Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka) · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B., I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 599 court orders on record since 2016. 3 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, MC, PRC cases.

599

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/200229/2015 Acquitted

SHO Gurazala PS vs Padarthi Mallikharjuna Rao

30 Nov 2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: S RI . J.S YAM K UMAR , B.C OM ., LL.M., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. FAC. II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Wednesday, the 30th day of November, 2016.

C.C.No.229/2015

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban P.S.(Cr.No.135/2015) . . Complainant.

And

1. Padarthi Mallikharjuna Rao, Dirver of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BV 3873.

2. Talluri Malleswara Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 31 years. Pulipadu Village . . Accused.

This case having come before me on 25-11-2016 for final hearing in the Presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.Suresh, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban P.S filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/s.337, 304-A of IPC, sec.180 of Motor Vehicle Act in Cr.No.135/2015, with the following allegations that:

2.The deceased Kunchala Rani and her husband Sri Kunchala

Nageswara Rao (P.W.1) are the resident of Gurazala village and are living by doing coolie works in bricks yard. As usual, on 26.08.2016 at about 3.00 PM both P.Ws.1 and the deceased, after completion of their lunch at their house, were proceeding towards their work place and on the way they reached saw mill of Sri Pinnelli Poorn Chandra

Rao (P.W.5). Then the accused-A1 being driver of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BV 3873 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn, hit the 2 deceased and also P.W.3 who is rider of TVS scooty bearing No.AP 37

BU 9605 and was dragged to some distance into ash heap available by the side of road and damaged the scooty. As a result deceased and P.W.3 sustained injuries. Immediately the deceased and P.W.3 were shifted to Government hospital, Gurazala for treatment and the doctor declared the deceased as brought dead. Sri Alugula

Anjaneyulu(P.W.2), Sri Alugula Kotaiah (L.W.4), Alugula

Amba(L.W.5), P.Ws.5-Pinnelli Poorna Chandra Raju and PW6-

Nallabothu Narayana and Kandimalla Rama Krishna Raju (L.W.8) witnessed the incident.

3. On the receipt of hospital intimation Sri D.Mastan, HC-2641 (P.W.8) recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the same as

Case in Cr.No.135/2015, U/s.304-A, 337 of IPC and submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble court and all the copies to all concerned.

During the course of investigation P.W.8 visited the scene of offence in the presence of mediators Sri Potu Nageswara Rao (L.W.10) and

P.W.4-Derangula Eegaiah, examined and drafted scene observation report duly attested by them. He also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchatdars and blood relatives and also examined and recorded the statements of material witnesses and send the dead body of the deceased to Medical officer for autopsy. On 25.09.2015 Sri E.Bala Nagi Reddy (P.W.9) served

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on 28.09.2015 recorded the statements of Sakam Madhusudhana Reddy (L.W.9) and basing on his statement fixed the A2 as he allowed unlicensed driver (A1) to drove the crime vehicle and added section of law as 180 of

M.V.Act against A2. The Medical Officer Dr.M.Satish (L.W.13) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Postmortem certificate and Dr. Sri. L.Padmavathi (L.W.14) treated

P.W.3 and issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. Sri P.Ganapathi Rao, M.V.Inspector (L.W.15) inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report and opinioned that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects. After completion of investigation, P.W.9 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4. On the considering the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.337, 304-A of IPC against

A1 and sec.180 of Motor Vehicle Act against A2, was taken against the accused.

5. On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,

6. A1 and A2 were examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/s.337,304-A of IPC, sec.180 of M.V.Act, the substance of accusation were read-over and explained to them in Telugu for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the accused, has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. The Ld.

APP has given up the evidence of LW4, 5, 8 to 10, 13 to 15.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

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

10. Now the point for determination are: -

i) Whether the deceased Kunchala Rani died in a road

accident caused by car bearing No.AP29 BV 3873 ?

ii) Whether P.W.3 received simple injuries in the road

accident by a car bearing No.AP29 BV 3873 ?

Iii) Whether A1 is the driver of crime vehicle i.e. car

bearing No.AP29 BV 3873 and if so, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death

of the deceased and injuries to P.W.3 ?

iv) Whether A2 allowed A1 to drove the crime vehicle car

bearing No.AP29 BV 3873 ?

v) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable U/s.337, 304-A of IPC and against A2 for the offence U/s.180 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 9 witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and the evidence of L.Ws.4, 5, 8 to 10 and 13 to 15 given up by learned APP.

12.P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Kunchala Rani, P.W.2 is the mediator to the inquest report. P.W.3 is the injured person,

P.W.4 is the mediator to the scene of offence. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the eye witnesses to the accident. P.Ws.8 and 9 are the Investigating

Officers in this case.

13.P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was his wife and that on 26.08.2015 at about 2.30 PM himself and deceased had their lunch and while they were going to work place by walking on the road, one car coming from Macherla to Dachepalli road hit his wife and on that she sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. He also deposed that he came to know that P.W.3 also sustained injuries. PW1 further deposed that Inquest was conducted on the body of his wife, but he failed to state that who is the responsible for causing the accident to his wife. The prosecution got marked his statement as Ex.P.1.

14.P.W.2 is brother-in-law of P.W.1 and brother of the deceased deposed that in the year 2015 he came to know that the deceased met with a car accident and he went to hospital and saw the deceased, but he did not know who is the responsible for the accident.

15.P.W.3 who is one of the injured witness deposed that on 26.08.2015 at about 3.00 PM while he was going on his TVS bike from Gurazala to Pallegunta, he parked his bike near Anjaneya swamy temple and was talking over phone, one vehicle came from his behind and hit his bike and pulled him for some distance and stopped him near mud pits and he sustained head injury and also injuries all over his body and was shifted to Government hospital, 5

Gurazala. PW3 also failed to state the vehicle number and also person who caused the accident to him.

16.P.W.4 who is the mediator to the scene of offence deposed that police obtained his signature on written papers, but he did not know its contents and his signatures on scene observation report and inquest report were marked as Exs.P.4 and P.5.

17.P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case and he turned hostile for prosecution, but the learned APP could not elicit anything from his mouth except marking his 161 of Cr.P.C statement as

Ex.P.6.

18.P.W.6 also did not support the prosecution case and he simple stated that he came to know that the deceased was died in the accident. The learned APP also did not elicit anything from his mouth during his cross examination, except marking his 161 of Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P.7.

19.P.W.7 who is the relative of deceased and P.W.1 deposed that he came to know that the deceased was died in a road accident and he visited the government hospital and in his presence the inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased Kunchala Rani and he attested the same. Therefore, the prosecution has got marked inquest report as Ex.P.8.

20.P.W.8 Sri D.Mastan Vali, Head Constable, deposed that on 26.08.2015 at about 3.15 PM he received Ex.P.9 hospital intimation of P.W.3 and the death intimation of the deceased Kunchala Rani and he rushed to the hospital recorded the statement of P.W.1 and stated that P.W.3 was referred to another hospital for better treatment.

Later PW8 turned to police station and registered Ex.P.1 as a case in

Cr.No.135/2015, U/s.337, 304-A of IPC and issued Ex.P.11 FIR and submitted the same to all the officers concerned. He also deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of material witnesses, proceeded to the scene of offence situated neaer Kotha mission center near Anjaneya Swamy temple, observed the scene under 6

Ex.P.13 scene observation report and prepared Ex.P.12 rough sketch. He also deposed that he secured the panchayatdars and inquestdars and held inquest and later made requisition before

L.W.13 to conduct the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter handed over the case file to P.W.9 for futher investigation.

21.P.W.9 deposed that on 27.08.2015 he received case file from

P.W.9 and found it in correct lines and proceeded with further investigation and that on 25.09.2015 he served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice on A1 and released him under station bail and on 28.09.2015

L.W.9 Sri Sakam Madhu Sudhana Reddy came to police station and recorded his Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement and basing on his evidence he apprehended A2 and served 41-A Cr.PC notice. He also deposed that he made requisition to L.W.15 P.Ganapathi Rao,

M.V.Inspector who in turn inspected the vehicle and issued Ex.P.14

MVI report and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. He also deposed that he received Ex.P.15

Postmortem report from L.W.13 stating that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage injuries to vital organs.

He further deposed that he collected wound certificate of P.W.3 from

L.W.14 under Ex.P.16 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused by adding sections 181 of MV act against A2.

Point Nos.(i) and (ii):

22. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 the defense did not choose to cross examine P.Ws.2 to 7. Though P.W.1 was cross examined by the defense but could not able to elicit that P.W.1 do not know the contents of Ex.P.1. However, the defense did not dispute the fact of death of the deceased and also injuries to P.W.3.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.13 and P.16 clearly establish that the deceased Kunchala Rani was died in a road accident. It is also proved that P.W.3 also received simple injuries in the same accident. Accordingly the points is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

Point No.(iii):

23.As seen from the evidence of all witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 7 none of them stated that the car bearing No.AP 29 BV 3873 caused the accident to the deceased and P.W.3. Both P.Ws.1 and 3 also failed to state who is responsible for the accident. P.w.3 also failed to identify the person who cause the accident to him. Besides this, the prosecution also given up the evidence of L.W.9 Sri Sakam Madhu

Sudhana Rao, who is the owner of the crime vehicle and who handed over the said vehicle to A2, for the reasons best known to him.

Though the learned APP declared its witnesses P.Ws.2 to 6 as hostile but failed to elicit anything from their mouth except marking their

Sec.161 of Cr.P.C statements as Ex. P2 to P6. Thus there is no evidence on record that the accused was the driver of the car bearing No.AP 29 BV 3873 and drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased Kunchala

Rani and injuries to P.W.3. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the accused against the prosecution.

Point No.(iv):

24.It is also the case of the prosecution that A2 obtained the vehicle from L.W.9-Sakam madhu Sudhana Reddy and later on allowed A1 to drove the crime vehicle who were not having license.

However, the prosecution did not prove that L.W.9 handed over the vehicle to its employee A2 and who in turn allowed A1 to drove the crime vehicle by examining LW9, instead given his evidence. Thus there is no evidence on record that LW9 handed over the crime vehicle and he in turn allowed A1 to drove the crime vehicle. Hence the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

Point No.(v):

25. In view of my findings in point Nos.(i) to (iv) this court of considering opinion the prosecution could able to prove the death of the deceased Kunchala Rani and injuries to P.W.3, but it failed to prove that A1 was the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 8 29BV 3873 and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner caused the death of the deceased and injuries to P.W.3. So also the prosecution failed to prove that A2 allowed the A1 to drove the crime vehicle. Thus, the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the present case and therefore the benefit of doubt be given to them which results into their acquittal.

26. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.337, 304-A of IPC, and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.180 of M.V.Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted

U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of

Judgment.

Dictated to my dictation by Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC. II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Kunchala Nageswara Rao. None. P.W.2: Alugula Anjaneyulu. P.W.3: Patibandla Rama Rao. P.W.4: Derangula Eegaiah. P.W.5: Pinnelli Poorna Chandra Raju. P.W.6: Nallabothu Narayana. P.W.7: Mallela Ramana. P.W.8: D.Mastan Rao, Head Constable No.264. P.W.9: E.Bala Nagi Reddy, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.4 on scene observation report. Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.4 on inquest report. Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.8: Signature of P.W.7 on inquest report. Ex.P.9: Hospital Intimation. Ex.P.10: Death Intimation.

Ex.P.11: FIR Ex.P.12: Rough sketch. Ex.P.13: Scene observation report. Ex.P.14: MVI report. Ex.P.15: Postmortem certificate. Ex.P.16: Wound certificate.

Material Objects: Nil.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC. II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.229/2015

DATE OF :-

Offence: 26.08.2015 Complaint: 26.08.2015 Apprehension of accused: 25.09.2015(A1), 28.09.2015(A2) Released on bail: 25.09.2015(A1), 28.09.2015(A2) Commencement of trial: 11.04.2016 Close of trial: 25.11.2016 Sentence or order: 30.11.2016

Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant : State:-Sub-Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban P.S. (Cr.No.135/2015) Name of the accused :

1. Padarthi Mallikharjuna Rao, Dirver of Mahindra Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 29 BU 3873.

2. Talluri Malleswara Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 31 years.

Offence: U/s.337, 304-A of IPC against A1. U/s.180 of M.V.Act against A2.

Finding : Found not guilty U/s.337, 304-A of IPC against A1. Found not guilty U/s.180 of M.V.Act against A2.

Sentence or Order : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.337, 304-A of IPC, and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.180 of M.V.Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC. II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. Copy submitted to :

1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

CC/200211/2015 Acquitted

Gurazala Excise P.S. vs M. Subba Reddy

29 Nov 2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA.

PRESENT: S RI . J.S YAM K UMAR , B.C OM ., LL.M., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. FAC. II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Tuesday, the 29th day of November, 2016.

C.C.No.211/2015

Between:

State: Proh. & Excise Inspector, Gurazala. (Pr.No.138/2013-14) . . Complainant.

And

Muthana Subba Reddy, S/o.Neela Reddy, 45 years, R/o.Gogulapadu village, Gurazala mandal, Guntur District. . . Accused.

This case is having come before me on 24-11-2016 for final hearing in the Presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.Chalama Raju, Learned Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day for consideration, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Proh.&Excise Station, Gurazala laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 in Pr.No.138/2013-14, with the following allegations that:

2.On 29.09.2013 the Excise Officials Sri P.Vijay Kumar, Proh. &

Excise Inspector, Gurazala(P.W.2) along with V.Rama Mohana Rao,

P&E Constable,(P.W.1), Sk.Karimulla, P&EC (LW.2), and V.

