Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex · Suryapet · Telangana

Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, is posted at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana, India. 540 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, PRC, MC cases.

540

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/527/2020 Acquitted

SHO Suryapet Excise vs Gugulothu Shusila

11 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

SURYAPET

(Dated this the 11th day of October, 2021)

Present: R.SIRI SOWJANYA Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet

C.C.No. 527 of 2020

Between: The State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police. P.S. Excise Suryapet. ….. Prosecution

AND

Gugulothu Shushila, W/o.Krishna , age:40 years, caste:Lambada, occ:Coolie, R/o.Gollthanda, Mothey mandal, Suryapet District.

…..Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for State and of Sri. B.Naga Raju, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material 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 Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer,

Suryapet has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, as mentioned in the charge sheet is that on 22-12-2017 at 08.30 A.M., LW.3 viz., L.Hanumanthu, Prohibition & Excise Sub-inspector, Suryapet along with his staff, rushed to Gollthanda village by securing the panchas i.e., Lws.1 and 2 viz., Gugulothu Nehru and

Gugulothu Balaji and conducted raid in the house of accused by issuing search memo U/Sec.165 Cr.P.C and found (04) litres Can containing ID liquor at the house of accused. On enquiry the accused failed to produce valid license or permit. It is also stated that the accused is selling ID liquor which was banned by the Government, on higher prices for livelihood of accused.

3.On returning to the police station, on 22-12-2017 along with accused and seized property, Lw.3 registered a case in P.C.O.R.No.133/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4. During the course of investigation, Lw.3 has sent one sample bottle to the Chemical examiner, Warangal for analysis and reports, also deposited the remaining case property before Deputy Commissioner for Prohibition and

Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation.

5.On the same day during the course of interrogation the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt and on the spot, Lw.3 served notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C., and 50 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused and kith and kin of accused and the Lw.3 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. He obtained RFSL report vide CE No.1384/2017, dated 30-12-2017 in Sl.No.10319 and opined that the samples contain sediment which is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. After completion of investigation, Lw.3 viz.,

L.Hanumanthu, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has taken on file the case for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act against the sole accused basing on the material available on record.

7.On appearance of Accused, copies of all documents were furnished to the accused, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

8.On appearance of Accused, heard both sides, perused the record and basing on the material available on record, the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and the charges were framed against the accused under Section 240 Cr.P.C. the charges for the offence under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act read over and explained to the accused, in 3 vernacular language of accused, after understanding the same the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.In order to substantiate the offences charged against accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

10.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied all the incriminating material against the accused and reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

12.Investigation into an offence of this nature almost comes to conclusion immediately after the detection of the offence, the later part of investigation remains to be a legal formality. Yet it’s due compliance is indispensable. So, the detection and seizure of contraband will have to be proved by the prosecution squarely with legal precision and exactitude.

13.It is argued by the learned A.P.P. that there is no rule of law to disbelieve the evidence of Investigation Officers as such evidence Pw.3 is convincing, consistent and corroborative in every material aspects clearly disclosing the complicity of the accused. Thus, there is sufficient legal evidence on record to record a conviction against the accused U/Sec.7 (a) and 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act and he requested to punish the accused according to law.

14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no legal evidence on record. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is in no way sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. Pw.3 is interested witnesses and his evidence is not free from infirmities and inconsistencies. They contended that their evidence merely lays down the procedure followed but do not put-forth any material evidence on which a conviction can be based and also argued that as none of the independent witnesses i.e. Pw.1 and Pw.2 supported the case of prosecution the accused is entitled for a clean acquittal.

15.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

The case of the prosecution is that on 22-12-2017 at 08.30 A.M., LW.3 viz., L.Hanumanthu, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Suryapet along with his staff rushed to Gollthanda, there found (04) litres plastic Can containing ID liquor at the house of accused and he was selling the ID Liquor prohibited by

Government to the villagers for his livelihood at higher prices and so he be punished for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

16.Pw.1, who is one of the panch for scene of offence and seizure, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though he identified his signature

17.Pw.2 is another panch for scene of offence and seizure, did not support the case of the prosecution. Police intercepted him and obtained his signature Ex.P2. He deposed that he does not know the contents of the same.

Though learned APP cross examined him with the leave of the court, no material evidence worthy enough to prove the case of prosecution could be elicited.

Pw.3 is the Investigating Officer, deposed in his evidence that previously he worked as Excise S.I of Police, Suryapet Police Station. On 22-12-2017 Lw.3 viz., L.Hanumanthu received reliable information of selling the ID liquor in illegal manner at Gollthanda, upon receiving the said information, he rushed to the place of offence along with his staff and conduct the rides and went to the house of accused by following the procedure and he searched the place of offence and found ( 04 ) liters of I.D liquor in one white plastic can which was banned by the

Government and on enquiry, the accused failed to produce any legal documents for valuation of the same and later he conducted scene of offence panchanama 5 by securing the presence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and seized(04) liters of I.D liquor by following the procedure and also on the same day he affected the arrest of accused and produced before the Court and after completion of investigation, and after collecting the analysis report from the Chief Examiner, Warangal, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P.3 is Search memo, Ex.P.4 is the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the P.C.O.R and Ex.P6 is the R.F.S.L. report.He further deposed that later he filed the charge sheet he can identify the signature of Lw.3.

18.In the cross-examination Pw.3 denied that he had not conducted any panchanama in the presence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and the seized the case property is created one he has registered a false case against the accused and the accused is no way concerned with the present case and a false case was registered against the accused for statistical purpose.

19.From the evidence on record it can be seen that the entire deposition of Pw.3 goes to say the procedure adopted to raid and seize the I.D liquor and sending it for FSL but does not utter with specificity as to how and by what means they have come to the conclusion that it is this accused who has committed the alleged offence he was charged with. As per version of prosecution, they secured presence of mediators, Pw.1 and Pw.2 but none of them supported the version of the prosecution.

20.In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it is unsafe to convict an accused solely basing on the evidence of Pw.3 who is the Sub

Inspector of Excise police and who is also the interested witness.

21.In the light of the above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence this Court opines that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-A and 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the 6 accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-01 (LW-01) Gugulothu Nehru… Panch for seizure

PW-02 (LW-02) Gugulothu Balaji… Panch for seizure

PW-03 (LW-03) G.Vigneshwara chary… Investigation Officer.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1Dt22-12-2017Signature of Pw.1 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-2Dt 22-12-2017Signature of Pw.2 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-3Dt 22-12-2017Search memo marked through Pw.3

Ex.P-4Dt 22-12-2017Panchanama marked through PW.3

Ex.P-5Dt 22-12-2017PCOR No.133/2017 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Suryapet

Ex.P-6Dt 30-12-2017Analysis Report vide C.E.No. 1384/2017 SI.No.10319.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL -

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

: AT SURYAPET

C.C.No. 527 of 2020

DATE OF DATE APPREHENSION RELEASED

THE OF OF ON

OFFENCE REPORT ACCUSED B A I L

22-12-201722-12-201722-12-201722-12-2017

COMMENCEMENT CLOSURE DATE

OF OF OF

T R I A L T R I A L JUDGMENT

07-10-202108-10-2021 11-10-2021

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : The State through Proh. Excise Sub- Inspector, Suryapet.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Gugulothu Shushila, W/o.Krishna , age:40 years, caste:Lambada, occ:Coolie, R/o.Gollthanda, Mothey mandal, Suryapet District.

OFFENCE : Under Sections 7 (A) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

FINDING OF THE COURT : Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-A and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C., and the unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : No delay

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

Lr.Dis.No. /2021 Dt: . .2021

To: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda.

CC/532/2020 Acquitted

SHO Suryapet Excise vs Bhukya Nehru

11 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

SURYAPET

(Dated this the 11th day of October, 2021)

Present: R.SIRI SOWJANYA Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet

C.C.No. 532 of 2020

Between: The State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police. P.S. Excise Suryapet. ….. Prosecution

AND

Bhukya Nehuru, S/o.Chendru, age:40 years, caste:Lambada, occ:Coolie, R/o.Bhukya thanda, Chivvemla mandal, Suryapet District.

…..Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for State and of Sri. Dasari Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material 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 Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer,

Suryapet has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, as mentioned in the charge sheet is that on 06-10-2018 at 03.45 P.M., LW.3 viz., G.Vigneshwara chary,

Prohibition & Excise Sub-inspector, Suryapet along with his staff, rushed to

Bhukya thanda by securing the panchas i.e., Lws.1 and 2 viz., Dharavath

Saidulu and Dharavath Panthulu and conducted raid in the house of accused by issuing search memo U/Sec.165 Cr.P.C and found (04) litres Can containing ID liquor at the house of accused. On enquiry the accused failed to produce valid license or permit. It is also stated that the accused is selling ID liquor which was banned by the Government, on higher prices for livelihood of accused.

3.On returning to the police station, on 06-10-2018 along with accused and seized property, Lw.3 registered a case in P.C.O.R.No.60/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation.

5.On the same day during the course of interrogation the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt and on the spot, Lw.3 served notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C., and 50 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused and kith and kin of accused and the Lw.3 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. He obtained RFSL report vide CE No.133/2019, dated 11-02-2019 in Sl.No.2433 and opined that the samples contain sediment which is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. After completion of investigation, Lw.3 viz.,

G.Vigneshwara chary, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has taken on file the case for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act against the sole accused basing on the material available on record.

7.On appearance of Accused, copies of all documents were furnished to the accused, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

9.In order to substantiate the offences charged against accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

11.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

A.P. Prohibition Act and he requested to punish the accused according to law.

15.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

The case of the prosecution is that on 06-10-2018 at 03.45 P..M., LW.3 viz., G.Vigneshwara chary, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Suryapet along with his staff rushed to Bhukya thanda, there found (04) litres plastic Can containing

ID liquor at the house of accused and he was selling the ID Liquor prohibited by

Government to the villagers for his livelihood at higher prices and so he be punished for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

16.Pw.1, who is one of the panch for scene of offence and seizure, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though he identified his signature

Though learned APP cross examined him with the leave of the court, no material evidence worthy enough to prove the case of prosecution could be elicited.

18.Pw.3 is the Investigating Officer, deposed in his evidence that previously he worked as Excise S.I of Police, Suryapet Police Station. On 06-10-2018 he received reliable information of selling the ID liquor in illegal manner at Bhukya thanda, upon receiving the said information, he rushed to the place of offence along with his staff and conduct the rides and went to the house of accused by following the procedure and he searched the place of offence and found ( 04 ) liters of I.D liquor in one white plastic can which was banned by the Government and on enquiry, the accused failed to produce any legal documents for valuation of the same and later he conducted scene of offence panchanama by securing the presence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and 5 seized(04) liters of I.D liquor by following the procedure and also on the same day he affected the arrest of accused and produced before the Court and after completion of investigation, and after collecting the analysis report from the

Chief Examiner, Warangal, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P.3 is

Search memo, Ex.P.4 is the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama,

Ex.P.5 is the P.C.O.R and Ex.P6 is the R.F.S.L. report.

19.In the cross-examination Pw.3 denied that he had not conducted any panchanama in the presence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and the seized the case property is created one he has registered a false case against the accused and the accused is no way concerned with the present case and a false case was registered against the accused for statistical purpose.

20.From the evidence on record it can be seen that the entire deposition of Pw.3 goes to say the procedure adopted to raid and seize the I.D liquor and sending it for FSL but does not utter with specificity as to how and by what means they have come to the conclusion that it is this accused who has committed the alleged offence he was charged with. As per version of prosecution, they secured presence of mediators, Pw.1 and Pw.2 but none of them supported the version of the prosecution.

21.In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it is unsafe to convict an accused solely basing on the evidence of Pw.3 who is the Sub

Inspector of Excise police and who is also the interested witness.

22.In the light of the above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence this Court opines that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-A and 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-01 (LW-01) Dharavath Saidulu… Panch for seizure

PW-02 (LW-02) Dharavath Panthulu… Panch for seizure

PW-03 (LW-03) G.Vigneshwara chary… Investigation Officer.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1Dt06-10-2018Signature of Pw.1 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-2Dt 06-10-2018Signature of Pw.2 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-3Dt 06-10-2018Search memo marked through Pw.3

Ex.P-4Dt 06-10-2018Panchanama marked through PW.3

Ex.P-5Dt 06-10-2018PCOR No.60/2018 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Suryapet

Ex.P-6Dt 11-02-2019Analysis Report vide C.E.No. 133/2019 SI.No.2433.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL -

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

: AT SURYAPET

C.C.No. 532 of 2020

DATE OF DATE APPREHENSION RELEASED

THE OF OF ON

OFFENCE REPORT ACCUSED B A I L

06-10-201806-10-201806-10-201806-10-2018

COMMENCEMENT CLOSURE DATE

OF OF OF

T R I A L T R I A L JUDGMENT

08-10-202111-10-2021 07-10-2021

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : The State through Proh. Excise Sub- Inspector, Suryapet.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Bhukya Nehuru, S/o.Chendru, age:40 years, caste:Lambada, occ:Coolie, R/o.Bhukya thanda, Chivvemla mandal, Suryapet District. OFFENCE : Under Sections 7 (A) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

FINDING OF THE COURT : Found not guilty

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : No delay

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

Lr.Dis.No. /2021 Dt: . .2021

To: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda.

CC/532/2020 Acquitted

SHO Suryapet Excise vs Bhukya Nehru

11 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

SURYAPET

(Dated this the 11th day of October, 2021)

Present: R.SIRI SOWJANYA Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet

C.C.No. 532 of 2020

Between: The State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police. P.S. Excise Suryapet. ….. Prosecution

AND

Bhukya Nehuru, S/o.Chendru, age:40 years, caste:Lambada, occ:Coolie, R/o.Bhukya thanda, Chivvemla mandal, Suryapet District.

…..Accused

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer,

Suryapet has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, as mentioned in the charge sheet is that on 06-10-2018 at 03.45 P.M., LW.3 viz., G.Vigneshwara chary,

Prohibition & Excise Sub-inspector, Suryapet along with his staff, rushed to

Bhukya thanda by securing the panchas i.e., Lws.1 and 2 viz., Dharavath

Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation.

5.On the same day during the course of interrogation the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt and on the spot, Lw.3 served notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C., and 50 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused and kith and kin of accused and the Lw.3 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. He obtained RFSL report vide CE No.133/2019, dated 11-02-2019 in Sl.No.2433 and opined that the samples contain sediment which is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. After completion of investigation, Lw.3 viz.,

G.Vigneshwara chary, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has taken on file the case for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act against the sole accused basing on the material available on record.

7.On appearance of Accused, copies of all documents were furnished to the accused, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

9.In order to substantiate the offences charged against accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

11.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

A.P. Prohibition Act and he requested to punish the accused according to law.

15.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

ID liquor at the house of accused and he was selling the ID Liquor prohibited by

Government to the villagers for his livelihood at higher prices and so he be punished for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

16.Pw.1, who is one of the panch for scene of offence and seizure, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though he identified his signature

Though learned APP cross examined him with the leave of the court, no material evidence worthy enough to prove the case of prosecution could be elicited.

Chief Examiner, Warangal, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P.3 is

Search memo, Ex.P.4 is the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama,

Ex.P.5 is the P.C.O.R and Ex.P6 is the R.F.S.L. report.

21.In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it is unsafe to convict an accused solely basing on the evidence of Pw.3 who is the Sub

Inspector of Excise police and who is also the interested witness.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-01 (LW-01) Dharavath Saidulu… Panch for seizure

PW-02 (LW-02) Dharavath Panthulu… Panch for seizure

PW-03 (LW-03) G.Vigneshwara chary… Investigation Officer.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1Dt06-10-2018Signature of Pw.1 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-2Dt 06-10-2018Signature of Pw.2 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-3Dt 06-10-2018Search memo marked through Pw.3

Ex.P-4Dt 06-10-2018Panchanama marked through PW.3

Ex.P-5Dt 06-10-2018PCOR No.60/2018 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Suryapet

Ex.P-6Dt 11-02-2019Analysis Report vide C.E.No. 133/2019 SI.No.2433.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL -

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

: AT SURYAPET

C.C.No. 532 of 2020

DATE OF DATE APPREHENSION RELEASED

THE OF OF ON

OFFENCE REPORT ACCUSED B A I L

06-10-201806-10-201806-10-201806-10-2018

COMMENCEMENT CLOSURE DATE

OF OF OF

T R I A L T R I A L JUDGMENT

08-10-202111-10-2021 07-10-2021

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : The State through Proh. Excise Sub- Inspector, Suryapet.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Bhukya Nehuru, S/o.Chendru, age:40 years, caste:Lambada, occ:Coolie, R/o.Bhukya thanda, Chivvemla mandal, Suryapet District. OFFENCE : Under Sections 7 (A) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

FINDING OF THE COURT : Found not guilty

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : No delay

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

Lr.Dis.No. /2021 Dt: . .2021

To: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda.

CC/529/2020 Acquitted

SHO Suryapet Excise vs Malothu Yalamanda

11 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

SURYAPET

(Dated this the 11th day of October, 2021)

Present: R.SIRI SOWJANYA Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet

C.C.No. 529 of 2020

Between: The State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police. P.S. Excise Suryapet. ….. Prosecution

AND

Malothu Yalamanda, S/o.Hemla, age:41 years, caste:Lambada, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Peddagarakunta thanda, Penpahad mandal, Suryapet district.

…..Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for State and of Sri. Gunturu Madhu, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material 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 Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer,

Suryapet has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, as mentioned in the charge sheet is that on 03-04-2019 at 06.30 P.M., LW.3 viz., G.Vigneshwara chary,

Prohibition & Excise Sub-inspector, Suryapet along with his staff, rushed to

Peddagarakunta thanda by securing the panchas i.e., Lws.1 and 2 viz.,

Bolishetty Lingaiah and Banothu Mangamma and conducted raid in the house of accused by issuing search memo U/Sec.165 Cr.P.C and found (06) litres Can containing ID liquor at the house of accused. On enquiry the accused failed to produce valid license or permit. It is also stated that the accused is selling ID liquor which was banned by the Government, on higher prices for livelihood of accused.

3.On returning to the police station, on 03-04-2019 along with accused and seized property, Lw.3 registered a case in P.C.O.R.No.32/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation.

5.On the same day during the course of interrogation the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt and on the spot, Lw.3 served notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C., and 50 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused and kith and kin of accused and the Lw.3 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. He obtained RFSL report vide CE No.465/2019, dated 26-09-2019 in Sl.No.4618 and opined that the samples contain sediment which is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. After completion of investigation, Lw.3 viz.,

G.Vigneshwara chary, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has taken on file the case for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act against the sole accused basing on the material available on record.

7.On appearance of Accused, copies of all documents were furnished to the accused, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

9.In order to substantiate the offences charged against accused, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

11.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

A.P. Prohibition Act and he requested to punish the accused according to law.

15.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

The case of the prosecution is that on 03-04-2019 at 06.30 P.M., LW.3 viz., G.Vigneshwara chary, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Suryapet along with his staff rushed to Peddagarakunta thanda, there found (06) litres plastic Can containing ID liquor at the house of accused and he was selling the ID Liquor prohibited by Government to the villagers for his livelihood at higher prices and so he be punished for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

16.Pw.1, who is one of the panch for scene of offence and seizure, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though he identified his signature

Though learned APP cross examined him with the leave of the court, no material evidence worthy enough to prove the case of prosecution could be elicited.

18.Pw.3 is the Investigating Officer, deposed in his evidence that previously he worked as Excise S.I of Police, Suryapet Police Station. On 03-04-2019 he received reliable information of selling the ID liquor in illegal manner at Peddagarakunta thanda, upon receiving the said information, he rushed to the place of offence along with his staff and conduct the rides and went to the house of accused by following the procedure and he searched the place of offence and found ( 06 ) liters of I.D liquor in one white plastic can which was banned by the Government and on enquiry, the accused failed to produce any legal documents for valuation of the same and later he conducted 5 scene of offence panchanama by securing the presence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and seized(06) liters of I.D liquor by following the procedure and also on the same day he affected the arrest of accused and produced before the Court and after completion of investigation, and after collecting the analysis report from the

Chief Examiner, Warangal, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P.3 is

Search memo, Ex.P.4 is the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama,

Ex.P.5 is the P.C.O.R and Ex.P6 is the R.F.S.L. report.

21.In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it is unsafe to convict an accused solely basing on the evidence of Pw.3 who is the Sub

Inspector of Excise police and who is also the interested witness.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-A and 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly 6 the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-01 (LW-01) Bolishetty Lingaiah… Panch for seizure

PW-02 (LW-02) Banothu Mangamma… Panch for seizure

PW-03 (LW-03) G.Vigneshwara chary… Investigation Officer.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1Dt03-04-2019Signature of Pw.1 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-2Dt 03-04-2019Signature of Pw.2 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-3Dt 03-04-2019Search memo marked through Pw.3

Ex.P-4Dt 03-04-2019Panchanama marked through PW.3

Ex.P-5Dt 03-04-2019PCOR No.32/2019 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Suryapet

Ex.P-6Dt 26-09-2019Analysis Report vide C.E.No.465/2019 SI.No.4618.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL -

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

: AT SURYAPET

C.C.No. 529 of 2020

DATE OF DATE APPREHENSION RELEASED

THE OF OF ON

OFFENCE REPORT ACCUSED B A I L

03-04-201903-04-201903-04-201916-04-2019

COMMENCEMENT CLOSURE DATE

OF OF OF

T R I A L T R I A L JUDGMENT

08-10-202111-10-2021 07-10-2021

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : The State through Proh. Excise Sub- Inspector, Suryapet.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Malothu Yalamanda, S/o.Hemla, age:41 years, caste:Lambada, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Peddagarakunta thanda, Penpahad mandal, Suryapet district.

OFFENCE : Under Sections 7 (A) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

FINDING OF THE COURT : Found not guilty

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : No delay

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

Lr.Dis.No. /2021 Dt: . .2021

To: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda.

CC/479/2018 Acquitted

SHO Suryapet Excise vs B SRINIVASU

11 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

SURYAPET

(Dated this the 11th day of October, 2021)

Present: R.SIRI SOWJANYA Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet

C.C.No. 479 of 2018

Old C.C.No. 369 of 2016

Between: The State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police. P.S. Excise Suryapet. ….. Prosecution

AND

Bolleddu Srinivasu, S/o.Chinnavenkaiah, age:38 years, caste:Madiga, occ:Coolie, R/o.Anajpuram village of, Penpahad mandal, Nalgonda District.

…..Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for State and of Sri. Y.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material 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 Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer,

Suryapet has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7(a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, as mentioned in the charge sheet is that on 16-12-2014 at 6.30 a.m., LW.3 viz., MD.Sajeed Ahmed

Prohibition & Excise Sub-inspector, Suryapet along with his staff, rushed to

Anajpuram village by securing the panchas i.e., Lws.1 and 2 viz., Chinthamalla

Devendar and Maddi Srinivas and conducted raid in the house of accused by issuing search memo U/Sec.165 Cr.P.C and found (04) litres Can containing ID liquor at the house of accused. On enquiry the accused failed to produce valid license or permit. It is also stated that the accused is selling ID liquor which was banned by the Government, on higher prices for livelihood of accused.

3.On returning to the police station, on 16-12-2014 along with accused and seized property, Lw.3 registered a case in P.C.O.R.No.641/2014- 15 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act.

Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation.

5.On the same day during the course of interrogation the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt and on the spot, Lw.3 served notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C., and 50 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused and kith and kin of accused and the Lw.3 arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. He obtained RFSL report vide CE No.57/2015, dated 08-01-2015 in Sl.No.321 and opined that the samples contain sediment which is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. After completion of investigation, Lw.3 viz., MD.Sajeed

Ahmed, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has taken on file the case for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act against the sole accused basing on the material available on record.

7.On appearance of Accused, copies of all documents were furnished to the accused, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

9.On formation of this Court, this Case has been transferred to this Court, as per the orders of the chief judicial magistrate, Nalgonda vide his proceedings

No.566/2017 dated 17-08-2017, for disposal according to law.

10.In order to substantiate the offences charged against accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1.

11. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, as there is no incriminating material against the accused, 313 crpc exam is dispensed with.

12.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

13.Investigation into an offence of this nature almost comes to conclusion immediately after the detection of the offence, the later part of investigation remains to be a legal formality. Yet it’s due compliance is indispensable. So, the detection and seizure of contraband will have to be proved by the prosecution squarely with legal precision and exactitude.

14.It is argued by the learned A.P.P. that there is no rule of law to disbelieve the evidence of Investigation Officers as such evidence Pw.3 is convincing, consistent and corroborative in every material aspects clearly disclosing the complicity of the accused. Thus, there is sufficient legal evidence on record to record a conviction against the accused U/Sec.7 (a) and 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act and he requested to punish the accused according to law.

15.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no legal evidence on record. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is in no way sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. Pw.3 is interested witnesses and his evidence is not free from infirmities and inconsistencies. They contended that their evidence merely lays down the procedure followed but do not put-forth any material evidence on which a conviction can be based and also argued that as none of the independent 4 witnesses i.e. Pw.1 supported the case of prosecution the accused is entitled for a clean acquittal.

16.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

The case of the prosecution is that on 16-12-2014 at 06.30 A.M., LW.3 viz., MD.Sajeed Ahmed, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Suryapet along with his staff rushed to Anajpuram village, there found (04) litres plastic Can containing

ID liquor at the house of accused and he was selling the ID Liquor prohibited by

Government to the villagers for his livelihood at higher prices and so he be punished for the offence punishable under Sections 7 (a) and 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

17.Pw.1, who is one of the panch for scene of offence and seizure, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though he identified his signature

Ex.P.1 on the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, he deposed that he does not know the contents of the same. Though learned APP cross examined him with the leave of the court, no material evidence worthy enough to prove the case of prosecution could be elicited. Lw.1 died, his evidence could not be recorded. Lw.3 evidence closed as depute recovery summons he did not choose to appear before the court.

18.Pw.1 who is the Panch for seizure, did not support the case of the prosecution. Though the learned APP cross examined Pw.1 with the leave of the court, he could not elicit anything from them to prove the case of the prosecution. The prosecution could not put forth any material evidence to prove the case against the accused.

19.In the light of the above discussion as there is no inculpating evidence, against accused, as none of the material witness have supported the case of the prosecution, as nothing was elicited to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as there is no iota of evidence bringing the complicity of the accused, this court opines that the prosecution has 5 miserably failed in bringing home to guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 7-A and 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing, trustworthy, reliable, convincing and cogent evidence and so opines that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-A and 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period and the unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

PW-01 (LW-02) Maddi Srinivas… Panch for seizure

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1Dt16-12-2014Signature of Pw.1 on seizure panchanama

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL -

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

: AT SURYAPET

C.C.No. 479 of 2018

Old C.C.No. 369 of 2016

DATE OF DATE APPREHENSION RELEASED

THE OF OF ON

OFFENCE REPORT ACCUSED B A I L

16-12-201416-12-201416-12-201416-12-2014

COMMENCEMENT CLOSURE DATE

OF OF OF

T R I A L T R I A L JUDGMENT

07-10-202108-10-2021 11-10-2021

NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : The State through Proh. Excise Sub- Inspector, Suryapet.

NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Bolleddu Srinivasu, S/o.Chinnavenkaiah, age:38 years, caste:Madiga, occ:Coolie, R/o.Anajpuram village of, Penpahad mandal, Nalgonda District.

OFFENCE : Under Sections 7 (A) and 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

FINDING OF THE COURT : Found not guilty

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : No delay

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

Lr.Dis.No. /2021 Dt: . .2021

To: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalgonda.

