Ms. Sneha.P

1 of 6 Judgment in C.C.No.2477 of 2017

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

DEVARAKONDA

PRESENT: Ms. P. SNEHA

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

(Dated this the 15thday of April, 2026)

C.C.No. 2477 of 2017

Old C.C.No. 683 of 2017 BETWEEN: The State rep.by Station House Officer, Devarakonda …Prosecution

AND

Orsu Mallaiah, S/o.Muthyalu, Age: 36 years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o.Singarjupalli, Dindi Mandal. …Accused This case is coming before me for disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri G. Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The accused is indicted for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(i)That on 29-11-2016 at about 10.30 hours, LW.12/Mohd. Sardar/Sub

Inspector of Police received a complaint from LW.1/Ramavath Bansi stating that his son namely Ramavath Nagesh went to Devarakonda town after purchasing seeds, he was coming back to their village on Glamour Bike bearing No. TS-05-BS-1693. At about 17.30 hours when deceased reached near Vuppu Vagu the driver namely Orsu Mallaiah of lorry bearing No. AP24-

TB-1118 while coming from opposite direction and dashed deceased bike.

As a result, the deceased Ramavath Nagesh sustained severe bleeding injuries. In the meantime, one of their villager namely Ramavath Pandu 2 of 6 Judgment in C.C.No.2477 of 2017

Naik who was coming from behind the lorry, witnesses deceased and immediately shifted to Govt. CHC, Devarakonda for treatment. The medical officers rendered first aid and advised him to shift to Hyderabad, on the way deceased died on the spot. Hence, he requested to take a legal action.

(ii)Basing on the above report, LW.12/Mohd Sardar/Sub Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.429 of 2016 for the offence U/Sec.304-A

IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation

LW.13/R.Hanumanthu Rao/HC of Police recorded the statement of material witnesses in the presence of LW.6/Jatavath Sagar & LW.7/Islavath

Chandulala held inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

LW8/Ramavath Valu and LW9/Ramavath Harikrishna and drew rough sketch.

LW.10/Dr. Ravi conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death of deceased is due to Multiple injuries and LW.11/B.Bodhisree/MVI also inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. On 29.11.2016 the accused surrendered before LW.14/

K.Shankar Reddy/Sub Inspector of Police and admitted the guilt, then served 41(A)(1) Cr.P.C and 41(A)(3) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and direct the accused to appear before the Hon’ble Court when summons were received. Upon completion of investigation LW.14/K.Shankar Reddy/Sub

Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC.

3 of 6 Judgment in C.C.No.2477 of 2017

3.The Court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A

IPC. Subsequently, upon appearance of the accused, herein the copies of the charge sheet and other documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused and thereby U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C is complied with.

4.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. The allegations for the offence U/Sec. 304-A IPC were read over and explained to the accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution PW.1 to PW.5 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked. As there is no incriminating material available from the evidences of prosecution witnesses against the accused, the 313 Cr.P.C examination has been dispensed with and no defence evidence was reported on his behalf. Hence defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the counsel for the accused.

7.Now the point for determination of this case is :

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC beyond the reasonable

doubts” ?.

POINT:

8.It is the case of the prosecution one complainant/PW.2/Ramavath

Bansi has given a complaint on 29-11-2016 that his Son/deceased

Ramavath Nagesh was going on his vehicle bearing No. TS-05-BS-1693 and returning. When deceased reached near Vuppu Vagu, the driver of lorry 4 of 6 Judgment in C.C.No.2477 of 2017 while coming from opposite direction and dashed deceased bike and as a result he died on spot.

9.To substantiate case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked in support of his case. Ex.P.1 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex.P.2 is Complaint, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, Ex.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Ex.P.5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P.6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5.

10.PW.1 is the wife of the deceased person, stated that she does not know who had driven the vehicle and cause the accident. She turned hostile. In the cross examination Ex.P1 got marked through her.

11.PW.2 who is the complainant and the father of the deceased deposed that the deceased is the son he stated that around 6 years ago the deceased met with an accident and died. He does not know who had driven the vehicle and cause the accident. Further he deposed that police obtained the signatures on the blank paper. Ex.P2 got marked through him and he stated police never examined and recorded his statement. In the cross examination, he further stated that, he never stated as in Ex.P3 which is the 161 Crpc statement.

12.PW.3 is the brother of the deceased he deposed that he got to know that the accident through a phone call, he turned hostile. In the cross examination Ex.P4 which is 161 Crpc statement got marked through him.

He denied that he stated the same as per the Ex.P2.

13.PW.4 is the circumstantial witness turned hostile and Ex.P5 got 5 of 6 Judgment in C.C.No.2477 of 2017 marked through him in the cross examination. Further, he denied that he stated as per Ex.P5.

14.PW.5 is the Eye witness turned hostile. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not state as per Ex.P6 which is the 161 Crpc statement.

15.In order to prove the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC the prosecution has required to prove the following ingredients.

(i)Death must have been caused by the accused

(ii)Accused must be the driver of the crime vehicle at the alleged time of accident

(iii)The act must be a rash or negligent

16.In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and all the witnesses deposed that they do not know whether the accused had driven the crime vehicle.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts through evidence of PW.1 to PW.5. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused which leads to acquittal.

17.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.304-A IPC and accordingly accused is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time subject to U/Sec.437 Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

6 of 6 Judgment in C.C.No.2477 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1 : Ramavath PadmaNONE PW.2 : Ramavath Bansi PW.3 : Ramavath Balu PW.4 : Ramavath Chatru PW.5 : Ramavath Pandu Naik

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P.1 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P.6 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Sd/-,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DEVARAKONDA

-1- Judgment in C.C No.36 of 2021

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

DEVARAKONDA

PRESENT: Ms. P. SNEHA

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT DEVARAKONDA

(Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026)

C.C.No. 36 of 2021 BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Proh & Excise Inspector, SHO, Nampally. …Prosecution

AND

Yacharapu Laxmamma, W/o.Jangaiah, Aged: 52 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Chinthapally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District …Accused

This case is coming before me for disposal in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Md. Showkath Ali, learned counsel

for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day,

the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by the Proh & Excise Inspector, Nampally in

COR.No.104 of 2018 for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition

Act 1995.

The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 18-08-2018,

LW.3/K.Raghaveena/P&EI of Police has received information regarding storage of

ID liquor in the residential house at Chinthapally Village and Mandal. Then, -2- Judgment in C.C No.36 of 2021

LW.3/P&EI of Police along with her staff are proceeded to said village and where

LW.3 secured LW.1/Thellepalli Chandrasekhar and LW.2/Kundella Srisailam as witnesses to act as a mediators and served the search memo on accused. During the search LW.3 and her staff are found 3 liters of ID liquor in the house of the accused. Hence, LW.3 in presence of LWs.1 & 2 seized the ID liquor under cover of panchanama and also drawn 2 sample bottles at random each containing 180 ml to send to LW.6/Chemical Examiner for analysis.

3.Basing on the panchanama, LW.4/S.Jayasudha registered the case against the accused in COR.No.104 of 2018 for the offence U/S.7(A) r/w 8(e) of the

Telangana Prohibition Act 1995 and served notice U/S.41(A)(3) Cr.P.C on Accused and took up the investigation.

4.Cognizance for the offences punishable U/S.7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Telangana

Prohibition Act 1995 has been taken against the accused and summons was issued to accused by my learned predecessor. Upon receiving the summons accused made her appearance and the copies on which the prosecution is proposed to rely upon was served on accused U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations leveled against her in the charge sheet and charges for the offence U/S. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act 1995 was framed against accused and same was read over and explained to accused in Telugu for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

-3- Judgment in C.C No.36 of 2021

6.During the course of the trial the prosecution has examined PW.1, PW2 and

PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4. After completion of prosecution evidences the accused was examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material available against the accused from the evidences of prosecution witnesses and she denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence has been closed.

7.Heard both sides and framed the following point for determination.

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/S.7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act 1995 or not?

8.It is the specific case of prosecution that on 18-08-2018 at Chinthapally

Village and Mandal, Accused was found in possession of 3 liters of ID liquor and illegally selling the same to the customers without any valid license or permit to gain wrongfully.

9.In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3.

10.PW.1, being the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama did not support the case of prosecution except admitting his signature on the panchanama as Ex.P.1 and P2. It is evidence of PW.1 that no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

11.PW.2, being the panch for confession cum seizure panchanama did not support the case of prosecution except admitting his signature on the panchanama -4- Judgment in C.C No.36 of 2021 as Ex.P.1 and P2. It is evidence of PW.2 that no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

12.PW.3, being the Investigating Officer deposed that on 18-08-2018 at

Chinthapally Village and Mandal, and conducted the house search and where the accused was found in the possession of 3 liters of ID liquor and same was seized in the presence of PW.1 and PW.2 under cover of panchanama.

13.As per the evidence supra, except the evidence of PW.3 there is no incriminating material against the Accused. Further, PW.3 is the official witness of the Prosecution. According to the prosecution basing on the Confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama this case was registered by LW4/S.Jayasudha against the

Accused, but panch witnesses for the confession cum seizure panchanama I.e.,

PW.1 and PW2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the contents of confession-cum-seizure panchanama are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Further, no independent witnesses or the alleged purchasers of accused has been examined by the Prosecution. PW.3 did not enquire any consumers who purchased liquor from the Accused. PW.3 being the Investigating

Officer did not collect any documents to show the identity of the Accused.

Moreover, Investigating Officers ie., LW.3/K.Raghaveena who conducted panchanama and LW.4/S.Jayasudha who registered the case and

LW5/K.Madhavaiah who filed charge sheet were not examined by the prosecution which is fatal to the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, it is not safe to -5- Judgment in C.C No.36 of 2021 base conviction upon the Accused solely basing upon the testimonies of

PW.3/Investigating Officer. Merely, because sample is ID liquor, it cannot be fastened to the Accused due to lack of proper evidence. Thus, in view of these lapses, the evidence of PW.3 is not cogent, trustworthy and believable to connect the Accused for the offence charged.

14.In view of above discussion, this Court holds that the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts and the

Accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act 1995 and she is hereby acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of

Accused and her surety bonds shall stay in force for a period of six months.

Unmarked case property vide C.P.No. 10/2021 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Devarakonda -6- Judgment in C.C No.36 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW.1 : Thellepalli Chandrasekhar NONE

PW.2 : Kundella Srisailam

PW.2 : K. Madhavaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1 on confession NONE cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.2: Signature of PW.1 on Search Memo

Ex.P.3: Signature of PW.2 on confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.4: Signature of PW.2 on Search Memo

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda

PRC No. 35 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT DEVARAKONDA

(Dated this the 17th day of April, 2026 )

Present: Ms. P. Sneha Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda

P.R.C.No. 35 of 2024 (Crime No.147 of 2024 of PS Gudipally)

Between: The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police Gudipally PS. …PROSECUTION AND

1. Munavath Kotesh, S/o.Bellu, Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Munavath Thanda Village, P.A Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Munavath Bellu, S/o.Halya, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Munavath Thanda Village, P.A.Pally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

…ACCUSED

This P.R.C. coming before me on this day for committal in the presence of Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri N. Gouri Shankar counsel for the accused No. 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

:: C O M M I T T A L O R D E R ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Gudipally PS, filed charge sheet against the Accused No. 1 and 2 in crime No.147 of 2024 of P.S Gudipally for the offences under Sections 107 BNS.

PRC No. 35 OF 2024

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows :

That on 16-10-2024 at 17.30 hours, the complainant/Munavath

Mohan came to the police station and lodged a Telugu written report in which he stated that since few days there is a land dispute is going in between he and his agnates Munavath Kotesh, Munavath Bellu and

Munavath Ramesh. On 16-10-2024 morning he went to his agriculture filed. On the evening at about 16.30 hours while they performing agriculture works grassing cattles’s near boundary in the meantime the said

Munavath Kotesh picked up quarrel with his father Mangla, his wife Neela and his son Dathu and beat hem. On that his father, wife and son were proceeded to their house due to fear, but the said Munavath Kotesh, Bellu and Ramesh were came in front of their house and picked up quarrel by saying that they will kill his family members and will go into jail for 3 months. His son Munavath Dines went to inside of his house and found his son Dathu was hanging with lungi from the window. Immediately they removed him from window and found his son was died. Further he stated that he shown suspicious in the death of his son. Munavath Kotesh,

Munavath Bellu and Munavath Ramesh is the responsibility to the death of his son. Hence, complainant lodged complaint and requested to take legal action against the accused persons.

Page 2 of 4

PRC No. 35 OF 2024

3.On receipt of report, the Police, Gudipally registered a case and issued F.I.R basing on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant.

After completion of entire investigation, and collected all material documents. The Sub Inspector of Police/LW.11 filed charge sheet against the Accused No. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable Sections 107 BNS.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 107 BNS against the Accused No. 1 and 2. On appearance of the Accused before this

Court, copies of the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to them as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and when inquired with regard to means, the Accused submitted that they have got sufficient means to engage a counsel before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

5. The offence Sections 107 BNS are exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions. Therefore, the case against the Accused No. 1 and 2 are

committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda u/Sec.209(a) of

Cr.P.C. for being tried.

6.The Accused No. 1 and 2 on bail and they shall be continued so, during and until conclusion of trial at the discretion of the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda, u/Sec.209(b) Cr.P.C. The Accused No. 1 and 2 are

Page 3 of 4

PRC No. 35 OF 2024 directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions as and when directed.

7.All the case documents are being submitted to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions as required u/Sec.209(c) Cr.P.C and the Case Property vide C.P.

No. 245 of 2024. The commitment of the case is notified to the Public

Prosecutor, Nalgonda, as per Sec. 209(d) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DEVARAKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

-NIL—

Sd/-,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DEVARAKONDA

Page 4 of 4

PRC No. 09 OF 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT DEVARAKONDA

(Dated this the 16th day of April, 2026 )

Present: Ms. P. Sneha Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda

P.R.C.No. 09 of 2023 (Crime No.15 of 2023 of PS Dindi)

Between: The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police Dindi PS. …PROSECUTION AND

1. Chimarla Chinna Eddaiah, S/o.Sailu, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Jellela Anil, S/o.Pedda Jangaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Private Job,

3. Jellela Mallaiah, S/o.Ramulu, Age:35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4. Tekulapally Praveen, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5. Mavilla Pedda Mallaiah, S/o.Nadipi Jangaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

6. Mavilla Varamma, W/o.Hanumaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,

7. Mavilla Laxmamma, W/o.Pedda Mallaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,

8. Tekulapally Buchamma, W/o.Pedda Jangaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture

9. Chimarla Masoom, S/o.Chinna Eddaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o. Erraram Village, Dindi Mandal, Nalgonda District.

…ACCUSED

PRC 09 OF 2023

This P.R.C. coming before me on this day for committal in the presence of Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri V. Ramesh counsel

for the accused No. 1 to 9 and having stood over for consideration till this

day, this court made the following :

:: C O M M I T T A L O R D E R ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Dindi PS, filed charge sheet against the

Accused No. 1 to 9 in crime No.15 of 2023 of P.S Dindi for the offences under Sections 307, 448, 504, 506 R/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows :

That on 08-02-2023 at 12.00 hours, the complainant/Vadlakonda

Jangaiah came to the police station and lodged a Telugu written report in which he stated that his villagers namely Mavilla Chinna Jangaiah and

Mavilla Pedda Mallaiah had land issues since 6 years and the complainant was did not involved in that disputes. On 08-02-2023 at about 09.30 hours the complainant went to his uncle Vadlakonda Chinna Jangaiah house and he discussing for money issues to his uncel. In the mean time, his villager by name 1) Chinna Eddaiah 2) Jillela Anil 3) Jillela Mallaiah 4)

Tekulapally Praveen were all trespassed into the house of Vadlakonda

Chinna Jangaiah and attacked to him. Due to keeping the old disputes in their mind and abused in filthy language and bet with hands by giving punches the vidal parts and also they threatened dire consequences. Hence,

Page 2 of 4

PRC 09 OF 2023 complainant lodged complaint and requested to take legal action against the accused persons.

3.On receipt of report, the Police, Dindi registered a case and issued

F.I.R basing on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant. After completion of entire investigation, and collected all material documents.

The Sub Inspector of Police/LW.12 filed charge sheet against the Accused

No. 1 to 9 for the offence punishable Sections 307, 448, 504, 506 R/w 34

IPC.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 307, 448, 504, 506 R/w 34 IPC against the Accused No. 1 to 9. On appearance of the

Accused before this Court, copies of the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to them as required u/Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C., and when inquired with regard to means, the Accused submitted that they have got sufficient means to engage a counsel before the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions.