Venkateswarlu, P&EC (L.W.3) and other staff members at 5:30 pm proceeded to near the auto stand in Gogulapadu village of Gurazala

Mandal, and noticed the one person holding a white polythene bag in a suspicous position and on seeing them the accused escaped by leaving the bag. Later P.W.2 requested the persons near the scene of offence and came to know that the said person name as M.Subba

Reddy, S/o.Neela Reddy-Accused. Thereafter P.W.2 verified the said polythene bag and found 25 Old Label whisky bottles of 180 ML each 2 and identified as duty paid liquor bottles, and that P.W.2 requested the said persons to act as mediators but they refused to do so. Later

P.W.2 drawn one bottle as sample out of the contraband and affixed with seal and identity slip on the plastic polythene bag containing 24 liquor bottles and arrested the accused by informing the grounds of arrest under cover of special report scribed by P.W.1 duly attested by all the excise officials.

3. P.W.2 registered said special report as a case in

P.R.No.138/2013-14 for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 showing the accused as “ran away” and submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble court. Later on 20.04.2015 the accused himself surrendered before the Hon'ble court and remanded to judicial custody. PW2 produced the sealed sample bottle before the court and send the same to the Chemical Analyst for analysis, who in turn issued his report vide Rc.No.709/2015, dt.28.04.2015 and opined that the sample contains 'Indian Liquor'. Thereafter he made proposal for confiscation of remaining 24 liquor bottles before the Deputy Commissioner, Proh.& Excise, Guntur. Later P.W.2 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4.On the considering the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, was taken against the accused.

5.On the appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,

6.The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence

U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the substance of accusation were read-over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

7.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the accused, has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 3 and M.O.1 sample bottle and the evidence of L.Ws.2, 3 was given up by the learned APP.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

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

10. Now the point for determination are: -

i) Whether the accused was found in possession of 25 Old Label whisky bottles of 180 ML each without any bill or license and he was selling the same to eke out his livelihood ? ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the prosecution for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point No. (i): -

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.4 and M.O.1 sample bottle.

12. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 arrested the accused under Ex.P.1 special report and seized 25 Old Label whisky bottles of 180 ML each wherein the accused was not having any bill, license or permit and he was selling the same to eke out his livelihood and registered the same as a case in Pr.No.138/2013-14 for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act under Ex.P.2 FIR. P.W.2 send the M.O.1 to Chemical Examiner under Ex.P.3 letter of advise. Later

P.W.2 received Ex.P.4 report. He also produced seized property

before the Deputy Commissioner of Proh.& Excise, Guntur for

confiscation.

13. Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution and all are excise officials, therefore, the evidence has to be scruitnised carefully and cautiously. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 in their 4 cross examination admitted that names of persons to whom they requested to act as mediators was not mentioned in Ex. P1 special report. P.W.1 also failed to state the names of the persons to whom they requested to act as mediators. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 denied the suggestion that they did not go to scene of offence and the present case was registered for the statistical purpose against the accused.

14. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure it is the obligation the part of officer who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubt and and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

15. Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu

Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“ if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

16. In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

“the panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

17. Coming to the present case, admittedly scene of offence is busy locality, P.W.2 did not issue any written notice to secure the mediators from the persons near the scene. So also P.W.1 & 2 failed to give the names of person to whom they requested to act as mediator. Sincethe scene of offence is a busy locality, P.W.2 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of

Cr.P.C, which he failed to do so in this case. Besides, P.W.2 did not 5 follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sri

Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat Motia case.

18. Since P.W.2 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

High Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and further P.Ws.1 and 2 are highly interested witnesses as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses

19. In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all. Hence this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 25 Old Label whisky bottles of 180 ML each.

Accordingly this point is answered.

Point No.(ii):

20. In view of my findings in point No.(i), the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances, as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise

Act. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1)

Cr.P.C., M.O.1 ( CPR.No.112/2015) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC. II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: V.Rama Mohana Rao, P&EC. None. P.W.2: P.Vijay Kumar, P&EI.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Letter of Advise Ex.P4: Analyst Report

Material Objects: M.O.1: 1-180 ML of Old Label whisky bottle

Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC. II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA..

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

C.C.No.211/2015 DATE OF :-

Offence: 29.09.2013 Complaint: 30.09.2013 Apprehension of accused: 20.04.2015 Released on bail: 22.04.2015 Commencement of trial: 15.09.2016 Close of trial: 24.11.2016 Sentence or order: 29.11.2016 Explanation for delay:Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:-The Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Gurazala Police Station. (Pr.No.138/2013-14) Name of the accused :

Muthana Subba Reddy, S/o.Neela Reddy, 45 years, R/o.Gogulapadu village, Gurazala mandal, Guntur District.

Offence: U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Finding : Found not guilty for the offence U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C., M.O.1 ( CPR.No.112/2015) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. . Sd/- J.Syam Kumar

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AC. II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

Copy submitted to :

1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

2) The Excise Superintendent of Proh & Excise, Narasaraopet.

CC/355/2018 Acquitted

SHO Gurazala Urban PS vs Aleti Daveedu

25 Apr 2019

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA

PRESENT: S MT . T.J YOTHSNA D EVI ,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Thursday, the 25thday of April, 2019

C.C.No. 355 /2018

(Old CC.No.175/2017 on the file of II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.)