Order Record 500 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/479/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs B SRINIVASU	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/527/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Gugulothu Shusila	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/529/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Malothu Yalamanda	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/532/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Bhukya Nehru	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/533/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Lavuri Macha	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/534/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Gugulothu sakram	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/540/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Banothu vijaya	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1393/2019	PS EXCISE SURYAPET vs BANOTH BHADRI	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1396/2019	PS EXCISE SURYAPET vs DHARAVATH SOMANI	11 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/25/2020	SHO Chivvemla vs A1 Donakonda saidulu and 3 others	08 Oct 2021	Order	—
PRC/26/2021	SHO Mothey vs Bhanothu Veeranna	01 Oct 2021	Order	—
CC/862/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Vschanda sheshaiah	30 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/23/2021	PS PENPAHAD vs Banoth Rajashekar	13 Sep 2021	Order	—
CC/1207/2021	PS SURYAPET TOWN vs Thanthenapally Venkanna	07 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1208/2021	PS SURYAPET TOWN vs Bolagani Laxmi	07 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/334/2017	SHO Suryapet I Town vs Jerripothula ramachandraiah	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/436/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs B VENKANA	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/515/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Vankudothu kavitha	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/516/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs DHARAVATH LINGA	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/518/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Konda laxmi	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/524/2020	SHO Suryapet I Town vs Mandava Venkanna	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/526/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Gugulothu ramana	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/528/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Katla Ramulu	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/625/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs M THIRUMALA	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/893/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Daravath Seluku	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/894/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Jatothu Jhansi and others	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/895/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Dharavath Srinu	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/896/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Daravath Chakramma	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/897/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Daravath Shanker and others	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/898/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Daravath Boji	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/899/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Dharavath Vasantha and others	17 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/554/2021	PS SURYAPET RURAL vs Shaik Ghouse	11 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/936/2021	PS PENPAHAD vs Parshanaboina Sivakirshna @ Siva	10 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
CC/530/2021	PS SURYAPET TOWN vs Gampala Laxmaiah @ Lazar	30 Jul 2021	Judgement	—
CC/505/2021	PS SURYAPET RURAL vs A2 Potharaju Rambabu	27 Jul 2021	Judgement	—
CC/434/2021	PS SURYAPET TOWN vs Gampala Laxmaiah @ Lazar	15 Jul 2021	Judgement	—
CC/538/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Bukya laxmi	30 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/642/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs B SHAKRI	30 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/857/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs G RAMANA	30 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/982/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs G LINGAIAH	30 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/434/2021	PS SURYAPET TOWN vs Gampala Laxmaiah @ Lazar	24 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/10/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs Gugulothu Champla	21 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1563/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs D SIVAJI	21 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/507/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Vankudothu Pandu	16 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/517/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Banothu sakri	16 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/521/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Daravath Bujjamma	16 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/536/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Bukya manjula	16 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/537/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Vankudothu Nanu	16 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/376/2021	PS CHIVVEMLA vs Shaik Nagul Meera	10 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/536/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs J MANGATHA	08 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1345/2018	SHO Suryapet I Town vs B VENKANNA	07 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/617/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs P JAGANNAYAK	04 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1549/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs B BALU	03 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/353/2018	SHO Suryapet Rural vs AMBEDKAR	01 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
CC/222/2017	SHO Chivvemla vs Jotothu Sudhakar	03 May 2021	Judgement	—
CC/859/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Bhanothu ramesh	03 May 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1456/2018	SHO Mothey vs G KANAKAIAH	03 May 2021	Judgement	—
CC/233/2017	SHO Chivvemla vs Kaki Venkatreddy	09 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/689/2020	SHO Suryapet I Town vs Bathini Anil Kumar	08 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/181/2017	SHO Mothey vs Ubbpally Vasantha	06 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/363/2020	PS CHIVVEMLA vs Eragadindla Bhaskar	06 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
CC/270/2017	SHO Suryapet I Town vs V KRISHNA	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/271/2017	SHO Suryapet I Town vs V KRISHNA	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/272/2017	SHO Suryapet I Town vs V KRISHNA	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/273/2017	SHO Suryapet I Town vs V KRISHNA	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/274/2017	SHO Suryapet I Town vs V KRISHNA	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/277/2017	SHO Suryapet I Town vs V KRISHNA	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
CC/63/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs Munna Yelamanchaiah	19 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/392/2018	SHO Suryapet Rural vs C RAMULU	18 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/751/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs B SRIRAMULU	18 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/765/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs B RAVINDER	12 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/852/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Gandu Nagarjuna and others	12 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/853/2020	SHO Penpahad vs Vspalle Venkat Reddy	12 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/178/2018	SHO Suryapet I Town vs Vsbandarapu padma	11 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/440/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs B JAMLA	11 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/485/2018	SHO Suryapet I Town vs L BUJJI	11 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/514/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Dharavath Bujji	11 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/519/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs PALLAPU RAJAMMA	11 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/557/2018	SHO Suryapet Excise vs P KOTAIAH	11 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/9/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vadde Yallaiah @ Sudhakar and 30 others	07 Jan 2021	Order	—
CC/510/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Banothu Sugunamma	06 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/512/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Bukya Goliya	06 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/513/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Bukya Mangya	06 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/520/2020	SHO Suryapet Excise vs Vankudothu sakri	06 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/357/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs D sunitha	05 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/650/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs D REKYA	05 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/766/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs K LAKSHMAIAH	05 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1069/2020	THE SHO PENPAHAD. vs B. Petru and (02) others.	04 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1398/2019	PS EXCISE SURYAPET vs GONE GANESH	04 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/1757/2018	SHO Mothey vs P SAIDULU	04 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/4015/2018	SHO Mothey vs Madasu Satyanarayana	04 Jan 2021	Judgement	—
CC/11/2020	PS EXCISE SURYAPET vs KUNTLA KRISHNA REDDY AND ANOTHER	31 Dec 2020	Judgement	—
CC/409/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs K SAIDULU	31 Dec 2020	Judgement	—
CC/658/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs D BANGARU	31 Dec 2020	Judgement	—
CC/752/2018	SHO Mothey vs A NAGESH	31 Dec 2020	Judgement	—
PRC/20/2020	PS PENPAHAD vs Dongari Bixamaiah @ Bajaraiah	31 Dec 2020	Order	—
CC/412/2018	SHO Mothey vs M JAYAMMA	30 Dec 2020	Judgement	—
CC/933/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs T MANAIAH	29 Dec 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1516/2018	SHO Chivvemla vs B CHAMPLA	29 Dec 2020	Judgement	—
CC/253/2017	SHO Suryapet Rural vs Devarakonda vijayalakshmi	28 Dec 2020	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 500 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2021		14
Sep 2021		4
Aug 2021		18
Jul 2021		3
Jun 2021		18
May 2021		3
Apr 2021		4
Mar 2021		6
Jan 2021		24
Dec 2020		20
Nov 2020		16
Oct 2020		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula handled?

Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula has handled 540 court orders since 2017 at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 12 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula hear?

Based on available records, Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula currently posted?

Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula is posted as I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula dispose cases?

Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula disposes approximately 12 cases per month, based on 540 orders handled over their tenure at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula serving?

Ms. Siri Sowjanya Rupakula has been serving at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 83%

PRC 15%

MC 1%

DVC 1%

Posting History

Apr 2018 — Oct 2021

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet · 540 orders
Dec 2017 — Dec 2017

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. P.lakshmi Sarada

Prl District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, LRAT...

394 orders

P.siva Rama Prasad

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious Trial and...

1 orders

Smt. Rajitha Gopu

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

636 orders

N.Apurva Ravali

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

93 orders

Ms. Manchala Mamatha

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet

67 orders

Farheen Kouser

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

374 orders

← View all judges at Suryapet, PDJ Court Complex