21 Nov 2025	judgement	—
MC/13/2023	Gunja Mangamma and 02,others(mainors) vs Gunja venkateswararao	20 Nov 2025	order	—
OS/93/2024	Sure Koteswara Rao vs Mamidi Prema Raju	19 Nov 2025	judgement	—
OS/127/2024	Mekala Srinivasa Reddy vs Chilukuri Chendrasekhara Reddy	19 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/66/2023	The SHO Rentachintala PS vs Gamidi Nageswara rao	19 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/670/2022	The SHO Rentachintala vs Shaik Shareef	19 Nov 2025	judgement	—
EP/39/2024	Gade Sowreddy vs Lella Pulla Rao	18 Nov 2025	order	—
CC/187/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Gamalapadu Saida Allabakshu	18 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/343/2023	SHO RENTACHINTALA PS vs SABAGANI VEERA BRHAMAM	18 Nov 2025	judgement	—
MC/23/2023	NENAVATH SUJATHA vs NENAVATH CHINA BHOJYA NAIK	18 Nov 2025	order	—
MC/28/2023	Munagala Srilakshmi vs Munagala Anil kumar	18 Nov 2025	order	—
CC/4/2025	Proh Ex Gurazala Ps vs Bukya Biksha Naik	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/113/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs GANUPALLI ANNA RAO	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/137/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Gurazala. vs Tedla Manohar	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/140/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Gurazala. vs Shaik Subbani	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/178/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Kunchala Venkateswarlu	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/181/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Vatti Lakshma reddy	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/189/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Komera Chinna Mallaiah	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/193/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Rajarapu Naga Venu	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/376/2023	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs Beeravalli Venkata Chalamaiah	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/381/2022	SHO SEB Station Gurazala vs Katikam Naresh	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/726/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA P.S. vs NANDYALA RAMANJAMMA	17 Nov 2025	judgement	—
EP/30/2023	Maddirala Koti Satyam vs Shaik Mohammad Gouse	14 Nov 2025	order	—
OS/41/2025	Balinedi Venkata Reddy vs Madala Ganesh Babu	14 Nov 2025	judgement	—
OS/110/2025	Shaik Modinsa vs Dondeti Nagi Reddy alias Amara Nagi Reddy	14 Nov 2025	judgement	—
CC/377/2023	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs VEMULA SRINU	14 Nov 2025	judgement	—
STC/45/2024	Koppula Narasimha Rao vs Jaladi @ Jangasugna Ratna kumari	14 Nov 2025	order	—
EP/30/2024	Jammigumpula Venkateswarlu vs Mandadapu Narasimha Rao	13 Nov 2025	order	—
EP/76/2018	Dornala Satyanarayana Reddy vs Jinugu Koteswara Rao	13 Nov 2025	order	—

Showing 100 of 693 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2025		43
Nov 2025		77
Oct 2025		18
Sep 2025		2
Aug 2025		3
Jul 2025		1
Jun 2025		20
May 2025		27
Apr 2025		17
Mar 2025		185
Feb 2025		43
Jan 2025		25

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has PARIMI ALEKYA handled?

PARIMI ALEKYA has handled 700 court orders since 2024 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does PARIMI ALEKYA hear?

Based on available records, PARIMI ALEKYA primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka).

Where is PARIMI ALEKYA currently posted?

PARIMI ALEKYA is posted as I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by PARIMI ALEKYA available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by PARIMI ALEKYA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does PARIMI ALEKYA dispose cases?

PARIMI ALEKYA disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 700 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka).

Since when is PARIMI ALEKYA serving?

PARIMI ALEKYA has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka) since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 79%

MC 6%

PRC 6%

OS 5%

STC 3%

EP 2%

DVC 1%

Posting History

Apr 2026 — Present

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT
Mar 2025 — Mar 2025

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Apr 2024 — Dec 2025

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT · 700 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Y.srinivasa Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

805 orders

Smt S. Jaya Lakshmi

X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala

13 orders

K.V.V.Satyanarayana

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

43 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka)