Ms. Sireesha Jaddidi

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex · Wanaparthy · Telangana

Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI, II Addl JCJ cum JMFC, is posted at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex, Wanaparthy, Telangana, India. 1,411 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

1,411

Total Orders

Judgments

653

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/143/2026 Acquitted

SHO Kothakota vs Kareddy Vidya sagar Reddy

13 May 2026

C.C.No.143 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR -A, WANAPARTHY DISTRICT.

Dated on this day of the 13 th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. Sireesha Jaddidi, Judl.Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No. 143 of 2026

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S.Kothakota.

...Complainant.

And

A1: Kareddy Vidya Sagar Reddy S/o Ranga Reddy, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kalwarala Village, Veepanagandla Mandal, Wanaparthy District, A2: Kareddy Umesh Chandra Reddy S/o Venkat Ram Reddy, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kalwarala Village, Veepanagandla Mandal.

...Accused no. 1 and 2.

Offence:U/Sec.27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result,the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec.27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused persons if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. *** This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05 .2026 in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri. K. Muktheshwar, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- 1

C.C.No.143 of 2026 :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota filed Charge sheet 1 against the accused no.1 and 2 in PCOR.No. 138/2025 for the offence punishable

U/Sec 27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.11.2025 at about 04:00 P.M on 2 receipt of reliable information about destruction of Palm trees and Palmyrah trees,

L.W.3/V. Govardhan, the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Kothakota along with his staff proceeded to Land in Survey No. 398,399 and 407 at Kalwarala Village,

Veepanagandla Mandal and secured two mediators. On search they found accused no.1 and 2 are doing the works of agriculture in their fields. On enquiry accused no.1 and 2 stated that approximately 100 excise trees (tapable and non tapable) were destroyed by them without any permission from the authority. Further, they revealed that they have 15 acres of agricultural land in Survey no. 398,399 and 407 at

Kalwarala Village, Veepanagandal Mandal and the said excise trees were not tapped by anyone for this reason they destroyed while cleaning their Agricultural land the excise trees (approximately 100) illegally without any permission from the authority. The officials took photographs under the cover of panchanama in the presnece of L.W.1 and L.W.2. The accused no.1 and 2 and case papers were brought to the station. Based on the panchanama, L.W.3 issued P.C.O.R No. 138/2025 for the offence punishable Under Section 27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968. After completion the investigation L.W.3 filed the charge sheet against accused no.1 and 2 for the offence punishable Under Section 27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968.

The Court took cognizance for offence punishable Under Section 27 r/w 3 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968 against the accused no.1 and 2.

On appearance of the accused no.1 and 2, copies of case documents were 4 furnished to them in compliance of section 230 BNSS and they were examined u/sec.

262 BNSS and the charge was framed against them for the offence punishable Under 2

C.C.No.143 of 2026

Section 27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got 5 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 and 2 were examined 6 under section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.

Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused no.1 7 and 2.

8Now the point for determination:- “Whether the prosecution could prove the offence against the accused no.1 and 2 under Section 27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

P.W.1 deposed that he know L.W.2, he do not know anyting about this case 9 and police obtained his signature on white blank papers. Ex.P1 is his signature on scene of offence panchanama. The witness is declared as hostile. During the cross examination the learned APP, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that on 13.11.2025 the police conducted panchanama in his presence and now he is deposing false to help the accused.

P.W.2 deposed that he know P.W.1, he do not know anything about this case 10 and police obtained his signature on white blank papers. Ex. P2 is his signature on scene of offence panchanama. The witness is declared as hostile. During the cross examination the learned APP, P.W.2 denied the suggestion that on 13.11.2025 the 3

C.C.No.143 of 2026 police conducted panchanama in his presence and now he is deposing false to help the accused.

P.W.3 deposed that on 13.11.2025on receipt of reliable information about 11 illegal destruction of Palm trees at Land in Sy.No. 398,399 and 407 at Kalwarala

Village of Veepanagandla Mandal, he along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 proceeded to Land in Sy.No. 398,399 and 407 at Kalwarala Village of Veepanagandla Mandal and on search they found accused persons doing the works of agriculture in their fields the officials stopped them. On enquiry accused stated that palm trees tapable and non tapable, total 100 excise trees were destroyed by them without any permission from the authority. Further, they stated that he has 15 acres of cultivable land in Survey no. 398,399 and 407 on adjacent to their farm and destroying their crop and the trees were not tapped by anyone for this reason they destroyed the excise trees (100) illegally without any permission from the authority. The officials took photographs under cover of panchanama. Ex.P3 is panchanama. Based on Panchanama he registered a case vide PCOR No.138/2025, dated 13.11.2025 Under Section 27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968. Ex.P4 is the PCOR. He served notice to the accused persons. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

P.W.3 during his cross examination admitted that he did not mention exact 12 location of scene of offence. He also admitted that he did not examine any independent neighboring witnesses from the alleged scene of offence. P.W.3 denied the suggestions putforth by learned counsel for accused.

