Ms. R. Swarika

Page No.1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­

CUM­I­ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Ms. R.SWARIKA, I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

WEDNESDAY, ON THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.721 of 2019

Between: The State through Sub­Inspector of Police, Police station, Godavarikhani I­Town (Crime No.337/2018). …Complainant

AND

Ushakoyyala Sathish, S/o. Veeraswamy, Age: 30 years, Padmashali, Operator Aadhaar Enrolment Centre at Andhra Bank, Godavarikhani, R/o.H.No.7­32, Rathnapur, Begumpet X Road of Ramagiri Mandal. …Sole Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Shyam Prasad Rao, learned APP for the complainant and Sri T. Sathish, learned Advocate for the Accused and having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:­

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station, Godavarikhani

I­town has filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Crime

No.337/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) of IPC, Section 66 (C) (D), Section 34, 35, 42 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies,

Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

Page No.2 of 14

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2018 at 16:30 hours, Lw1/Complainant/M.V.R Anand has sent a mail to Lw8/SI of

Police through his mail ID i.e., mvr.Anand@uidai.net.in by stating that accused Ushakoyyala Sathish who is working as Aadhar

Enrollment Operator in Andhra Bank, Godavarikhani Branch,

Peddapalli District has allegedly carried out enrollments through deceptive and fraudulent means by conniving with some persons with an intention to wrongfully generate more than one Aadhaar number for a single resident by charging exorbitant rates.

3.Basing on the said email complaint, Lw8/SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.337/2018 and later, Lw9/Inspector of Police took up the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, Lw9 visited the office of Deputy Director, UIDAI r/o UIDAI Regional Office,

East Block, 6th floor, Swarnajyanthi Commercial complex, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad and examined the Pw1/M.V.R Anand and recorded his statement in Part­II of the CD. Later, Lw9 visited the Andhra Bank

Main Branch, Vidyanagar, Godavarikhani and examined the Lw2/

Md.Vazir Sulthan and Lw3/Pilli Uday Kiran and recorded their statements and secured the presence of two mediators and prepared

Crime Detail Form. 

4.On 03.08.2018 at 15:00 hrs on credible information, Lw9 along with other police persons apprehended the accused at Andhra Bank

Page No.3 of 14

Main Branch, Vidyanagar, Godavarikhani and accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and seized 1). Gateway company Laptop, 2) Suprema Inc Company L1 Biometric Scanner,

Model­Rear scan­G10, 3) Iris, Iri Magic­1000­BK, 4). Acer Company

Monitor, 5). Canon Company Printer LBP­2900 model, 6). Epson­L380

Printer/Scanner, 7). Microsoft Company Camera and 8). GPS­FX 100 from the possession of the accused under confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of Lws6 and 7. After completion of investigation, LW10 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120 (B) IPC, Sec.66 (C)(D) of IT Act and Section 34, 35, 42 of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and

Services) Act, 2016.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120 (B) IPC, Sec.66 (C)(D) of IT Act and

Section 34, 35, 42 of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

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

5.The accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and he denied the allegation leveled against him. Hence, charges under

Page No.4 of 14

Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120 (B) IPC, Sec.66 (C)(D) of IT

Act and Section 34, 35, 42 of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of

Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 is framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. PW1 is complainant. Pw2 and Pw3 are circumstantial witnesses. PW4 to PW6 are panch witnesses. Pw7 is

Investigation Officer. Evidence of Lw8 is closed. The learned APPO given up the evidence of Lw7 and Lw10.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) of IPC and Section 66(C)(D) of I.T. Act and Section 34, 35, 42

of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other

subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 ?

Page No.5 of 14

POINT

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the Andhra Bank,

Godavarikhani Branch has engaged M/s Virinchi Limited as the supplier for trained manpower along with AADHAAR kit in the identified Branches of the Andhra Bank. As such, accused has been appointed as an operator for undertaking AADHAAR enrolments in

Andhra Bank Main Branch, Vidyanagar, Godavarikhani.

Subsequently UIDAI authorities allotted Aadhar centre to the accused through the supplier M/s.Virinchi Limited. Further, the accused procured the Aadhaar enrolment equipments i.e., Laptop, Finger print scanner, Printer, Iris Camera and GPS etc., and he is providing the various services like Fresh Enrolment, Mandatory Biometric, updating of children, updating of biometric and demographic details etc., for which the Andhra Bank is giving salary of Rs.8,000/­ to the accused.

11. Further, the accused did not satisfy with his earnings has decided to generate more than one Aadhaar card for a single residentbelieving that, the some of the Singareni employees are need to have two Aadhaar cards for singe person as they are having different names at their native villages and SCCL company. The accused used to approach the needy SCCL employees and generating

Aadhaar enrolments by bending the fingers slightly on scanner and while taking iris, he used to keep low percentage i.e., 20% to 30 than

Page No.6 of 14

normal percentage 60%. The Aadhaar enrolment applications were being kept with Branch Manager, Andhra Bank Main Branch,

Godavarikhani and later the Aadhar cards were being dispatched to the addresses of applicants directly by post. For generating another

Aadhaar card for a single person, the accused used to collect money ranging from 1,500/­ to 2,000/­ from each applicant and he is indulging irregularities in making of simulate Aadhar cards with different UID number for an individuals who are already having the same, thereby cheated the UIDAI authority.

12.As stated supra, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as (10) witnesses and exhibited (05) documents.

13.PW1/MVR Anand deposed that he worked as deputy director of

UIDAI, Government of India from 31.01.2013 to 30.04.2020 and retired from service on 10.03.2021. Pw1 further deposed that he received oral complaint from Lw2 that accused in the enrollment operator of Virinchi Agency working at the Andhra Bank,

Godavarikhani Branch and he is charging more exorbitant prices from the common people for enrolling the Aadhaar cards and issuing more than one Aadhaar card to the same people. Subsequently, he conducted inquiry and lodged a complaint on 05.07.2018 through

E­mail. Later, on 07.07.2018 police came to his office and examined

Page No.7 of 14

and recorded his statement.

14.PW2/Md. Vazir Sulthan deposed that he worked as Chief

Manager of Andhra Bank from 2018 to 2019. During the said period accused was working as the Aadhar operator under the UIDAI in their

Bank and in the month of June, 2018, he received complaints from the customers that accused charging the amount over and above the prescribed rules and regulations from the customers who have come to apply for the Aadhaar cards and the said matter was informed to

Pw1 and Viranchi Company through phone. On 07.07.2018 police examined and recorded his statement. 

15.PW3/Pilli Uday Kiran deposed that he worked as Assistant

Manager, Andhra Bank from July, 2017 to 2021. In the year, 2018

Accused used to work as Aadhar operator in Andhra Bank. On 07.07.2018 police came to Andhra Bank and took the accused person into their custody for issuing double Aadhar cards to the same person. Further he deposed that he came to know by staff that some customers gave complaint to Pw1 that accused is charging more amount from the customer more than prescribed by the UIDAI.

16.PW4/Dubba Ramchandar and Pw5/Md. Kareem did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the evidence of PW4 and

PW5 declared hostile.

Page No.8 of 14

17.PW6/Dasari Sridhar deposed that he worked as Cashier at

Andhra Bank, Godavarikhani Main Branch during the period from 2013 to 2019. Further deposed that on 03.08.2018 at afternoon hours, police came to Andhra Bank Main branch,

Vidyanagar, Godavarikhani and enquired accused about that how he issued double Aadhar cards to the same person, as such, accused stated to the police that he issued double Aadhar cards to the same person. Subsequently, police seized Printer, Scanner, Iris testing machine, Laptop and other equipments.

18.PW7/S. Vasudeva Rao/second Investigating Officer deposed that on 05.07.2018 at about 16:30 hours, Lw8/P. Raji Reddy/1st I.O., received a complaint through main ID i.e., Ex.P1 and registered a crime No.337/2018. Further deposed that, on 07.07.2019, he visited office of the Deputy Director of UIDAI Regional Office at Hyderabad and recorded the statement of Pw1. Thereafter, Pw7 examined and recorded the statement of Pw2 and Pw3 and later secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Pw4 and Pw5 and prepared CDF.

Further deposed that 03.08.2018, Pw7 apprehended accused at

Andhra Bank Main Branch, Vidyanagar, Godavarikhani and during investigation, accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of investigation, Lw10 (3rd I.O.) filed charge

Page No.9 of 14

sheet against the accused for the offence under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) of IPC, Sec.66 (C)(D) of IT Act and Sec.34, 35, 42 of The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies,

Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

19.During the cross of Pw1, he deposed that they have issued the Aadhar cards after scrutiny and they did not noticed any double aadhar enrollment and issuing of double aadhaar cards.

Further, he stated that he do not have any idea with regard to the alleged offence, as he is physically not present in Godavarikhani.

Further stated that UIDAI has customer care center and no written complaint received with regard to alleged offence.

20.During the cross of Pw2, he deposed that he did not made any enquiry with regard to the alleged incident and not mentioned any detail particulars of the persons who have made complaint

21.During the cross of Pw3, he deposed that no application with regard to issuing of double Aadhar cards to the same person by accused and further he deposed that they do not have any proofs with regard to alleged offence committed by accused. Pw3 further admitted that he do not found any fraud committed by the accused.

22.Pw4 and Pw5 turned hostile and nothing has been elicited during their cross examination.

Page No.10 of 14

23.During the cross examination of Pw6 he deposed that he did not seen any application form of double Aadhar cards and stated that he do not remember whether the police have seized the application forms.

24.During the cross examination of Pw7 he deposed that he did not seized any property at scene of offence and admitted delay of (28) days of seizing property. Further in his cross stated that there are no C.C cameras in Andhra Bank, Vidyanagar Branch,

Godavarikhani. Further, Pw7 in his cross examination admitted that no document filed with regard to double Aadhar cards.

25.After perusal of the entire case record, this is a case of

Cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document, in which, the accused has carried out Aadhar enrolments through deceptive and fradulent means with an intention to wrongfully generate more than one Aadhar number for a single resident through wrongful use of the biometrics (fingerprints and

Page No.11 of 14

 Irises of different residents as well as same resident) thereby cheated the UIDAI authority.

26.Now let us see whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Prosecution examined Pw1 to 7 and marked Ex.P1 to P5. However, their evidence is not consistent.

For instance Pw1 deposed that he came to know about alleged offence as he received oral complaint from Pw2. As Pw1 is not an eye witness, his evidence is purely hearsay. Further, Pw2 deposed that he received complaints from customers who applied for the Aadhar cards. However, none of the customers were examined before this

Court to believe the version of Pw2.

27.Further, Pw3 admitted that he has no documentary proof as the accused issued double aadhar card to the same person.

Further, Pw3 also admitted that no person has given complaint to them, as accused issued double aadhar cards to the same person.

Further, Pw4 and 5 who are panch witnesses for the CDF turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, Pw6 deposed that alleged Bank is equipped with CCTV cameras in every corner. However, those CC footage not filed before this Court to believe his version. On the contrary, Pw7 admitted in his cross

Page No.12 of 14

examination that the Bank does not have any CCTV cameras, thereby, contradict to Pw6 version. Further, Pw7 also admitted he did not seized any property from the scene of offence. Therefore, basing on these material contradictions and unsupported independent witnesses and any eye witness, this Court cannot convict the accused.

28.The general principle of criminal Jurisprudence is that every accused person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies entirely on the prosecution and proof must be beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution must establish through credible, cogent and convincing evidence of each ingredient of the offence alleged. In this case, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, this Court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused.

29.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120(B) of IPC, Section 66 (C) (D), Section 34, 35, 42 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and

Services) Act, 2016. Therefore, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Page No.13 of 14

30.In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120 (B) of IPC & Section 66 (C)(D) of I.T. Act and Section 34, 35, 42 of the Aadhaar (Targeted

Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C.

The Unmarked case property vide Sl.No.88 of 2019 shall be returned on proper identification as per law after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of November, 2025.

SD/­ I­Additional Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

Page No.14 of 14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 – MVR Anand.

PW2 – Md. Vazir Sulthan. 

PW3 – Pilli Uday Kiran.

PW4 – Dubba Ramchander.

PW5 – Md. Kareem.

PW6 – Dasari Sridhar. 

PW7 – S. Vasudeva Rao. 

 FOR THE DEFENCE: ­NIL­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 – Signature on CDF Panchanama. Ex.P2 – Signature on CDF Panchanama. Ex.P3 – Signature on confession and seizure panchanama.

Ex.P4 – FIR. 

Ex.P5 – CDF.

FOR THE DEFENCE: ­ NIL ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­

SD/­ I­Additional Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

O.S.No.52 of 2025 Page 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C., GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT : M/s. R. SWARIKA. I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C,

Godavarikhani.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

O.S. No.52 of 2025

Between: Pochala Ravi Kiran, S/o. Raghupathi, Age: 38 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. H.No.6-5-359, Power House Colony, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal of Peddapalli District. … Plaintif A N D

1.Munigala Ellesh, S/o.Venkati, Age: 68 years, Occ: Retired SCCL Employee,

2.Munigala Raj Kumar, S/o. Ellesh, Age: 37 years, Occ: Auto Taxi, both are R/o. H.No.8-3-123, Mallikarjun Nagar, Godavarikhani, presently R/o. Qr.No.T2-865, Vittalnagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal of Peddapalli District. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Bhoomaiah, Advocate for plaintif and Sri S. Chandrashekar, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T ::

The suit is filed by the plaintif for recovery of money of Rs.5,09,600/- (Rs.4,00,000/- towards principal amount and

O.S.No.52 of 2025 Page 2 of 6

Rs.1,09,600/- towards interest) with future interest from the defendant basing on the mortgage deed, dt.14.02.2024.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 2(a).That the plaintif and defendants No.1 and 2 are acquainted with each other. Defendant No.1 is father of defendant No2. Out of acquaintance with plaintif, defendants

No.1 and 2 approached him to advance an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs only) for their family necessities. Upon their request, plaintif agreed to lend the amount on sufficient surety. Subsequently, defendants No.1 and 2 executed a registered mortgage deed, dt.14.02.2024 vide document No.543/2024 mortgage house property bearing house No.8-3-123 to an extent of 49.59 Sq.yards situated at

Mallikarjuna nagar locality of Janagama shivar of Godavarikhani town, in favour of the plaintif and agreed to repay the borrowed amount with interest @24% per annum between 14.02.2024 to 13.02.2025.

2(b).On 14.02.2024, plaintif lent an amount

Rs.4,00,000/- to defendants No.1 and 2, but defendants failed to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period. Despite

O.S.No.52 of 2025 Page 3 of 6

of repeated demands, plaintif eforts were in vain. Further, on 05.03.2025, a legal notice issued to defendants demanding them to repay the loan amount, but the defendants No.1 and 2 refused the same. Hence, the plaintif filed the present suit for recovery of money against the defendants No.1 and 2.

3.After receipt of summons, defendants No.1 and 2 appeared before this Court and engaged Advocate, but did not filed Written statement. Hence, right to file Written Statement is forfeited. Accordingly, defendants No.1 and 2 are set exparte.

4.In order to prove the suit claim, plaintif himself is examined as PW.1 and in his chief examination, he has reiterated the averments of the plaint. He stated that the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount and Exs.A1 to A4 documents are marked. Ex.A1 is Original Mortgage deed doc.No.543/2024, dt.14.02.2024, Ex.A2 is Legal notice, dt.05.03.2025, Ex.A3 is Postal receipts (2 in Nos) and Ex.A4 is return postal covers (2 in Nos).

5.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for plaintif

O.S.No.52 of 2025 Page 4 of 6

and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit

amount with interest, as prayed for?”

P O I N T :

7.The learned counsel for the plaintif argued the contents of the plaint. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintif argued that the evidence of PW.1 is coupled with Ex.A1 document proved the suit claim of the plaintif and pleads for decree of the suit.

8.Admittedly, there is no rebuttal evidence from the defendantS and the defendants became exparte. As per the averments of the plaint and the evidence of the plaintif that the defendants No.1 and 2 have executed mortgage deed vide document No.543/2024, dt.14.02.2024 under Ex.A1 for their family necessities and depsite of legal notice under Ex.A2, defendants No.1 and 2 did not pay the suit amount to the plaintif. The evidence of PW.1 is coupled with Ex.A1 Original mortgage deed doc.No.543/2024, dt.14.02.2024. As there is no rebuttal evidence and the defendants became exparte, as such

O.S.No.52 of 2025 Page 5 of 6

the evidence of PW.1 is sufficient to prove the suit claim.

Accordingly, the plaintif is entitled for recovery of money of

Rs.5,09,600/-. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.5,09,600/- against the defendants No.1 and 2. The

principal sum is declared as Rs.4,00,000/-, upon which interest

@6% per annum is awarded from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of realization of the decreetal amount.

Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of November, 2025.

SD/-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

GODAVARIKHANI.

O.S.No.52 of 2025 Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1 Pochala Ravi Kiran - Remained Exparte -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 Original Mortgage deed doc.No.543/2024, dt.14.02.2024.

Ex.A2 Legal notice, dt.05.03.2025.

Ex.A3 Postal receipts (2 in Nos)

Ex.A4 Return postal covers (2 in Nos)

FOR DEFENDANTS :

- NIL -

SD/-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

GODAVARIKHANI.

 IN THE COURT OF THE II­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

II­ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GODAVARIKHANI

PRESENT:Ms. R. Swarika, I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani. FAC: II­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani. [

Saturday on this the 13 th day of September’2025

C.C. No. 578 of 2025

Between:­

The State through Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Ramagundam.

… Complainant

 And

Naspuri Shankar, S/o. Ramulu, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Vittalnagar, Godavarikhani, … Accused

:: ORDER :: 

The SHO prohibition and Excise Inspector Ramagundam are called present and filed the compromised memo enclosing the challan remitting the amount vide orders In G.O.M.S 1084 (revenue Excise II) department 21.12.2004 and Cr.No.515/2025/DOE/H­2. Dated 11­09­2025. Office Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Telangana, Hyderabad also filed alteration memo altering the section 34­a of T.S Excise Act 1968 to 8(b) of T.S Prohibition act,1968. Perused the material on record as both parties are intended to compromised the case by paying the compound fee, and in view of the submission of both the parties and facts and circumstances, the section 34

(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 to 8(b) of T.S. Prohibition act, 1995 which is compoundable in terms of section 11­B of AP prohibition act, 1995 the accused involve in this case as paid the compounding fee in accordance with the rule and notification and the offence was compounded with the petitioner/complainant. In view of the compromised entered by the both the parties before the national lok adalath committee, in terms of the compromise, award passed. In view of the award passed by national lok adalath committee, the accused is acquitted under section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 8(b) of T.S. prohibition act, 1995 the bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands cancelled and case property if any shall destroyed forthwith.

Sd/­, I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani. FAC: II­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ II­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

 IN THE COURT OF THE II­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

II­ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GODAVARIKHANI PRESENT:Ms. R. Swarika, I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani. FAC: II­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani.

Saturday on this the 13 th day of September’2025

C.C. No. 579 of 2025

Between:­ The State through Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Ramagundam.

… Complainant

 And

Boini Pedda Rajam, S/o. Pedda Gangaram, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Godavarikhani. … Accused

:: ORDER :: 

The SHO prohibition and Excise Inspector Ramagundam are called present and filed the compromised memo enclosing the challan remitting the amount vide orders In G.O.M.S 1084 (revenue Excise II) department 21.12.2004 and Cr.No.515/2025/DOE/H­2. Dated 11­09­2025. Office Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Telangana, Hyderabad also filed alteration memo altering the section 34­a of T.S Excise Act 1968 to 8(b) of T.S Prohibition act,1968. Perused the material on record as both parties are intended to compromised the case by paying the compound fee, and in view of the submission of both the parties and facts and circumstances, the section 34

(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 to 8(b) of T.S. Prohibition act, 1995 which is compoundable in terms of section 11­B of AP prohibition act, 1995 the accused involve in this case as paid the compounding fee in accordance with the rule and notification and the offence was compounded with the petitioner/complainant. In view of the compromised entered by the both the parties before the national lok adalath committee, in terms of the compromise, award passed. In view of the award passed by national lok adalath committee, the accused is acquitted under section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 8(b) of T.S. prohibition act, 1995 the bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands cancelled and case property if any shall destroyed forthwith.

Sd/­, I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani. FAC: II­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ II­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

 IN THE COURT OF THE II­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

II­ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT GODAVARIKHANI PRESENT:Ms. R. Swarika, I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani. FAC: II­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani.

Saturday on this the 13 th day of September’2025

C.C. No. 580 of 2025

Between:­ The State through Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Ramagundam.

… Complainant

 And

Choppari Madhunamma, W/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Kiranashop, R/o. Ramagundam. … Accused

:: ORDER :: 

The SHO prohibition and Excise Inspector Ramagundam are called present and filed the compromised memo enclosing the challan remitting the amount vide orders In G.O.M.S 1084 (revenue Excise II) department 21.12.2004 and Cr.No.515/2025/DOE/H­2. Dated 11­09­2025. Office Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Telangana, Hyderabad also filed alteration memo altering the section 34­a of T.S Excise Act 1968 to 8(b) of T.S Prohibition act,1968. Perused the material on record as both parties are intended to compromised the case by paying the compound fee, and in view of the submission of both the parties and facts and circumstances, the section 34

(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 to 8(b) of T.S. Prohibition act, 1995 which is compoundable in terms of section 11­B of AP prohibition act, 1995 the accused involve in this case as paid the compounding fee in accordance with the rule and notification and the offence was compounded with the petitioner/complainant. In view of the compromised entered by the both the parties before the national lok adalath committee, in terms of the compromise, award passed. In view of the award passed by national lok adalath committee, the accused is acquitted under section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 8(b) of T.S. prohibition act, 1995 the bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands cancelled and case property if any shall destroyed forthwith.

Sd/­, I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani. FAC: II­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ II­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.