T. Pravallika

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

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

T. Pravallika, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 272 court orders on record since 2025. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

272

Total Orders

Judgments

272

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/185/2023 Acquitted

The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Nadendla Kotaiah

06 Mar 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

PRESENT SMT.T.PRAVALIKA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Friday, this the 06th day of March, 2026.

C.C.No.185/2023

Between:-

State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station,. . . Complainant Gurazala

And

Nandendla Kotaiah, S/o.Sambaiah, Age 47 Years, R/o.D.No.2-897,Naidupeta,Dachepalli . . . Accused Nagarapanchayat, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

This case is coming before me on 27-02-2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Chinna Koteswara rao Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station,

Gurazala has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.62/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 34(a) AP Excise Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows :

On 15-05-2022 at 06-00PM, while conducting patrolling duty at near bus shelter, Pulipadu cross road, Pondugula to Dachepalli road

LWs 1 and 2/ M.Srinivasa Rao and V.Sudersan Teja noticed the accused person carrying one bag and upon seeing police he tried to run away from there but LW3/ M.Jaya Rao apprehended the accused and seized 48-180ML TI Mansion House XO Brandy bottles, 22-180ML Good Day prestige whiskey bottles from the possession of the accused. Subsequently,

LW3 has prepared special report and basing on it he registered the case in

Crime No.62/2022 under Section 34(a) AP Excise Act.

During the course of his investigation, LW3 arrested the accused and and sent the accused to judicial custody for remand and sent the material objects for chemical analysis and obtained the chemical analysis report from the Government Chemical Examiner, wherein it was opined that the sample is Indian liquor. Later submitted proposals to Prohibition and Excise

Deputy commissioner, Guntur under the consfiscation proceedings. After completion of investigation LW.3 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) AP Excise Act. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) AP Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, she was furnished with the copies of documents, as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. Charge under Section 34(a) AP Excise Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 34(a) AP Excise Act beyond all

reasonable doubt.”

10. POINT :

(a) To substantiate its case, prosecution examined LW3 as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. PW1 is the police personnel, who said to have detected the crime. Learned APP given up Lws.1 and 2/ M.Srinivasa Rao and V.Sudersan Teja.

(b) Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 deposed that on 15-02-2022 at about 06-00PM he received information as to illegal possession of contraband and he along with his staff Lws 1 and 2/ M.Srinivasa Rao and

V.Sudersan Teja proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the accused carrying a white colour polythene bag. That upon enquiry by PW1, he revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles and that upon verification by PW1, he found 48-180ML TI

Mansion House XO Brandy bottles, 22-180ML Good Day prestige whiskey bottles in the possession of the accused. Upon being questioned by PW1 the accused failed to give accountability for possession of the liquor bottles and therefore PW1 seized the contraband from the possession of the accused. He prepared special report and on basis of that he registered the case in crime No.62/2022 under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, arrested the accused and produced the accused before the court and sent him for remand. During the course of investigation he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis to Chemical Examiner, Guntur and received report and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

(c) During the cross examination of PW1, he categorically stated that scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not secure the presence of mediators.

(d) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the evidence of

P.W.1 is nothing but replica of contents of charge sheet and who deposed as per the record. P.W.1 during his chief-examination stated as to the procedural aspect as to registering the case, sending the sample to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. PW1 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not secure the presence of mediators.

(e) As per the case record, there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 is the Police official and therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. The evidence of P.W.1 could be considered for the procedural aspect to complete the investigation only.

(f) Adverting to the plea of defence counsel about arrest of accused and seizure of contraband in the absence of mediators, the prosecution case has entirely failed to mention reasons as to why the independent mediators could not be secured during the seizure of the alleged contraband from the accused and that PW1 in his cross examination stated that scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not secure the presence of mediators, which makes it highly suspicious to believe their efforts to secure the presence of the mediators. According to the Judgment of Hon’ble High court of AP in Yedduri Srinivasarao v/s State of AP 2002(1) ALD criminal 347, wherein, while dealing with the application of Section 100(4) of

Criminal Procedure Code, it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary.

As per the case of prosecution though they tried to secure the mediators, none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband.

When the place of offence is busy locality where there is movement of the public and there is every possibility to public to act as mediators, it is highly improbable to believe the version of prosecution that none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband. In such circumstances it is not safe to place reliance on the interested testimony of PW.1. All these facts lead to inference that the police officials have failed to secure two or more independent or respectable inhabitants of locality for seizure of contraband. Consequently, the seizure of contraband as alleged from

Ex.P1 – police proceedings vitiated.

(g) In view of the above decision, it can be rightly concluded that mere registering the crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of P.W.1 who is the police official and highly interested in securing the conviction for the accused, there is no other independent evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused.

