T.Narsi Reddy

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon

Jangoan, PDJ Court Complex · Jangoan · Telangana

T.Narsi Reddy, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, is posted at Jangoan, PDJ Court Complex, Jangoan, Telangana, India. 487 court orders on record since 2013. 8 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

487

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/6/2014 Acquitted

Cheetla Ravinder Reddy vs Anagandula Sridhar and others

07 Oct 2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

JANGAON: WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SRI T. NARSI REDDY,

Judicial First Class Magistrate.

Dated this the 7 th day of October, 2016.

C. C. NO: 6 OF 2014

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon. …Complainant AND

A-1:Anagandula Sridhar, S/o. Hari Babu, Age: 24 years, R/o. H.No. 4-1-8, Gundlagadda, Jangaon, Warangal District.

A-2: Bandi Sharath, S/o. Sridhar, Age: 21 years, R/o. H.No. 3-9-105, Market Street, Jangaon.

A-3:Goli Shashidar, S/o. Chandra Prakash, Age: 21 years, R/o. Jyothi Nagar, Opp. Saint Mary's High School, Jangaon.

…Accused

This case is coming for final hearing and disposal on this day, in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.Uppalaiah, Advocate for A-1 and of Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for A-2 and A-3; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sections 454, 380 of I.P.C., in

Crime No. 359 of 2012 of P.S. Jangaon.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 28-12-2012 at about 3-00 PM, the PW-1 (Chitla Ravinder Reddy) lodged a written report stating that on 27-12-2012 in connection with the marriage of his son being held at Vishnupriya Gardens, Hunter Road, 2

Hanamkonda, locked the house at 9-30 AM, and he along with his family members and relatives went to marriage. After the marriage, his relatives returned to home at 5-00 PM, and found that the lock of almirah in his bed room was broken and after receiving the information, PW-1 and his family members returned to home and on search, they found that (10) ordinary gold rings weighing 40 grams, one ordinary chain 10 grams, four pairs of ear studs, 200 grams silver trays (2), gift cover bag containing about 150 covers, two laptops (Compaq worth of Rs.2,50,000/- and Dell company Rs.40,000/-), Nikon

Camera worth of Rs.70,000/-, Sony Camera worth of Rs.7,500/-,

Samsung Mobile worth of Rs.35,000/-, I-Pad Apple II Gen worth of

Rs.35,000/-, one gold wrist watch worth of Rs.50,000/-, 4,800 USA

Dollars, four thulas of chain locket, one ring belong to relatives, 14 credit cards, total worth of Rs.8,54,500/- were stolen away by some unknown offenders.

On receipt of the written report from PW-1, a case in Crime No.

359/2012 was registered and investigated and during the course of investigation, the Police apprehended all the accused on 25-11-2013 at

Chowrastha, Jangaon, under suspicious circumstances. On interrogation, the accused confessed about the commission of theft in the house of PW-1 and others houses in and around the area of

Jangaon, Bachannapet, Nellutla of Warangal District, and they further confessed that they sold out some articles and spent the amounts for their expenses and accordingly, PW-3 (R.Narender), Inspector of Police,

P.S.Jangaon, seized some of gold and silver ornaments, cell phones, laptops and net cash of Rs.30,000/- from the possession of the accused under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanamas. Later, the accused were remanded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against the accused.

3.After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Ss. 454 and 380 of I.P.C.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused were examined u/Sec.

239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences punishable u/Ss.454 and 380 of I.P.C., have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-6 and also marked M.Os.1 to 11.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Now the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for

the offences punishable u/Ss. 454 and 380 of I.P.C” ?

8. The learned prosecutor argued that PW-1 is the defacto complainant, PW-2 is the panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure

Panchanamas and PW-3 is the Investigating Officer.

9.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of

PW-1, who is the defacto complainant, is corroborated in conformity with Ex.P-1-report about lodging report and about the commission of theft of in his house and the panch witness PW-2 for Confession and

Seizure panchanama, also deposed in support of the case of the prosecution with regard to confession of the accused and seizure of stolen property and further the evidence of PW-3, who is the 4

Investigating Officer, is corroborated in all material aspects with regard to registering the case, conducting Crime Details Form and recording

Confession-cum-Seizure panchanamas including arrest of the accused, even the seizure of M.Os.1 to 11 from the possession of the accused.

Hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed the Court to convict the accused as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and M.Os.1 to 11 and though the PW-1 deposed about lodging report under Ex.P-1 and his evidence may be corroborated about the commission of theft in his house, but Ex.P-1 clearly reveals that some unknown offenders committed theft in his house. As such, the evidence of PW-1 is not a prime evidence nor established the complicity of the accused in the present case. They also further argued that though the prosecution examined PW-2 as panch witness for Confession and Seizure panchanamas, but he failed to identify the accused and he did not depose specifically as to which property seized from the individual accused and PW-2 is a stock witness to the Police, Jangaon and he attended before the Court for giving evidence in so many cases, as such, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution did not examine another panch witness. The learned defence counsel further argued that when there is no material evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the alleged offences, the evidence of

Investigating Officer i.e. PW-3 is no way avail to the case of the prosecution to link up the accused in the present case. Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused for the offences leveled against him.

11.Heard both sides. Perused the case record.

12.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the learned prosecutor examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and

M.Os 1 to 11. On careful consideration of the evidence of PW-1, who is the defacto complainant and circumstantial witness and according to him some unknown offenders broke opened the lock of almirah of his house and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments, Laptops,

Dollars worth of Rs.4,800/-, cell phones and credit cards and later PW-1 received ten gold rings-M.O.1, gold chain-M.O.2, four pairs of gold ear studs-M.O.3, Chandraharam-M.O.4, Gold chain-M.O.5, two Silver Plates-

M.O.6, two laptops-M.O.7, Nicon Camera-M.O.8, Samsung Mobile-

M.O.9, one Apple I-Pad-M.O.10 and one gold coated wrist watch-M.O.11 from this Court as interim custody. After scrutinizing his evidence there is no whisper about the involvement of the accused in the present case.

13.The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW-2, who is panch witness for confession and seizure of M.Os.1 to 11 from the possession of the accused. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2, he deposed in his chief examination that on 25-11-2013 himself and

LW-10 (Nune Anjaneyulu) were called by the Police, Jangaon to R.T.C.

Chowrastha, Jangaon, where the accused were in custody of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police informed them that the accused were apprehended by them while they were checking the vehicles under suspicious circumstances. He further deposed that on their enquiry, the accused confessed before them that they have committed theft at

Ganesh Street, Jangaon, at the house of one Ravinder Reddy,

Bachannapet, Nellutla, near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Jangaon and in other places.

Police also seized gold articles, laptop, camera, mobile phones and also net cash of Rs.10,000/- from the possession of the accused.

PW-2 further deposed that the accused also admitted that they committed theft in the above said places and the Police recorded

Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas of A-1 to A-3 under Exs.P-2 to

P-4 respectively and the duration for conducting of panchanama proceedings is between 5-00 AM and 8-30 AM and he has gone through the said panchanamas.

Though PW-2 deposed in his chief-examination that in his presence the accused confessed about the commission of offences and the police seized gold and silver ornaments from the possession of the accused but in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel it is elicited that he failed to identify the individual accused specifically, who were present in the Court Hall and he failed to depose that as to which property seized from the individual accused. Further, it is elicited from his cross-examination that the Police called him oftenly to act as panch witness whenever sand tractors were seized and it is suggested him that when he went to Police Station in connection with sand cases, Police obtained his signatures, which is denied by PW-2.

PW-2 further deposed that he do not remember under which panchanama the particular property was seized specifically.

On careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW-2, it is elicited that PW-2 failed to identify the individual accused and as to which property seized from the individual accused and he further deposed that he do not remember under which panchanama the particular property seized specifically. As such, it is doubtful as to whether the

Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas were recorded in the presence of PW-2. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to link up the accused in the present case as there is 7 ambiguity in identification of the accused and seizure of property from the possession of particular accused under specific Confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama.

14.The learned prosecutor further relied on the evidence of PW-3, who is the Investigating Officer, dealing with investigational part and his evidence does not directly connect the accused with the crime.

Thus, there is absolutely no satisfactory, cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the accused have committed the alleged offences.

15.After foregoing discussion and after considering the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 to 11, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused (A-1 to A-3) are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sections 454, 380 of I.P.C., accordingly they are acquitted for the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The interim custody of M.Os.1 to 11, deposited vide C.P.R.No. 109/2013 given to PW-1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of October, 2016.)

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Chitla Ravinder Reddy – -None- Defacto Complainant PW-2: Peddapuram Ramesh – Panch Witness for Confession-cum- Seizure Panchanamas PW-3: R.Narender – Investigating Officer 8

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 :Written report dated 28-12-2012-Nil- Ex.P-2 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-1 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-3 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-2 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-4 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-3 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-5 :First Information Report dated 28-12-2012 Ex.P-6 :Crime Details Form dated 28-12-2012

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1:Gold Rings (10) M.O.2: Gold Chain (1) M.O.3: Four pairs of gold ear studs M.O.4:Three lines gold Chandraharam (1) M.O.5:Gold Chain (1) M.O.6:Silver Plates (2) M.O.7:Laptops (2) M.O.8:Nixon Camera (1) M.O.9:Samsung Mobile Phone (1) M.O.10:Apple I-Pad (1) M.O.11:Goad coated wrist watch

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

CC/12/2014 Acquitted

S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar

07 Oct 2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

JANGAON: WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SRI T. NARSI REDDY,

Judicial First Class Magistrate.

Dated this the 7 th day of October, 2016.

C. C. NO: 12 OF 2014

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon. …Complainant AND

A-1:Anagandula Sridhar, S/o. Hari Babu, Age: 24 years, R/o. H.No. 4-1-8, Gundlagadda, Jangaon, Warangal District.

A-2: Bandi Sharath, S/o. Sridhar, Age: 21 years, R/o. H.No. 3-9-105, Market Street, Jangaon.

A-3:Goli Shashidar, S/o. Chandra Prakash, Age: 21 years, R/o. Jyothi Nagar, Opp. Saint Mary's High School, Jangaon.

…Accused

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Section 379 of I.P.C., in Crime

No. 83 of 2013 of P.S. Jangaon.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 24-03-2013 at about 9-00 AM, the PW-2 (Mavuleti Markendeya Raju) lodged a written report stating that on 21-03-2013 he loaded 691

Horlicks Food Products in the Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TT 4567 from their office at Kandlakoya, Medchal and directed the driver Sk.Mustafa (LW-2) to unload the same in Sri Balaji Enterprises, on the same day 2 night at 12-00 hours, he parked the lorry in front of Electric Sub-

Station, went to home and after having dinner when he returned to his

Lorry at 1-00 AM, he found that the Tarpaulin cut down and Horlicks

Food Products boxes (81) worth of Rs.2,18,000/- were missing, and they came to conclusion that the said products were stolen away by some unknown offenders.

On receipt of the written report from PW-2, a case in Crime No.