Between:

State: - Sub Inspector of Police, Gurazala Urban P.S., (Cr.No.253/2017) … Complainant. And.

Muppala Sudheer, s/o.ammaiah, age 37 years, H.No.4-20-27(A), near Bomidala Kalyana Mandapa, Siddarthanagar, Ring road, Guntur town , driver of swift Car bearing No. TS 07EC 1719. … Accused.

This case is having come before me on 23-04-2019, for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri Kota Srinivasa Rao, Learned Advocate for accused and having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dachepalli P.S, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.304-A, 338 of IPC.

2.The brief avernments of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 23.9.2017 the deceased Kothapalli Ratna Babu and PLW.6-Marri

Sathish Kumar, were started to go to college by walk, at about 9.30 a.m., both were reached near Macherla Cross road, outskirts of Nadikudi village on Addanki-Narketpalli State High Way by walk, at that time, the accused being the driver of Swift Car bearing No. TSO7EC 1719 drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn proceeding from Hyderabad to Dachepalli side and hit the deceased

Kothapalli Ratna Babu and PW.6-Marri Sathish Kumar. As a result, both were fell down and deceased Ratna Babu caused severe head injury and

PW.6-Sathish Kumar, also caused injuries and shifted them to

Prajavaidyasala Guntur, for treatment in an ambulance and from there 2 the deceased was shifted to GGH, Guntur, and from there to NRI hospital,

Mangalagiri. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was died on 01- 10-2017. Therefore, PW1 went to police station and gave report to police.

Basing on the said report, PW.7 K.Anand, S.I.of Police, filed charge sheet.

3. Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of offence punishable U/Secs.304-A, 338 of IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,

5.Accused was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/Ss.304-

A, 338 of IPC, the substance of accusation was read-over and explained to him in Telugu. For which, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

6.In support of their case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P12. The evidence of Lw.4-K.George, LW.7-

Mogili Krishna Prasad, LW.9-Patra Vijay Kumar, LW.10-Dr.M.Vasudev Naik,

CAS, CHC, Gurazala, LW.11-Dr.S.Siva Sankaraiah and LW.12-A.Madhava

Rao, MVI, Macherla, Guntur District, was given up by the learned A.P.P.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

1) Whether the death of the deceased Kothapalli Ratna Babu was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused or not?

2)Whether the accused was the driver of crime vehicle i.e. driver of Swift Car bearing No.TS07EC 1719, if so, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of the deceased Ratna Babu and also injuries to PW.6- Marri Sateesh Kumar?

3) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S.304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Points 1 to 3:-

The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined P.Ws.1 to 7.

PW.1 is the father of deceased Kothapalli Ratnababu, PW.2 is the mother of deceased, PW.3 is the Paternal uncle of deceased and eye witness,

PW.4 is the cousin elder father of deceased, PW.5 is the mediator for scene observation and for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ratna Babu. PW.6 is the injured and PW.7 is the investigating officer.

11.PW.1-Marri Satish Kumar, who is the father of deceased Kothapalli

Ratna Babu deposed in his evidence that on 23-09-2017 he along with deceased Kothapalli Ratnababu going to Nadikudi college by walk and when they reached Nadikudi cross road at about 9.30 a.m., in the mean while one Car came in their opposite direction and hit them. As a result, he sustained injuries on his left side chest and deceased sustained injuries all over his body and he was shifted to Government General

Hospital, Guntur. He further deposed that he can not say the vehicle bearing registration number.

12.PW.2-Kothapalli Prabhavathi, who is the mother of deceased

Kothapalli Ratnababu, deposed that at about 2 years back, her son was died due to road accident. While he was going to Dachepalli college by a walk, he met with an accident and the same was informed by PW.3 Patra

Elia about the accident. Immediately, she rushed the spot. The accident was happened at Macherla Cross road, deceased was died on the spot.

She further deposed that she can not say the manner of the accident and who is responsible for the said accident.

13. Pw.3-Patra Elia, PW.4-Sripathi Yesobu, who are the relatives of deceased Kothapalli Ratnababu deposed the same lines as stated by 4

PW.1. Pws. 3 and 4 further deposed that they do not know the manner of the accident and who is responsible for the said accident.

14. PW.5-Patra Ramesh, who is the mediator for preparing scene observation report and conducting inquest deposed that Dachepalli police called him to act as a mediator to observe the scene of ofence near H.P. Petrol Bunk, Guntur to Hyderabad road, accordingly, he acted as a mediator and in his presence Ex.P5 Scene observation report was prepared and he put his signature on it and the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Kothapalli Ratnababau in his presence and in the presence of LW.7-Mogili Krishna Prasad at

Government hospital, Gurazala. They both opined that the deceased was died due to accident.

15.PW.6-Marri Satheesh Kumar, who is the room mate of deceased

Kothapalli Ratnababu, deposed that on 23.09.2017 he along with deceased going to Nadikudi college by walk and when they reached

Nadikudi cross road, at about 9.30 a.m, in the meanwhile one car came in opposite direction and hit them. He sustained injuries and his left side chest and deceased sustained injuries all over his body and he was shifted to GGH, Guntur. He further deposed that he can not say the vehicle bearing registration number.

16.PW.7-K.Anand, S.I. of Police, who deposed about registering the case, issuing FIR, visiting scene of offence, examining the witnesses and recorded their statements and drafting rough sketch, served 41-A notice on accused. and after receipt of Postmortem examination report and

M.V.I. report he filed charge sheet.

17. As seen from the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4, and 6, they did not speak anything against the accused about the manner in which the accident took place or none of them stated that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the accused being the driver of Swift Car bearing

No.TSO 7EC 1719 and no corroborative evidence to support the evidence of Pw.5 inquest panchayatdar and investigating officer PW.7. Except the evidence of Pws.5 and 7 mediator and investigating officer, there is no 5 corroborative evidence to support the case of prosecution. Absolutely there is no incriminating evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of IPC.

Hence the points are answered accordingly.

18.Inview of the above circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution could able to prove the fact of death of the deceased

Kothapalli Ratnababu and injuries received by PW.6 in Car accident, but it failed to prove that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle and caused accident to the deceased Ratna Babu and injured Marri Satish

Kumar/PW.6 and there is no iota of evidence to reveal the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of IPC and accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A and 338 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, this the 23 rd day of April, 2019.

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Kothapalli Daveedu. None. PW.2: Kothapalli Prabhavathi. PW.3: Patra Eliya. PW.4: Sripathi Yesobu PW.5: Patra Ramesh. PW.6: Marri Satish Kumar. PW.7: K.Anand, S.I. of Police, Dachepalli P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. - Nil - Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4. Ex.P5: Scene observation Report. Ex.P6: Inquest report. Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P8: F.I.R. Ex.P9: Rough sketch. Ex.P10: Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P11: Wound certificate of PW.6. Ex.P12: M.V.I. Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA

Order Record 581 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/857/2018	Gurazala p.s vs Vallemsetti Siva Nageswara Rao	29 Apr 2019	Other	—
CC/858/2018	Gurazala p.s vs Vallemsetti Siva Nageswararao	29 Apr 2019	Other	—
MC/17/2019	Yenumala Sri Lakshmi vs Yenumala Venkatanarasimha Rao	29 Apr 2019	order	—
CC/277/2018	SHO Gurazala Urban PS vs Solasa Venkateswarlu	25 Apr 2019	judgement	—
CC/355/2018	SHO Gurazala Urban PS vs Aleti Daveedu	25 Apr 2019	judgement	Acquitted
PRC/48/2018	SHO DACHEPALLI P.S vs TATIPARTHY NARSIREDDY	25 Apr 2019	order	—
CC/170/2018	SHO Rentachintala Ps vs Kayati Peda Saida Reddy	24 Apr 2019	judgement	—
CC/758/2018	gurazala p.s. vs Vschalavadi. saida rao	24 Apr 2019	Other	—
MC/15/2019	Chalavadi Lakshmi Priyanka and another vs Chalavadi Srinivasarao	24 Apr 2019	Other	—
PRC/100040/2018	sho karumpudi ps vs Adipe Bujji and other	24 Apr 2019	order	—
CC/100461/2018	SHO of Dachepalli P.S vs Muppala Sudheer	23 Apr 2019	judgement	—
MC/44/2018	Orsu Laxmi Tirupatamma vs Orsu Venkateswara Rao	23 Apr 2019	order	—
CC/100219/2017	SHO of Dachepalli PS vs Jinugu Ashok Kumar	16 Apr 2019	judgement	—
MC/14/2019	KOMMINENI @ VEMULA ANJANI KUMARI vs KOMMINENI LAKSHMI NARAYANA	16 Apr 2019	Other	—
MC/100019/2016	Mogili Lakshmi vs Mogili China Pullaiah	16 Apr 2019	Other	—
CC/282/2018	SHO GURAZALA URBAN PS vs Nelluri Yelamanda	15 Apr 2019	judgement	—
CC/61/2019	SHO DACHEPALLI PS vs DUDEKULA SAIDA VALI	12 Apr 2019	Other	—
CC/213/2017	Bandla Venkata Guruvulu vs Gajavelli Venkateswarlu	12 Apr 2019	order	—
CC/276/2018	SHO Rentachintala PS vs Belli Viswanadham	12 Apr 2019	judgement	—
CC/100123/2017	Karempudi P.S vs Chintakrindi Rama Krishna	12 Apr 2019	judgement	—
CC/100516/2018	MEDATHI SUBBA ARAO vs Sayi Srinivasa Traders rep by Sri balu Lakshminarayana	12 Apr 2019	order	—
MC/28/2018	Palaparthy Usha Rani vs Palaparthy naga Raju	12 Apr 2019	order	—
PRC/100017/2016	SHO,DACHEPALLI PS vs Panditi Saidulu and 9 others	12 Apr 2019	order	—
CC/35/2019	SHO DACHEPALLI PS vs DEVALLA KRISHNA	09 Apr 2019	Other	—
CC/39/2019	KAREMPUDI PS vs MUKKALA KOTIREDDY	09 Apr 2019	Other	—
CC/100122/2012	Karempudi P.S. vs Rajapurohit Santilal	09 Apr 2019	Other	—
CC/100191/2016	SHO,DACHEPALLI PS vs Kavuri Srinu	03 Apr 2019	judgement	—
CC/100178/2016	SHO,DACHEPALLI PS vs Yarra Sankara Rao	29 Mar 2019	judgement	—
MC/24/2017	Chinnabothula kotamma vs Chinnabothula Atchaiah	29 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/100119/2016	V. Mojes vs Franklin James	28 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/100155/2017	Kalavala Venkateswarlu vs Adimulapu Mary Gold	28 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/100163/2017	sho karumpudi p.s vs Vskoneti narasaiah	25 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/100211/2015	SHO,DACHEPALLI PS vs Tammisetti Manikanta	25 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/99/2019	SHO KAREMPUDI PS vs SHAIK SUBANI	23 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/822/2018	Gurazala P.s. vs Gandikota Sivaiah	23 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/48/2018	SHO GURAZALA PS vs NEELAM NAGESWARA RAO and 4 others	22 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/48/2018	SHO GURAZALA PS vs NEELAM NAGESWARA RAO and 4 others	22 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/129/2018	M/s.Privi Life Sciences Pvt., Ltd., rep by M. Sandeep Kumar, vs M.Srinivasa Rao	22 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/147/2018	Mannam Veeraiah vs Muddam Venkata Reddy	22 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/100157/2014	SHO,Dachepalli P.S. vs Said Mahmood	22 Mar 2019	judgement	—
PRC/14/2018	SHO Rentachintala PS vs Munna Subba Rao	22 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/48/2018	SHO GURAZALA PS vs NEELAM NAGESWARA RAO and 4 others	19 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/85/2018	SHO GURAZALA URBAN PS vs Modepalli Hanumantha Rao	19 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/754/2018	GURAZALA PS vs CHALAVADI SAIDA RAO	19 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/756/2018	GURAZALA vs CHALAVADI SAIDA RAO	19 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/759/2018	GURAZALA vs CHALAVADI SAIDARAO	19 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/100066/2017	SHO KAREMPUDI P.S vs Kalukuri Peda Venkateswarlu	19 Mar 2019	judgement	—
DVC/13/2017	Jatavath Jyothi vs Jatavath Ravi naik and 3 others	19 Mar 2019	order	—
MC/8/2019	SADANALA SAILAJA vs SADANALA SIVA KUMAR	19 Mar 2019	Other	—
MC/11/2019	MIRIYALA @ TAYA LEELAVATHI vs MIRIYALA ALEKHA	18 Mar 2019	Other	—
DVC/100008/2016	Koritala Anantha Lakshmi vs Kotitala Hari Kirshna and two others	16 Mar 2019	Other	—
MC/100007/2016	Koritala Anantha Lakshmi vs Koritala Hari Krishna	16 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/100430/2018	SHO Rentachintala PS vs Thota Nagaiah	15 Mar 2019	judgement	—
PRC/18/2018	SHO Gurazala Urban PS vs Yepuiri Mohan Babu	15 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/655/2018	SHO Dachepalli PS vs Challapalli Radha Madava Murthy	14 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/614/2018	SHO Gurazala Urban PS vs DAMMA ANAJNEYULU	11 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/2/2019	SHO KAREMPUDI PS vs CHAVALA SIVA NAGARAJU	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/22/2018	SHO Rentachintala PS vs MORTALA UMA MAHESWARA REDDY and 11 Others @ UMA	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/26/2018	SHO Rentachintala PS vs Aduri Soma Sekhar	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/32/2019	sho karempudi ps vs AVULURI ADAM	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/33/2019	sho karempudi ps vs BOYANAPALLI LAKSHMI NARAYANA	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/41/2019	SHO DACHEPALLI PS vs POLA VENKATA REDDY	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/42/2019	SHO DACHEPALLI PS vs KOLAJAMPALA CHANDERASEKARAREDDY	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/43/2019	SHO KAREMPUDI PS vs YARGUNI VENKATESWARULU	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/44/2019	SHO KAREMPUDI PS vs BANDARU KIRANKUMAR	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/55/2019	SHO KAREMPUDI PS vs MAMIDI RAVIKIRAN	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/56/2019	SHO DACHEPALLI PS vs IDDEBOINA PRAVEEN	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/57/2019	SHO RENTACHINTHAL PS vs PAMULA PRAVEEN	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/58/2018	Sho Rentachinthala PS vs KOKA NARESH	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/59/2019	SHO RENTACHINTHALA PS vs SINGALA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/68/2019	SHO GURAZALA PS vs SANEBOINA SEETHARAMULU	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/79/2019	SHO DACHEPALLI PS vs KRISHNAMURTHY SRI RAM	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/97/2019	SHO KAREMPUDI PS vs RAMAVTH SRINU NAIK	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/98/2019	SHO KAREMPUDI PA vs BANAVATH KOTESWARA RAO	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/189/2018	sho Rentachintala PS vs Modugula Srinu@ Srinivasa Rao	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/346/2018	SHO Rentachintala PS vs Tirumala Konda Venu	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/688/2018	SHO Karempudi PS vs Vsbanka Mariya dasu @ Prathap	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/777/2018	Gurazala p.s vs Bandaru Palla rao	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/778/2018	Gurazala p.s vs Erla Krishna Murthy	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/100542/2018	SHO Dachepalli PS vs Dudekula Balal klSaida and 2 others	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/100550/2018	SHO Rentachintala Ps vs Munna Soma Lingam	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
MC/80/2018	Bhavanari Vijyalakshmi vs Bhavanari Ramakrishna	09 Mar 2019	Other	—
CC/19/2018	SHO GURAZALA PS vs JAJJURI MAHABOOB BASHA	08 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/707/2018	The Proh and Excise Inspector Gurazala. vs Shaik meera vali	08 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/100192/2017	Kommu Vijaya Kumari vs Komnmu Chandra sekhara babu	08 Mar 2019	order	—
PRC/19/2018	SHO Gurazala Urban PS vs Challa Arjuna Rao	08 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/342/2018	Adapa Srinivasa Rao vs M/s S.S. Projects, Kukatpally, Rep by Ch. Vikas Reddy	06 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/646/2018	T.Kasi Viswanadam vs B.Subbaiah	06 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/745/2018	gurazala ps vs Golla Veera Raghavulu	06 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/131/2013	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Gurazala. vs Shaik Vali	02 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/100131/2013	P and E Inspector Guruzala vs Shaik Vali	02 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/13/2019	SHO GURAZALA vs JOYTHI AKKAIAH	01 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/738/2018	rentachintala vs MULUGUNDLA SRINIVASA REDDY	01 Mar 2019	order	—
CC/860/2018	Gurazala p.s. vs Mopuri Mythri	01 Mar 2019	judgement	—
CC/187/2018	SHO GURAZALA URBAN PS vs Mahamkali Rajeswari @ Nagendram	28 Feb 2019	judgement	—
CC/202/2018	SHO GURAZALA URBAN PS vs Sirasangandla Rama Krishna	28 Feb 2019	judgement	—
CC/100054/2013	Dachepalli P.S. vs Md.Hasan	22 Feb 2019	Other	—
CC/100484/2018	SHO of Karempudi P.S vs Gottam Gopi	22 Feb 2019	judgement	—
CC/363/2018	SHO Rentachintala PS vs Vennu Chiranjeevi	21 Feb 2019	judgement	—
CC/100484/2018	SHO of Karempudi P.S vs Gottam Gopi	21 Feb 2019	judgement	—

Showing 100 of 581 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2019		28
Mar 2019		73
Feb 2019		11
Jan 2019		28
Dec 2018		84
Nov 2018		9
Oct 2018		17
Sep 2018		23
Aug 2018		17
Jul 2018		77
Jun 2018		86
May 2018		14

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. handled?

Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. has handled 599 court orders since 2016 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 20 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. hear?

Based on available records, Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka).

Where is Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. currently posted?

Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. is posted as I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. available online?

Yes. 3 judgments by Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. dispose cases?

Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. disposes approximately 20 cases per month, based on 599 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka).

Since when is Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. serving?

Smt. T. Jyothsna Devi, B.Com., LL.B. has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka) since 2016.

Case Types

CC 90%

MC 6%

PRC 2%

DVC 2%

OS 0%

Posting History

Jan 2018 — Apr 2019

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT · 597 orders
Oct 2016 — Dec 2017

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT · 2 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Y.srinivasa Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

805 orders

Smt S. Jaya Lakshmi

X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala

13 orders

K.V.V.Satyanarayana

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

43 orders

Parimi Alekya

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

0 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka)