Currently Serving

S.anil Kumar

VI Additional Civil Judge Junior Division Kurnool

PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

S.ANIL KUMAR, VI Additional Civil Judge Junior Division Kurnool, is posted at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,251 court orders on record since 2025. 12 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, DVC cases.

1,251

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/20/2023 Acquitted

State rep by Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs S.Nazeer and another

15 May 2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Calendar Case No.20/2023

Offence : 09.06.2020

Complaint : 09.06.2020

Apprehension of Accused: --

Commencement of Trial: 24.03.2026 Close of Trial: 16.04.2026 Judgment: 15.05.2026 Complainant: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka (U) PS. Name of the Accused:

1. S. Nazeer

2. S. Pullakanti Madhu Offence: U/s. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY Finding: NOT GUILTY Result: In the result, the Accused A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and thereby, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. There is no orders as to case property as no property is produced before this Court. Explanation for delay: ---

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class for (P&E), Kurnool

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

APKU020000332023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE) : KURNOOL.

Present:- Sri S. Anil Kumar, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No.20/2023

The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka PS.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. S. Nazeer, 30 yrs.,S/o.S. Habeeb Basha, R/o.C. Belagal (V&M).

2. S. Pullakanti Madhu, 30 yrs., S/o.P. Dasthagiri, R/o.Parla village, now at Peddapadu (V), Kurnool.

...Accused

This case is coming on 16.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Maddesh, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing both sides, perused the material papers available on record and 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, Kurnool Taluka PS filed charge sheet against the accused A1 & A2 in Cr.No.390/2020 for the offence punishable under section 34(a) (l)(i)of A.P. Excise Act.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

a)On 09.06.2020 at 13.00 hours during raids conducted by Prohibition & Excise police officials, the police personnel reached at in between

Padidempadu to Puduru village, Kurnool and found the accused A1, A2 coming with plastic covers who on seeing the police tried to fled away, but they detained and apprehended the accused. Police seized 1) 4 Imperial 3

Blue -375 ml, 2) 3 Mansion House -375 ml from A1 and 20 Old Admiral -180 ml from A2 from their possession of accused by lifting samples under the cover of police proceedings, while the accused were illegally transporting the same from one State to another without any valid license and by violating excise rules.

b)Basing on the Police proceedings, a case in Cr.No.390/2020 was registered U/sections 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation in to this case.

c)During the course of investigation, police served notice to the accused. Police received analysis report from the Govt., Chemical

Examiner and it is opined that the sample bottles are Indian liquor. The entire seized property was destroyed as per the proceedings of

Superintendent of Police-cum-Confiscation Authority, Kurnool in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the A1 & A2 for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act .

4.Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused 1 & 2 as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. charge under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in

Vernacular Language and when questioned, the Accused pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw-1 and marked Exs. P1 to P5.

6.On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused 1 & 2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is : “Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of

Accused A1 & A2 for the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.06.2020 at 13.00 hours the Accused 1 & 2 were in illegal possession of liquor i.e., 1) 4 Imperial Blue -375 ml, 2) 3 Mansion House -375 ml from A1 and 20 Old Admiral -180 ml from A2 wherein the accused were transporting the same from one State to another in order to sell the same for higher prices. Charge for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against the accused. The defence of the accused is that they did not commit the offence and they are innocent. To prove the case against the Accused, prosecution examined Pw-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. PW.1 is the excise official. On the closure of Prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and on questioning about the incriminating material, they denied the same and pleaded no defence. The defence of the accused is that they did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case.

10.Regarding the commission of offence, only the evidence of

PW.1 remains for consideration. PW.1 deposed that on 09.06.2020 at about 13.00 hours on credible information he along with other police personnel went in between Padidempadu to Puduru village, Kurnool and seized 1) 4 Imperial Blue -375 ml, 2) 3 Mansion House -375 ml from A1 and 20 Old Admiral -180 ml from A2 from their possession of accused while they were transporting the same from one place to another. As none came forward to act as panchayatdars, on enquiry the accused revealed their identity and confessed the liquor bottles. Then, they lifted sample bottles under cover of Ex.P1/ police proceedings. Then, they shifted the accused along with contraband to the Police Station.

11. He further deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.390/2020 under sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act and submitted 5

Ex.P2/FIR to all concerned. Pw.1 issued notice to the accused. He sent the samples to chemical examiner and received Ex.P3/ Analysis report stating that the samples are Indian liquor. The remaining case property was destroyed as per the orders of the Superintendent of police-cum-

Confiscation Authority, Kurnool vide Ex.P4 by conducting

Ex.P5/panchanama. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused in this case.

12.Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and November issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The evidence of Pw.1 reveals that he did not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 violated the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure

Coming to the confession made by the Accused. The confession made

before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused November be considered as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

13.The Honorable Apex court held that:-

(i) 2001(1) ALT (Crl) 66 (AP) in Potnuru Satyam Vs. State of

A.P. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“PW.1 was informant rather the complaint, he himself took up the investigation and filed charge sheet. Certainly this is an infirmity in this case. There is no other evidence, the independent witness, turned hostile. Though other police officers were cited as witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution they were given up. Now the only evidence available is that of PW.1 who was the complaint and also the investigating officer. This certainly reflects the credibility of the 6 investigation done in the matter.”

(i)AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2339 (Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana), wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“ Formal FIR lodged on his complaint being complainant, he should not have proceeded with investigation of the case”.

(iii) Hon’ble High Court of AP “In decision reported in 2005

(2) APLJ, Page No.73 in K. Babu Rao Vs. State of AP his

lordship held that the alleged recovery by the police whose evidence cannot be straight away believed because there was no panch witness and the explanation of the prosecution evidence is not acceptable”.

14. The learned defence counsel further pointed that the Excise officials even failed to follow the sampling procedure and hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. He pointed out that the excise officials failed to draw sample from each bottle and the same is fatal to the prosecution case. Admittedly, PW1 had drawn only one sample bottle. The evidence of PW1 is not clear and specific whether those bottles are with same batch number and manufacture date. In view of the said contention, it is pertinent to note the following decision:

K. Muleswara Rao Vs. State reported in 1978 (1) APLJ Short notes, wherein it was held that “….It is the duty of the prosecution to prove by sending the other bottles also to the chemical Analyst to find out whether the bottles contained alcohol or some spurious liquor and that has not been done by the prosecution and that has been prejudiced the case of the accused….”.

15.The above citations are applicable in the present case on hand as P.W.1 who is Excise official and investigation officer and he support the prosecution case. As such the above citation is applicable and taken into consideration to the present case.

16. In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of PW-1. Hence, the Accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 2020 beyond reasonable doubt.

17.In the result, the Accused A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and thereby, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. There is no orders as to case property as no property is produced before this Court.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E),

Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution : Defence :

Pw1: S. Kareem Basha--None--

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution : Defence :

Ex.P1: Police Proceedings -Nil- Ex.P2: F.I.R. Ex.P3: Analysis Report Ex.P4: Copy of Destruction proceedings Ex.P5: Copy of panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR

-Nil-

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl.JFCM (P&E), KNL.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

CC/1603/2023 Acquitted

State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs B.Madhu

15 May 2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Calendar Case No.1603/2023

1. Offence :09.05.2020 2. Complaint : 09.05.2020 3. Apprehension of Accused: --- 4. Commencement of Trial: 10.03.2026 5. Close of Trial: 20.04.2026 6. Judgment: 15.05.2026 7. Complainant: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka PS.

8. Name of the Accused: B. Madhu 9. Offence: U/s. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

10. Plea of Accused : NOT GUILTY

11. Finding : NOT GUILTY

12. Result

:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and thereby, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. There is no orders as to case property as no property is produced before this Court.

13. Explanation for delay: ---

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class for (P&E), Kurnool

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

APKU020026732023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, KURNOOL.

Present:- Sri S. ANIL KUMAR, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No.1603/2023

The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kurnool Taluka U PS. ...Complainant

- Vs -

B. Madhu, 34 yrs., S/o.B. Narasimhulu, B.C. Colony, Dinnedevarapadu village, Kurnool.

...Accused

This case is coming on 20.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R. Kumar, advocate for the accused No.1, party-in-person for Accused No.2, upon hearing both sides, perused the material papers available on record and 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, Kurnool Taluka U PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.186/2020 for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

a)On 09.05.2020 at about 12.00 noon during raids conducted by

Prohibition & Excise police officials, on credible information, the police personnel reached the hayrick yard of accused in Dinnedevarapadu village,

Kurnool and found the accused who on seeing the police tried to skulk away from there, but they detained the accused and seized 1) 15 MC 2

Whisky -180 ml, 2) 8 Imperial Blue -180 ml, total 23 bottles belongs to

Telangana State from the possession of accused by lifting samples under the cover of police proceedings, while the accused was illegally transporting and in possession of the liquor without any valid license and by violating excise rules.

b)Basing on the Police proceedings, a case was registered in Cr.No.

186/2020 U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation in to this case.

c)During the course of investigation, police served notice to the accused and sent him for remand. Police sent the samples for chemical analysis and received analysis report from the Govt., Chemical Examiner and it is opined that the sample bottles are Indian liquor. The entire seized property was destroyed as per the proceedings of Superintendent of Police- cum-Confiscation Authority, Kurnool in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the Accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

4.Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. When examined u/S.239 of

Cr.P.C., the accused denied the offence made against him. Hence, charge under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, was framed against the Accused, read over and explained to him in Vernacular Language and when questioned, the Accused pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw-1 and marked

Exs. P1 to P5.

6.On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the

Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution 3 witnesses. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is : “Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of

Accused for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.05.2020 at about 12.00 noon the Accused was in illegal possession of 1) 15 MC Whisky -180 ml, 2) 8 Imperial Blue -180 ml, total 23 bottles belongs to Telangana State wherein the accused was transporting the same from one place to another in order to sell the same for higher prices. Charge for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against the accused. The defence of the accused is that he did not commit the offence and he is innocent. To prove the case against the Accused, prosecution examined Pw-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. PW.1 is the excise official. On the closure of

Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C.

and on questioning about the incriminating material, he denied the same and pleaded no defence. The defence of the accused is that he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case.

10.Regarding the commission of offence, only the evidence of PW.1 remains for consideration. PW.1 deposed that on 09.05.2020 at about 12.00 noon on credible information he along with his staff went the hayrick yard of accused in Dinnedevarapadu village, Kurnool and seized 1) 15 MC

Whisky -180 ml, 2) 8 Imperial Blue -180 ml, total 23 bottles belongs to

Telangana State from the possession of accused. As none came forward to act as panchayatdars, on enquiry the accused revealed his identity and confessed the liquor bottles. Then, police lifted sample bottles under cover of Ex.P1/ police proceedings. Then, they shifted the accused along with contraband to the Police Station.

11. He further deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.186/2020 under Section 34(a) of AP Excise act and submitted

Ex.P2/FIR to all concerned. He issued notice to the accused. He sent the samples to chemical examiner and received Ex.P3/ Analysis report stating that the samples are Indian liquor. The remaining case property along with sample bottles were destroyed as per the proceedings of the

Superintendent of police, Kurnool vide Ex.P4 by conducting

Ex.P5/panchanama. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused in this case.

12.Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The evidence of Pw.1 reveals that he did not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the

Accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 violated the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure Coming to the confession made by the Accused. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused may be considered as per Section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act.

13.The Honorable Apex court held that:-

(i) 2001(1) ALT (Crl) 66 (AP) in Potnuru Satyam Vs. State of A.P.

by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., wherein it was held by their

Lordship that:

“PW.1 was informant rather the complaint, he himself took up the investigation and filed charge sheet. Certainly this is an infirmity in this case. There is no other evidence, the independent witness, turned hostile. Though other police 5 officers were cited as witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution they were given up. Now the only evidence available is that of PW.1 who was the complaint and also the investigating officer. This certainly reflects the credibility of the investigation done in the matter.”

(ii)AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2339 (Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana), wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“ Formal FIR lodged on his complaint being complainant, he should not have proceeded with investigation of the case”.

(iii) Hon’ble High Court of AP “In decision reported in 2005

(2) APLJ, Page No.73 in K. Babu Rao Vs. State of AP his

K. Muleswara Rao Vs. State reported in 1978 (1) APLJ

Short notes, wherein it was held that “….It is the duty of the prosecution to prove by sending the other bottles also to the chemical Analyst to find out whether the bottles contained alcohol or some spurious liquor and that has not been done by the prosecution and that has been prejudiced the case of the accused….”.

15.The above citations are applicable in the present case on hand as

P.W.1 who is Excise official and investigation officer and he support the prosecution case. As such the above citation is applicable and taken into consideration to the present case.

16. In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of PW-1. Hence, the Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to 6 establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and thereby, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. There is no orders as to case property as no property is produced before this Court.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th . day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E),

Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence

Pw1: Ch. Khajavali--None--

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1: Police Proceedings -Nil- Ex.P2: F.I.R. Ex.P3: Analysis Report Ex.P4: Copy of Destruction proceedings Ex.P5: Copy of panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR

-Nil-

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

SPL. JFCM (P&E), KNL.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

CC/3126/2022 Acquitted

State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Chakali Nagaprasad

15 May 2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Calendar Case No.3126/2022

1. Offence 31.03.2021 2. Complaint : 31.03.2021 3. Apprehension of Accused: 31.03.2021 4. Commencement of Trial: 18.12.2025 5. Close of Trial: 10.04.2026 6. Judgment: 15.05.2026 7. Complainant: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka PS.

8. Name of the Accused: Chakali Nagaprasad 9. Offence: U/s. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act

10. Plea of Accused : NOT GUILTY

11. Finding : NOT GUILTY

12. Result

:

13. Explanation for delay: ---

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class for (P&E), Kurnool

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

APKU020048592022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, KURNOOL.

Present:- Sri S. ANIL KUMAR, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No.3126/2022

The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kurnool Taluka PS. ...Complainant

- Vs -

Chakali Nagaprasad, 24 yrs., S/o.Late C. Tirupal, Nandamoori Nagar, Nandyal Town, Kurnool district.

...Accused

This case is coming on 10.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B. lakshminarayana, advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, perused the material papers available on record and 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, Kurnool Taluka PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.267/2021 for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) (l)(i) of A.P. Excise Act.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

a)On 31.03.2021 at about 10.30 hours during raids conducted by

Prohibition & Excise police officials, on credible information, the police personnel reached near Panchalingala Check-post, Panchalingala village,

Kurnool and found the accused who on seeing the police tried to skulk away from there, but they detained the accused and seized 1) 6 MC Dowell

Whisky -750 ml, 2) 10 Royal Stag -750 ml bottles belongs to Telangana 2

State from the possession of accused by lifting samples under the cover of police proceedings, while the accused was illegally transporting and in possession of the liquor without any valid license and by violating excise rules.

b)Basing on the Police proceedings, a case was registered in Cr.No.

267/2021 U/Sec. 34(a)(l)(i) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation in to this case.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the Accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

4.Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. When examined u/S.239 of

5.To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw-1 and marked

Exs. P1 to P5.

6.On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the

Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of 3 defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is : “Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of

Accused for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.03.2021 at about 10.30 hours the Accused was in illegal possession of 1) 6 MC Dowell Whisky -750 ml, 2) 10 Royal Stag -750 ml bottles belongs to Telangana State wherein the accused was transporting the same from one place to another in order to sell the same for higher prices. Charge for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against the accused. The defence of the accused is that he did not commit the offence and he is innocent. To prove the case against the Accused, prosecution examined Pw-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. PW.1 is the excise official. On the closure of

Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C.

10.Regarding the commission of offence, only the evidence of PW.1 remains for consideration. PW.1 deposed that on 31.03.2021 at about 10.30 hours on credible information he along with his staff went near

Panchalingala Check-post, Panchalingala village, Kurnool and seized 1) 6

MC Dowell Whisky -750 ml, 2) 10 Royal Stag -750 ml bottles belongs to

11. He further deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in 4

Cr.No.267/2021 under Section 34(a) of AP Excise act and submitted

Ex.P2/FIR to all concerned. He issued notice to the accused and sent him for remand. He sent the samples to chemical examiner and received

Ex.P3/ Analysis report stating that the samples are Indian liquor. The remaining case property along with sample bottles were destroyed as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of police, Kurnool vide Ex.P4 by conducting Ex.P5/panchanama. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused in this case.

12.Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The evidence of Pw.1 reveals that he did not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the

Indian Evidence Act.

13.The Honorable Apex court held that:-

(i) 2001(1) ALT (Crl) 66 (AP) in Potnuru Satyam Vs. State of A.P.

by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., wherein it was held by their

Lordship that:

“PW.1 was informant rather the complaint, he himself took up the investigation and filed charge sheet. Certainly this is an infirmity in this case. There is no other evidence, the independent witness, turned hostile. Though other police officers were cited as witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution they were given up. Now the only evidence 5 available is that of PW.1 who was the complaint and also the investigating officer. This certainly reflects the credibility of the investigation done in the matter.”

(ii)AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2339 (Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana), wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

“ Formal FIR lodged on his complaint being complainant, he should not have proceeded with investigation of the case”.

(iii) Hon’ble High Court of AP “In decision reported in 2005

(2) APLJ, Page No.73 in K. Babu Rao Vs. State of AP his

K. Muleswara Rao Vs. State reported in 1978 (1) APLJ

15.The above citations are applicable in the present case on hand as

P.W.1 who is Excise official and investigation officer and he support the prosecution case. As such the above citation is applicable and taken into consideration to the present case.

16. In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of PW-1. Hence, the Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th . day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E),

Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence

Pw1: R. Jaya Sekhar--None--

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1: Police Proceedings -Nil- Ex.P2: F.I.R. Ex.P3: Analysis Report Ex.P4: Copy of Destruction proceedings Ex.P5: Copy of panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR

-Nil-

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

SPL. JFCM (P&E), KNL.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

CC/758/2025 Acquitted

Gudur P.S vs Shaik Ibrahim alias Baniya

15 May 2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Calendar Case No.758/2025

1.Offence :22.01.2025

2.Complaint : 22.01.2025

3.Apprehension of Accused: 22.01.2025

4.Commencement of Trial: 27.02.2026

5.Close of Trial: 23.05.2026

6.Judgment: 15.05.2026

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur PS.

8.Name of the Accused: 1. Ahaik Ibrahim @ Baniya

2. Shaik Mabu

3. Nazir Mia

9.Offence: U/s. 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

10. Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11. Finding: NOT GUILTY

12. Result: In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and thereby, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. There is no order as to property as no property is produced before this Court.

13. Explanation for delay: ---

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class for (P&E), Kurnool

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool. // True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

APKU020012882025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :(FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Present:- Sri S. ANIL KUMAR, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool.

Friday, this the 15thday of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No.758/2025

Between: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector, Gudur. … Complainant

And

1. Ahaik Ibrahim @ Baniya, 58 yrs., s/o.Late Shaik Attar Hussain H.No.4-326, West BC Colony, Gurur (V&M),

2. Shaik Mabu, 60 yrs., S/o.Late Shaik Hassan Miyya, West BC Colony, Gurur (V&M),

3. Nazir Mia, 56 yrs., S/o.Late Razak Mia, R/o.H.No.17-31, Rajoli (V&M), Jogulamba Gadwal District, Telangana State. … Accused

This case is coming on 23.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and party-in-person

for the accused, upon hearing both sides, perused the material papers

available on record and 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, Gudur PS has filed charge sheet against the A1 to A3 in Cr.No.308/2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

a) On 22.01.2025 at about 12.30 hours during raids conducted by 2

Prohibition & Excise police officials, the police personnel reached near onion warehouse and found the accused A1 to A3 with plastic cans. On seeing the police, the accused tried to fled away from there, but the police surrounded and detained them. Police arrested the accused and seized 5 liters of I.D. arrack from each of the accused 1 to 3 from the possession of accused by lifting samples under the cover of Police proceedings, while the

A1 to A3 were illegally transporting /possessing in order to sell the same for public and by violating excise rules.

b) Basing on the Police proceedings, PW.1 registered the case in

Cr.No.308/2021 U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation in to this case.

c) During the course of investigation, police issued notice to the accused and sent them for remand. He received analysis report from the

Govt., Chemical Examiner and it is opined that the samples are illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The entire seized property along with sample bottles were kept in the Police

Station and awaiting destruction proceedings from the Superintendent of

Police, Kurnool. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4.Copies of case documents were supplied to A1 to A3 as contemplated under section 230 of BNSS. When examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., the A1 to A3 denied the offence made against them. Hence, charge under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act was framed against the Accused, read over and explained to them in Vernacular

Language and when questioned, the A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw-1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P3.

6.On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the A1 to A3 were examined under Section 351 of BNSS. and they denied the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is : “Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of A1 to

A3 for the offence under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.01.2025 at about 12.30 hours the accused were in illegal possession of 5 liters of I.D. arrack each, wherein the A1 to A3 were possessing and selling the same illegally to public. Charge for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act is framed against the accused. The defence of the accused is that they did not commit the offence and they are innocent. To prove the case against the Accused, prosecution examined Pw-1 and got marked Exs. P1 to P3. PW.1 is the excise official. On the closure of

Prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 of

Cr.P.C. and on questioning about the incriminating material, they denied the same and pleaded no defence. The defence of the accused is that they did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case.

10.Regarding the commission of offence, only the evidence of PW.1 remains for consideration. PW.1 deposed that on 22.01.2025 at about 12.30 hours on credible information he along with his staff went near onion warehouse and seized 5 liters of I.D. arrack from each of the accused 1 to 4 3, from the possession of accused. As none came forward to act as panchayatdars, on enquiry the accused revealed their names and addresses. Then, Police lifted samples bottles under cover of Ex.P1/ Police proceedings. Then, they shifted the accused along with contraband to the

Police Station.

11. He further deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.308/2021 under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and submitted Ex.P2/FIR to all concerned. He arrested the accused and sent for remand. He sent the samples to chemical examiner and received

Ex.P3/ Analysis report stating that the samples are illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The remaining case property was kept in the Police Station and awaiting for destruction proceedings from the Superintendent of police, Kurnool. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the A1 to A3 in this case.

12.Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and November issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The evidence of Pw.1 reveals that he did not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 violated the mandatory provisions of section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure

Coming to the confession made by the Accused. The confession made

before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the accused be considered as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

13.The Honorable Apex court held that:-

(i) 2001(1) ALT (Crl) 66 (AP) in Potnuru Satyam Vs. State of A.P.

by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., wherein it was held by their

Lordship that:

(ii) Hon’ble High Court of AP “In decision reported in 2005 (2)

APLJ, Page No.73 in K. Babu Rao Vs. State of AP his lordship held that “the alleged recovery by the police whose evidence cannot be straight away believed because there was no panch witness and the explanation of the prosecution evidence is not acceptable”.

14.The above citations are applicable in the present case on hand as

P.W.1 who is Excise official and investigation officer and he support the prosecution case. As such the above citation is applicable and taken into consideration to the present case.

15. In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of PW-1. Hence, the A1 to A3 is entitled for benefit of doubt. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and thereby, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for 6 the said charge. The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. There is no order as to property as no property is produced before this Court.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E),

Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence :

Pw1: N. Ramanjaneyulu --None--

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Defence :

Ex.P1: Police proceedings -Nil- Ex.P2: F.I.R. Ex.P3: Analysis Report Ex.P4: Copy of Destruction proceedings Ex.P5: Copy of panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR

-Nil-

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

SPL. JFCM (P&E), KNL.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

CC/2988/2023 Acquitted

State rep. by SI of police,Kurnool Taluq PS vs Shikari Kumar @ Shivaram

15 May 2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Calendar Case No.2988/2023

1.Offence 13.09.2023

2.Complaint : 13.09.2023

3.Apprehension of Accused: 13.09.2023

4.Commencement of Trial: 09.02.2026

5.Close of Trial: 20.04.2026

6.Judgment: 15.05.2026

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka PS.

8.Name of the Accused: Shikari Kumar @ Shivaram

9.Offence: U/s. 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act

10. Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11. Finding: NOT GUILTY

12. Result: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and thereby, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. There is no order as to case property as no property is produced before this Court.

13. Explanation for delay: ---

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class for (P&E), Kurnool

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

APKU020049962023

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :(FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL.

Present:- Sri S. ANIL KUMAR, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool.

Friday, this the 15thday of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No.2988/2023

The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka PS.

...Complainant

- Vs -

Shikari Kumar @ Shivaram, 40 yrs., S/o.Chinna Dasara, R/o.H.No.7/66, Neelishikari Peta, Pasupula village, Kurnool.

...Accused

This case is coming on 20.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D. Kumara Swamy, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides, perused the material papers available on record and 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, Kurnool Taluka PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.509/2023 for the offence punishable under section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

a)On 13.09.2023 at about 18.00 hours during raids conducted by

Prohibition & Excise police officials, on credible information, the police personnel reached near Shaik Sulthana Dharga situated at Pasupula village, Kurnool and found the accused with one plastic bag who on seeing the police tried to fled away, but they detained and apprehended the 2 accused. Police seized 5 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused by lifting samples under the cover of police proceedings, while the accused was illegally transporting/selling and in possession of the ID arrack without any valid license and by violating excise rules.

b)Basing on the Police proceedings, PW.1 registered the case in

Cr.No. 509/2023 U/sec.7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation in to this case.

c)During the course of investigation, PW.1 served notice to the accused and sent him for remand. He received analysis report from the

Govt., Chemical Examiner, Kurnool and it is opined that the sample bottles are illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption. The entire seized property along with sample bottles were destroyed as per the proceedings of Superintendent of Police-cum-Confiscation Authority,

Kurnool in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken on file against the Accused for the offence punishable under section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4.Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. When examined u/S.239 of

Cr.P.C., the accused denied the offence made against him. Hence, charge under section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act was framed against the

Accused, read over and explained to him in Vernacular Language and when questioned, the Accused pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw-1 and marked Exs. P1 to P5.

6.On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is : “Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of

Accused for the offence under section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.09.2023 at about 18.00 hours the Accused was in illegal possession of 5 liters of ID arrack wherein the accused was possessing and selling the same without any license.

Charge for the offence punishable under section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act is framed against the accused. The defence of the accused is that he did not commit the offence and he is innocent. To prove the case against the Accused, prosecution examined Pw-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. PW.1 is the excise official. On the closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and on questioning about the incriminating material, he denied the same and pleaded no defence. The defence of the accused is that he did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case.

10.Regarding the commission of offence, only the evidence of PW.1 remains for consideration. PW.1 deposed that on 13.09.2023 at about 18.00 hours on credible information he along with other police personnel went near Shaik Sulthana Dharga situated at Pasupula village, Kurnool and seized 5 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused. As none came forward to act as panchayatdars, on enquiry the accused revealed his identity and confessed the liquor bottles. Then, they lifted sample bottles under cover of Ex.P1/ police proceedings. Then, they shifted the accused along with contraband to the Police Station.

11. He further deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.509/2023 under Section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and submitted Ex.P2/FIR to all concerned. He served notice to the accused and sent for remand. He sent the samples to chemical examiner and received

Ex.P3/ Analysis report stating that the samples are illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption. The remaining case property along with 4 sample bottles were destroyed as per the proceedings of the

Superintendent of police, Kurnool vide Ex.P4 by conducting

Ex.P5/panchanama. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused in this case.

12.Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and July issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The evidence of Pw.1 reveals that he did not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the

Indian Evidence Act.

13.The Honorable Apex court held that:-

(i) 2001(1) ALT (Crl) 66 (AP) in Potnuru Satyam Vs. State of A.P.

by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., wherein it was held by their

Lordship that:

(ii)AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2339 (Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana), wherein it was held by their Lordship that:

5 “Formal FIR lodged on his complaint being complainant, he should not have proceeded with investigation of the case”.

(iii) Hon’ble High Court of AP “In decision reported in 2005

(2) APLJ, Page No.73 in K. Babu Rao Vs. State of AP his

14.The above citations are applicable in the present case on hand as P.W.1 who is Excise official and investigation officer and he support the prosecution case. As such the above citation is applicable and taken into consideration to the present case.

15. In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of PW-1. Hence, the Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and thereby, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said charge. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. There is no order as to case property as no property is produced before this Court.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (P&E),

Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence

Pw1: M. Ramaiah--None-- 6

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1: Police Proceedings -Nil- Ex.P2: F.I.R. Ex.P3: Analysis Report Ex.P4: Copy of Destruction proceedings Ex.P5: Copy of panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS FOR

-Nil-

Sd/- S. Anil Kumar

SPL. JFCM (P&E), KNL.

// True copy //

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

Order Record 1,222 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/20/2023	State rep by Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs S.Nazeer and another	15 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/758/2025	Gudur P.S vs Shaik Ibrahim alias Baniya	15 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/1603/2023	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs B.Madhu	15 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2988/2023	State rep. by SI of police,Kurnool Taluq PS vs Shikari Kumar @ Shivaram	15 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/3126/2022	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Chakali Nagaprasad	15 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/4772/2022	State rep by Special Enforcement Bureau Sub inspector, Kurnool. vs Nyl. Shikari Shankar	15 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2834/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Kodumur vs Boya Ramakka and another	14 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/400509/2016	GAJULA MEHRUN vs SHAIK FAREEDA	14 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/813/2023	State rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, Kodumur vs Sandula Krishna	13 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3543/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town Police Station vs Gadiga Dilip and another	13 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1709/2023	The SHO Kurnool Taluka PS vs M.Siva Rama Krishna	12 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1977/2023	State rep. by SI of Police, Kurnool Taluq PS vs Madiga Kiran	12 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/101475/2016	Kurnool III Town Ps vs G.Narayana	12 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3338/2025	Kurnool Taluka P.S vs P. Aswartha Reddy	11 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/5057/2022	State of rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB, Kodumur vs Shaik Rafiq and another	11 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/4444/2022	State rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB, Kodumur Station vs Ediga Narayanamma	08 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/79/2023	B. Swetha vs A. Thandava Rama Krishna	08 May 2026	Copy of Order	—
DVC/117/2023	D. Sujatha vs D. Peddaswami	08 May 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/238/2024	State rep. by S.I of Police, K.Nagalapuram P.S vs Boya Hanumanna	06 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1359/2024	State rep. by S.I. of Police, Ullindakona PS vs N. Narayana	06 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1736/2023	The SHO K.Nagalapuram PS vs Tholla Ramanna	06 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/5135/2022	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs M.Rajesh	06 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/381/2024	State rep. by SI of Police, Kurnool Traffic PS vs Keri Yellesh	05 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1520/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station vs Katika Noor Ahammad	05 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1576/2023	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Telugu Shankar	04 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2487/2022	The SHO Kurnool Taluka PS vs Akumalla Sujith Kumar	04 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2672/2021	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station vs Paludoddi Karna and 3 others	04 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/5074/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town Police Station vs Shikari Aswini	04 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/435/2023	M/s Bank of baroda, Kurnool vs G. Vinod kumar yadav, G. Venkata ramana	01 May 2026	Copy of Decree	—
CC/995/2024	State rep. by SI of Police, Ullindakonda PS vs Kethavath Narsa Naik	01 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/998/2024	State rep. by SI of Police, Ullindakonda PS vs Bukya Vasantha Naik	01 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2710/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station vs Boya Vuravakili Chinna Balu and another	01 May 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/680/2024	State rep. by SI of Police, I Town PS, Kurnool vs Shaik MD. Riyaz @ Iliyas	30 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3430/2022	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs P.Seshananda Reddy	29 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/28/2023	Smt. G.Roopa Devi vs C.Shankar and another	29 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/1127/2024	State rep. by SI of Police, Kurnool Taluq PS vs Ediga Ramachandra Goud	28 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/4809/2022	State rep by Station House officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Yerukali Bhadeti Bhadri and 5 others	28 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/4946/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs M.N.Vijay Ananda Reddy and 3 others	28 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1415/2021	K.Subba Reddy vs S.Shameem	27 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/39/2023	Smt. AChandana vs J.Hemanth and 2 others	27 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/4991/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Dudekula Masthan Vali	24 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1877/2023	State rep. by SI of Police, Kurnool Taluq PS vs Bestha Venkateswarlu	23 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/800/2023	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluk Police Station vs Shaik Mabasha and another	22 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1592/2023	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Gattu Nagamaiah	22 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/5093/2022	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs L.Venkata Subba Reddy	22 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/225/2022	Kurnool Taluka P.S vs Shaik Jawad Hussain	20 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2654/2023	State rep. by SI of Police, SEB, Kodumur vs Nettekal Ramakrishna	20 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3094/2025	State rep.by A.P. Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Kurnool vs Boya Hanumanna	20 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2628/2022	State rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB, Kodumur Station vs Boya Siva Prasad	16 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3099/2022	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Boya Ravi	16 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/650/2022	P.Subramanaym vs A.Rajeswari	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/960/2023	G. Reddy Naik vs S. Surya naik	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1535/2022	G. Venkata Ramana Reddy vs P. Mahaboob basha	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/415/2023	State rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, Kodumur vs Boya Kistanna	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Order	—
CC/415/2023	State rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, Kodumur vs Boya Kistanna	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/566/2021	State rep.by SHO of Taluq PS Kurnool vs Neelishikari Kajol	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/701/2023	State rep by Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Kurnool vs Ediga Srinivasa Goud	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2298/2023	State rep. by SI of Police, SEB, Kurnool vs Katike Narahari Rao	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2522/2022	The SHO Kurnool Taluka PS vs Boya Madhava Swamy	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2563/2021	State rep by the Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs M.Vishnu vardhan Reddy and 2 others	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2718/2022	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Mudavat Balu	15 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1120/2019	M/S State Bank of India vs J.Mohan	10 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/534/2021	M.S. Shyam Sundar vs Telugu Dastagiri	09 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/378/2023	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town Police Station vs Ediga Govindu Gowd	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1596/2023	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Mareddi Yella Reddy	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1656/2023	State rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, Kodumur vs Bathetti Ranganna	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1965/2022	Kurnool IV Town P.S., vs S.Somanna S/o S.Sunkanna	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2540/2022	The SHO Orvakal PS vs Telugu Yellaiah	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2670/2021	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station vs Madiga Ashok	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3008/2025	I Town Police Station vs Adula Muny Swamy	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3152/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town Police Station vs U.Ram Gopal Reddy	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3158/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town Police Station vs Repalle Jammanna	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3197/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town Police Station vs H.Mahesh and another	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/4180/2022	State rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB, Kodumur Station vs Shikari Ramadasu	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/4512/2022	State rep by Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Kodumur vs Yerukali Maddilety	07 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/495/2023	K. Raja rao vs M. Ananda rao	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/670/2023	B. Dinesh kumar vs K. Shabana Begum, S. Priya Darshini	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/695/2020	B.Mallikarjuna Reddy vs B.Prasad	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/5049/2022	State of rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB, Kodumur vs Boya Raghava @ Bammulu	06 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/95/2023	Chereddi Siddamma vs C. Chalapathi, C. Sreenivasulu, Golla Saraswathi	02 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3009/2025	I Town Police Station vs Telugu Bairi Maddilety alias Gooni	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
DVC/36/2025	T. Manasa vs Tarigopula Srinivas	01 Apr 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/90/2023	Shaik Naseem vs RDV. Karunakar, K. Varadanamma	31 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/430/2021	K.Suresh kumar vs Shaik Maffer	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1040/2020	S.Srinivasulu vs M.Narayana Reddy	30 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/920/2021	K.Sunil vs N.Shakeela	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/218/2022	Kurnool Taluka P.S vs T. Mahesh	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/991/2024	State rep. by SI of Police, Gudur PS vs Telugu Thippanna	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1031/2023	State rep Enforcement Sub Inspector, Kodumur vs Golla Yenkanna and another	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1532/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, K.Nagalapuram Police Station vs Kummari Venkateswarlu	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1812/2024	State rep. by SI of Police, SEB, Kodumur vs B. Muni Swamy	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/2913/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, IV town Police Station, Kurnool vs Metla Raghurami Reddy	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3096/2022	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Shaik Ismail Basha	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/4067/2022	State rep by the Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs B.Sai Kumar and another	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/4183/2022	State rep by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Kodumur vs Ediga Lakshman Goud	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/5088/2022	State rep by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Polisetty Ashok and 3 others	26 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3155/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town Police Station vs Karine Bheemanna	25 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/3172/2022	State rep by Sub Inspector Police, Kurnool IV town Police Station vs Chakali Soma Sekhar	25 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/21/2023	State rep by Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluq Police Station vs Gadekari Ramesh and 2 others	24 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/49/2023	State rep by Enforcement Sub Inspector, Kodumur vs Akkaladevi Kondalaiah	24 Mar 2026	Copy of Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 1,222 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		35
Apr 2026		62
Mar 2026		133
Feb 2026		83
Jan 2026		109
Dec 2025		37
Nov 2025		82
Oct 2025		57
Sep 2025		211
Aug 2025		49
Jul 2025		311
Jun 2025		37