The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the panch 13 witnesses to the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It can be observed that P.W.3 is the Investigating Officer and complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the crime to the accused person. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of PW3, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence supporting the case of 4

C.C.No.143 of 2026 prosecution. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused illegally destroyed the palm trees without any permission. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was destroying the palm trees illegally.

Hence, there is no cogent evidence against the accused person to connect him with the alleged commission of the offence punishable Under Section 27 r/w 40(i) of T.S

Excise Act, 1968. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, he is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence 14 punishable Under Section 27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly they areacquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused persons if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the

13 th day of May, 2026.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A. :: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None PW1. Posamoni Venkata Swamy / Panch witness. PW2. Nilapally Bhanuprakash / Panch witness. PW3. V. Govardhan / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.2 on panchanama. Ex.P3: Panchanama. Ex.P4: PCOR No.138 of 2025. ::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No.143 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ATMAKUR-A

Calendar - CC No. 143 of 2026

1Calendar Case No.:143 of 2026 2Name of the P.S.:Kothakota 3Section of Law:U/Sec.27 r/w 40(i) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968 4PCOR No.:138 of 2025 5Name and description of A1: Kareddy Vidya Sagar Reddy S/o Ranga Reddy, Age: 45 accused Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kalwarala Village, Veepanagandla Mandal, Wanaparthy District, A2: Kareddy Umesh Chandra Reddy S/o Venkat Ram Reddy, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kalwarala Village, Veepanagandla Mandal. 6Date of offence:13.11.2025 7Date of complaint:13.11.2025 8Date of Apprehension: - 9Released on bail: - 10Commencement of trail:07.05.2026 11Close of Trial:07.05.2026 12Date of Judgment:13.05.2026 13Reasons for delay:There is no delay 14Sentence of order:In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec.27 r/w 40(i) of T.S Excise Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused persons if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR-A.

CC/183/2023 Acquitted

Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, SHO, Kothakota vs Pathlavath Sree Ramulu

13 May 2026

C.C.No.183 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR -A, WANAPARTHY DISTRICT.

Dated on this day of the 13 th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. Sireesha Jaddidi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Atmakur-A.

C.C.No. 183 of 2023

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S.Kothakota.

...Complainant.

And

Pathlavath Sree Ramulu, S/o Hemla Naik, Age: 52 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Gaddaramulu Thanda, H/o School Thanda, Pedda Mandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

...Accused.

Offence:7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

***

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Sri. Arunodaya Kumar Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri. K.Muktheshwar, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- 1

C.C.No.183 of 2023 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota filed Charge sheet against the accused in PCOR.No.110/2022 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.09.2022 at about 03:30 p.m on receipt of reliable information about the illegal sales of I.D Liquor, L.W.3/A. Ganapathi

Reddy, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota along with his staff proceeded to house of accused at Gaddaramulu Thanda, Pedda Mandadi Mandal and secured two mediators. On search of house they found one person conducting sales of I.D.

Liquor and also found 2 liters of I.D. Liquor. On enquiry accused revealed his particulars.

Later L.W.3 seized the contraband in the presence of mediators and drawn two samples of about 350 ml each of I.D.Liquor under cover of panchanama and arrested the accused and brought him to the Excise Police Station along with the samples, seized property.

Based on the panchanama, L.W.4 issued P.C.O.R No. 110/2022 for the offence punishable U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. L.W.4 served a notice to the accused. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to the chemical examiner for examination and remaining sized property deposited before

Deputy Commissioner of Excise Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner gave C.E. report bearing No. 7515/2022/6, dated 17.10.2022. After completion the investigation L.W.4 filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section-7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.The court took cognizance for offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and the charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S

Prohibition Act, 1995. The contents of the charge are read over and explained to him in 2

C.C.No.183 of 2023 vernacular language, to which he denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The police filed report submitted through learned APP that address and whereabouts of L.W.1 are not found, hence evidence of

L.W.1 is closed based on police report.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination:- “Whether the prosecution could prove the offence against the accused under section 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9.P.W.1 deposed that he know L.W.1. He deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and police obtained his signature on white blank papers.

Ex. P1 is his signature on scene of offence panchanama. The witness is declared as hostile. During the cross examination by learned APP, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that on 09.09.2022 at about 03:30 p.m the police conducted panchanama in his presence and now he is dosing false to help the accused.

10.P.W.2 deposed that on 09.09.2022 at about 03:30 p.m on receipt of reliable information about illegal sales of I.D. Liquor at Gaddaramulu Thanda, Pedda Mandadi

Mandal. L.W.3 along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 proceeded to house of accused at

Gaddaramulu Thanda, Pedda Mandadi Mandal. On search of house they found 2 liters of

I.D. Liquor. L.W.3 conducted the panchanama, seized the contraband and drawn two sample bottles each containing 350ml of Liquor under cover of panchanama. Ex.P2 is the 3

C.C.No.183 of 2023

Seizure Panchanama. Later L.W.3 handed over the accused along with property and case file to L.W.4 for conducting of further investigation.

11.P.W.2 during his cross examination admitted that he did not mention exact location of scene of offence. He also admitted that he did not examine any independent neighboring witnesses from the alleged scene of offence. P.W.2 denied the suggestions putforth by learned counsel for accused.

12.P.W.3 deposed that he received case file from P.W.3 and based on

Panchanama he registered a case vide PCOR No. 110/2022 under Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of T.S

Prohibition Act. Ex.P3 is the PCOR. He deposited the samples before the Court. He also served notice to the accused. Later, he have received the report of CE reporto.7515/2022/6, dated 17.10.2022 at Sl.No.11013 which opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Ex.P4 is the CE report. P.W.3 during his cross examination denied the suggestion that he filed charge sheet without verifying the investigation.

13.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.1 is the panch witness to the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It can be observed that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the Investigating Officers in the present case and in such a case, their testimonies cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the crime to the accused person. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence supporting the case of prosecution. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling or transporting the I.D Liquor illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in illegal possession of I.D Liquor for the purpose of its sale or its otherwise illegal use. Hence, there is no cogent evidence against the accused person to connect him with the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S

Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution 4

C.C.No.183 of 2023 failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, he is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None

PW1: Mudavath Redya Naik / Panch Witness. PW2: A. Ganapathi Reddy / Investigation Officer. PW3: Sudhakar Reddy / Filed Charge Sheet.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence: Nil

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3: PCOR No.110 of 2022. Ex.P4: CE Report.

::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No.183 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ATMAKUR-A

Calendar - CC No. 183 of 2023

1.Calendar Case No.:183 of 2023

2.Name of the P.S.:Kothakota

3.Section of Law:7A r/w 8 (e ) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995

4.PCOR No.:110 of 2022

5.Name and description of Pathlavath Sree Ramulu S/o Hemla Naik, Age: 52 accused Years, Occ: Labour, R/o Gaddaramulu Thanda H/o school Thanda, Pedda Mandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

6.Date of offence:09.09.2022

7.Date of complaint:09.09.2022

8.Date of Apprehension: -

9.Released on bail: -

10.Commencement of trail:22.01.2026

11.Close of Trial:07.05.2026

12.Date of Judgment:13.05.2026

13.Reasons for delay:The prosecution witness has not produced by the Police within time.

14.Sentence of order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR-A.

CC/132/2024 Acquitted

SHO,Kothakota vs Mudavath Chandru Naik

13 May 2026

C.C.No.132 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR -A, WANAPARTHY DISTRICT.

Dated on this day of the 13 th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. Sireesha Jaddidi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Atmakur-A.

C.C.No. 132 of 2024

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S.Kothakota.

...Complainant.

And

Mudavath Chandru Naik, S/o Mudavath Redya Naik, Age: 62 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Vatlambudi Thanda, Natavelly, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

...Accused.

Offence:7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

***

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri. K.Muktheshwar, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- 1

C.C.No.132 of 2024 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota filed Charge sheet against the accused in PCOR.No.75/2023 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.07.2023 at about 11:30 a.m on receipt of reliable information about the illegal sales of I.D Liquor, L.W.3/A.

Venkatramulu, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota along with his staff proceeded to house of accused at Vatlambudi Thanda, Natavelly, Kothakota Mandal and secured two mediators. On search of house they found one person conducting sales of I.D.

Liquor and also found one plastic bottle which contains 2 liters of I.D. Liquor. On enquiry accused revealed his particulars. Later L.W.3 seized the contraband in the presence of mediators and drawn two samples of about 350 ml each of I.D.Liquor under cover of panchanama and arrested the accused and brought him to the Excise Police Station along with the samples, seized property.

Based on the panchanama, L.W.4 issued P.C.O.R No. 75/2023 for the offence punishable U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. L.W.4 served a notice to the accused. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to the chemical examiner for examination and remaining sized property deposited before

Deputy Commissioner of Excise Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner gave C.E. report bearing No. 9026/2023/1, dated 27.12.2023. After completion the investigation L.W.4 filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section-7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.The court took cognizance for offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

Prohibition Act, 1995. The contents of the charge are read over and explained to him in 2

C.C.No.132 of 2024 vernacular language, to which he denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The police filed report submitted through learned APP that address and whereabouts of L.W.2 are not found, hence evidence of

L.W.2 is closed based on police report. The police filed report submitted through learned

APP along with Death Certificate of L.W.3. Hence, recorded evidence of L.W.3 as died.

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination:- “Whether the prosecution could prove the offence against the accused under section 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9.P.W.1 deposed that he know L.W.2. He deposed that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and police obtained his thumb impression on white blank papers. The witness is declared as hostile. During the cross examination by learned APP,

P.W.1 denied the suggestion that on 31.07.2023 at about 11:30 a.m the police conducted panchanama in his presence and now he is dosing false to help the accused.

10.P.W.2deposed that he received case file from L.W.3 for conducting further investigation. He identified the signature of L.W.3 who conducted the investigation (died).

On 31.07.2023 at about 11:30 A.M P.M on receipt of reliable information about illegal sales of

I.D. Liquor at Vatlambudi Thanda, Natavelly, Khakota Mandal. He along with P.W.1 proceeded to house of accused at Vatlambudi Thanda, Natavelly, Kothakota Mandal on search of house they found one plastic bottle which contains 3 liters of I.D. Liquor. L.W.3 3

C.C.No.132 of 2024 conducted the panchanama, seized the contraband and drawn two sample bottles each containing 350ml of Liquor under cover of panchanama. Ex.P1 is the Seizure Panchanama.

Later L.W.3 handedover the case file and contraband to SHO, Kothakota. He received case file from SHO, Kothakota. Based on Panchanama he registered a case vide PCOR No.

75/2023 under Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act. Ex.P2 is the PCOR. He deposited the samples before the Court. He also served notice to the accused. Later, he have received the report of CE reporto.9026/2023/1, dated 27.12.2023 at Sl.No.22610 which opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Ex.P3 is the

CE report.

11.P.W.2 during his cross examination admitted that he did not obtain documents of house for ownership proof. He also admitted that he did not examine any independent neighboring witnesses from the alleged scene of offence. P.W.2 denied the suggestions putforth by learned counsel for accused.

12.The prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.W.1 is the panch witness to the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It can be observed that P.W.2 is the Investigating Officer and complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the crime to the accused person. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of PW2, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence supporting the case of prosecution. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling or transporting the

I.D Liquor illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in illegal possession of I.D Liquor for the purpose of its sale or its otherwise illegal use. Hence, there is no cogent evidence against the accused person to connect his with the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, he is entitled for acquittal.

C.C.No.132 of 2024

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this

the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None

PW1: M. Ramulu / Panch Witness. PW2: G. Sudhakar Reddy / Investigation Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution:Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P2: PCOR No.75 of 2023 Ex.P3: CE Report.

::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No.132 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ATMAKUR-A

Calendar - CC No. 132 of 2024

1.Calendar Case No.:132 of 2024

2.Name of the P.S.:Kothakota

3.Section of Law:7A r/w 8 (e ) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995

4.PCOR No.:75 of 2023

5.Name and description of Mudavath Chandru Naik S/o Mudavath Redya Naik accused Age: 62 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Vatlambudi Thanda, Natavelly, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

6.Date of offence:31.07.2023

7.Date of complaint:31.07.2023

8.Date of Apprehension: -

9.Released on bail: -

10.Commencement of trail:22.01.2026

11.Close of Trial:07.05.2026

12.Date of Judgment:13.05.2026

13.Reasons for delay:The prosecution witness has not produced by the Police within time.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR-A.

CC/137/2026 Acquitted

SHO Kothakota vs Subavath Sakru @ Sabath Sakru

13 May 2026

C.C.No.137 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR-A, WANAPARTHY DISTRICT.

Dated on this day of the 13 th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. Sireesha Jaddidi, Judl.Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No. 137 of 2026

Between:

State Proh. & Excise through Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S Kothakota.

...Complainant.

And

Sabavath Sakru Alias Sabavath Sakru S/o Balya, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 6-03, Ontimitta Thanda, Veepanagandla Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

...Accused.

Offence:7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

***

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri. K. Muktheshwar, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- 1

C.C.No.137 of 2026 :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota filed Charge 1.

sheet against the accused in PCOR.No.137/2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.

7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.11.2025 at about 05:15 P.M on 2.

receipt of reliable information about the illegal sales of I.D Liquor,

L.W.3/V. Govardhan, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota along with his staff proceeded to house of accused at Ontimitta Thanda, Veepanagandla Village and Mandal and secured two mediators. On search of house they found one person conducting sales of I.D. Liquor and also found 4 liter of I.D Liquor. On enquiry accused revealed his particulars. Later L.W.3 seized the contraband in the presence of mediators and drawn two samples of about 350 ml each of I.D.Liquor under cover of panchanama and arrested the accused and brought him to the Excise Police

Station along with the samples, seized property. Based on the panchanama, L.W.3 issued P.C.O.R No. 137/2025 for the offence punishable U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S

Prohibition Act, 1995. L.W.3 served a notice to the accused. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to the chemical examiner for examination and remaining sized property deposited before Deputy Commissioner of

Excise Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner gave C.E. report bearing No. 9271/2025/E, dated 31.12.2025. After completion the investigation L.W.3 filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section-7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

The Court took cognizance for offence punishable under section 7A 3.

r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were 4.

furnished to him in compliance of section 230 BNSS and he was examined u/sec.

262 BNSS and the charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under 2

C.C.No.137 of 2026 sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. The contents of the charge are read over and explained to him in vernacular language, to which he denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 5.

and got documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined 6.

under section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.

Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused. 7.

8.Now the point for determination:- “Whether the prosecution could prove the offence against the accused under section 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

P.W.1 deposed that he knows L.W.2. He deposed that no panchanama 9.

was conducted in his presence and police obtained his signature on white blank papers. Ex.P1 is his signature on scene of offence panchanama. The witness is declared as hostile. During the cross examination by learned APP, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that on 06.11.2025 at about 05:15 P.M the police conducted panchanama in his presence and now he is dosing false to help the accused.

P.W.2 deposed that he knows P.W.1. He deposed that no panchanama 10.

was conducted in his presence and police obtained his thumb impression on white blank papers. The witness is declared as hostile. During the cross examination by learned APP, P.W.2 denied the suggestion that on 06.11.2025 at about 05:15 P.M the police conducted panchanama in his presence and now he is dosing false to help the accused.

C.C.No.137 of 2026

P.W.3 deposed that on 06.11.2025 at about 05:15 P.M on receipt of 11.

reliable information about illegal sales of I.D.Liquor at Ontimitta Thanda of

Veepanagandla Village and Mandal. He along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 proceeded to house of accused at Ontimitta Thanda of Veepanagandla Village and Mandal on search of house they found one person and found 4 liters of I.D Liquor. L.W.3 conducted the panchanama, seized the contraband and drawn two sample bottles each containing 350ml of Liquor under cover of panchanama. Ex.P2 is the Seizure

Panchanama. Based on panchanama he registered a case vide PCOR NO. 137/2025,

dated 06.11.2025 under Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act. Ex.P3 is PCOR. He

deposited the samples before the Court. He served notice to the accused. Later, he have received the report of CE report No. 9271/2025/E, dated 31.12.2025 at

Sl.No.9086 which opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Ex.P4 is CE report.

P.W.3 during his cross examination admitted that he did not mention 12.

exact location of scene of offence. He also admitted that he did not examine any independent neighboring witnesses from the alleged scene of offence. P.W.3 denied the suggestions putforth by learned counsel for accused.

The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the 13.

panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It can be observed that P.W.3 is the Investigating

Officer and complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the crime to the accused person. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of

PW3, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence supporting the case of prosecution. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling or transporting the I.D Liquor illegally.

The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in illegal possession of I.D 4

C.C.No.137 of 2026

Liquor for the purpose of its sale or its otherwise illegal use. Hence, there is no cogent evidence against the accused person to connect him with the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act, 1995. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, he is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence 14.

punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he isacquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None P.W.1: Sabavath Balu / Panch Witness. P.W.2: Katravath Govindu / Panch Witness. P.W.3: V. Govardhan / Investigation Officer and filed charge sheet.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3: PCOR No. 137 of 2025. Ex.P4: CE Report.

::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No.137 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ATMAKUR-A

Calendar - CC No. 137 of 2026

1.Calendar Case No.: 137 of 2026

2.Name of the P.S.: Kothakota

3.Section of Law: 7A r/w 8 (e ) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995

4.PCOR No.: 137 of 2025

5.Name and description of Sabavath Sakru Alias Sabavath Sakru S/o Balya, Age: 45 accusedYears, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 6-03, Ontimitta Thanda, Veepanagandla Village and Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

6.Date of offence: 06.11.2025

7.Date of complaint: 06.11.2025

8.Date of Apprehension: -

9.Released on bail: -

10.Commencement of trail: 28.04.2026

11.Close of Trial: 07.05.2026

12.Date of Judgment: 13.05.2026

13.Reasons for delay: There is no delay

14.Sentence of order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR-A.

CC/128/2026 Acquitted

State of Telangana, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector vs Katravath Kotamma

13 May 2026

C.C.No.128 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR-A, WANAPARTHY DISTRICT.

Dated on this day of the 13 th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. Sireesha Jaddidi, Judl.Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No. 128 of 2026

Between:

State Proh. & Excise through Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise P.S Kothakota.

...Complainant.

And

Katravath Kotamma W/o Late Govindu, Age: 54 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. H.No. 3-52, Chinna Mandadi Thanda, Pedda Mandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

...Accused.

Offence:7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly she is acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

***

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri. K. Muktheshwar, learned counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- 1

C.C.No.128 of 2026 :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota filed Charge 1.

sheet against the accused in PCOR.No.134/2025 for the offence punishable U/Sec.

7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.10.2025 at about 04:45 P.M 2.

on receipt of reliable information about the illegal sales of I.D Liquor,

L.W.3/V. Govardhan, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Kothakota along with his staff proceeded to house of accused at Chinna Mandadi Thanda, Pedda Mandadi

Mandal and secured two mediators. On search of house they found one women and also found 5 liter of I.D Liquor. On enquiry accused revealed her particulars. Later

L.W.3 seized the contraband in the presence of mediators and drawn two samples of about 350 ml each of I.D.Liquor under cover of panchanama and arrested the accused and brought her to the Excise Police Station along with the samples, seized property. Based on the panchanama, L.W.3 issued P.C.O.R No. 134/2025 for the offence punishable U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. L.W.3 served a notice to the accused. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to the chemical examiner for examination and remaining sized property deposited before Deputy Commissioner of Excise Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner gave C.E. report bearing No. 9271/2025/E, dated 31.12.2025. After completion the investigation L.W.3 filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section-7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

The Court took cognizance for offence punishable under section 7A 3.

r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were 4.

furnished to her in compliance of section 230 BNSS and he was examined u/sec.

262 BNSS and the charge was framed against her for the offence punishable under 2

C.C.No.128 of 2026 sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. The contents of the charge are read over and explained to her in vernacular language, to which she denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 5.

and got documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined 6.

under section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which she denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.

Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused. 7.

8.Now the point for determination:- “Whether the prosecution could prove the offence against the accused under section 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

P.W.1 deposed that she knows L.W.2. She deposed that no 9.

panchanama was conducted in her presence and police obtained her signature on white blank papers. Ex.P1 is her signature on scene of offence panchanama. The witness is declared as hostile. During the cross examination by learned APP, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that on 09.10.2025 at about 04:45 P.M the police conducted panchanama in her presence and now she is dosing false to help the accused.

P.W.2 deposed that she knows P.W.1. She deposed that no 10.

panchanama was conducted in her presence and police obtained her thumb impression on white blank papers. The witness is declared as hostile. During the cross examination by learned APP, P.W.2 denied the suggestion that on 09.10.2025 3

C.C.No.128 of 2026 at about 04:45 P.M the police conducted panchanama in her presence and now she is dosing false to help the accused.

P.W.3 deposed that on 09.10.2025 at about 04:45 P.M on receipt of 11.

reliable information about illegal sales of I.D.Liquor at Chinna Mandadi Thanda of

Pedda Mandadi Mandal. He along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 proceeded to house of accused at Chinna Mandadi Thanda of Pedda Mandadi Mandal. On search of house they found one person and 5 liters of I.D Liquor. He conducted the panchanama, seized the contraband and drawn two sample bottles each containing 350ml of

Liquor under cover of panchanama. Ex.P2 is the Seizure Panchanama. Based on panchanama he registered a case vide PCOR NO. 134/2025, dated 09.10.2025 under

Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act. Ex.P3 is PCOR. He deposited the samples

before the Court. He served notice to the accused. Later, he have received the report

of CE report No. 9271/2025/E, dated 31.12.2025 at Sl.No.9083 which opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Ex.P4 is CE report.

P.W.3 during his cross examination admitted that he did not mention 12.

The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the 13.

panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. It can be observed that P.W.3 is the Investigating

PW3, there is no other corroborative oral or documentary evidence supporting the case of prosecution. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it 4

C.C.No.128 of 2026 cannot be said that the accused was selling or transporting the I.D Liquor illegally.

The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in illegal possession of I.D

Liquor for the purpose of its sale or its otherwise illegal use. Hence, there is no cogent evidence against the accused person to connect her with the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act, 1995. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, she is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence 14.

punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly she isacquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A. :: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence: None P.W.1: Mudavath Nari / Panch Witness. P.W.2: Vadthyavath Shanthi / Panch Witness. P.W.3: V. Govardhan / Investigation Officer and filed charge sheet. ::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3: PCOR No. 134 of 2025. Ex.P4: CE Report.

::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Atmakur-A.

C.C.No.128 of 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

ATMAKUR-A

Calendar - CC No. 128 of 2026

1.Calendar Case No.: 128 of 2026

2.Name of the P.S.: Kothakota

3.Section of Law: 7A r/w 8 (e ) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995

4.PCOR No.: 134 of 2025

5.Name and description of Katravath Kotamma W/o Late Govindu, Age: 54 Years, accusedOcc: Coolie, R/o. H.No. 3-52, Chinna Mandadi Thanda, Pedda Mandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

6.Date of offence: 06.11.2025

7.Date of complaint: 06.11.2025

8.Date of Apprehension: -

9.Released on bail: -

10.Commencement of trail: 28.04.2026

11.Close of Trial: 07.05.2026

12.Date of Judgment: 13.05.2026

13.Reasons for delay: There is no delay

14.Sentence of order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly she is acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited

before this court shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR-A.

Order Record 1,400 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/128/2026	State of Telangana, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector vs Katravath Kotamma	13 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/132/2024	SHO,Kothakota vs Mudavath Chandru Naik	13 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/137/2026	SHO Kothakota vs Subavath Sakru @ Sabath Sakru	13 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/143/2026	SHO Kothakota vs Kareddy Vidya sagar Reddy	13 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/183/2023	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, SHO, Kothakota vs Pathlavath Sree Ramulu	13 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/486/2024	SHO, Kothakota vs Mudavath Devula	13 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/90/2024	Mangali Chandrakala vs Mangali Balram	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/60/2025	G Janaki Ramulu Shetty Alias G Janaki Ramulu vs Bashamoni Suresh Alias B Suresh	30 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/74/2024	Musti Gopal vs Harijan Ravi Kumar	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/23/2024	Golla Ramudu @ Golla Ramulu vs Bhaskar @ Golla Bhaskar	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/6/2019	Smt Venkatamma vs Pedpda Bucha Reddy	22 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/13/2023	Smt. Sukka Vanaja vs Smt. Sukka Venkatamma	22 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/62/2021	Chinimoni Pentanna vs Thutukurthy Hanmanthu	22 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/18/2022	Chavva Ramchandraiah vs A.Hanmanth Reddy	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/86/2023	Kurva Laxmanna vs Kurva Katike Srinivasulu	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/306/2020	State of Telangana vs Shivudu Vadde	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/465/2022	Beesam Premalatha vs Md.Akbar Basha @ Ajju	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/551/2022	M/s. NSL Krishnaveni Sugars Ltd. Reo. by its authorized person N.Bhasker Rao vs Pawar Rajender	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
STC/704/2022	MS NSL Krishnaveni Sugurs Ltd, rep. by its Manage vs Syed Sali Peer	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/37/2025	Moturi Janamma vs MD. Khaja	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/483/2022	N.Bhaskar Rao vs Shivaji Soma Rathod	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/501/2024	SHO, Kothakota vs Telugu Samba	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/743/2022	M/s NSL Krishnaveni Sugurs Ltd., Rep.by its N.Bhaskar Rao S/o Narasimha Rao, Ramakrishnapuram Villa vs Suribabu Chandaka	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/855/2022	M/s NSL Krishnaveni Sugar Ltd., Rep.by N.Bhaskar, Ramakrishnapur Village of Kothakota Mandal. vs Chaganlal Sriramlal Agarwal	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/110/2021	State of Telangana vs Enumula Ramulu	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/350/2022	Gundrathi balagoud vs G.Suresh goud	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/51/2022	Vadla Viswanatham vs Vadla Narasimhulu	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/55/2021	Varkatam Srinivas Reddy vs Smt Varkatam Laxmamma	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/339/2022	Krishnaiah vs Kotha Kurumanna	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/50/2025	Animoni Anand vs Preveen Kumar Reddy	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/93/2020	Harizan Ratnamma vs G. Eswaraiah	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/102/2023	Gundrathi Narayana Goud vs Md.Basheer	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/332/2025	SHO Kothakota vs Kethavath Ramesh	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/553/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Kothakota vs Alladi Eeswaraiah	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/620/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Kothakota vs Boya Raju	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/630/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Kothakota vs Savukari Chennaiah	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/11/2025	S. Balaswamy Alias Kummari Balaswamy vs Ram Reddy	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/75/2024	Smt.S.Swapna vs S.M.Arun Kumar	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/174/2023	Saddam Hussain vs Peru Singh	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/561/2025	Excise Kothakota vs Palthyavath Devudu Naik	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/606/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Atmakur vs Girla Naik	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/607/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Atmakur vs Ediga Nagesh Goud	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/611/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Atmakur vs Kethavath Keshya naik	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/612/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Atmakur vs Suseela	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/614/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Atmakur vs Kethavath Rukkamma	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/615/2025	State of Telangana, Excise Atmakur vs M Venkatanna Naik	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/769/2022	P.Venu vs Bheema Raghu	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/3/2025	Anke Gandenna Alias Dandu Gandenna vs Anjanna	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/565/2025	Excise Kothakota vs Rathlavath Rupli	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/41/2023	Thokali Thirupathaiah vs Pedda Bheemanna	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/143/2025	SHO, Atmakur vs Kavali Krishnaiah	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/405/2025	State of Telangana, SHO Atmakur vs Ansar Ahmed Mohammad	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/1/2025	Sri. Anke Gandenna vs Sri. M. Anjanna	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/374/2022	Thirupathamma vs Vadde Srinivasulu	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/40/2021	State of Telangana vs Kalwa Venkataswamy	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/280/2020	SHO Atmakur vs Manyam Gopalakrishna	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/1/2022	Telugu Shanthi Swaroop vs Gobburu Naveen	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
MC/1/2022	Telugu Shanthi Swaroopa vs Gobburu Naveen	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/4/2025	State of Telangana, SHO Madanapur vs Chukka Venkatanna	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/10/2025	State of Telangana, SHO Kothakota vs Uppari Suresh alias G Suresh Kumar	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/46/2026	State of Telangana, SHO kothakota vs Buggapally Ravi	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/77/2026	State of Telangana vs Harish Podilli	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/91/2026	Probhibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Atmakur vs Baini Ravinder	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/98/2026	State of Telangana vs Chinna Venkataiah Buggapally	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/114/2026	State of Telangana vs Venkatesh Boya	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/115/2026	State of Telangana vs Bharath Chukka	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/125/2025	State of Telangana vs Voddi Harikrishna	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/144/2026	SHO Atmakur vs Telugu Bheemeswar	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/145/2026	State of Telangana Exciser PS Kothakota vs Thatikonda Mahesh	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/146/2026	State of Telangana Exciser PS Kothakota vs Rachuri Sujatha	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/147/2026	State of Telangana Exciser PS Kothakota vs Jalivali Chandrudu	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/201/2025	State of Telangana vs Surendar Reddy Sangireddy	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1089/2022	PS Kothakota vs Mulinti Laxminarayana	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1237/2022	Smt.Mykala Barathamma vs Komari Aravind	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
STC/597/2022	MS NSL Krishnaveni Sugurs Ltd, rep. by its Manage vs Mutukuru Pitchaiah	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
STC/598/2022	Ms.NSL Krishnaveni Sugars Ltd.Rep. by its authori vs Mutukuri Pitchaiah	28 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/36/2026	State of Telangana, SHO Kothakota vs Janampally Bhanuprakash Rao	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/86/2025	SHO, Amarchintha vs Hareen Alias B. Hareen	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/87/2025	SHO, Amarchintha vs Komari Aravind	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/178/2020	Gadwal Ramulamma vs Harijan Balaraju at T. Balraju	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/239/2025	State of Telangana vs Borelli Rakesh Alias Rakesh	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/57/2021	State of Telangana vs Kamampati Narsimha	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/521/2025	State of Telangana, SHO Madanapur vs Pedda Karrenna	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/12/2025	SHo, Madanapur vs Kotla Tarun	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/385/2025	State of Telangana, SHO Madanapur vs Motlampalli Raju	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/6/2024	Smt.Muneela @ Savithri vs Wadde Anjaneyulu	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/124/2026	State of Telangana vs Rahul Palepaga	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/8/2022	jyothi vs Subhashchandra	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/23/2022	Smt.J. Radha vs J.Thimma Reddy	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/137/2023	G.Janaki Ramulu Shetty vs Vadla Srinivas Goud	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/139/2023	Boya Satyanna vs B.Chinna Narsimha S/o Yerra Narsanna	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/522/2025	State of Telangana, SHO Kothakota vs Gaddapu Murali Goud	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/560/2025	Excise Kothakota vs Palthyavath Raju Naik	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
STC/630/2022	Through Telangana State Police, P.Nagashekar Reddy SI of Police, Kothakota PS. vs Godas RavinderGoud	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/39/2023	Gandla Raghu vs Nagaraju @ Gandla Nagaraju	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/66/2026	State of Telangana, SHO Kothakota vs Malegouni Rakesh Kumar Goud	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/225/2025	State of Telangana vs Srinivasulu G.	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/239/2024	SHO,Kothakota vs Takur Raja Singh	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/285/2025	SHO, Kothakota vs Gaddapu Ramulu Goud	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/825/2022	Through Telangana State Police, P.Nagashekar Reddy SI of Police, kothakota PS. vs G Madhusudhan Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 1,400 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		7
Apr 2026		45
Mar 2026		95
Feb 2026		44
Jan 2026		65
Dec 2025		126
Nov 2025		176
Oct 2025		136
Sep 2025		472
Aug 2025		129
Jul 2025		96
Jun 2025		20

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI handled?

Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI has handled 1411 court orders since 2025 at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 653 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI hear?

Based on available records, Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI currently posted?

Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI is posted as II Addl JCJ cum JMFC at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex, Wanaparthy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI dispose cases?

Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI disposes approximately 653 cases per month, based on 1411 orders handled over their tenure at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI serving?

Ms. SIREESHA JADDIDI has been serving at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex since 2025.

Case Types

STC 55%

CC 32%

OS 9%

PRC 1%

EP 1%

DVC 1%

MC 1%

ELECOP 0%

Posting History

Jul 2025 — Aug 2025

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC · 14 orders
Jun 2025 — Present

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 1,397 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

D.ramakanth

Principal District and Sessions Judge

4 orders

Karthik Reddy T

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

1,482 orders

Smt.Bandari Srilatha

I Addl JCJ cum JMFC

1,258 orders

Ms. N.Ashwini

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

130 orders

Smt. G.kalarchana

Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Session...

215 orders

Smt.K.Kavitha

Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Assi...

196 orders

← View all judges at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex