Sri Suribhatla Srinivasu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL .JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: NANDYAL.

Present: Sri S. SRINIVASU, Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. Friday, this the Sixth (06th) of February,2026.

C.C.No. 734/2023

Between :

The State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluq P.S.

…...Complainant

And :

Manepati Nagamma, age 44 years, W/o M.Subbaiah, R/o. H.No.28-756-A, Ekalavya Nagar, Nandyal town. …. Accused

This case is coming on 02.02.2026 for final hearing before me for consideration after hearing both sides on today in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri S.I.Khaleel, Advocate for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluq P.S, Nandyal has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows :-

(a)On 10-01-2022 morning the Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Nandyal/LW.4 with staff/Lws.1 to 3 and the staff of DTF SEB, Nandyal left the SEB station, Nandyal for

SEB offences, and reached near Sunkulamma temple, Ekalavaya Nagar, Nandyal town at 09.00 jours and found the accused was standing with a white colour plastic bag in the hand, on seeing the police she tried to escape from there by leaving the bag, when the staff chased and caught her and on enquiry she disclosed her identity and she is in possession of 5 liters of ID liquor, the accused confessed the Possession of 10 liters of

I.D.arrack. It is further case of the prosecution is that on enquiry, the accused confessed the commission of offence. She further confessed that he committed the offence for her livelihood. P.W3 found the said white plastic bag, which was containing 5 liters of ID arrack. It is further case of the prosecution is that P.W.3 prepared Police Proceedings under Ex-P1 and seized the said arrack, she had taken 180 ml of I.D. arrack sample for 2 analysis, arrested the accused brought to the Nandyal SEB Police station along with the seized property under the under cover of Special report.

(b) Based on the Special report, PW3/B.Sree Lakshmi, Enforcement Sdub

Inspector registered a case in crime No.18/2022 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Actand issued F.I.R Copies to all concerned and sent the Original F.I.R

before this Court and the accused were sent to the Court for judicial custody. Further

she drawn the sample bottles and sent to Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise

Laboratory for chemical analysis report, after receipt of analysis report under Ex-P3,

LW4/B.sree Lakshmi, Enforcement Sub Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act.

4.The accused appeared before this Court on receipt of Summons and copies of documents is supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Actand explained the contents in Charge sheet for which, he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution P.W.s.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 were marked. P.W.1 and PW2 are the police constables, who assisted the P.W.3. P.W.3 is the Enforcement Sub Inspector of Police who is investigating officer, who detected the offence and Investigated this case. Ex.P1 is the Special report, dt.10-01-2022. Ex.P2 is the

First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the Chemical Analysis Report. The learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of L.W.3.

7.After closure of evidence on the side of Prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, she denied the same and reported no defense evidence. No witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. The learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of P.W.s.1 to 3 and the contents of

Exs.P.1 to P3 and MO.1 proved the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per Law.

9.The learned defence counsel argued that the accused did not commit the alleged offence. The Nandyal SEB Police foisted this false case against the accused for statistical 3 purpose. He further argued that the prosecution did not choose to examine the Analyst who issued Ex.P.3 Analysis Report. The alleged offence took place at about 09.00 hours, so, there would be some villagers at the scene of offence and the scene of offence is situated in busy locality, if none were came forward to act as mediators, P.W.3 would have summon either Panchayat Secretary or V.R.O or Village Surpanch or any other elder of the the village to act as mediators. He further argued that as per the Special report P.Ws.1 to 3 are the official witnesses and they are interested witness to the prosecution case and no independent witnesses were examined to prove the case of the prosecution and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under

Section 8(b)(i) of the A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

11.POINT :-

The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 10-01-2022, at about 09.00 hours at near Sunkulamma temple, Ekalavya nagar, Nandyal town, Accused was found selling ID arrack unauthorizedly and on interrogation she confessed the commission of the offence for eking out her livelihood, then the P.W.3 arrested the accused, seized 5 liters of ID arrack under the cover of Special report under Ex.P1, P.W.3 lifted one sample bottle for the purpose of analysis and brought the accused to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No.548 of 2021 under Sec.8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act and issued Ex.P2 FIR, and arrested the accused and forwarded the sample to the chemical examiner.

12.One of the Police constables, who assisted the P.W.3 for conducting raid was examined as P.W.1 and PW2, they deposed the similar lines to the evidence of P.W.3. In their cross- examination, it is elicited that the scene of offence is a busy locality and no written notices were issued to independent witnesses and they denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

13.Admittedly, the accused was charge-sheeted for an alleged offence punishable under

Sec.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act. A careful perusal of Ex.P1 Special report so also the 4 evidence of P.W.3the investigating officer, it is clear that before making search and seizure, P.W.3did not make any efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators at near Sunkulamma temple, Ekalavya nagar, Nandyal town, where seizure was made. In

Ex.P1 Special report, P.W.3 did not mention the steps taken by him in securing the presence of independent mediators. P.W.3 categorically admitted in the cross- examination that the scene of offence is a busy locality and no written notices were issued to independent witnesses. She has not given summons to PW1 to fetch the mediator. She has not recorded statements of their staff who were participated in the raid separately and

Special report drafted by one of constable to her dictation in the scene of offence. They did not mention the names of the panchayathdars, who denied to come forward to act as panchayathdars and PW3 did not take minimum steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality for search and seizure as envisaged in Code of

Criminal Procedure.

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C speaks about search and seizure in the presence of mediators.

Sec.100(4) and (5) Cr.P.C reads as follows:

“Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or ofany other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

5

In view of the above statutory provisions, it is clear that whenever any search and seizure is conducted by any officer, he has to take effective steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

14. The object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted. Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any efforts to take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. As already stated above, PW3 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of local mediators and there is no explanation by P.W.3 for not securing the respectable inhabitants of the alleged scene of occurrence locality.

15. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in between 'S.Babu saheb @babu Vs The State of

A.P' reported in '2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P' the lordship held that:

“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or

Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants.

They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted” 16.In another case the Hon'ble High court of A.P in between Adapa

Ramababu@Ramuv Vs State of A.P 2014 (1) ALD (Crl)966 (A.P).,the lordship held that “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

6

17. For the above said ratio of the judgments is clearly applicable to present facts of the case. Moreover, PW.3 not drafted any rough sketch at the scene of offence. Admittedly,

Pws.1 to 3 are the official witnesses and they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case. The entire prosecution case was based on the confessional report given by the accused. According to Sec.25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement of the accused before the Police Officer cannot be admissible in evidence and fatal to the case of prosecution. Even though prosecution could prove that the M.O.1 is I.D

Arrack,by way of marking Ex.P.3 Chemical Analysis Report, it is no way helpful to the prosecution case to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act for the reason, the possession of such contraband for the purpose of selling the same for higher price without any permit or license by the accused was not proved.

18. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.,for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months

U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 sample bottle vide CPR No.173/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 06 th day of February, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nandyal

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Accused : Pw.1: B.Rup Singh, Head Constable None PW.2: S.Fazul Bi, Somen Police constable P.W.3: B.Sree Lakshmi, S.I. of Police 7

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Accused :

Ex.P1: Special report dated 10-01-2022 -Nil- Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1:Sample bottle vide CPR No.173/2023.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nandyal

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal 8

IN THE COURT OF ADDL .JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: NANDYAL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No. 734/2023

1. Offence :10.01.2022

2. Filling : 10.01.2022

3. Apprehension of accused : 04.12.2024

4. Commencement of Trial :23.10.2025

5. Close of Trial :03.12.2025

6. Judgment : 06.02.2026

7. Complainant : The State rep.by SHO SEB P.S., Nandyal

8. Name of the Accused : Manepati Nagamma,

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

10. Plea of accused : NOT GUILTY.

11. Finding : FOUND NOT GUILTY

12. Result :

IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the charge under U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months

U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 sample bottle vide CPR No.173/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL .JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: NANDYAL.

Present: Sri S. SRINIVASU, Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. Friday, this the Sixth (06th) of February,2026.

C.C.No. 612/2023

Between :

The State rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluq P.S.

…...Complainant

And :

Barigela Nagendra, age 36 years, S/o late Nageswara Rao, R/o. H.No.6-166, SC Colony, Peddakottala village, Nandyala mandal. …. Accused

This case is coming on 02.02.2026 for final hearing before me for consideration after hearing both sides on today in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri S.I.Khaleel, Advocate for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluq P.S, Nandyal has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 8(b)(1) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows :-

(a)On 23.11.2021 at about 18.30 hours, at near MPP school, SC colony,

Peddakottala village, Nandyal mandal, Station House Officer/LW.5/V.Ramanath, Head

Constable along with staff/Lws.1 to 4 apprehended the accused Barigela Nagendra and seized 5 liters if I.D arrack and took sample from the seized arrack in 180 ml bottle and pasted lable signed by the police officials under the under cover of Police Proceedings.

(b) Based on the Police Proceedings, PW5/V.Ramanaiah, Head Constable registered a case in crime No.548/2021 under Section 8(b)(1) of A.P.Prohibition Actand issued F.I.R Copies to all concerned and sent the Original F.I.R before this Court and the accused were sent to the Court for judicial custody. Further he drawn the sample bottles and sent to Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory for chemical analysis report, after receipt of analysis report under Ex-P3, LW6/S.Gangaiah Yadav, Sub

Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet.

2

3.This case was taken on file against the accused under Section 8(b)(1) of

A.P.Prohibition Act.

4.The accused appeared before this Court on receipt of Summons and copies of documents is supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under

Section 8(b)(1) of A.P.Prohibition Actand explained the contents in Charge sheet for which, he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution P.W.s.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 is marked.

P.W.1 and PW2 are the police constables, who assisted the P.W.3. P.W.3 is the Head constable who is investigating officer, who detected the offence and Investigated this case.

Ex.P1 is the Police Proceedings, dt.23-11-2021. Ex.P2 is the First Information Report.

Ex.P3 is the Chemical Analysis Report. The learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of L.W.1,

LW4 and LW6.

7.After closure of evidence on the side of Prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defense evidence. No witnesses were examined, and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

8. The learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of P.W.s.1 to 3 and the contents of

Exs.P.1 to P3 proved the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per

Law.

9.The learned defence counsel argued that the accused did not commit the alleged offence. The Nandyal Taluka Police foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose. He further argued that the prosecution did not choose to examine the

Analyst who issued Ex.P.3 Analysis Report. The alleged offence took place at about 18.30 hours,so, there would be some villagers at the scene of offence and the scene of offence is situated in busy locality, if none were came forward to act as mediators, P.W.3 would have summon either Panchayat Secretary or V.R.O or Village Surpanch or any other elder of the the village to act as mediators. He further argued that as per the Police proceedings P.Ws.1 to 3are the official witnesses and they are interested witness to the prosecution case and no independent witnesses were examined to prove the case of the prosecution and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

3

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under

Section 8(b)(i) of the A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

11.POINT :-

The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 23-11-2021, at about 18.30 hours at near MPP school, SC colony, Peddakottala village, Nandyal mandal,,

Accused was found selling ID arrack unauthorizedly and on interrogation he confessed the commission of the offence for eking out his livelihood, then the P.W.3 arrested the accused, seized 5 liters of ID arrack under the cover of police proceedings under Ex.P1,

P.W.3 lifted one sample bottle for the purpose of analysis and brought the accused to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No.548 of 2021 under Sec.8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition

Act and issued Ex.P2 FIR, and arrested the accused and forwarded the sample to the chemical examiner.

12.One of the Police constables, who assisted the P.W.3 for conducting raid was examined as P.W.1 and PW2, they deposed the similar lines to the evidence of P.W.3. In their cross- examination, it is elicited that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they did not put their signatures on the police proceedings and they denied the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused.

13.Admittedly, the accused was charge-sheeted for an alleged offence punishable under

Sec.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act. A careful perusal of Ex.P1 police proceedings so also the evidence of P.W.3the investigating officer, it is clear that before making search and seizure, P.W.3did not make any efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators at near MPP school, SC colony, Peddakotala Village, Nandyal Mandal, where seizure was made. In Ex.P1 police proceedings, P.W.3 did not mention the steps taken by him in securing the presence of independent mediators. P.W.3 categorically admitted in the cross- examination that on their information, they proceeded to the scene of offence. He has not given summons to PW1 to fetch the mediator. He has not recorded statements of their staff who were participated in the raid separately and police proceedings drafted by one of constable to his dictation in the scene of offence. They did not mention the names 4 of the panchayathdars, who denied to come forward to act as panchayathdars and PW3 did not take minimum steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality for search and seizure as envisaged in Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C speaks about search and seizure in the presence of mediators.

Sec.100(4) and (5) Cr.P.C reads as follows:

“Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or ofany other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

In view of the above statutory provisions, it is clear that whenever any search and seizure is conducted by any officer, he has to take effective steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

14. The object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted. Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any efforts to take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. As already stated above, PW3 did not make any 5 efforts to secure the presence of local mediators and there is no explanation by P.W.3 for not securing the respectable inhabitants of the alleged scene of occurrence locality.

15. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in between 'S.Babu saheb @babu Vs The State of

A.P' reported in '2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P' the lordship held that:

“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or

Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants.

They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted” 16.In another case the Hon'ble High court of A.P in between Adapa

Ramababu@Ramuv Vs State of A.P 2014 (1) ALD (Crl)966 (A.P).,the lordship held that “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

17. For the above said ratio of the judgments is clearly applicable to present facts of the case. Moreover, PW.3 not drafted any rough sketch at the scene of offence. Admittedly,

Pws.1 to 3 are the official witnesses and they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case. The entire prosecution case was based on the confessional report given by the accused. According to Sec.25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statement of the accused before the Police Officer cannot be admissible in evidence and fatal to the case of prosecution. Even though prosecution could prove that the M.O.1 is I.D

Arrack,by way of marking Ex.P.3 Chemical Analysis Report, it is no way helpful to the prosecution case to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/s.8(b) (i) of A.P.

Prohibition Act for the reason, the possession of such contraband for the purpose of selling the same for higher price without any permit or license by the accused was not proved.

6

18. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 8(b)(i) of A.P. Prohibition Act and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under U/Sec.8(b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.,for the said charge.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. As per the record, no property is produced by the police. Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 06 th day of February, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nandyal

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Accused : Pw.1: G.Viswanath, Police constable None PW.2: M.Sarvottam, Police constable P.W.3: V.Ramanaiah, Head constable

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Accused :

Ex.P1: Police Proceedings dated 23.11.2021 -Nil- Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

None

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nandyal

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal 7

IN THE COURT OF ADDL .JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: NANDYAL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No. 612/2023

1. Offence :23.11.2021

2. Filling : 13.10.2022

3. Apprehension of accused : 25.09.2023

4. Commencement of Trial :04.03.2024

5. Close of Trial :09.06.2025

6. Judgment : 06.02.2026

7. Complainant : The State rep.by SHO Taluq P.S., Nandyal

8. Name of the Accused : Barigela Nagendra,

9. Offence : 8(b)(1) of A.P.Prohibition Act..

10. Plea of accused : NOT GUILTY.

11. Finding : FOUND NOT GUILTY

12. Result :

IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the charge under U/Sec. 8(b) (i) of

A.P. Prohibition Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. As per the record, no property is produced by the police. Hence, no property order is passed.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

A.J.C.J.Court,Nandyal 1 Judgment in C.C.No.251 of 2024

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

NANDYAL.

Present: Sri S. SRINIVASU, Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. Friday, this the Twenty seventh (27th) of February,2026.

C.C.No.251 /2024

Between :

The State, Through its represented by Sub Inspector of Police Mahanandi police station

... Complainant

And

Bairi Gopi, age 30 years, s/o.Bala Raju, Buchamma thopu village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District.

...Accused.

This case is coming for final hearing before me for consideration after hearing both sides on 24.02.2026 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Y.Venkateswar Reddy,Advocate for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Palasamuram Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7(b) r/w 8 (b) of A.P Prohibition

Amednment Act 2020.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows:

(a)On 29-12-2023, at about 16:00 hours, near Buchammathopu, near

Gajulapalli village, Mahanandi mandal, Nandyal District and reported in the

P.S on the same day at 17-45 hours, wherein the accused selling ID arrack, on seeing the police the accused escaped dfrom scene of offence by leaving the plastic can containing 10 liters of ID arrack and then SI/G.Nagendra

Prasad, Mahanandi PS seized plastic can under cover of panchanama.