(h) Taking into consideration of the overall circumstances of the case, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with cogent and convincing evidence and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence with which he is charged. In the light of above discussion, this point is answered against the prosecution.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. 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 as per Section 437A of Criminal Procedure

Code. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 06 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: M.Jaya Rao

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Special Report

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report

Ex.P.3 : Chemical Analysis Report

For Defence:

NIL

Material Objects:

NILSd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

//True Copy//

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

C.C.No.185/2023

Date of:

Date of Sentenc Report of Apprehe Commenc remand/41 Release Closure of e or Offence complain nsion of e-ment of -A Cr.P.C on bail trial ant accused trial order Notice 15-05-22-15-05-2215-05-2218-05-2220-02-2620-02-2606-03-26

Between:-

State: Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station,. . . Complainant Gurazala

And

Nandendla Kotaiah, S/o.Sambaiah, Age 47 Years, R/o.D.No.2-897,Naidupeta,Dachepalli . . . Accused Nagarapanchayat, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

Crime Number62/2022 of SEB Gurazala

Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act Offence

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

Judgment:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

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 as per Section 437A of

Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

//True Copy//

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

CC/771/2025 Acquitted

Sho Excise Gurazala Ps vs Meravath Ramesh

06 Mar 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

PRESENT SMT.T.PRAVALIKA,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Friday, this the 06th day of March, 2026.

C.C.No.771/2025

Between:-

State: Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and. . . Complainant Excise Station, Gurazala

And

Meravath Ramesh, S/o.Sriramulu, Age 36 Years,. . . Accused R/o.Kotha Ambapuram Village, Gurazala Mandal

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station,

Gurazala has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.219/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows :

On 12-12-2024 at 07-00PM, while conducting patrolling duty

LWs 1 and 2/Ch.Sai Krishna and M.Srinivasa Rao noticed the accused person carrying one black plastic bag and upon seeing police he tried to run away from there but LW3/ R.V.V.Prasad apprehended the accused and seized 12-180ML Sumo Classic Whiskey bottles from the possession of the accused. Subsequently, LW3 has prepared special report and basing on it he registered the case in Crime No.219/2024 under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP

Prohibition Act.

During the course of his investigation, LW3 arrested the accused and released by serving Sec.35(3) BNSS notice and sent the material objects for chemical analysis and obtained the chemical analysis report from the

Government Chemical Examiner, wherein it was opined that the sample is

Indian liquor. Later submitted proposals to Prohibition and Excise Deputy commissioner, Guntur under the consfiscation proceedings. After completion of investigation LW.3 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act.

Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, she was furnished with the copies of documents, as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita.

5. The accused was examined under Section 262 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita. Charge under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act

beyond all reasonable doubt.”

10. POINT :

(b) Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1/R.V.V.Prasad deposed that on 12-12-2024 he received information as to illegal possession of contraband and he along with his staff Lws 1 and 2/ Ch.Sai Krishna and M.Srinivasa

Rao proceeded to the scene of offence and noticed the accused carrying a white colour polythene bag. That upon enquiry by PW1, he revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles and that upon verification by PW1, he found 12-180ML Sumo Classic Whiskey bottles in the possession of the accused. Upon being questioned by PW1 the accused failed to give accountability for possession of the liquor bottles and therefore PW1 seized the contraband from the possession of the accused. He prepared special report and on basis of that he registered the case in crime No.219/2024 under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act, arrested the accused and released him by issuing Sec.35(3) BNSS notice.

During the course of investigation he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis to Chemical Examiner, Guntur and received report and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act.

(c) During the cross examination of PW1, he categorically stated that scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not secure the presence of mediators.

(d) Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the evidence of

Chemical Examiner for analysis and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. PW1 admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not secure the presence of mediators.

As per the case of prosecution though they tried to secure the mediators, none came forward to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband.

Ex.P1 – police proceedings vitiated.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 271(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita. 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 as per

Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 06 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: R.V.V.Prasad

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Special Report

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report

Ex.P.3 : Chemical Analysis Report

For Defence:

NIL

Material Objects:

NIL

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

//True Copy //

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)::GURAZALA

C.C.No.771/2025

Date of:

Date of Sentenc Report of Apprehe Commenc remand/41 Release Closure of e or Offence complain nsion of e-ment of -A Cr.P.C on bail trial ant accused trial order Notice 35(3) 12-12-24-12-12-2412-12-2420-02-2620-02-2606-03-26 BNSS

Between:-

State: Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition. . . Complainant and Excise Station, Gurazala

And

Meravath Ramesh, S/o.Sriramulu, Age 36 Years,. . . Accused R/o.Kotha Ambapuram Village, Gurazala Mandal

Crime Number219/2024 of P & E Gurazala

Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act Offence

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

Judgment:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) AP Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 271(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita. 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 as per Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

//True Copy //

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

CC/138/2025 Acquitted

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Gurazala. vs Chinta Hanumantha Rao

13 Mar 2026

Page:1 C.C.No.138/2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

GURZALA

C.C.No.138 of 2025

Date of:

Offence onComplaintApph. ofReleased onCommenceClosure ofResult or beforeaccusedBailment ofTrial Trial 15-08-2023-15-08-2023 18-08-2023 20-02-2026 20-02-2026 13-03-2026

Complainant:

The State: The Enforcement Sub - Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau station, Gurazala.

Name of the accused:

Chinta Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Appa Rao, Age 36 Years, R/o.Pedagarlapadu

Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

Offence:Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

Page:2 C.C.No.138/2025 punishable Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted

Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. The un marked case property shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay: No delay.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

//True Copy//

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

Page:3 C.C.No.138/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

GURAZALA

PRESENT: Smt.T. Pravalika,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala

Friday, this the 13 th day of March, 2026.

C.C.No.138/2025

(Cr.No.17/2023 of SEB Station, Gurazala.)

Between :

The State: The Enforcement Sub - Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau station, Gurazala.

… Complainant.

Vs.

Chinta Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Appa Rao, Age 36 Years, R/o.Pedagarlapadu

Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

… Accused.

This case coming before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for complainant and of Ch.Suresh, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The The Enforcement Sub – Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau station, Gurazala, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.17/2023 with a

Page:4 C.C.No.138/2025 prayer to punish accused by alleging that he has committed an offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Amendment Act 2020.

[2.] Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is like this:- On 15-08-2023 at 07.00P.M on receipt of credible information about the possession of illegal liquor bottles LW.4/M.Jayarao along with LW.3/M.Srinivasa Rao and mediators

Lws.1 and 2/ S.Narendra and Sk.Sharif rushed to the Scene of offecne situated at in front of Ramalayam, ratham center, Pedagarlapadu Village, Dachepalli Mandal and found the accused but he tried to escape at scene of offence but LW.4 caught hold them. On that L.W.4 in the presence of L.Ws.1 and 2 verified the bag held by the accused and he found 08-180ML Andhra Gold Fine Whiskey bottles, 09-180ML Officers Choice Elegant whiskey bottles, 3-180ML Royal Green

Premium blended whiskey bottles, 3-180 ML Sterling Reserve classic fine blended whiskey bottles, 5-180ML HD Ultra Deluxe whiskey bottles, 3-180ML Daaru

House XO Brandy bottles (total 31 bottles) which are non-duty paid liquor bottles from the possession of accused and LW4 lifted one sample bottle and seized the remaining bottles under the cover of mediator report duly attested by mediators and that LW4 returned to police station along with accused persons and seized property.

[3.] Basingon the mediator report, LW4-M.Jaya Rao, ESI, SEB Station,

Gurazala registered a case in Cr.No.17/2023 Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise

Act and took up investigation, examined witnesses and recorded their statements, and sent the accused to judicial custody for remand and sent the samples for chemical examination and after receipt of expert opinion, LW4 filed charge sheet.

Page:5 C.C.No.138/2025

Hence, the case.

[4.] Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act against accused person and issued process. In response to the process accused person entered his appearance and he is provided with the case copies of documents, Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., upon which the prosecution relied to prove the proposed guilt.

[5.] During the examination Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, a charge

Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act against accused person was framed, and the same was read over and explained to the accused person, and having understood the same accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution examined PW 1 and marked Exs.P1 to

P3. The Learned APP given up the evidence of Lws.1 to 3/S.Narendra, Sk.Sharif and M.Srinivasa Rao. Hence their evidence was closed.

[6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused person was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C where-under the available incriminating material against him was explained, for which accused person reported everything as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

[7.] Heard arguments of both sides.

Page:6 C.C.No.138/2025 [8.] Contentions of both parties:

The Learned counsel for the accused person submitted that the accused person is no way connected with the case and it was foisted only for the statistical purpose. The main contention of the defence is that there are no independent witness except the evidence of P.W.1 who is an interested witnesses, there is no other evidence to connect the accused persons with the crime. On the other hand, the Learned A.P.P contends that the evidence of P.W.1 with Exs.P.1 to P3 would support the case of the prosecution.

[9.] Now, the point that arises for determination is that:-

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)

of AP Excise Act , beyond reasonable doubt?

[10.] POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that on 15-08-2023 at about 07.00 pm, on information PW1 along with his staff i.e L.W.3 and secured mediators i.e

L.Ws.1 and 2 went to the scene of offence situated near Ramalayam,

Pedagarlapadu Village found the accused having possession of liquor bottles without having any valid license for the purpose of selling the same with higher prices and seized them in the presence of mediators i.e L.Ws.1 and 2.

[11.]In order to bring the case within the provisions of Section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused person

Page:7 C.C.No.138/2025 were in possession of non duty paid liquor bottles.

[12.] To prove its case the prosecution examined PW.1 . P.W.1- M.Jaya rao

P & E Sub Inspector, Gurazala, deposed in his evidence that on 15-08-2023 at about 07.00 pm, he received credible information regarding illegal sale of liquor bottles at near Irikepalli Village. Immediately himself, L.W3 along with mediators

LWs.1 and 2 rushed to scene of offence and observed accused with possession a white gunny bag. On seeing them, he tried to escape, they caught hold him, enquired him, he disclosed his name and further confessed about the possession of liquor bottles in said bag. Then in the presence of mediators, he verified the said bag and found 08-180ML Andhra Gold Fine Whiskey bottles, 09-180ML Officers

Choice Elegant whiskey bottles, 3-180ML Royal Green Premium blended whiskey bottles, 3-180 ML Sterling Reserve classic fine blended whiskey bottles, 5-180ML

HD Ultra Deluxe whiskey bottles, 3-180ML Daaru House XO Brandy bottles.

Accused failed to produce valid licence. They collected 06 sample bottles towards chemical analysis and seized remaining liquor bottles under the cover of mediator report/Ex.P1. After completion of Ex.P1, and returned to station along with them and seized property and arrested the accused person. Basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.17/2023 Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and forwarded FIR/Ex.P2 to all concerned. Later he sent sample bottle for chemical examination and received analysis report/Ex.P3. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet before this court.

[13.] Admittedly, PW.1 is police official and mediators i.e LWs.1 and 2 given up the evidence and did not support the case of prosecution, hence there is

Page:8 C.C.No.138/2025 no support of independent evidence to support the version of PW1.

[14.] A careful reading of the evidence of PW1, it is clear that on suspicious circumstances, the accused person was arrested. PW1 further stated that the accused person confessed about commission of offence in the presence of mediators but the same cannot be established through evidence of any independent witnesses i.e mediators. It is known principle that any confession made to police officer is not admissible in evidence. Admittedly this case is registered based on confession of accused person, which is suspicious and hence it cannot be taken into consideration.

[15.]It is the contention of prosecution that PW1 seized 31 liquor bottles of six varieties under Ex.P1 mediatornamma by lifting six sample bottles. But the prosecution failed to produce sample bottles before this court. Which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

[16.]From the above discussion, it is clear that the investigating officer not followed the procedure and the presence of accused person with possession is also doubtful. Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused person. In the light of above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

[17.] IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted

Page:9 C.C.No.138/2025

Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

The un marked case property shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, today, this the 13 th day of March, 2026, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For prosecution: P.W.1: M.Jaya Rao

For defence: -None- Documents marked: For defence: -NIL- For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Mediator report.

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report

Ex.P.3 : Analysis Report.

Material objects marked:

NIL

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala

//True Copy//

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

CC/134/2025 Acquitted

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Gurazala. vs Derangula Raju

06 Mar 2026

Page:1 C.C.No.134/2025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

GURZALA

C.C.No.134 of 2025

Date of:

Offence onComplaintApph. ofReleased onCommenceClosure ofResult or beforeaccusedBailment ofTrial Trial 27-06-2023-27-06-2023 28-06-2023 20-02-2026 20-02-2026 06-03-2026

Complainant:

The State: The Enforcement Sub - Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau station, Gurazala.

Name of the accused:

Derangula Raju, S/o.Bhudevaiah, Age 54 Years, R/o.D.No.5-10/2, Irikepalli Village,

Dachepalli Nagarapanchayath, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

Offence:Under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act.

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

Page:2 C.C.No.134/2025 punishable Under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

The un marked case property shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay: No delay.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

//True Copy //

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

Page:3 C.C.No.134/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

GURAZALA

PRESENT: Smt.T. Pravalika,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala

Friday, this the 06 th day of March, 2026.

C.C.No.134/2025

(Cr.No.13/2023 of SEB Station, Gurazala.)

Between :

The State: The Enforcement Sub - Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau station, Gurazala.

… Complainant.

Vs.

Derangula Raju, S/o.Bhudevaiah, Age 54 Years, R/o.D.No.5-10/2, Irikepalli Village,

Dachepalli Nagarapanchayath, Dachepalli Mandal, Palnadu District.

… Accused.

This case coming before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for complainant and of Sk.Jani Basha, Advocate for the accused , upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

Page:4 C.C.No.134/2025

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The The Enforcement Sub – Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau station, Gurazala, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.13/2023 with a prayer to punish accused by alleging that he has committed an offence punishable Under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act.

[2.] Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is like this:- On 27-06-2023 at 06.30 A.M on receipt of credible information about the possession of illegal liquor bottles LW.4/M.Jayarao along with LW.3/V.Basaveswa Rao and mediators

Lws.1 and 2/ S.Narendra and B.Krishna Naik rushed to the Scene of offecne situated at Mandapati Nagireddy CPI statue, Irikepalli Village, Dachepalli -

Hyderabad road, Dachepalli Nagara Panchayath, Palnadu District and found the accused but he tried to escape at scene of offence but LW.4 caught hold them.

On that L.W.4 in the presence of L.Ws.1 and 2 verified the bag held by the accused and he found 20-180ML NIPS Good Day Prestige Whiskey bottles (total 20 bottles) which are non-duty paid liquor bottles from the possession of accused and LW4 lifted one sample bottle and seized the remaining bottles under the cover of mediator report duly attested by mediators and that LW4 returned to police station along with accused persons and seized property.

[3.] Basingon the mediator report, LW4-M.Jaya Rao, ESI, SEB Station,

Gurazala registered a case in Cr.No.13/2023 Under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP

Prohibition Act and took up investigation, examined witnesses and recorded their statements, and sent the accused to judicial custody for remand and sent the samples for chemical examination and after receipt of expert opinion, LW4 filed

Page:5 C.C.No.134/2025 charge sheet. Hence, the case.

[4.] Considering the charge sheet and material on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable Under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP

Prohibition Act against accused person and issued process. In response to the process accused person entered his appearance and he is provided with the case copies of documents, Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., upon which the prosecution relied to prove the proposed guilt.

[5.] During the examination Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, a charge

Under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act against accused person was framed, and the same was read over and explained to the accused person, and having understood the same accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution examined PW 1 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The Learned APP given up the evidence of Lws.1 to 3/S.Narendra,

B.Krishna Naik and V.Basaveswara Rao. Hence their evidence was closed.

[7.] Heard arguments of both sides.

Page:6 C.C.No.134/2025 [8.] Contentions of both parties:

[9.] Now, the point that arises for determination is that:-

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable under Section 7

r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act , beyond reasonable

doubt?

[10.] POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that on 27-06-2023 at about 06.30 am, on information PW1 along with his staff i.e L.W.3 and secured mediators i.e

L.Ws.1 and 2 went to the scene of offence situated near Irikepalli Village found the accused having possession of liquor bottles without having any valid license for the purpose of selling the same with higher prices and seized them in the presence of mediators i.e L.Ws.1 and 2.

Page:7 C.C.No.134/2025 [11.]In order to bring the case within the provisions of Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused person were in possession of non duty paid liquor bottles.

[12.] To prove its case the prosecution examined PW.1 . P.W.1- M.Jaya rao

P & E Sub Inspector, Gurazala, deposed in his evidence that on 27-06-2023 at about 06.00 am, he received credible information regarding illegal sale of liquor bottles at near Irikepalli Village. Immediately himself, L.W3 along with mediators

LWs.1 and 2 rushed to scene of offence and observed accused with possession a black polythene cover. On seeing them, he tried to escape, they caught hold him, enquired him, he disclosed his name and further confessed about the possession of liquor bottles in said bag. Then in the presence of mediators, he verified the said bag and found 20 bottles of NIPS of Good Day Prestige Whiskey 180 ml each.

Accused failed to produce valid licence. They collected 01 sample bottle towards chemical analysis and seized remaining liquor bottles under the cover of mediator report/Ex.P1. After completion of Ex.P1, and returned to station along with them and seized property and arrested the accused person. Basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.13/2023 Under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition

Act and forwarded FIR/Ex.P2 to all concerned. Later he sent sample bottle for chemical examination and received analysis report/Ex.P3. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet before this court.

[13.] Admittedly, PW.1 is police official and mediators i.e LWs.1 and 2 given up the evidence and did not support the case of prosecution, hence there is no support of independent evidence to support the version of PW1.

Page:8 C.C.No.134/2025 [14.] A careful reading of the evidence of PW1, it is clear that on suspicious circumstances, the accused person was arrested. PW1 further stated that the accused person confessed about commission of offence in the presence of mediators but the same cannot be established through evidence of any independent witnesses i.e mediators. It is known principle that any confession made to police officer is not admissible in evidence. Admittedly this case is registered based on confession of accused person, which is suspicious and hence it cannot be taken into consideration.

[15.] From the above discussion, it is clear that the investigating officer not followed the procedure and the presence of accused person with possession is also doubtful. Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused person. In the light of above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

[16.] IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 7 r/w.8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

The un marked case property shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Page:9 C.C.No.134/2025

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, today, this the 06 th day of March, 2026, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For prosecution: P.W.1: M.Jaya Rao

For defence: -None-

Documents marked: For defence: -NIL- For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Mediator report.

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report

Ex.P.3 : Analysis Report.

Material objects marked:

NIL

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala

//True Copy //

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

OS/208/2024

Bapanapalli Mangarao vs Gollapalli Veeranjaneyulu

13 Mar 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GURAZALA

PRESENT: S MT .T.P RAVALIKA ,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

Friday, this the 13th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.208/2024

BETWEEN:

Bapanapalli Mangarao,S/o.Nimmaiah, Age 37 Years,

R/o/Rentachintala Village & Post of Rentachintala

Mandal of Palnadu District.. . .Plaintiff

AND

Gollapalli Veeranjaneyulu, S/o.Pullaiah, Age 42 Years,

Working as AE APSPDCL, office of Executive Engineer,

Macherla post and Mandal.. . .Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 20-02-2026 in the presence of Sri K.Adinarayana,Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,81,145/- (Rupees Five Lakhs eighty one thousand one hundred and forty five only) being the principal and interest due on ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ marked promissory notes dated.17-05-2022, 17-05-2022, 17-05-2022, and 17-05-2022 respectively, for subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that :

(a) On 17-05-2022 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees

One Lakh only) from the plaintiff for business expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed ‘A’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day.

(b)On 17-05-2022 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees

One Lakh only) from the plaintiff for business expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed ‘B’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day.

(c)On 17-05-2022 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-( Rupees

One Lakh only) from the plaintiff for business expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed ‘C’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day.

(d)On 17-05-2022 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/-( Rupees

Eighty Thousand only) from the plaintiff for business expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed ‘D’ marked promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day.

(e) In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount due under the said four promissory notes by postponing the repayment on one pretext or other. Hence the suit.

3. Summons were refused by the defendant, the defendant failed to cause his appearance and did not file written statement. Hence, defendant is set exparte on 12-12-2025.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and

Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked.

5. Heard Learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6. Now, the point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

7. POINT:

(a) This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,81,145/- with future interest at 24% p.a. on the principal sum of

Rs.3,80,000/- from the defendant based on a promissory notes dated.17-05-2022, 17-05-2022, 17-05-2022, and 17-05-2022 respectively stated to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and promised to repay the same as and when demanded, but he did not do so.

(b) The defendant failed to file his written statement, hence the defendant was set exparte.

(c) In support of the case of the plaintiff, he himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note

dated: 17-05-2022 stated to have been executed by defendant in favour of

plaintiff, having received Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is the original promissory note

dated: 17-05-2022 stated to have been executed by defendant in favour of

plaintiff, having received Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A3 is the original promissory note

dated: 17-05-2022 stated to have been executed by defendant in favour of

plaintiff, having received Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A4 iis the original promissory note

dated: 17-05-2022 stated to have been executed by defendant in favour of

plaintiff, having received Rs.80,000/-. Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice dt.24-07-2024 along with postal receipt. Ex.A6 is the refused registered post of legal notice dt.25-07-2024. This oral evidence of Pw1 and the documentary evidence remained unrebutted.

(d) From a perusal of evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 it is crystal clear that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- from plaintiff and executed a promissory notes Exs.A.1 to A4 but he failed to repay the same and hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly point is held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.5,81,145/- (Rupees Five

Lakhs eighty one thousand one hundred and forty five only) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount due of Rs.3,80,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Plaintiff: P.W.1:Bapanapalli Mangarao

For the Defendant: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1Suit promissory note dated: 17-05-2022 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A.2Suit promissory note dated: 17-05-2022 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A.3Suit promissory note dated: 17-05-2022 for Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Suit promissory note dated: 17-05-2022 for Rs.80,000/- executed by Ex.A4 the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A.6 Office copy of legal notice dt.24-07-2024 along with postal receipt

Ex.A.7 Refused registered post of legal notice dt.25-07-2024

For the Defendant: Nil.

Sd/-Smt.T.Pravalika

Civil Judge(Junior Division), Piduguralla

FAC Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurazala.

//True Copy//

CJ(JD), PDRL

FAC ACJ(JD), GZL

Order Record 263 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/183/2019	Sub Inspector of police,Piduguralla P.S. vs Panithi Ramaiah	28 Apr 2026	other	—
CC/117/2026	SEB Inspector, Piduguralla vs Challagundla Adinarayana	21 Apr 2026	other	—
OS/208/2024	Bapanapalli Mangarao vs Gollapalli Veeranjaneyulu	13 Mar 2026	judgement	—
CC/138/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Gurazala. vs Chinta Hanumantha Rao	13 Mar 2026	judgement	Acquitted
CC/539/2025	SEB Inspector, Piduguralla vs Shaik Yusaf	12 Mar 2026	judgment	—
CC/134/2025	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector Gurazala. vs Derangula Raju	06 Mar 2026	judgement	Acquitted
CC/185/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Nadendla Kotaiah	06 Mar 2026	judgement	Acquitted
CC/771/2025	Sho Excise Gurazala Ps vs Meravath Ramesh	06 Mar 2026	judgement	Acquitted
CC/913/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs BANAVATH AMAR NAIK	06 Mar 2026	judgement	—
OS/277/2024	Bonam Kondareddy alias Bala Kondareddy vs Seelam Venkateswarlu	20 Feb 2026	judgement	—
OS/298/2024	Mulagondla Kasireddy vs Annapureddy Srinivasa Reddy	20 Feb 2026	judgement	—
CC/914/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA vs VEMA SRIDEVI	20 Feb 2026	judgement	—
OS/45/2025	Balinedi Venkata Reddy vs Madala Ganesh Babu	06 Feb 2026	judgement	—
OS/197/2024	Gottam Subba Reddy vs Jinugu Sreenu	06 Feb 2026	judgement	—
OS/300/2024	Nuthalapati Venkateswarlu vs Annapureddy Srinivasa Reddy	06 Feb 2026	judgement	—
CC/116/2022	SHO SEB GURAZALA PS vs BHAVANARI SRINIVASA RAO	06 Feb 2026	judgement	—
PRC/4/2025	Sho Dachepalli ps vs Aleti Vidyasagar	06 Feb 2026	order	—
CC/17/2023	SHO RENTACHINTALA PS vs RAMAVATH GOPI @GOPYA NAIK	30 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/506/2021	SHO RENTACHITALA vs BATHULA SIVA RAJU	30 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/690/2025	ANDHRA PRADESH STATE vs Amara Venkata Sivarama Sundara kumar	30 Jan 2026	judgement	—
DVC/1/2023	Ramavath Jagadeswari Bai vs Ramavath Prabhu Deva Naik	29 Jan 2026	judgment	—
MC/37/2019	Mane Ekta vs Mane Sai Ram	29 Jan 2026	judgment	—
CC/558/2025	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Piduguralla vs Shaik Yusaf	28 Jan 2026	judgment	—
CC/92/2023	SHO SEB GURAZALA PS vs TUMMEPALLI SATYANARAYANA	23 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/170/2023	The SHO SEB Gurazala vs Nattu Vasantha rao	23 Jan 2026	judgement	—
MC/10/2025	Dhanavath Lakshmi Parvathi vs Dhanavath Swamy Naik	23 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/10/2020	PROH AND EXCISE INSPECTOR,GURAZALA vs PAIDIPALLI ANJI	16 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/213/2019	Gurazala vs Chandra Hanumantha Rao	16 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/404/2025	The State Proh and Excise, piduguralla vs Iarala Ankaiah	12 Jan 2026	judgment	—
CC/19/2024	Nadikattu Pulla Reddy vs Budda Srinivasa Rao	06 Jan 2026	judgment	—
CC/553/2025	Proh. and Excise Inspector, Piduguralla vs Pammi Pereddy	05 Jan 2026	judgment	—
OS/44/2025	Annapureddy Narisireddy vs Madala Ganesh Babu	02 Jan 2026	judgement	—
OS/123/2024	Mothukuri Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao vs Mudhavath Somla Naik	02 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/751/2025	Sho Excise Gurazala Ps vs Mekala Daniyelu	02 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/765/2025	Sho Excise Gurazala Ps vs Sk Saidulu	02 Jan 2026	judgement	—
CC/891/2025	sho gurazala vs Maturi Rosaiah	02 Jan 2026	judgement	—
DVC/22/2019	Chakka Padma vs Chakka Kalyan and 5 others	25 Sep 2025	order	—
MC/5/2021	Ch Padma and 2 others vs Ch Kalyan	25 Sep 2025	order	—
CC/240/2025	SEB, Piduguralla P.S. vs Pathulovath Siva Naik	24 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/431/2023	SEB Inspector Piduguralla vs Vempalli Sambaiah	24 Sep 2025	judgment	—
EP/45/2023	M/S Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt. Ltd. Piduguralla Branch vs Bellamkonda lakshmi Annapurna	23 Sep 2025	order	—
CC/489/2023	SHO, Piduguralla, P.S. vs Gontu Srinivasa Rao@ Panduranga Srinivasa Rao	23 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/324/2018	The State Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Piduguralla vs Konanki Kondaiah	22 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/294/2022	SHO PIDUGURALLA PS vs RAMAVATH Sakriya	18 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/251/2025	SEB, Piduguralla. P.S. vs Murikipudi Ramesh	16 Sep 2025	judgment	—
OS/160/2024	Shaik Chinna Karimula vs Shaik Saida Saheb	15 Sep 2025	decree	—
CC/29/2022	The State- Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S. vs Kandukuri Prabhudas	13 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/377/2023	SHO, Piduguralla PS vs Thummurugoti Sagar Ratnaraju	13 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/394/2021	The State- Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S. vs Gutla anil kumar	13 Sep 2025	judgment	—
OS/60/2018	Chithirala Koteswara Rao vs Ravvarapu Venkateswara Rao	11 Sep 2025	decree	—
OS/101/2025	Shaik Nurjaha vs Shaik Nagoorvali	11 Sep 2025	decree	—
CC/14/2022	The State- Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S. vs Katikam Seshagirirao	11 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/60/2023	SHO, Piduguralla, P.S vs Pothuraju Srinivasa Rao @ Cycle Srinu	11 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/216/2025	SEB, Piduguralla P.s. vs Ramisetty Appa Rao	11 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/218/2025	SEB, Piduguralla, P.s. vs Ragidi Sehsagiri	10 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/225/2025	SEB Piduguralla P.S. vs SK Basha	10 Sep 2025	judgment	—
OS/225/2021	Kalle srinivasa rao vs Sannaila Basha	09 Sep 2025	decree	—
OS/171/2022	Mallela Parvathi alias Parvathamma vs Muluguri Sabrajyam and 2 others	08 Sep 2025	decree	—
CC/219/2025	SEB, Piduguralla P.S vs Shaik Salam	08 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/220/2025	SEB, Piduguralla P.S. vs Gurazala Hassan Bude	08 Sep 2025	judgment	—
OS/140/2018	Poleboina Narasaiah vs Bonam Saidaiah	04 Sep 2025	decree	—
PRC/9/2025	SHO, Piduguralla P.S. vs Kondru Rajesh alias Muttaiah	04 Sep 2025	order	—
PRC/10/2025	SHO, Machavaram P.S vs Shaik Mabuvali alias Dega	04 Sep 2025	order	—
CC/59/2023	Piduguralla, P.S vs Dasari Pandu	03 Sep 2025	judgment	—
CC/61/2023	SHO, Piduguralla P.S vs Pothuraju Srinivasarao@ Cycle Srinu	03 Sep 2025	judgment	—
OS/148/2023	Bhumireddy Yellareddy vs Kallam Ratna Kumari	01 Sep 2025	decree	—
CC/322/2025	SHO, Piduguralla P.S. vs Chillamcherla Brahmananda Rao	01 Sep 2025	judgment	—
EP/17/2021	Shaik Johnbi vs Shaik Mahaboob and 3 others	28 Aug 2025	order	—
EP/68/2024	Padarthi Ramana vs Vempati Gangi Reddy	28 Aug 2025	order	—
OS/31/2024	Yele Ademma vs Pondugala Gouse	28 Aug 2025	decree	—
OS/153/2023	Votte Brahma Reddy vs Kollipara Kameswari alias Sankabathula Kameswari	28 Aug 2025	decree	—
CC/177/2025	SEB Inspector, PDRL vs Shaik Hussain	28 Aug 2025	judgment	—
CC/179/2025	SEB Inspector, PDRL vs Shaik Salam	28 Aug 2025	judgment	—
DVC/1/2025	Kunchala alias Nalapu Bhudemma vs Nallapu Venkata Reddy	28 Aug 2025	order	—
EP/42/2023	Jalapati Narasaiah vs Laladi suresh	25 Aug 2025	order	—
OS/41/2024	Bathula Venkateswara Rao vs Guptha Subba Rao	25 Aug 2025	decree	—
OS/69/2025	Nunsavath Badya Naik vs Rathala Narasimha Naik	25 Aug 2025	decree	—
CC/11/2025	Sho, Piduguralla P.S vs Mudela Nagireddy	25 Aug 2025	judgment	—
CC/331/2024	SHO PIDUGURALLA PS vs Kantrakunta Ravi Kumar alias Ravi	25 Aug 2025	judgment	—
CC/362/2022	SEB INSPECTOR PDRL vs USALA SUVARTHA	25 Aug 2025	judgment	—
EP/16/2017	Pammi Saidareddy vs Allu Venkata Reddy	20 Aug 2025	order	—
EP/59/2024	Ekkurthi Srinivasarao vs Badineedi Subbarao	20 Aug 2025	order	—
CC/357/2023	SEB INSPECTOR vs SK.HASAN BASHA	20 Aug 2025	judgment	—
OS/179/2023	Sankranthi Venkaiah vs Bhimavarapu Paparao	18 Aug 2025	decree	—
CC/4/2025	SHO, MACHAVARAM, P.S. vs Sapavath Narasimha Naik	18 Aug 2025	judgment	—
CC/129/2024	SEB, Piduguralla, P.S vs Safavath Rambuji Naik	18 Aug 2025	judgment	—
CC/127/2024	SEB, Piduguralla, P.S vs Meghavath Balibai	14 Aug 2025	judgment	—
CC/440/2023	SEB Inspector Piduguralla vs Badugula Naga Raju	14 Aug 2025	judgment	—
DVC/10/2019	Perupogu Sudha and 2 others vs Perupogu Vijay Babu	14 Aug 2025	order	—
MC/27/2019	Perupogu Sudha vs Perupogu Vijay Babu	14 Aug 2025	order	—
EP/3/2021	Sriram Chits pvt. ltd., Piduguralla legal manager vs Paladugu Sambaiah and 3 others	13 Aug 2025	order	—
EP/49/2025	Katumala Santhakumari vs Neerukattu Vijaya Elizibeth	13 Aug 2025	order	—
CC/288/2023	Deputy Range Officer, Piduguralla vs Yakasiri Anjaneyulu	13 Aug 2025	judgment	—
CC/364/2022	VsSHAIK MAHABOOB JOHNNY	13 Aug 2025	judgment	—
OS/23/2025	Gorre Punnamma vs Kasimalla Narasimha Rao	12 Aug 2025	decree	—
OS/29/2025	Muppuri Parameswara Rao vs Thummalacheruvu Naganjaneyulu	12 Aug 2025	decree	—
CC/289/2023	Deputy Range Officer vs Nenavath Kotya Naik	12 Aug 2025	judgment	—
CC/192/2025	SEB, Piduguralla P.S. vs Erla Masthanarao	11 Aug 2025	judgment	—
OS/107/2024	Jorige Lakshmi Narasimha Rao vs Chanda Kondaiah	06 Aug 2025	decree	—
CC/441/2023	SEB inspector Piduguralla vs Shaik Nagulu	06 Aug 2025	judgment	—

Showing 100 of 263 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		5
Mar 2026		7
Feb 2026		8
Jan 2026		20
Sep 2025		31
Aug 2025		38
Jul 2025		115
Jun 2025		20
May 2025		28

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has T. Pravallika handled?

T. Pravallika has handled 272 court orders since 2025 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 272 orders per month.

What types of cases does T. Pravallika hear?

Based on available records, T. Pravallika primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka).

Where is T. Pravallika currently posted?

T. Pravallika is posted as PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by T. Pravallika available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by T. Pravallika are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does T. Pravallika dispose cases?

T. Pravallika disposes approximately 272 cases per month, based on 272 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka).

Since when is T. Pravallika serving?

T. Pravallika has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Gurazala (Taluka) since 2025.

Case Types

CC 66%

OS 20%

MC 4%

EP 3%

PRC 3%

DVC 2%

STC 1%

Posting History

Dec 2025 — Mar 2025

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
Dec 2025 — Apr 2026

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT · 28 orders
May 2025 — Present

junior civil judge · 244 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

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)