83/2013 was registered and investigated and during the course of investigation, the Police apprehended all the accused on 25-11-2013 at

R.T.C. Chowrastha, Jangaon, under suspicious circumstances. On interrogation, the accused confessed about the commission of theft of goods from the Lorry of PW-2 and others houses in and around the area of Jangaon, Bachannapet, Nellutla of Warangal District, and they further confessed that they sold out some articles and spent the amounts for their expenses and accordingly, PW-3 (R.Narender),

Inspector of Police, P.S.Jangaon, seized some of gold and silver ornaments, cell phones, laptops and net cash of Rs.30,000/- from the possession of the accused under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanamas. Later, the accused were remanded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against the accused.

3.After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused were examined u/Sec.

239 Cr.P.C., and a charge for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-6 and also marked M.O.1.

7.Now the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for

the offence punishable u/Section 379 of I.P.C” ?

8. The learned prosecutor argued that PW-1 is the panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas, PW-2 is the defacto complainant and PW-3 is the Investigating Officer.

9.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of

PW-2, who is the defacto complainant, is corroborated in conformity with Ex.P-1-report about lodging report and about the commission of theft of goods from his Lorry and the panch witness PW-1 for

Confession and Seizure panchanama, also deposed in support of the case of the prosecution with regard to confession of the accused and seizure of cash from the possession of the accused and further the evidence of PW-3, who is the Investigating Officer, is corroborated in all material aspects with regard to registering the case, conducting

Crime Details Form and recording Confession-cum-Seizure panchanamas including arrest of the accused, even the seizure of cash from the possession of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed the Court to convict the accused as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and M.O.1 and though the PW-2 deposed about lodging report under Ex.P-4 and his evidence may be corroborated about the commission of theft of goods from his Lorry, but Ex.P-4 clearly reveals that some unknown offenders committed theft of goods from his Lorry. As such, the evidence of PW-2 is not a prime evidence nor established the complicity of the accused in the present case.

They also further argued that though the prosecution examined PW-1 as panch witness for Confession and Seizure panchanamas, but he failed to identify the accused and he did not depose specifically as to which property seized from the individual accused and PW-1 is a stock witness to the Police, Jangaon and he attended before the Court for giving evidence in so many cases, as such, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution did not examine another panch witness. The learned defence counsel further argued that when there is no material evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the alleged offences, the evidence of

Investigating Officer, who examined as PW-3 is no way avail to the case of the prosecution to link up the accused in the present case.

Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused for the offence leveled against them.

11.Heard both sides. Perused the case record.

12.To substantiate the case of prosecution, the learned prosecutor examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and M.O.1. On careful consideration of the evidence of PW-2, who is the defacto complainant and circumstantial witness and according to him some unknown offenders committed theft of goods from his Lorry, and later

PW-1 received net cash of Rs.20,000/-M.O.1 from this Court as interim 5 custody. After scrutinizing his evidence there is no whisper about the involvement of the accused in the present case.

13.The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW-1, who is panch witness for confession and seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1, he deposed in his chief examination that on 25-11-2013 himself and LW-10 (Nune

Anjaneyulu) were called by the Police, Jangaon to R.T.C. Chowrastha,

Jangaon, where the accused were in custody of Police and the Sub-

Inspector of Police informed them that the accused were apprehended by them while they were checking the vehicles under suspicious circumstances. He further deposed that on their enquiry, the accused confessed before them that they have committed theft at Ganesh

Street, Jangaon, at the house of one Ravinder Reddy, Bachannapet,

Nellutla, near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Jangaon and in other places. Police also seized gold articles, laptop, camera, mobile phones and also net cash of Rs.10,000/- from the possession of the accused.

PW-1 further deposed that the accused also admitted that they committed theft in the above said places and the Police recorded

Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas of A-1 to A-3 under Exs.P-1 to

P-3 respectively and the duration for conducting of panchanama proceedings is between 5-00 AM and 8-30 AM and he has gone through the said panchanamas.

Though PW-1 deposed in his chief-examination that in his presence the accused confessed about the commission of offences and the police seized gold and silver ornaments from the possession of the accused but in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, it is elicited that he failed to identify the individual accused specifically, who were present in the Court Hall and he failed to depose that as to which property seized from the individual accused. Further, it is 6 elicited from his cross-examination that the Police called him oftenly to act as panch witness whenever sand tractors were seized and it is suggested to him that when he went to Police Station in connection with sand cases, Police obtained his signatures, which is denied by

PW-1. PW-1 further deposed that he do not remember under which panchanama the particular property was seized specifically.

On careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1, it is elicited that PW-1 failed to identify the individual accused and as to which property seized from the individual accused and he further deposed that he do not remember under which panchanama the particular property seized specifically. As such, it is doubtful as to whether the

Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas were recorded in the presence of PW-1. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to link up the accused in the present case as there is ambiguity in identification of the accused and seizure of property from the possession of particular accused under specific Confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama.

Thus, there is absolutely no satisfactory, cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the accused have committed the alleged offences.

15.After foregoing discussion and after considering the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.O.1, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused (A-1 to A-3) are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Section 379 of I.P.C., accordingly they are acquitted for the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the 7 accused shall stand cancelled. The interim custody of M.O.1, deposited vide C.P.R.No. 38/2016 given to PW-2 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of October, 2016.)

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Peddapuram Ramesh – Panch Witness for -None- Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas PW-2: Mavuleti Markendeya Raju – Defacto Complainant PW-3: R.Narender – Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 :Written report dated 24-03-2013-Nil- Ex.P-2 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-1 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-3 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-2 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-4 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-3 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-5 :First Information Report dated 24-03-2013 Ex.P-6 :Crime Details Form dated 24-03-2013

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1:Net Cash of Rs.20,000/-

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

CC/9/2014 Acquitted

S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar

07 Oct 2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

JANGAON: WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SRI T. NARSI REDDY,

Judicial First Class Magistrate.

Dated this the 7 th day of October, 2016.

C. C. NO: 9 OF 2014

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon. …Complainant AND

A-1:Anagandula Sridhar, S/o. Hari Babu, Age: 24 years, R/o. H.No. 4-1-8, Gundlagadda, Jangaon, Warangal District.

A-2: Bandi Sharath, S/o. Sridhar, Age: 21 years, R/o. H.No. 3-9-105, Market Street, Jangaon.

…Accused

This case is coming for final hearing and disposal on this day, in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.Uppalaiah, Advocate for A-1 and of Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for A-2; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sections 457, 380 of I.P.C., in Crime No. 489 of 2013 of P.S. Jangaon.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 20-10-2013 at about 1-00 PM, the PW-1 (Donthula Bixapathi) lodged a written report stating that he is residing at Kurmawada, Jangaon, since one year and working in a Seeds Company and that on 19-10-2013 due to company work he did not come to his house and on 20-10-2013 at about 5-00 AM, when he returned to his house, he found that the lock 2 of house was broke opened by some unknown offenders and committed theft of ½ thula gold ring and net cash of Rs.10,000/- from almirah.

On receipt of the written report from PW-1, a case in Crime No.

489/2013 was registered and investigated and during the course of investigation, the Police apprehended the accused on 25-11-2013 at

Chowrastha, Jangaon, under suspicious circumstances. On interrogation, the accused confessed about the commission of theft in the house of PW-1 and others houses in and around the area of

P.S. Jangaon, seized some gold and silver ornaments, cell phones, laptops and net cash of Rs.30,000/- from the possession of the accused under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanamas. Later, the accused were remanded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against the accused.

3.After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Ss. 457 and 380 of I.P.C.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused were examined u/Sec.

239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences punishable u/Ss.457 and 380 of I.P.C., have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-5 and also marked M.O.1-Gold ring.

7.Now the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for

the offences punishable u/Ss. 457 and 380 of I.P.C” ?

8. The learned prosecutor argued that PW-1 is the defacto complainant, PW-2 is the panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure

Panchanamas and PW-3 is the Investigating Officer.

9.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of

Seizure panchanama, also deposed in support of the case of the prosecution with regard to confession of the accused and seizure of stolen property and further the evidence of PW-3, who is the

Investigating Officer, is corroborated in all material aspects with regard to registering the case, conducting Crime Details Form and recording

Confession-cum-Seizure panchanamas including arrest of the accused, even the seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed the Court to convict the accused as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and M.O.1 and though the PW-1 deposed about 4 lodging report under Ex.P-1 and his evidence may be corroborated about the commission of theft in his house, but Ex.P-1 clearly reveals that some unknown offenders committed theft in his house. As such, the evidence of PW-1 is not a prime evidence nor established the complicity of the accused in the present case. They also further argued that though the prosecution examined PW-2 as panch witness for Confession and Seizure panchanamas, but he failed to identify the accused and he did not depose specifically as to which property seized from the individual accused and PW-2 is a stock witness to the Police,

Jangaon and he attended before the Court for giving evidence in so many cases, as such, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution did not examine another panch witness. The learned defence counsel further argued that when there is no material evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the alleged offences, the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e. PW-3 is no way avail to the case of the prosecution to link up the accused in the present case. Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused for the offences leveled against them.

11.Heard both sides. Perused the case record.

12.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the learned prosecutor examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and

M.O.1. On careful consideration of the evidence of PW-1, who is the defacto complainant and circumstantial witness and according to him some unknown offenders broke opened the lock of his house and committed theft of gold ring from almirah and later PW-1 received gold ring - M.O.1, from this Court as interim custody. After scrutinizing his evidence there is no whisper about the involvement of the accused in the present case.

13.The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW-2, who is panch witness for confession and seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2, he deposed in his chief examination that on 25-11-2013 himself and LW-7 (Nune

Anjaneyulu) were called by the Police, Jangaon to R.T.C. Chowrastha,

Jangaon, where the accused were in custody of Police and the Sub-

Street, Jangaon, at the house of one Ravinder Reddy, Bachannapet,

Nellutla, near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Jangaon and in other places. Police also seized gold articles, laptop, camera, mobile phones and also net cash of Rs.10,000/- from the possession of the accused.

PW-2 further deposed that the accused also admitted that they committed theft in the above said places and the Police recorded

Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas of A-1 and A-2 under Exs.P-2 and P-3 respectively and the duration for conducting of panchanama proceedings is between 5-00 AM and 8-30 AM and he has gone through the said panchanamas.

Though PW-2 deposed in his chief-examination that in his presence the accused confessed about the commission of offences and the police seized gold and silver ornaments from the possession of the accused but in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel it is elicited that he failed to identify the individual accused specifically, who were present in the Court Hall and he failed to depose that as to which property seized from the individual accused. Further, it is elicited from his cross-examination that the Police called him oftenly to 6 act as panch witness whenever sand tractors were seized and it is suggested to him that when he went to Police Station in connection with sand cases, Police obtained his signatures, which is denied by

PW-2. PW-2 further deposed that he do not remember under which panchanama the particular property was seized specifically.

Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas were recorded in the presence of PW-2. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to link up the accused in the present case as there is ambiguity in identification of the accused and seizure of property from the possession of particular accused under specific Confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama.

Thus, there is absolutely no satisfactory, cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the accused have committed the alleged offences.

15.After foregoing discussion and after considering the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused (A-1 and A-2) are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sections 457, 380 of I.P.C., accordingly they are acquitted for the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The interim custody of M.O.1, deposited vide C.P.R.No. 2/2014 given to PW-1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of October, 2016.)

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Donthula Bixapathi – -None- Defacto Complainant PW-2: Peddapuram Ramesh – Panch Witness for Confession-cum- Seizure Panchanamas PW-3: R.Narender – Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 :Written report dated 20-10-2013-Nil- Ex.P-2 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-1 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-3 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-2 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-4 :First Information Report dated 20-10-2013 Ex.P-5 :Crime Details Form dated 20-10-2013

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1:One Gold ring

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

CC/13/2014 Acquitted

S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar

07 Oct 2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

JANGAON: WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SRI T. NARSI REDDY,

Judicial First Class Magistrate.

Dated this the 7 th day of October, 2016.

C. C. NO: 13 OF 2014

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon. …Complainant AND

A-1:Anagandula Sridhar, S/o. Hari Babu, Age: 24 years, R/o. H.No. 4-1-8, Gundlagadda, Jangaon, Warangal District.

A-2: Bandi Sharath, S/o. Sridhar, Age: 21 years, R/o. H.No. 3-9-105, Market Street, Jangaon.

…Accused

This case is coming for final hearing and disposal on this day, in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.Uppalaiah, Advocate for A-1 and of Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for A-2; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/Sections 457, 380 read with 511 of I.P.C., in Crime No. 443 of 2013 of P.S. Jangaon.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 04-10-2013 at about 6-30 PM, the PW-1 (Bakka Vijayamani) lodged a written report stating that on 03-10-2013 during night hours at

Gundlagadda, Jangaon, some unknown offenders gained entered into the house of her brother-in-law by name Karrolla John, who residing at 2

U.S.A.) by breaking open the lock of house and almirah and tried to commit theft and on their search found that no items were stolen.

On receipt of the written report from PW-1, a case in Crime No.

443/2013 was registered and investigated and during the course of investigation, the Police apprehended the accused on 25-11-2013 at

Chowrastha, Jangaon, under suspicious circumstances. On interrogation, the accused confessed about the attempt to commit theft in the house of brother-in-law of PW-1 and commission of theft in others houses in and around the area of Jangaon, Bachannapet,

Nellutla of Warangal District, and they further confessed that they sold out some stolen articles and spent the amounts for their expenses and accordingly, PW-3 (R.Narender), Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon, seized some gold and silver ornaments, cell phones, laptops and net cash of Rs.30,000/- from the possession of the accused under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanamas. Later, the accused were remanded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, the

Police filed charge-sheet against the accused.

3.After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Ss. 457, 380 read with 511 of I.P.C.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused were examined u/Sec.

239 Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences punishable u/Ss.457, 380 read with 511 of I.P.C., have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-5.

7.Now the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for

the offences punishable u/Ss. 457, 380 read with 511 of

I.P.C” ?

8. The learned prosecutor argued that PW-1 is the defacto complainant, PW-2 is the panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure

Panchanamas and PW-3 is the Investigating Officer.

9.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of

PW-1, who is the defacto complainant, is corroborated in conformity with Ex.P-1-report about lodging report and about the attempt to commit theft in her sister's house and the panch witness PW-2 for

Confession and Seizure panchanama, also deposed in support of the case of the prosecution with regard to confession of the accused and seizure of stolen property in other cases and further the evidence of

PW-3, who is the Investigating Officer, is corroborated in all material aspects with regard to registering the case, conducting Crime Details

Form and recording Confession-cum-Seizure panchanamas including arrest of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed the Court to convict the accused as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and though the PW-1 deposed about lodging report under Ex.P-1 and her evidence may be corroborated about the commission of offence in her sister's house, but Ex.P-1 clearly reveals that some unknown offenders attempted to commit theft in her sister's house. As such, the evidence of PW-1 is not a prime evidence nor established the complicity of the accused in the present case. They also further argued that though the prosecution examined PW-2 as panch witness for Confession and Seizure panchanamas, but he failed to identify the accused and he did not depose specifically as to which property seized from the individual accused and PW-2 is a stock witness to the Police, Jangaon and he attended before the Court for giving evidence in so many cases, as such, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution did not examine another panch witness. The learned defence counsel further argued that when there is no material evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the alleged offences, the evidence of

11.Heard both sides. Perused the case record.

12.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the learned prosecutor examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. On careful consideration of the evidence of PW-1, who is the defacto complainant and circumstantial witness and according to her some unknown offenders broke opened the lock of her sister's house and 5 tried to commit theft from almirah and on search they found that nothing was lost from the said house. After scrutinizing her evidence there is no whisper about the involvement of the accused in the present case.

13.The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW-2, who is panch witness for confession and seizure of articles from the possession of the accused. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2, he deposed in his chief examination that on 25-11-2013 himself and LW-7 (Nune Anjaneyulu) were called by the Police, Jangaon to R.T.C.

Ganesh Street, Jangaon, at the house of one Ravinder Reddy,

Bachannapet, Nellutla, near I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Jangaon and in other places.

Police also seized gold articles, laptop, camera, mobile phones and also net cash of Rs.10,000/- from the possession of the accused.

PW-2 further deposed that the accused also admitted that they committed theft in the above said places and the Police recorded

Though PW-2 deposed in his chief-examination that in his presence the accused confessed about the commission of offences and the police seized gold and silver ornaments from the possession of the accused but in his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel it 6 is elicited that he failed to identify the individual accused specifically, who were present in the Court Hall and he failed to depose that as to which property seized from the individual accused. Further, it is elicited from his cross-examination that the Police called him oftenly to act as panch witness whenever sand tractors were seized and it is suggested to him that when he went to Police Station in connection with sand cases, Police obtained his signatures, which is denied by

PW-2. PW-2 further deposed that he do not remember under which panchanama the particular property was seized specifically.

Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamas were recorded in the presence of PW-2. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to link up the accused in the present case as there is ambiguity in identification of the accused and seizure of property from the possession of particular accused under specific Confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama.

Thus, there is absolutely no satisfactory, cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the accused have committed the alleged offences.

15.After foregoing discussion and after considering the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused (A-1 and A-2) are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sections 457, 380 read with 511 of

I.P.C., accordingly they are acquitted for the same u/Sec.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of October, 2016.)

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Bakka Vijayamani – -None- Defacto Complainant PW-2: Peddapuram Ramesh – Panch Witness for Confession-cum- Seizure Panchanamas PW-3: R.Narender – Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 :Written report dated 04-10-2013-Nil- Ex.P-2 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-1 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-3 :Attested copy of Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama of A-2 dated 25-11-2013 Ex.P-4 :First Information Report dated 04-10-2013 Ex.P-5 :Crime Details Form dated 04-10-2013

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- Nil -

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

CC/52/2015 Acquitted

P.S. Lingala Ghanpur vs Gattagalla Narsaiah

13 Oct 2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

JANGAON: WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SRI T. NARSI REDDY,

Judicial First Class Magistrate.

Dated this the 13th day of October, 2016.

C. C. NO: 52 OF 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana, through the Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S. Lingala Ghanpur.

…Complainant AND

A-1:Gattagalla Narsaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 40 years,

Occu: Agriculture,

A-2: Gattagalla Renuka, W/o. Narsaiah, Age: 36 years,

Occu: Coolie,

Both are R/o. Bandlagudem Village, Lingala Ghanpur

Mandal, Warangal District.

…Accused

This case is coming for final hearing and disposal on this day, in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N.Ram Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Lingala Ghanpur, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C., in Crime No. 10 of 2015 of P.S.

Lingala Ghanpur.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that A-1 and A-2 are husband and wife and PWs 1 and 2 (Nakka Manjula and

Nakka Narsaiah) are wife and husband and PW-3 (Nakka Mallaiah) is father of PW-2 and all are residents of Bandlagudem Village. PW-1 is doing coolie work and also working as President of Sarojana Mahila 2 Group and the said group was sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- and out of six members of group, four members were granted Rs.25,000/- each and two members were granted Rs.20,000/- each, in which A-2 was sanctioned Rs.20,000/-, on that A-2 demanded another Rs.5,000/- and raised quarrel with the group member LW-6 (Gattagalla Yadamma) alleging that PW-1 is responsible for the entire episode and that on 25-01-2015 at about 2-00 PM, at Bandlagudem Village, A-1 and A-2 came to PW-1 and abused her in most filthy language and beat her with hands and kicked on her abdomen and when PW-2 tried to rescue

PW-1, the accused beat him with hands and kicked him, in the mean time, PW-3 intervened to rescue PWs 1 and 2, A-1 picked up an iron basket and beat on his head and caused bleeding injuries.

On the strength of the written report of PW-1, the Police, Lingala

Ghanpur, registered a case in Crime No. 10/2015 and issued First

Information Report and after completion of investigation, filed charge- sheet against the accused.

3.After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C., against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused were examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C., and a charge for the offence punishable under

Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C., has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.

P-1 to P-9.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Now the point for consideration is: “whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for

the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of

I.P.C.?

8.The learned prosecutor argued that on 25-01-2015 at about 2-00 PM, at Bandlagudem Village, both the accused attacked on PWs 1 to 3 and beat them with hands and A-1 beat PW-3 with iron basket on his head, due to which PW-3 sustained bleeding injury.

9.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW-1 is quite corroborates with her written report under Ex.P-1 and though

PWs 1 to 3, who are victims, PWs 4 and 5, who are eye witnesses, did not depose anything against the accused, but their statements recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. before the Police, clearly established the guilt of the accused and the evidence of PWs 6 and 7, who are panch witness for Crime Details Form and Investigating Officer respectively, is quite corroborated with the regard to registering First Information

Report under Ex.P-8, conducting Crime Details Form under Ex.P-7 and collecting Wound Certificate of PW-3 under Ex.P-9 including arrest of the accused. As such, the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-9 has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed the Court to convict the accused as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5, who are defacto complainant, injured persons and eye witnesses but they did not depose anything against the accused and they turned hostile to 4 the prosecution case and denied to have stated to the Police as in

Exs.P-2 to P-6. The learned counsel further argued that PW-6 is also not deposed about conducting of Crime Details Form by the Police in his presence and in the absence of any material evidence, the evidence of PW-7, who is Investigating Officer respectively, cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused for the alleged offence and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused.

11.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

12.The learned prosecutor mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 and Exs.P-1 to P-9. PW-1 is defacto complainant/victim, PW-2 is husband of PW-1 and victim, PW-3 is father of PW-2 and injured, PWs 4 and 5 are eye witnesses, PW-6 is panch witness for Crime Details Form and PW-7 is Investigating Officer. On perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, they deposed that in the month of January, 2015 while they were at their house, both the accused and some others came upon them and all of sudden somebody beat them, due to which they sustained simple injuries. PWs 1 to 3 did not depose specifically that the accused beat them on the date of incident and more over, PWs 4 and 5, who said to be eye witnesses, also did not depose anything against the accused. PWs 1 to 5 turned hostile to the prosecution case. In their cross-examination by the learned prosecutor, they denied to have stated to the Police as in Exs.P-2 to P-6 and further PWs 1 to 3 admitted that the matter is settled at the advice of elders. If that is the case, there is no evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence. PW-6, who is panch witness for Crime

Details Form, also not deposed anything about conducting of Crime

Details Form by the Police in his presence except admitting his signature. The evidence of PW-7 is procedural with regard to his 5 investigation part and in support of his evidence there is no material evidence placed by the prosecution.

13.In the absence of any material evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused (A-1 and A-2) are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C.

Accordingly, they are acquitted for the same u/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of October, 2016.)

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Nakka Manjula – Defacto Complainant/Victim -None- PW-2: Nakka Narsaiah – Victim PW-3: Nakka Mallaiah – Injured PW-4: Gattagalla Narsaiah – Eye Witness PW-5: Gattagalla Bhagya – Eye Witness PW-6: Gattagalla Kistaiah – Panch witness for Crime Details Form PW-7: M.Elia – Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1 : Written report of PW-1 dated 26-01-2015 - None – Ex.P-2 :Statement of PW-1 recorded u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-3 :Statement of PW-2 recorded u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-4 :Statement of PW-3 recorded u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-5 :Statement of PW-4 recorded u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-6 :Statement of PW-5 recorded u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-7 :Signautre of PW-6 on Crime Details Form dated 26-01-2015 Ex.P-8 :First Information Report dated 26-01-2015 Ex.P-9 :Wound Certificate of PW-3 dated 26-01-2015

: MATERIAL OBJECTS :

-Nil- Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

Order Record 486 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/52/2015	P.S. Lingala Ghanpur vs Gattagalla Narsaiah	13 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	Acquitted
CC/6/2014	Cheetla Ravinder Reddy vs Anagandula Sridhar and others	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	Acquitted
CC/9/2014	S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	Acquitted
CC/12/2014	S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	Acquitted
CC/13/2014	S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	Acquitted
CC/14/2014	Gulam Samdani vs Anagandula Sridhar and others	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/15/2014	Chitoju Ashok vs Anagandula Sridhar and others	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/16/2014	S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/25/2014	Bochu Niranjan vs Anagandula Sridhar and others	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/34/2014	Koduru Sushila Devi vs Anagandula Sridhar and others	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/50/2014	Immadi Prabhakar Reddy vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/53/2014	S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/92/2014	S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/392/2013	S.H.O Lingala Ghanpur vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/395/2013	S.H.O. Narmetta vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/400/2015	prohibition and Excise Jangaon vs Macherla Srinivas	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/465/2013	S.H.O. Jangaon vs Anagandula Sridhar	07 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/101/2016	The Prohibition Excise Sub Inspector vs Korra Lalu	06 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/111/2016	The Prohibition and Excise subInspector Jangaon vs Korra Hunya	06 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/327/2015	peetla yadagiri vs Vsbanda papaiah	06 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/532/2014	THALLAPALLI RAJU vs DAMERA GANGA	06 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/378/2012	Resu Venkataiah vs Suluguri Ashok	05 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/52/2014	S.H.O. Jangaon vs Botla Kranthi Kumar	03 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/340/2015	YAKKALADEVI SHIVA KUMAR vs VERR VEERAIAH	03 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/273/2016	The sho ps Narmetta vs Daravath Rajamani	01 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/292/2016	The sho ps narmetta vs Bhukya Hussain	01 Oct 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/48/2014	Sk.Yaseen SI vs Mabbu Pulamma and others	29 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/352/2015	anthagiri venkateshwarlu vs Vsgone raju	29 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/353/2015	thunikoju ashok vs Vsgone raju	29 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/363/2015	koneti mallelsham vs Vsgone raju	29 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/445/2015	md yaseen vs Vsgone raju	29 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/271/2015	P.S. Prohibition and Excise Jangaon vs Yellaboina Ravi	28 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/272/2015	P.S. Prohibition and Excise Jangaon vs Yellaboina Laxmaiah	28 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/273/2015	P.S. Prohibition and Excise Jangaon vs Yellaboina Raju	28 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/34/2015	Prohibition and Excise sub Inspector station vs DHARAVATH BALU	26 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/75/2016	Mudavath Prameela vs Mudavath Raju	17 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/182/2015	P.S.Raghunathpally vs Korra Laxman	17 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/187/2015	P.S.Narmetta vs Korra Laxman	17 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/100/2016	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector vs Malothu Balaji	16 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/250/2016	The sho ps Narmetta vs Saketh Kamalesh	16 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/256/2015	namele srinivas vs Vsshyamanthula dasharatham	15 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/39/2015	P.S.Narmetta vs Myka Anjaiah	14 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
MC/22/2014	PONNAMINA DEVI AND ONE OTHER vs PONNAMINA KRISHNA	10 Sep 2016	copy of order	—
CC/98/2016	The Prohibition Excise Sub Inspector vs Beerelli Durgamma	09 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/99/2016	The Prohibition Excise Sub Inspector vs Bairagoni Jayamma	09 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
PRC/20/2016	The sho ps jangaon vs Devunuri Ravi	09 Sep 2016	copy of order	—
CC/168/2013	Jonnala Varaprasad vs Thumma Kranthi Reddy	06 Sep 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/14/2013	Shriram Chits P.Ltd.,GPA Holder V.Ramesh vs Gundu Yadagiri and 4 others	31 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/136/2013	Gudikandula Yadagiri vs Gudikandula Bala Raju and 2 others	31 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/185/2015	shaga yadaiah vs Vsmarapaka yadagiri	31 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/225/2011	Naini alias Vanga Anuradha vs Vanga Ram Reddy	31 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/174/2013	MITTAPALLI CHINNA RAMULU vs A. VANGAPALLI RAJU	31 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/218/2014	BHUPATHI KISHTAIAH vs PANDLA BAL NARSAIAH	31 Aug 2016	copy of order	—
CC/248/2013	Mekala Ramu @ Ramulu vs Mekala Ashok	31 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/270/2013	SHO Raghunathpally vs Maikala Ramulu	31 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/96/2016	The SHO PS Raghunathpally vs Myakala Raju	30 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/109/2016	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector vs Koyyada Yakamma	30 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/270/2013	SHO Raghunathpally vs Maikala Ramulu	30 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/579/2015	myakala raju vs Vsmyakala ramulu	30 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/110/2016	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector vs Bongoni gopal	29 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/3/2015	amrutham venkatanarsaiah vs Vsamrutham lasdminarayana one other	27 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/27/2016	Shada Parusharamulu vs Palamakula Narsa Yellaiah	23 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/401/2014	P.S. Raghunathpalli vs Chataraboina Yadagiri	23 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
PRC/16/2016	Katha Vijay Kumar alias Tony vs Katha Vijaya Kumar Alias Tone	23 Aug 2016	copy of order	—
PRC/21/2015	drugs inspoector jangaon vs Vsdr b.ravi kumar bds	17 Aug 2016	copy of order	—
CC/375/2009	Pabba Shivakoti vs Meela Anthaiah	16 Aug 2016	copy of order	—
CC/55/2015	P.S.Lingala Ghanpur vs Purma Jahangir	12 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/92/2015	Gandi Ramulu vs Gandi Srinu	12 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/261/2012	BONGU KAMALAMMA vs CHIRUMALLA BIXAPATHI	09 Aug 2016	copy of judgement	—
PRC/24/2015	myakala santhosha vs Vsmyakala raju	08 Aug 2016	copy of order	—
PRC/14/2016	The Sho ps jangaon vs Gangula Raja Mall Reddy	05 Aug 2016	copy of order	—
CC/265/2015	Proh. and Excise Station Jangaon vs Malothu Parmesh	28 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/297/2015	Peduthala Prabhakar vs Bathula Sanjeeva Rao	26 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/19/2013	IRGU UPPALAIAH vs YATA ANJAIAH	22 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/174/2012	Burugu Dasharath vs Burugu Balaraju and 7 others	20 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/223/2014	S.SAMBASHIVUDU vs PERNA SWAROOPA AND THREE OTHERS	15 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/589/2015	md bashumiya vs Vsmanthapuram praveen	15 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
MC/23/2014	thatikayala kavitha alias kanakalaxmi vs Vsthatikayala krishna	15 Jul 2016	copy of order	—
CC/476/2015	kota sampath kumar vs Vschettipally venue	14 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/6/2015	jeenath begam vs Vsmohammed abrar ahmed	13 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/448/2015	cheguri chandraiah vs Vsbirru shiva	13 Jul 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/4/2012	bhukya ravi vs Vschikkudu shekar	23 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/269/2015	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Jangaon vs Narka Ramesh	23 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/33/2016	Boggula Rakesh vs The Disrict Medical and Health Officer,	20 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/95/2010	ERRI SRINIVAS REDDY vs THAMMANAPALLI LINGAIAH	20 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/87/2016	Dandam alias panga swapna vs Vsdandam prasad	18 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/30/2014	Sk.Yaseen SI vs Gurram Kumar and others	17 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
MC/2/2016	aileni ram reddy vs Vsaileni krishna reddy	16 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/174/2013	MERCY VICTORIA RANI DUBBA AND ONE OTHER vs TO WHOM OS EVER IT MAY CONCERN AND TWO OTHERS	10 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
SCC/5/2013	Kapil Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd vs K.Ramesh And 2 others	10 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/23/2014	SHO Jangaon vs Yamsani Bala Veeraiah	10 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/234/2013	Yerra Yadagiri vs A1 Kolepaka Venkatesh and 2 others	06 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
SCC/6/2014	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., vs T.Ramulamma and 4 others	03 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/288/2014	PAKALA ASWINKUMAR vs MANKENA RAVINDER REDDY	03 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/319/2013	S.H.O. Narmetta vs Purmani Ramesh	03 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/154/2012	Kapil Chit Fund P Ltd.,A.Srikumar vs B.Sulochana Devi and 6 others	02 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
OS/166/2012	Kapil Chit Fund Pvt., Ltd vs Smt.R.Sajida	02 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/21/2016	Gade Swamy vs Jogu Sridhar	02 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/22/2016	Jogu Sridhar vs Gade Swamy	02 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—
CC/54/2016	Kethavath Harilal vs Halavath Somla	02 Jun 2016	copy of judgement	—

Showing 100 of 486 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2016		26
Sep 2016		21
Aug 2016		24
Jul 2016		10
Jun 2016		20
May 2016		14
Apr 2016		18
Mar 2016		28
Feb 2016		31
Jan 2016		26
Dec 2015		23
Nov 2015		27

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has T.Narsi Reddy handled?

T.Narsi Reddy has handled 487 court orders since 2013 at Jangoan, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 12 orders per month.

What types of cases does T.Narsi Reddy hear?

Based on available records, T.Narsi Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Jangoan, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is T.Narsi Reddy currently posted?

T.Narsi Reddy is posted as Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon at Jangoan, PDJ Court Complex, Jangoan, Telangana.

Are judgments by T.Narsi Reddy available online?

Yes. 8 judgments by T.Narsi Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does T.Narsi Reddy dispose cases?

T.Narsi Reddy disposes approximately 12 cases per month, based on 487 orders handled over their tenure at Jangoan, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is T.Narsi Reddy serving?

T.Narsi Reddy has been serving at Jangoan, PDJ Court Complex since 2013.

Case Types

CC 75%

OS 15%

MC 4%

SCC 2%

EP 2%

PRC 1%

ELECOP 0%

STC 0%

Posting History

May 2013 — Oct 2016

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon · 484 orders
May 2013 — Sep 2013

Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Jangaon · 3 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Allowed 2

Dismissed For Default 1

Other Judges at this Court

Ms G.Sashee

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon

1,147 orders

Ms.K.Sandeepa

Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Additional Jud...

548 orders

Smt Shanker Sridevi

Senior Civil Judge -cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,...

4 orders

B.Prathima

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Jangaon

295 orders

← View all judges at Jangoan, PDJ Court Complex