Rubina Fatima

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

Khammam, PDJ Court Complex · Khammam · Telangana

Rubina Fatima, II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, is posted at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex, Khammam, Telangana, India. 3,522 court orders on record since 2016. 30 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

3,522

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/301172/2017 Acquitted

S.H.O. Khanapuram Havil vs Deshineni Mahesh

30 Dec 2020

1 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT KHAMMAM.

Present: Smt. Rubina Fathima, Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh.&Excise cases, Khammam, FAC: II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

Dated this the 30thday of December,2020

C.C.No.1172 of 2017

Between The State, through S.I of Police, Khanapuram haveli P.S

....Complainant

//and// 1.Deshineni Mahesh, S/o Rama Swami, aged:26years, Caste:Mudiraju, Occu:Car Driver, R/o Narayanapuram(v), Chiluru Mandal of Suryapet District. 2.Shaik Jani Pasha, S/o Abdulla, aged:27years, Caste:Muslims, Occu:bike Mechanic, R/o Narayanapuram village of Chilukuru Mandal of Suryapeta District.

...Accused/A1 and A2

This case is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri H.Sree Ram Rao, Learned Counsel for the accused/A1 and A2, upon perusal of the entire material on record, of hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of ofence punishable u/Sec.356, 379 IPC, wherein the brief facts of the case as narrated in the charge sheet fled by the Sub

Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S are that on 11.04.2017 at 4.30PM, A1 and A2 came on motor cycle, used criminal force on Pw.1 and snatched away her gold nanuthadu with pusthelu from her neck, while she was proceeding to her village from the felds and the accused fed away with gold nanuthadu.

Basing on the report of Pw.1, Pw.6 registered the case in

Cr.No.197/2017 for the ofence u/Sec.356,379 IPC. On the interrogation of

Pw.6 the accused confessed their guilt about the commission of this 2 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020 ofence. The prosecution alleged that investigation oficer had recovered the entire stolen property in this case from the possession of the accused under cover of the panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses.

2.This court took the cognizance of the ofence punishable under Sec.

356, 379 of Indian Penal Code against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

3.The accused were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., charge for the ofence punishable under Sec.356, 379 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language in which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. PW1 is the complainant, Pws.2 and 3 are the Panch witnesses for CDF, PW.4 is the Panchwitness for confession and seizure, Pw.5 is the investigation oficer, who arrested the accused persons,

Pw.6 is the investigation oficer, who issued FIR and Pw.7 is the investigation oficer, who fled charge sheet and coupled with exhibits i.e.,

Ex.P.1 is the report, Ex.P.2 is the signature of Pw.2 on CDF, Ex.P3 is the signature of Pw.3 on CDF, Ex.P4 is the relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is the Confession cum recovery panchanama,

Ex.P6 is the First Information Report and Ex.P7 is the CDF. Mo.1 is the

Gold Pustelathadu. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of Lw.2/Kogili Gopaiah, Husband of complainant, Lw.3/Kallu Rami

Reddy, Circumstantial witness, Lw.4/Medharapu Rama Rao, Circumstantial witness and Lw.8/Panch for confession and seizure. Accordingly, the prosecution side evidence is closed.

5.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they denied the incriminating evidence against them in 3 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020 the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the documents available on record.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is brought the accused/A1 and A2 to the home of guilt for the ofence punishable under Section 356 and 379 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

8.POINT:

To prove its case prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 7.

Pw.1 who is the complainant, deposed that, on 11.04.2017, near Maisamma

Temple, two unknown persons came on motor cycle snatched her Gold

Pustelathadu from the neck and escaped from that place, on the same day she went to the police station and fled the report. She deposed that she cannot identify them.

Pws.2 and 3 who are Panch witnesses for the CDF did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor cross examined PWs.2 and 3 under Section 154 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 and Sec.162 Proviso of Cr.P.C at length, but, nothing worthy is elicited to disprove their evidence.

In this regard, prosecution examined Pw.4 who is the panch witness for scene of ofence panchanama, who deposed that on 29-11-2017, he along with Lw8/D.Ramakrishna Rao were going to Kodad on a motor cycle, mean while at about 08.00 AM police stopped him at Painampally check post and on request of the police, he enquired accused persons and accused persons revealed their names and also confessed their guilt for commission of ofence pertaining in various cases, they committed theft of Gold

Nanthadu and two Pustelu weighing about 20 grams which is in their custody and police seized said stolen property from the possession of 4 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020 accused persons. Further deposed that police drafted confession cum seizure panchanamam in his presence and Pw.4 identifed accused persons.

During the cross examination Pw.4 deposed that he cannot say specifcally with regard to the gold theft chains but twelve gold chains along with Mangalasutras were in the possession of accused persons. Further he deposed that he has seen the seized property when the property was in the possession of constable.

9. Pws.5,6 and 7 who are the investigating oficers who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of investigation.

10. On careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the documents available on record, it can be noticed that the complainant do not know the persons who snatched her gold chain and she cannot identify them and the panch witnesses for Crime Detail Form did not support the case of prosecution. Further the entire prosecution case is relied upon the confession panchanama but there are many contradictions in the evidence of Pw.4, as Pw.4 deposed during the cross examination that he cannot say specifcally with regard to the gold theft chains but twelve gold chains along with Mangalasutras were in the possession of accused persons and further he deposed that he has seen the seized property when the property was in the possession of constable. Moreover it can be seen that in the entire case, the prosecution is relying on the confession statement of the accused, which in fact is inadmisible in the eye of law, as the said confession was said to have made before the police and same is hit by Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Except mere confession of accused, there is no other material against the accused herein. The said confession is however not admissible in the eye of law.

11. When there is no specifc evidence against accused holding to be responsible for the act of attempt to commit theft, as such the accused 5 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020 would be said to be not guilty of the ofence with which they are charged.

There are many deviations among the versions of prosecution witnesses.

When there are doubts regarding involvement of the accused, as such beneft of doubt should be given to the accused as contemplated under criminal jurisprudence. Hence, this court opines that it is not safe to convict for the ofence punishable u/Sec.356, 379 of IPC basing on the evidence of Pw.4. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused/A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.IN THE RESULT: A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable u/Sec.356 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, and accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The case property i.e.Mo.1 is the gold pustelathadu, which was given towards interim custody to Pw.1, shall be made absolute, after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2020.

FAC:II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1: Kokila Kanaka Durga, complainant -NIL-

PW.2: Ch.Srikanth, Panch for CDF

PW.3: Ch.Ramam Rao, Panch for CDF

PW.4: D.Sudhakar Rao, Investigation Oficer

PW.5:Konatham Suman, Investigation Oficers 6 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020

PW.6:G.Migili, Investigation Oficer

PW.7:K.Rama Rao, Investigation Oficer

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P.1 is the report, --Nil--

Ex.P.2 is the signature of Pw.2 on CDF,

Ex.P3 is the signature of Pw.3 on CDF,

Ex.P4 is the relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama,

Ex.P5 is the Confession cum recovery panchanama,

Ex.P6 is the First Information Report,

Ex.P7 is the CDF

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Mo.1 is the Gold Pustelathadu. --Nil--

FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KHAMMAM.

7 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020 8 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020 9 CC No.1172/2017, dt.30.12.2020

CC/500056/2017 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise, Wyra vs Dharavath valya

10 Aug 2018

1 ]

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROH. AND EXCISE CASES) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2018

Present: Ms.Rubina Fatima, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh & Excise cases), Khammam.

C.C.No.56/17

Between: The State of A.P. rep.by Proh.& Excise Sub -Inspector, wyra. … Complainant

And

Dharavath Valya, s/o.Devja, 32yrs, labour, R/o.Laxmipuram, Konijerla mandal.

... Accused

This case coming before me on 9-8-2018 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for state and Sri D.Suresh Advocate for accused , upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard, stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Lw4/S.Raja Sammaiah P& E SI, wyrafiled charge sheet in a case in COR.No,156/2016 against Accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P.Proh Act, 1995.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

On 22.12.2016 at about 8-15am, the raid party officer Lw4/S.Raja

Sammaiah along with staff proceeded to Mekalakunta , village,

Konijerla mandal for conducting raid. There they secured the presence of two mediators Lw1 and Lw2 found accused was carrying polythene covers at the scene of offence. But on seeing them accused escaped from the scene of offence and conducted seizure panchanama and seized 10 liters of ID Liquor from the scene of offence. Then the officers seized the above contraband under a cover of panchanama duly drawn the samples for chemical analysis and vehicle. Basing on the panchanama Lw4/S.Raja Sammaiah registered the case in COR.No 156/2016 for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P Proh.Act and after receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of 2 investigation, Lw4/Raja Sammaiah filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter, on 22.12.16 the accused was produced before the court for Judicial remand

3. The case was taken on file against accused for the offence

U/sec.7(A) r/w sec.8(e) of AP. Proh. Act on appearance of accused, copies of documents furnished to Accused as contemplated U/sec.207

Criminal Procedure code(herein after referred as Cr.P.C.)

4. Accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for an offence punishable u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act was framed, read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined witnesses

Pw1 to Pw3 and Ex.P1 to P7 marked. The learned APP given the evidence of Lw3.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, for explaining the incriminating material evidence against him, Accused denied the incriminating material evidence against Accused and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

8. Now the Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

9. Evidence on record:

According to Pw3/ S.Rajasammaiah he deposed that on 22.12.16 after receiving reliable information he proceeded to outskirts of

Mekalakunta he conducted raid and found accused along with plastic bags going in a suspicious manner immediately he secured Pw1 and

Pw2 and conducted confession and seizure panchanama and seized 10 lites of ID liquor and drawn samples for chemical analysis. Basing on the 3 same he registered the case under cr.no.126/16 after completion of the investigation he filed the chargesheet against the accused.

During the cross examination he admits that Pw1 and Pw2 did not resides at the scene of offence and it is also admits that the boundaries of the scene ofofence is not mentioned and he did not drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence while conducting the panchanama he denied that no property was seized from the possession of the accused and conducted panchanama.

11. Arguments:

The learned APP has argued that Pw1 and Pw2 who are mediators they turned hostile but they admitted their signatures on panchanama.

Further, the evidence of Pw3 has established the case against the accused who are police officials. Hence, the APP prayed to convict the accused.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that Pw1 and Pw2 are mediators who turned hostile and Pw3 who is police officials and their evidence cannot be relied by the court

Thus, he prayed to acquit the accused by extending the benefit of doubt.

CONCLUSION:

13. After perusal of the record, the court found the evidence of Pw3 who is police officials he admits that he did not conducted rough sketch of the scene of offence and the rough sketch of the scene of offence is not drafted and produced before the court. The court observe the details regarding the seizure of the property and the container in which the property was found is also not discussed anywhere in the panchanama as such there is no independent evidence which could corroborate with the evidence of Pw3. As they turned hostile and it is also observed hat

Pw3 himself admits that no independent persons were examined at the scene of offence which shows that the accused was involved in the commission of offence of the alleged day. It is further observed that Pw3 himself admits that panch witness was secured from the different village and they did not resides in the particular area of the scene of offence .

As such there are many lacunaes while conducting investigation by the

Pw3. It is also observed that Pw3 is the complainant and the

Investigating officer he filed the charge sheet filed which is against procedure of law. Basing on the same court could not arrive at the just conclusion of the case against the accused. As such the court found that 4 the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of offence by the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the court thinks fit and proper to acquit the accused.

14.IN THE RESULT: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A )r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act and accordingly Accused is acquitted U/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any, shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in

the open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2018 . Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class

(Proh & Excise cases)

Khammam.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: For Prosecution for Accused Pw.1: B.Haricha -None- Pw.2: D.Bhanu Pw.3: S.Rajasammaiah :: DOCUMENTS MARKED: For Prosecution For Accused Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw1 on the confession and seizure panchanama -Nil- Ex.P.2: Signature on the panchanama ExP3: Panchanama Ex.P.4:COR Ex.P.5: Analysis report Ex.P.6: DC proceedings Ex.P.7: destruction panchanama

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Proh & Excise cases) Khammam

CC/194/2020 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Thammisetti Narasamma

12 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROH. AND EXCISE CASES) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 12th day of October,2021.

Present: Smt.Rubina Fatima, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh & Excise cases), Khammam.

C.C.No. 194/2020

Between: The State of A.P. rep.by Proh.& Excise Sub -Inspector, Khammam-I.

AND … Complainant A1. Thammisetti Narasamma, w/o.Ramababu, 25yrs, labour, R/o.Gandhi nagar colony, chinthakani mnadal, A2. Chalindra Atchamma, w/o.Nagaiah, 40yrs, labour, R/o.Gandhinagar colony, chintakani mandal.

... Accused

This case coming before me on 1.10.2021 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for state and Sri P.Vidyasagar Advocate for accused , upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard, stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Lw4/V.Ravi P& E SI, Khammam -I filed charge sheet in a case in

COR.No 600/15-16 against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P.Proh Act, 1995.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

On 23.7.2015 at about 10-45AM., the raid party officer Lw3 along with staffproceeded to Khammam proceeded to Gandhi Nagar colony, of chinthakani mandal for conducting raid. There secured the presence of two mediators Lw1 and Lw2 found A1 & A2 were carrying polythene covers at the scene of offence. On search of the polythene cover the officer and panchas confirmed it as ID liquor by virtue of its smell the ID liquor and recovered 5 liters, 10 liters of ID liquor from the scene of offence. Then the officers seized the above contraband under a cover of panchanama duly drawn the samples for chemical analysis.