During the course of investigation on 03-01-2024 at 14.00 hours the said accused was arrested under cover of panchanama before Panchayatdars.

(b) Based on the Panchanama,P.W.3.registered a case in crime

No.92/2023 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Amednment Act 2020 and issued F.I.R Copies to all concerned and Sent the Original F.I.R

A.J.C.J.Court,Nandyal 2 Judgment in C.C.No.251 of 2024

before this Court, but he bluntly refused to take notice,hence arrested the

accused send them before this court for judicial custody.

(c)P.W.3 sent the sample bottle to analyst and the Govt., Chemical

Examiner after examination, issued Analysis report opined that the sample is

Illicit Distilled Liquor unfit for human consumption and injury to health and after receipt of analysis report under Ex-P5, he filed charge sheet against the accused, hence the charge.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amednment Act 2020.

4.The accused appeared before this Court on receipt of Summons and copies of documents are supplied tohimas required under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amednment Act 2020 and explained the contents in Charge sheet, for which, he denied the allegations , pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1. Ex.P1 is signature of PW.2 on the

Confession Panchanama. Ex.P2 is Panchanama. Ex.P3 is Confession statement of the accused. Ex-P4 is the F.I.R. Ex.P.5 is the Chemical Analysis

Report. M.O.1 is the sample bottle which was seized from the possession of the accused.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence accused is examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material against him from the witnesses and he denied, reported no defence evidence.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state would argue that the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 is consistent and corroborated with regarding the offence against Accused. He further argued that PW.3 has clearly stated that he accompanied with Pws.1 & 2, and did prompt investigation with regard to the arrest of the accused and seizing of M.O.1 under

Mahazarnama in the presence of the mediators. He further argued that the mediators i.e. PW.2 is totally turned hostile and un-favour to the prosecution case however there is ample evidence of PW3 is quite believable and considerable to base conviction against Accused. Since PWs.1 and 3 had no bad motive and no inamicable terms to give false evidence against the

A.J.C.J.Court,Nandyal 3 Judgment in C.C.No.251 of 2024 accused and he has no bad motive to implicate them as an accused. He further argued that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent, convincing evidence. Hence, accused are liable to be convicted according to Law.

9.The learned defence counsel argued that the accused did not commit the alleged offence. The Mahanandi Police foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose. He further argued that the prosecution did not choose to examine the Analyst who issued Ex.P.5 Analysis Report.The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that one of mediator/P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Therefore, though the prosecution adduced the evidence of P.W.1,3 it cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused according to law.

10.Heard and perused the material available on record.

11.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Amednment Act 2020 beyond reasonable doubt ?

12.POINT;-

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were found in possession of 10 liters of ID.Arrack for selling for higher price without any licence and thereby committed an offence under Section 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of the

A.P. Prohibition Amednment Act 2020.

13.In order to Prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the

Prosecution has examined the PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P5, M.O.1 were marked.

14. The alleged one of the mediator,who was present at the time of the seizure of contraband (M.O.1) examined as P.W.2 but he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. In view of the above evidence the learned A.P.P. declared him with the permission of the court but nothing were elicited in favour of the Prosecution except marking his signature on the

Confession Panchanama as Ex.P1 respectively.

15. One of the Police constable,who assisted the P.W.3 for conducting raid was examined as P.W.1,he deposed the similar lines to the evidence of

P.W.3 In his cross-examination,it is elicited that he did examine any independent witnesses.

A.J.C.J.Court,Nandyal 4 Judgment in C.C.No.251 of 2024

16.The Investigating officer, who has done major part of the investigation was examined as PW.3, he deposed that he conducted raid and arrested the accused and seized the material object from the possession of the accused in the presence of P.Ws 1,2 under the mahazarnama and he deposed that he arrested the accused and registered the crime,sent him before this Court for judicial custody. He further deposed that after receipt of Chemical

Anyalsis report under Ex-P5 he filed charge sheet against the accused.

17.To prove the point the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.2 apart from the evidence of PWs.1,3. As seen from the evidence on record

PW2 is the mediator at the time of arrest and seizure of M.O.1 from accused. The prosecution projected him as a mediator for arrest and seizure of the material object, but he did not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.2 did not speak anything about the accused. P.W,2 stated before the court on oath that he does not know the accused and proceedings like arrest of the accused took Place in their presence. On perusal of evidence of PW.2 he deposed that on one day they went to the Mahanandi police station and Police obtained his signature on blank paper and he never acted as a mediator in any case much less this case. In view of the evidence of P.W.2 the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the state declared him as hostile and cross-examined him by put-forth the contents in the mazarnama to him for which he denied the same except admitting his signature in the mazarnama under Ex.P.1.

18. In this case,admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators. In this regard, it is relevant to mention a decision between Gajamker Narayan Vs State of A.P. reported in 2005(3) ALT page 1 (AP) wherein our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with Excise case held as follows:

“Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of P. W. 1 nor that of P. W. 3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex. P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclosethat any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

A.J.C.J.Court,Nandyal 5 Judgment in C.C.No.251 of 2024

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr. P. C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing I. D. liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.” In the present case, as already discussed above, PW.3 did not make any efforts to secure the independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

When PW.3 did not assign any specific reasons for not making efforts to take independent respectable inhabitants of the locality, his evidence looses credibility.

19.It is pertinent to note that the mere supporting analysis report does not establish the case against the accused. It only speaks of the fact that the material referred for chemical analysis was found to be the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. But it is for the prosecution to establish that such samples which were referred for chemical analysis were seized from the possession of the accused. Except interested testimonies of P.Ws.1,3, no supporting material is provided. It is needless to say that mere registration of crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution. For the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the Accused.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under

U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amednment Act 2020 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A

Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.58/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this 27 th of day of February, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal

A.J.C.J.Court,Nandyal 6 Judgment in C.C.No.251 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: Accused:

-NONE -

PW.1: S.Salam PW.2: B.P.kailesh PW.3: G.Nagendra Prasad, SI of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROHIBITION

Ex.P.1 : Signature of the PW.2 on the Confession panchanama. Ex.P.2 : Panchanama Ec.P.3 : Confession statement of the accused Ex.P.4 : F.I.R. Ex.P.5 : Chemical Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

P.C.J(J.D),

FAC A.C.J(J.D), NDL.

A.J.C.J.Court,Nandyal 7 Judgment in C.C.No.251 of 2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chitto or, Calender of Case tried by Sri S.Srinivasu, Principal Civil

Judge, (Junior Division) FAC Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) :: Nandyal

Date of Explana tion of OffenceReport orApprehensiRelCommenceClose ofSentence of delay Complainton ofeasment ofTrialOrderand Remark accusededTrial s on bail (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) 29.12.202329.12.202303.04.2025--16.09.2025 06.10.202527.02.2026Due to non producti on of witness es Judgment in Calendar Case No:251 of 2024 on the file of Additional Civil

Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court : Nandyal

Complainant: State, Through its rep by: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahanandi P.S.

Name of Age Father’s NameReligionCallinResidenceTaluk accusedyearsg (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

Bairi Gopi, age 30 years, s/o.Bala Raju, Buchamma thopu village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District.

Offence: U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amednment Act 2020.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amednment Act 2020.

Sentence: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amednment Act 2020 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.58/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nandyal

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal

A.J.C.J.Court,Nandyal 8 Judgment in C.C.No.251 of 2024

Date of receipt From: Remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate To The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor. Calender Case No.251/2024 Date of Judgment: 27.02.2026 Date of dispatch of calender: Date of receipt:

// True Copy //

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nandyal

FAC/Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal

JMFC,NDL 1 Judgment in C.C.No.600/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

Present: Sri S. SRINIVASU,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), NANDYAL

FAC/Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal

Wednesday, this the (18th ) day of March, 2026

C.C. No. 600/2020

Between: The State represented by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluq P.S. .. Complainant

And:

Sangipogu Kiritappa, s/o.Pedda Jejappa, aged 64 years, Resident of Plot No.24 Brundavanam colony, Chabolu road, Nandyal mandal of Kurnool District.

.. Accused

This case came up before me on 17.03.2026 for a final hearing and upon hearing the arguments of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri T.Thulasi Reddy, A.Purushotham and Sri.B.K.Nagamalleswar Advocates for the accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluq Police Station, has filed the

Charge Sheet in Crime Number 54/2020 against the accused for the offences under

Sections 498(A), 506, 509 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that:

L.W.1 – Suripogu Pushpa Rajyam is the resident of Brundavanam colony.

on Chabolu road, Nandyal Mandal of Kurnool District. The accused by name S.

Kiritappa aged about 64 years who is non other than the husband of the LW-1, and he got retired from the job by working in SRBC department. At present LW-1 is working as school assistant in ZPHS girls school at Allagadda town. Since long time the accused addicted to bad vices and harassed her in both physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity and abused LW-1 in a vulgar language and whenever LW-1 talked with her co-teachers, the accused felt suspicious on her and accordingly harassed her. And so many times some panchayath's also held before the elders

JMFC,NDL 2 Judgment in C.C.No.600/2020 pertaining to this issue, but there is no change on the attitude of the accused. While so on 11.02.2020 in the night at about 8.00 PM, the accused harassed and abused LW- 1 in a vulgar language and whenever the complainant son/LW-2 intervened, the accused admonished LW-2/Suripogu Naveen and threatened them with dire consequences onthe point of their end, to which due to fear of the accused. LW-1 along with LW-2 left from the house and went to her brother's house i.e.,

LW-3/Suripogu Ijaiah and since then she was staying there. Later after discussing with her brother and relatives, LW-1 came to police station and lodged a complaint in the police station against her husband with a request to take action and do Justice and the witnesses LWs 2 to 5 witnessed the occurrence of offence.

Basing on the report of LW.1 a case was registered by the Head

Constable/LW.6/G.Shankar U/Secs.498(A), 506 509 of IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, LW.6 examined L.W.1/Suripogu Pushpa Rajyam,

LW.2/Suripogu Naveen Chakravarthi, LW.3/Suripogu Ijaiah, LW.4/Vinukonda Jayamma and LW.5/Sappogu Pedda Naganna and recorded their statements and LW.6 served

Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C., notice to accused and after completion of investigation

LW.7/P.Sudhakar Reddy, S.I. of Police filed charge sheet. Hence the charge sheet.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under sections Sections 498(A), 506,509 of IPC against the accused.

4.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Code Of Criminal Procedure.(here in after for short Cr.P.C.).

5.The accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charge under

Sections Sections 498(A), 506,509 of IPC, have been framed against him and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

JMFC,NDL 3 Judgment in C.C.No.600/2020

6.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of

LW.2/Suripogu Naveen Chakravarthi, LW.3/Suripogu Ijaiah, LW.4/Vinukonda

Jayamma, LW.5/Sappogu Pedda Naganna, LW.6/G.Shankar, H.C and LW.7/P.Sudhakar

Reddy, S.I. of Police.

7.As there is no incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides. perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused

for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 506,509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.P.W-1/Suripogu Pushpa Rajyam is the defacto complainant in her evidence she deposed that she is retired from service as a Teacher. LW2/S. Naveen Chakravarthi is her son. LW3 S.Ijalah is her cousin. She knows LW4 and LW5, who are her neighbors.

Previously she worked as a School Assistant in Z.P High School, Allagadda. The accused is her husband and she retired from service. On 11.02.2020, her husband did not come to her home, she waited for his arrival for 8 days, thereafter on 20.02.2020, she went to Nandyal Taluk Police Station and informed about missing of her husband.

Then the police obtained her signature on the written paper, but she don't know the contents of the paper. After two days, her husband came to her house, again she went to Nandyal Taluk Police Station, informed about the arrival of her husband. The accused never harassed her. She was not examined by the police. Since P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned A.P.P. declared her hostile and cross examined the P.W.1 with the permission of this court, but nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution, except marking her signature as Ex.P1 and her statement recorded by the police as Ex-P2.

JMFC,NDL 4 Judgment in C.C.No.600/2020

11.In this case P.W-1 is victim, but she turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PW-1 nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses as material witness has not supported the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence against the accused to show that the accused harassed the P.W-1 both physically and mentally. When there is no evidence against the accused to show that Accused harassed P.W-1 both physically and mentally, they cannot be found guilty for the offences alleged against them.

13. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 506, 509 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six(6) months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this 19 th day of March, 2026.

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC/ Judl First Class Magistrate, Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution :Accused : Pw.1: Suripogu Pushpa Rajyam None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution :Accused Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 dated 20.02.2020 Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. -NIL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC/ Judl First Class Magistrate, Nandyal.

JMFC,NDL 5 Judgment in C.C.No.600/2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: NANDYAL

Calendar Case No: 600 of 20 20

(Cr.No.54 of 2020 Nandyal Taluq Police Station) DATES OF :

1.Offence:11.02.2020

2.Report or Complaint:20.02.2020

3.Date of taken of file:

4.Apprehension of Accused (Complied notice):02.03.2021

5.Released on bail::--

6.Commencement of Trial:16.03.2026

7.Close of Trial:16.03.2026

8.Sentence of Order:18.03.2026

9.Explanation of delay and Remarks:-Nil-

10.Complainant: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandyal Taluq Police Station, Nandyal.

11.Name of the Accused/age/father’s name/Religion/Calling/Residence/Taluk: Sangipogu Kiritappa, s/o.Pedda Jejappa, aged 64 years, Resident of Plot No.24 Brundavanam colony, Chabolu road, Nandyal mandal of Kurnool District.

12.Nature of Offence:U/Secs.498(A), 506, 509.

13.Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

14.Finding of the Court :Found not guilty

15.Sentence or Order:IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 506, 509., accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six(6) months as per Sec.437- A of Cr.P.C.

Prl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), FAC/Judl First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. To The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

JMFC,NDL 6 Judgment in C.C.No.600/2020

Date of receipt From: Remarks of the Chief Judicial Magistrate To

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool. Calender Case No.600/2020 Date of Judgment: 18.03.2026 Date of dispatch of calender: Date of receipt:

// True Copy //

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nandyal

FAC/ Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), NANDYAL

PRESENT: SRI S. SRINIVASU,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal

Monday, the 13th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.376 of 2018

1. Kola Danamma

2. Kola Ramesh… Plaintiffs

-Versus-

Bhuma Krishna Murthy… Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, heris, executors, assignees or anybody on his behalf etc., from trespassing, interfering and dispossess the plaintiffs from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of change the physical features of the plaint schedule property and by way of damage the standing crop in the plaint schedule property; and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on 06.03.2026 for steps of defendant, before me, in the presence of Sri B. Rama Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs; and the defendant died ; and upon consideration ; and this Court delivered the Judgment as follows:

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the defendant filed a memo on 06.02.2026 stating that the sole defendant died on 28.12.2025. Notice also served to the plaintiff counsel. Since then, the matter is coming for taking steps against the sole defendant. Statutory period of 90 days is already over. Inspite of adjournments, the plaintiff failed to take steps against the sole defendant. Hence, this suit is dismissed as abated. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 13th day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NANDYAL.

Appendix of Evidence

-NIL-

PCJ (JD), NDL.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), NANDYAL

PRESENT: SRI S. SRINIVASU,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nandyal

Monday, the 13th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.376 of 2018

1. Kola Danamma

2. Kola Ramesh… Plaintiffs

-Versus-

Bhuma Krishna Murthy… Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, heris, executors, assignees or anybody on his behalf etc., from trespassing, interfering and dispossess the plaintiffs from peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of change the physical features of the plaint schedule property and by way of damage the standing crop in the plaint schedule property; and for costs of the suit.

The suit is presented on 05.09.2018 and numbered on 10.09.2018, suit is valued for Rs.50,000/- and Court fee of Rs.2,386/- is paid under Section 26(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V Act of 1956.

This suit is coming on 06.03.2026 for steps of defendant, before me, in the presence of Sri B. Rama Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs; and the defendant died ; and upon consideration ; and this Court doth order and decreed as follows:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as abated ;

2. that there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court this the 13th day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NANDYAL.

Memo of Cost

-NIL-

PCJ (JD), NDL.

Contd., // 2 //

SCHEDULE

Property situated in Kurnool District, Nandyal Registration District and Sub

Registration District, within the village limits of Gopavaram, Mahanadi Mandal bearing the following particulars:

Sy.No.675/D2 pykiExtent: Ac.2.00 cents

Boundaries:

East: Land of Venkata Subbaiah West: Land of Ramudu North: Rastha South: Land of Jamal

PCJ (JD), NDL.