5. The offence Sections 307, 448, 504, 506 R/w 34 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, the case against the Accused

No. 1 to 9 are committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda u/Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C. for being tried.

Page 3 of 4

PRC 09 OF 2023

6.The Accused No. 1 to 9 on bail and they shall be continued so, during and until conclusion of trial at the discretion of the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda, u/Sec.209(b) Cr.P.C. The Accused No. 1 to 9 are

directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions as and when directed.

7.All the case documents are being submitted to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions as required u/Sec.209(c) Cr.P.C and the Case Property vide C.P.

No. 33 of 2023. The commitment of the case is notified to the Public

Prosecutor, Nalgonda, as per Sec. 209(d) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DEVARAKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

-NIL—

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DEVARAKONDA

Page 4 of 4

PRC No. 32 OF 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT DEVARAKONDA

(Dated this the 17th day of April, 2026 )

Present: Ms. P. Sneha Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devarakonda

P.R.C.No. 32 of 2025 (Crime No.33 of 2025 of PS Nampally)

Between: The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police Nampally PS. …PROSECUTION AND

1. Mudiga Arraiah, S/o.Lingaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Chamalapally Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. Gundela Sravan Kumar, S/o.Yaladri, Age: 35 years, R/o.Ganugupally Village, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. Mekala Ramesh S/o.Ramulu, Age: 31 years, Occ: Farmer, R/o. Chamalapally Village, Chandur Mandal, Nalgonda District.

…ACCUSED

This P.R.C. coming before me on this day for committal in the presence of Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri Gajula Anjaneyulu counsel for the accused No. 1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

:: C O M M I T T A L O R D E R ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nampally PS, filed charge sheet against

PRC No. 32 OF 2025 the Accused No. 1 to 3 in crime No.33 of 2025 of P.S Nampally for the offences under Sections 126(2), 352, 351(2) R/w 3(5) BNS and 25(1B)(b) of ARMS Act, 1959.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows :

That on 18.03.2025 at 18.30 hours, the complainant/Peddireddy

Anantha Reddy came to the police station and lodged a Telugu written report in which he stated that on 18.03.2025 evening at about 16-00 hours while he was proceeding towards Gurrampode road over bike on the way while reached near to the Nallavagu in the meantime the persons namely

Mudiga Erraih and Gundela Sravan and others were came from his back.

Later they get down from the vehicle and taken talvars from the car and abusing him in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences and tried to attack. On that he escaped from there with fear and came to the PS

Nampally along with the bike and stating that he is having life threat from the said Mudiga Erraiah, Gundela Sravan and their followers. Hence, complainant lodged complaint and requested to take legal action against the accused persons.

3.On receipt of report, the Police, Nampally registered a case and issued F.I.R basing on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant.

After completion of entire investigation, and collected all material

Page 2 of 4

PRC No. 32 OF 2025 documents. The Sub Inspector of Police/LW.11 filed charge sheet against the Accused No. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable Sections 126(2), 352, 351(2) R/w 3(5) BNS and 25(1B)(b) of ARMS Act, 1959.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 126(2), 352, 351(2) R/w 3(5) BNS and 25(1B)(b) of ARMS Act, 1959 against the

Accused No. 1 to 3. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of the case documents on which the prosecution has relied upon were furnished to them as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and when inquired with regard to means, the Accused submitted that they have got sufficient means to engage a counsel before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

5. The offence Sections 126(2), 352, 351(2) R/w 3(5) BNS and 25(1B)

(b) of ARMS Act, 1959 are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

Therefore, the case against the Accused No. 1 to 3 are committed to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nalgonda u/Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C. for being

tried.

6.The Accused No. 1 to 3 on bail and they shall be continued so, during and until conclusion of trial at the discretion of the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda, u/Sec.209(b) Cr.P.C. The Accused No. 1 to 3 are

Page 3 of 4

PRC No. 32 OF 2025 directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions as and when directed.

7.All the case documents are being submitted to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions as required u/Sec.209(c) Cr.P.C and the Case Property vide C.P.

No. 52 of 2025. The commitment of the case is notified to the Public

Prosecutor, Nalgonda, as per Sec. 209(d) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DEVARAKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

-NIL—

Sd/-,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DEVARAKONDA

Page 4 of 4