Basing on the panchanama Lw3/KVSSV Prasad registered the case in 2 COR.No 600/15-16 for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P Proh.Act accused was produced before the court for Judicial remand and after receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file against accused for the offence

U/sec.7(A) r/w sec.8(e) of AP. Proh. Act on appearance of A1 & A2 copies of documents furnished to Accused as contemplated U/sec.207 Criminal

Procedure code(herein after referred as Cr.P.C.)

4. A1& A2 were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for an offence punishable u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act was framed, read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined witnesses

Pw1 to Pw3 and Ex.P1 to P5 marked . Lw2 memo filed as whereabouts are not known.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, for explaining the incriminating material evidence against them, A1& A2 denied the incriminating material evidence against A1& A2 and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

8. Now the Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

9. Evidence on record:

According to Pw1 who is panch witnesses he deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case and he turned hostile.

According to Pw2/KVSSV Prasad who is police officials he deposed that on 23.7.2015 at about 10-45AM the offfence was committed by accused outskirts of Gandhinagar colony, he conducted confession and seizure panchanama and seized total 10 liters of ID liquor and samples 3 were drawn and basing on the panchanama and he registered the case under cor.no 600/15-16 for the offence u/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act.

During the cross examination he deposed that he did not visited the scene of offence and accused was not found along with the seized property on the alleged day. He denied that only for stastical purpose he drafted false panchanama at police station for statistical purpose. He denied that the accused is no way related to the present case.

According to Pw 3/V.Ravi deposed that after receiving CD file from

Pw2 after verifying it he found it on correct lines . During investigation he received analysis report and DC proceeding and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

During cross examination that as per his investigation Pw2 did not visited the scene of offence neither panchanama was conducted at the scene of offence. He denied suggestion that only for statistical purpose he filed charge sheet against accused.

11. Arguments:

The learned APP has argued that Pw1 who is mediator he turned hostile but he admitted his signature on panchanama. Further, the evidence of Pw2& pW3 has established the case against the accused who are police officials. Hence, the APP prayed to convict the accused.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that Pw1 is the mediator who turned hostile and PW2 & Pw3 who is police officials and their evidence cannot be relied by the court

Thus, he prayed to acquit the accused by extending the benefit of doubt.

CONCLUSION:

13. After perusal of the evidence on record, the court found Pw2 is the complainant and Pw3 is Investigating officer who filed charge sheet

It is further observed that the detailed description of the property found is not explained anywhere in the panchanama and the charge sheet. It is also observed that the independent persons were not examined which could prove the commission of offence by the accused on the alleged day. The court found in the absence of independent evidence on record, the court cannot arrive at the conclusion of the case. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to produce sufficient 4 evidence against the accused and the court thinks that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u./sec. 7(A)r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act by

A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the court found that A1 and A2 shall be acquitted.

IN THE RESULT: A1& A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A )r/w 8(e) of A.P. Proh. Act and accordingly A1 and

A2 are acquitted U/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any, shall stands cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 12 th day of October,2021.

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class

(Proh & Excise cases)

Khammam.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: For Prosecution for Accused Pw.1: G.Saireddy -None- Pw.2:KVSSV Prasad Pw3:V.Ravi :: DOCUMENTS MARKED: For Prosecution For Accused Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw1 on panchanama -Nil- Ex.P.2: Panchanama ExP3: COR ExP4: Analysis report ExP5:DC Proceedings.

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Proh & Excise cases) Khammam

CC/500064/2017 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Tejavath Bodi

10 Aug 2018

1 ]

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROH. AND EXCISE CASES) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2018

Present: Ms.Rubina Fatima, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh & Excise cases), Khammam.

C.C.No.64/17

Between: The State of A.P. rep.by Proh.& Excise Sub -Inspector, Nelakondapally. … Complainant

And

Tejavath Bodi, w/o.Laxma, 30yrs, coolie, R/o.Mangalthanda, Kusumanchi mandal.

... Accused

This case coming before me on 7-8-2018 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for state and Sri P.Vidyasagar Advocate for accused , upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard, stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Lw3 /Ch.Laxminarayana P& E SI, Nelakondapally filed charge sheet in a case in COR.No,145/2016 against Accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P.Proh Act, 1995.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

On 9.6.2016 at about 7-45am, the raid party officer

Lw3/Ch.Laxminarayana along with staff proceeded to Mangalthanda ,

Eshwaramadharam road, Kusumanchi mandal for conducting raid.

There they secured the presence of two mediators Lw1 and Lw2 found accused was carrying plastic covers at the scene of offence. But on seeing them accused escaped from the scene of offence and conducted seizure panchanama and seized 10 liters of ID Liquor from the scene of offence. Then the officers seized the above contraband under a cover of panchanama duly drawn the samples for chemical analysis. Basing on the panchanama Lw3/Ch.Laxminarayana registered the case in COR.No 145/2016 for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P Proh.Act and after receipt of chemical analysis report and after 2 completion of investigation, Lw3/Ch.Laxminarayana filed charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter, on 13.6.16 the accused was produced before the court for Judicial remand.

3. The case was taken on file against accused for the offence

U/sec.7(A) r/w sec.8(e) of AP. Proh. Act on appearance of accused, copies of documents furnished to Accused as contemplated U/sec.207

Criminal Procedure code(herein after referred as Cr.P.C.)

5. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined witnesses

Pw1 to Pw3 and Ex.P1 to P6 marked.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

8. Now the Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

9. Evidence on record:

According to Pw3/ Ch.Laxminarayana he deposed that on 9.6.16 after receiving reliable information he proceeded to outskirts of

Mangalthanda he conducted raid and found accused along with plastic bags going in a suspicious manner immediately then he secured Pw1 and Pw2 and conducted confession and seizure panchanama and seized 10 lites of ID liquor and samples for chemical analysis. Basing on the same he registered the case under cr.no.145/16 after completion 3 the investigation he filed the chargesheet against the accused.

During the cross examination he admits that Pw1 and Pw2 did not resides at the scene of offence and it is also admits that he did not drafted rough sketch and scene of offence while conducting the panchanama he denied that no property was seized from the possession of the accused and conducted panchanama.

11. Arguments:

The learned APP has argued that Pw1 and Pw2 who are mediators they turned hostile but they admitted their signatures on panchanama.

Further, the evidence of Pw3 has established the case against the accused who are police officials. Hence, the APP prayed to convict the accused.

Thus, he prayed to acquit the accused by extending the benefit of doubt.

CONCLUSION:

13. After perusal of the record, the court found the evidence of Pw3 who is police officials but admits that he did not conducted rough sketch of the scene of offence and the rough sketch of the scene of offence is not drafted and produced before the court. The court observe the details regarding the seizure of the property and the container in which the property was found is also not discussed anywhere in the panchanama as such there is no independent evidence which could corroborate with the evidence of Pw3. As they turned hostile and it is also observed hat

And there are many lacunaes while conducting investigation by the Pw3.

It is also observed that Pw3 himself is the complainant and the

Investigating officer and who filed the charge sheet which is against procedure of law. Basing on the same court could not arrive at the just conclusion o the case against the accused. As such the court found that 4 the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of offence by the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the court thinks fit and proper to acquit the accused.

Dictated to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in

the open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2018 . Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class

(Proh & Excise cases)

Khammam.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: For Prosecution for Accused Pw.1: M.Veeraiah -None- Pw.2: C.Venkanna Pw.3: Ch.Laxminarayana :: DOCUMENTS MARKED: For Prosecution For Accused Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw1 on the confession and seizure panchanama -Nil- Ex.P.2: Signature on the panchanama ExP3: Panchanama Ex.P.4:COR Ex.P.5: Analysis report Ex.P.6: DC proceedings Ex.P.7: destruction panchanama

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Proh & Excise cases) Khammam

CC/500047/2018 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Dharavath Chinnamma

10 Aug 2018

1 ]

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROH. AND EXCISE CASES) AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2018

Present: Ms.Rubina Fatima, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh & Excise cases), Khammam.

C.C.No.47/18

Between: The State of A.P. rep.by Proh.& Excise Sub -Inspector, Nelakondapally. … Complainant

And

Smt.Dharavath Chinnamma, w/o.Veeraiah, Labour, R/o.Shankaragiri thanda, Nelakondapaly mandal.

... Accused

This case coming before me on 9-8-2018 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for state and Sri D.Srinivasarao Advocate for accused , upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard, stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Lw3/P.V.Ramana P& E SI, Nelakondpallyfiled charge sheet in a case in COR.No,21/17 against Accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P.Proh Act, 1995.

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

On 9.2.2017 at about 5-50am, the raid party officer

Lw3/P.V.Ramana along with staff proceeded to Shankaragiri thanda,

Nelakondapally for conducting raid. There they secured the presence of two mediators Lw1 and Lw2 found accused was carrying polythene covers at the scene of offence. But on seeing them accused escaped from the scene of offence by leaving the property and conducted seizure panchanama and seized 03 liters of ID Liquor from the scene of offence. Then the officers seized the above contraband under a cover of panchanama duly drawn the samples for chemical analysis and vehicle.

Basing on the panchanama Lw3/P.V.Ramana registered the case in

COR.No 21/17 for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P Proh.Act thereafter on 21.2.17 accused was arrested and produced before the 2 court for judicial remand. After receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, Lw3/P.V.Ramana filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file against accused for the offence

U/sec.7(A) r/w sec.8(e) of AP. Proh. Act on appearance of accused, copies of documents furnished to Accused as contemplated U/sec.207

Criminal Procedure code(herein after referred as Cr.P.C.)

5. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined witnesses

Pw1 to Pw3 and Ex.P1 to P6 marked.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

8. Now the Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

9. Evidence on record:

According to Pw3/ P.V.Ramana he deposed that on 9.2.2017 after receiving reliable information he proceeded to outskirts of

Shankaragirithanda he conducted raid and found accused along with plastic bags going in a suspicious manner immediately then he secured

Pw1 and Pw2 and conducted confession and seizure panchanama and seized 03 lites of ID liquor and samples for chemical analysis. Basing on the same he registered the case under cr.no.21/17 after completion 3 the investigation he filed the chargesheet against the accused.

During the cross examination he admits that the scene of offence was the house of accused and the house number is not mentioned and the same was not verified with the concerned authority. He did not visited the scene of offence while conducting the panchanama he denied that no property was seized from the scene of offence.

11. Arguments:

The learned APP has argued that Pw1 and Pw2 who are mediators they turned hostile but they admitted their signatures on panchanama.

Further, the evidence of Pw3 has established the case against the accused who are police officials. Hence, the APP prayed to convict the accused.

Thus, he prayed to acquit the accused by extending the benefit of doubt.

CONCLUSION:

13. After perusal of the record, the court found the evidence of Pw3 who is police officials but admits that he did not conducted rough sketch of the scene of offence and the containers of the scene of offence is not drafted and produced before the court. The court observe the details regarding the seizure of the property and the container in which the property was found is also not discussed anywhere in the panchanama as such there is no independent evidence which could corroborate with the evidence of Pw3. As they turned hostile and it is also observed hat

Pw3 himself admits that no independent persons were examined at the scene of offence which shows that the accused was involved in the commission of offence on the alleged day. It is further observed that

Pw3 himself admits that panch witness was secured from the different village and they did not resides in the particular area of the scene of offence and there are many lacunaes while conducting investigation by the Pw3. It is also observed that Pw3 himself is the complainant and the Investigating officer and charge sheet filed which is against procedure of law. Basing on the same the court could not arrive at the 4 just conclusion of the case against the accused. As such the court found that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of offence by the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the court thinks fit and proper to acquit the accused.

Dictated to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in

the open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2018 . Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class

(Proh & Excise cases)

Khammam.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: For Prosecution for Accused Pw.1: T.UPendar -None- Pw.2: T.Srinu Pw.3: P.V.Ramana :: DOCUMENTS MARKED: For Prosecution For Accused Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw1 on the confession and seizure panchanama -Nil- ExP2: Panchanama Ex.P.3:COR Ex.P.4: Analysis report Ex.P.5: destruction panchanama Ex.P.6: DC proceedings

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class (Proh & Excise cases) Khammam

Order Record 3,372 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/194/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Thammisetti Narasamma	12 Oct 2021	Order	Acquitted
CC/194/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Thammisetti Narasamma	12 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1851/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Dharavath Usha	12 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1851/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Dharavath Usha	12 Oct 2021	Order	Acquitted
CC/4200/2019	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Muthisetti Sakari	12 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/4200/2019	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Muthisetti Sakari	12 Oct 2021	Order	—
CC/500914/2018	Devarasetti Ramesh vs Kamala Laxmaiah	11 Oct 2021	Order	—
CC/3025/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Erugu Ramaiah	05 Oct 2021	Order	—
CC/3025/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Erugu Ramaiah	05 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/3026/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Badavath Saroja	04 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/3026/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Badavath Saroja	04 Oct 2021	Order	—
CC/3031/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Tejavath Bodi	30 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/339/2020	SHO P.S Khanapuram Haveli vs Nandyala Veera Reddy	28 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/770/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Guguloth Mangamma	27 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
OS/866/2021	Devarasetty Padma vs Jangala Padmaja	24 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/342/2020	SHO P.S Julurupadu vs Bhurugu Nageswara Rao	24 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/769/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Bhukya Shankar	24 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/767/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Dharavath Saidulu	23 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/500013/2015	P.S Mudigonda vs Amudala Ramesh and 6 others	23 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
OS/100441/2015	Banoth Kamala vs Sapavath Mangthi and anohter	21 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500433/2017	Mukara Ravi vs Kolipaka Setaramachandra Murthy	21 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500623/2018	Sankineni Srinivas rao vs Billagiri Dhanunjaya	21 Sep 2021	Order	—
OS/896/2021	Bolleddu Pooja vs Ambati Venkateswarlu	20 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500701/2018	Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation , khammam Branch vs Bendadi saritha	20 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500944/2018	M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Syed Asif vs Nageswar Rao Maddineni	20 Sep 2021	Order	—
OS/212/2020	Salavadi Anjamma and another vs Mohd Ahmed@Mohid and another	17 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
OS/100349/2015	Kuchipudi Ramakotaiah vs Etukuri Andhra Jyothi and another	16 Sep 2021	Order	—
OS/100475/2016	Arigela Satyanarayanakonda vs Tellagorla Muthyalu	15 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2983/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Bhukya Madhan Gopal	15 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/2983/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Bhukya Madhan Gopal	15 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500025/2018	S.H.O. Khanapuram Havil vs Solem Laxinarayana	15 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/337/2020	SHO P.S Julurupadu vs Yeta Ramulu	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/588/2020	SHO PS Kothagudem I town vs Sabbarapu Nagender	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/1062/2019	SHO PS Mudigonda vs Barla rambabu	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/1068/2019	sho ps mudigonda vs Cherukuri Venkaiah	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/1168/2019	SHO PS Thirumalayapalem vs Kosuri Madhar	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/1195/2019	SHO PS Nelakondapalli vs Shaik Abbas	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/1659/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Kandurupaka Kotaiah	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/1795/2020	The SHO P.S Bhurgampahad vs Kongara Jayachandra	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2248/2019	sho ps Kusumanchi vs Boddupalli mallika @ Mallikamba	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2249/2019	sho ps Kusumanchi vs Banothu Sakram	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2253/2019	sho ps Mudigonda vs Bingi narasimaha Rao	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2257/2021	PS Kusumanchi vs Veerababu Lagishetty	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2319/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Wyra vs Tellakula Venkateswarlu	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2320/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Wyra vs Bandaru.Muthyala rao	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2321/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Wyra vs Bhukya.Upender naik	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2322/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Wyra vs Vemuri.Hanumantha rao	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2325/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Gali.Shiva kumar	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2326/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Chandan Sahoo	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2327/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Kopila Pullaiah	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2329/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Kondeti.Somashekhar	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2330/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Markonda.Sahoo	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2331/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Morla.Krishna	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2332/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Jarpula.Bheema	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2336/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Bandaru.Upender	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2337/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Uppanuthala.Upender	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2338/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Puligujja.Upender	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2339/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Puja.John madhan kumar	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2340/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Pallerla.Mahesh kumar	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2341/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Pakanati.Kanna reddy	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2342/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Pallerla.Raju	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2343/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Barla.Rambabu	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2344/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Arvapally.Nagamani	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2345/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Bhukya.Rakesh	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2346/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Mekapothula.Naresh	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2347/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Geetagani.Rangaiah	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2348/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Gunda.Pullamma	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/2349/2021	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Bomma.Rama rao	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/4076/2019	P.S Burgampad vs Mittapalli Ranjeeth	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/4077/2019	P.S Burgampad vs Machina Venkateswar Rao	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/4100/2019	P.S Burgampad vs Vanaparthi Appa Rao	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500147/2017	Keesara Venkateswarlu S/o Late Satyanarayana vs Md. Ziavuddin S/o Zaheeruddin	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500480/2018	Taidala Adi Narayana vs Vaddalapu Sridevi	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500667/2018	Potla Nageswara rao vs Madupalli Saidulu	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500730/2018	Thotamalla Sudha@varakal Sudha vs Kammari Ravindra chary@Raghu	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500761/2018	V.V. Sateesh vs Kotari Naveen	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500798/2018	Samineni Sathyanarayana vs Nalajala Malsuru	11 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/500365/2015	P.S Khanapuram Haveli vs Nippula Devanadh and 4 others	09 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/813/2019	SHO PS Kamepally vs Vemula Venkatanarayana	08 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
OS/84/2021	Mohammad Abdul Samad and another vs Tahera Khanam and others	07 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
OS/632/2021	Devisetty Sree Ramulu vs The Tahsildar, Khammam Urban	07 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
OS/100134/2016	Regella Rama Rao vs Yalagandhula Baba Saheb	07 Sep 2021	Order	—
OS/100507/2016	Ms.Sri Seshashayana Agency vs Ms. Venkata Sai Steel Palace	03 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/186/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Bhukya Bujji	03 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/785/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Moodu Lakshmi	03 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/189/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Jalagam Upendra	02 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/3015/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Nelakondapalli vs Boda Bhadramma	02 Sep 2021	Order	—
OS/646/2020	Eliri Rajendra Prasad vs Biyyala Nageswara Rao	01 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/500194/2017	Mallu Veera Reddy vs Atmakuri Srinivasa Rao	01 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/775/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Banoth Kousalya	31 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/4190/2019	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Banoth Varalaxmi	27 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/240/2021	Teegala Prakasha Rao vs Pulakala Pichamma	24 Aug 2021	Order	—
OS/352/2020	Shaik Chinnu Saheb vs Mohammad Dargabee and another	24 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/571/2019	SHO PS Kamepally vs Lakavath Garla	24 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/778/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam2 vs Vankudoth Kanthamma	23 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/500097/2018	SHO Sathupally vs Sathenapally suresh	18 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/658/2020	Danda Jyothi Reddy vs Nalajala Mallikarjun Rao	17 Aug 2021	Order	—
CC/1031/2020	Prohibition and Excise, Khammam1 vs Pothanaboina Naveen	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/2834/2019	The SHO P.S Excise Khammam II Town vs Guguloth Parvathi	16 Aug 2021	Order	—
CC/2834/2019	The SHO P.S Excise Khammam II Town vs Guguloth Parvathi	16 Aug 2021	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 3,372 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2021		12
Sep 2021		82
Aug 2021		34
Jul 2021		172
Jun 2021		11
Apr 2021		159
Mar 2021		36
Feb 2021		29
Jan 2021		40
Dec 2020		224
Nov 2020		323
Sep 2020		2

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Rubina Fatima handled?

Rubina Fatima has handled 3522 court orders since 2016 at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 69 orders per month.

What types of cases does Rubina Fatima hear?

Based on available records, Rubina Fatima primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Rubina Fatima currently posted?

Rubina Fatima is posted as II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex, Khammam, Telangana.

Are judgments by Rubina Fatima available online?

Yes. 30 judgments by Rubina Fatima are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Rubina Fatima dispose cases?

Rubina Fatima disposes approximately 69 cases per month, based on 3522 orders handled over their tenure at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Rubina Fatima serving?

Rubina Fatima has been serving at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex since 2016.

Case Types

CC 87%

STC 10%

OS 4%

DVC 0%

PRC 0%

Posting History

Oct 2020 — Jan 2021

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam · 258 orders
Feb 2020 — Oct 2021

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Acts cum V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam · 912 orders
Nov 2019 — Jan 2020

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) for trial of cases under PCR Act -cum- IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam · 342 orders
Oct 2019 — Jan 2020

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam · 197 orders
Dec 2018 — Jan 2020

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Acts cum V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam · 1,083 orders
Dec 2018 — Dec 2018

JMFC Spl.Mobile Court,Khammam.
Oct 2016 — Aug 2018

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Acts cum V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam · 730 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 12

Convicted 6

Other Judges at this Court

Sri G. Raja Gopal

Prinicpal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

811 orders

Sri Bakaraju Srinivasa Rao

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

84 orders

Vasukala Sreenaiah

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

50 orders

Dr. G.v. Mahesh Naath

Judge, Family Court -cum- IV Additional District a...

24 orders

Dr. Pullabhatla Pogada Krishna Arjun

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs...

30 orders

Smt. Bakkera Naga Lakshmi

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile...

2,113 orders

Jyothirmai Kakumani

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magist...

0 orders

Smt. Rajani Bekkam

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special Judi...

1,909 orders

Ms.Yepuri Bindu Priya

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

344 orders

Mr. Arava Praveen

III Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- III Additi...

0 orders

Ms. G.Akhila Goud

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for tri...

316 orders

Smt. M. Kalpana

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum- Assistant Sessi...

744 orders

Smt. V. Shiva Ranjani

I Additional Senior Civil Judge -cum- Additional A...

1,229 orders

T.Murali Mohan

II Additional Senior Civil Judge -cum- Additional...

152 orders

Vasukula Sreenaiah

Court of Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking...

228 orders

← View all judges at Khammam, PDJ Court Complex