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has S.ANIL KUMAR handled?

S.ANIL KUMAR has handled 1251 court orders since 2025 at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool. The average disposal rate is 98 orders per month.

What types of cases does S.ANIL KUMAR hear?

Based on available records, S.ANIL KUMAR primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool.

Where is S.ANIL KUMAR currently posted?

S.ANIL KUMAR is posted as VI Additional Civil Judge Junior Division Kurnool at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by S.ANIL KUMAR available online?

Yes. 12 judgments by S.ANIL KUMAR are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does S.ANIL KUMAR dispose cases?

S.ANIL KUMAR disposes approximately 98 cases per month, based on 1251 orders handled over their tenure at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool.

Since when is S.ANIL KUMAR serving?

S.ANIL KUMAR has been serving at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 78%

OS 16%

DVC 5%

EP 1%

PRC 0%

MC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2026 — Present

VI Additional Civil Judge Junior Division Kurnool
Jun 2025 — Oct 2025

Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum JMFC · 45 orders
Jun 2025 — Sep 2025

Judicial Magistrate of I class Spl.Mobile Court · 345 orders
May 2025 — Present

JMFC Prohibition and Excise,Kurnool · 861 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Other Judges at this Court

Sudarshi Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of I class Spl.Mobile Court

683 orders

Smt. M. Sarojanamma

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Court,Kurnool

844 orders

G. Aparna

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Kurnool

114 orders

Smt N.Srividya

Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases,Kurnool

8 orders

Smt V. Lakshmi Rajyam

Spl.Sessions Judge offences against women-cum-VII...

658 orders

M Sobha Rani

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool

2 orders

Sri E Rajendra Babu

Spl.Judge for POCSO CourtKurnool

172 orders

← View all judges at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool