Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash

I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash, I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada, is posted at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,622 court orders on record since 2021. 7 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC cases.

1,622

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/4519/2019 Convicted

M/S .Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd,Vijayawada RepY.Koteswara Rao vs Lakshmaiah Purama

08 May 2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.4519/2019

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of

offence Apprehen- Release on Commence- Closure of Sentence or

sion of bail ment of trial trial order accused 06-06-2019–--14-09-202225-01-202308-05-2023

1. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its GPA holder Yadala Koteswara Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, 35 years, R/o. Guntur.

2. NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Lakshmaiah Purama, S/o.P. Surya Narayana, Hindu, R/o.D.No.3-82, Ramanagar, Nidamanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. OFFENCE : U/s.138 of N.I.Act

4. FINDING : Accused is found guilty

5. SENTENCE : Accused is convicted U/s.255 (2) Cr.P.C.,and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for the offence U/s. 138 of N.I.Act. in default of payment of fine, Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The remand period, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be entitled for set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C., Accused is informed about his right to get Free Copy of Judgment and he has right to approach the Appellate Court and also legal assistance from the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Vijayawada, if he is entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal.

6. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : Cognizance of case was taken for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act against the accused on 21.08.2019. On 26.03.2022 on appearance of accused, copies of case documents furnished to him U/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 05.05.2022 accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C, for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act and the accusation read-over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to try the case. On 14.09.2022 P.W.1 was examined in chief, Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. On On 07.12.2022 P.W.1 was cross examined and on the same day complainant side evidence was closed. On 25.01.2023 Accused was examined U/s.313 (b) of Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence, hence, defence was closed. On 01.02.2023 as per the orders vide Crl.M.P.No.828/2023, P.W.1 recalled and further cross examined and on the same day complainant side evidence was closed. Heard Arguments on 01.03.2023. Judgment was pronounced in open court on 08.05.2023. Hence the delay.

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 2 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 8th day of May, 2023 (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

C.C.No.4519/2019

Between:

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its GPA holder Yadala Koteswara Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, 35 years, R/o. Guntur.

... Complainant

AND Lakshmaiah Purama, S/o.P. Surya Narayana, Hindu, R/o.D.No.3-82, Ramanagar, Nidamanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 01-03-2023 in the presence of Sri B.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Complainant and of

Sri K. Ajay, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused U/s.190 and 200

Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as

N.I.Act for brevity).

02. The averments of the complaint are as follows:-

Thecontention of the complainant that the complainant company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Chennai and branches in Andhra Pradesh and loan obtained from the branch at Vijayawada and is doing business in hire purchase, leasing, hypothecation of commercial vehicles and granting loans for purchasing of commercial motor vehicles.

03.The complainant submits that the accused entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the complainant company on 30.01.2018 for a loan

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 3 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

against the security of vehicle and the complainant agreed to provide the said loan and granted for purchasing a TATA LPT 2515 TURBO FBT vehicle, Model 2007 vide registration No.AP-16-TW-8289 as desired by the accused. The total agreement value was arrived at Rs.5,41,895/-, which includes interest payable in 48 monthly installments and the 1st installment commencing from 05.03.2018. After obtaining the loan by the accused from the complainant company, the accused is irregular in paying the installments and committed default in payment of installments as agreed, inspite of several reminders of the complainant company. The accused failed to repay the amount due under the aforesaid agreement and as such, the complainant is constrained to take possession of the hypothecated vehicle, sold the same and appropriated the sale proceeds to the accused loan account as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Inspite of appropriation of sale proceeds, there is still balance due from the accused of Rs.2,02,475/- as on 15.06.2019 and as such, the same was intimated to the accused by the complainant company and requested the accused to pay the said amount. After repeated requests made by the personnel of the complainant company, the accused with an intention to clear the arrears of installments issued a cheque bearing No.005155, dt.03.06.2019 drawn on Coastal Local Area Bank Limited,

Enikepadu Branch, for sum of Rs.1,80,631/-.

04.The complainant contends that the accused convinced the complainant company while issuing the cheque by stating that accused is having sufficient balance in his bank account and the cheque will be honoured. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant company presented the said cheque through its banker for encashment, i.e., HDFC Bank, Vijayawada. Surprisingly, the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement in cheque return memo as “funds insufficient” on 06.06.2019.

Thereafter, the complainant company got issued statutory legal notice dt.22.06.2019 for payment of the cheque amount and the accused managed the postal authorities with false endorsement and got it returned. After following the due technicalities laid down under the Act, the complainant company is constrained to file this complaint.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 4 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

05.Therefore, it is prayed by the complainant company to punish the accused according law and award amount covered under the dishonoured cheque from out of the fine amount imposed on the accused towards compensation U/s.357 Cr.P.C.,

06. My Learned Predecessor has taken cognizance of this case against the accused for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act and issued summons to the accused and after his appearance, he was furnished with copies U/s.207 Cr.P.C., and he was examined U/s.251

Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act and the allegations of the complainant against accused have been read over and explained to him in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

07.During the course of trial, the complainant company has examined P.W.1 and through him, Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.

08.After closure of the complainant evidence, Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the complainant against the accused has been read over and explained to him in Telugu language and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

09.Arguments heard.

10. Now the Point for consideration before this Court is:

“Whether the accused has discharged the entire loan amount obtained from

the complainant company as contended by him or whether there is legally

enforceable debt due to the complainant company from the accused and in order to

discharge the said debt, the subject cheque has been issued by the accused

knowingfully well that there are no sufficient funds in his bank account to honour the subject cheque and made believing the complainant company that it will be honoured

and committed this offence as contended by the complainant company and whether

the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 5 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

POINT:-

11.This complaint is filed by the complainant company, which is having its head office at Chennai and branches all over Andhra Pradesh and one of such branch at

Vijayawada doing business in hire purchase, leasing, hypothecation of commercial vehicles and granting loans for purchasing commercial motor vehicles. The complainant company has advanced loan to the accused and in turn the accused entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the complainant company vide Ex.P.8 for purchase of a vehicle bearing No.AP-16-TW-8289 and the total value of the agreement was arrived at Rs.5,41,895/-, which includes the interest payable in 48 monthly installments and the 1st installment commenced from 05.03.2018. After obtaining loan, the accused is irregular in payment of loan installments and committed default in payment of installments and in the said circumstances, the vehicle aforesaid has been seized by the complainant company and auctioned the same and the sale proceeds have been appropriated to the loan account of the accused and inspite of the said appropriation, the accused is still due of Rs.2,02,475/- as on 15.06.2019. Inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant company personnel, the accused gave the subject cheque vide Ex.P.3 for Rs.1,80,631/- drawn on Coastal Area Bank Limited,

Enikepadu Branch, Vijayawada to discharge the part of debt due to the complainant company made believing that there are sufficient funds in the account of the accused and accordingly, the complainant company has deposited the said cheque for collection in its bank, i.e., HDFC Bank, Vijayawada and the same has been dishonoured informing through a cheque return memo vide Ex.P.4 with an endorsement “funds insufficient” in the account of the accused to honour the subject cheque vide Ex.P.3. Therefore, the complainant companyhas issued statutory legal notice vide Ex.P.5 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice and the same has been returned with postal endorsement that the “addressee has not claimed the said notice” and returned to the sender vide Ex.P.6. After observing all the due technicalities laid down under the Act, the complainant company is constrained to file this complaint through its authorized signatory, i.e., P.W.1.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 6 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

12.The aforesaid contentions of the complainant company has been categorically deposed by the complainant, authorized signatory, who was examined as P.W.1 and through him, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 are marked. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the accused has taken loan under hypothecation of the vehicle to the complainant company and after receiving the said loan, the accused committed default according to the complainant. It is the defence of the accused that the entire loan amount has been discharged and the vehicle, which was obtained on loan by the accused has been surrendered to the complainant company and the same has been auctioned and the sale proceeds have been appropriated to the loan account of the accused and after appropriation, the entire loan has been discharged. If really the accused has discharged the entire loan amount, what made him not to obtain a certificate towards full and final settlement after surrendering the vehicle, which was obtained by the accused under hypothecation, for which, there is no explanation from the accused. Added to the above, if there is full and final settlement in between the accused and the complainant company, it is obligatory on the part of the accused to demand if any instruments that are lying with the complainant companyshould be returned to the accused.

13.Added to the above, there is statutory legal notice issued by the complainant company vide Ex.P.5 calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount prior to filing of this complaint, for which, there is no response from the accused and the postal endorsement on the returned envelop vide Ex.P.6 clearly shows that the postal authorities sent the said notice twice intimating the addressee and for the last time, the same has been returned with a postal endorsement that the “addressee not claimed”. If really the accused has discharged the entire loan amount to the complainant company under hypothecation, what made him not to respond for the statutory legal notice vide Ex.P.6 is unexplained. A glance of statement of account vide

Ex.P.2 maintained by the complainant company that all the amounts that are paid by the accused for discharge of the loan installments has been clearly mentioned in the said statement of account and the accused contention that he has discharged the

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 7 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

entire loan amount is unbelievable. Added to the above, if at all the vehicle under hypothecation pertaining to the accused has voluntarily surrendered by the accused to the complainant company, it is obligatory on the part of the accused to obtain a letter of acknowledgment from the complainant company for such surrender. No letter to that effect has been obtained by the accused and in turn, the complainant company stated that they have seized the vehicle under hypothecation pertaining to the accused and the same has been auctioned and the sale proceeds have been appropriated to the loan account of the accused and inspite of the same, accused is still due an amount of

Rs.2,02,475/- and in order to discharge the part of the said due, the subject cheque has been issued by the accused made believing the complainant company that there are sufficient funds in his account and the same has been dishonoured. So far the auction of the hypothecated vehicle pertaining to this case has been done as per the procedure by the complainant company and the said procedural aspects regarding the estimation of the vehilce and conducting auction has not been placed before this Court with any documentary proof, but at the same time, it is admitted by the accused that the said auction has been conducted and the sale proceeds have been appropriated to his loan account.

14.It is the contention of the accused that some blank signed instruments pertaining to him are lying with the complainant company and one of such instrument vide ex.P.3 has been pressed into service to file this case against the accused and pin down the accused to the terms and of the complainant company, which is unbelievable.

The accused all through right from raising the loan till filing of this complaint as per the statement of account vide ex.P.2 never adhered to the terms and conditions of the agreement vide Ex.P.8.

15.As can be seen from the defence of the accused, it is clear that he has contested this case only to gain time and there is no force in his contentions. If really the accused discharged the entire debt due to the complainant company, the burden of proof is on the accused to prove the said discharge. There is a presumption under Negotiable

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 8 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

Instruments Act that “any cheque is filed U/s.138 of N.I.Act that the same has been issued by the accused for discharge of the debt due to the complainant company and

when once the complainant company alleges that the subject cheque has been

dishonoured due to insufficiency of the funds in the account of the accused, it can be

presumed that the accused has given the said cheque for discharge of legally

enforceable debt, unless and until it is rebutted”. In the present case on hand, the accused availed the loan and irregular in payment of loan amount inspite of accepting to repay the amount due to the complainant company in 48 monthly installments and the same has not been repaid and in the said circumstances only, the complainant company is constrained to seize the vehicle and brought the same for auction. The entire defence of the accused is unbelievable and all the technicalities laid down under the Act has been duly followed by the complainant company and the case of the complainant company has not been shattered, inspite of cross examination of P.W.1 by the learned counsel for the accused. The contention of the accused that P.W.1 has no right to file the complaint and his evidence is invalid are all face saving arguments of the accused and it is clear that the complainant company has followed the due procedure laid down under the Act in filing this complaint and nowhere the case of the complainant company has been shattered.

16.Taking into consideration the over all circumstances of the case, there is legally enforceable debt due from the accused to the complainant company regarding the hypothecation agreement, on which, the accused purchased a vehicle and failed to discharge the debt due to the complainant company and finally, at the demand of the complainant company, gave the subject cheque vide Ex.P.3 knowingfully well that there are insufficient funds in his bank account and on presentation of the same, the said cheque has been dishnoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant company has prayed for grant of compensation U/s.357

Cr.P.C., from out of the fine amount imposed on the accused pertaining to the cheque amount and this Court is not inclined to grant such compensation and if at all the complainant company wanted to recover the amount due from the accused, the

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 9 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

complainant company is at liberty to proceed against the accused before the competent court of law by filing a civil suit according to law. So far the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act, the complainant company has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for conviction for the offence levelled against him and accordingly, he is convicted.

17.In the light of above discussion, I answered this Point in favour of the complainant.

18. In the result, Accused is found guilty and he is convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 8th day of May, 2023. (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-

2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

20. When questioned about the quantum of sentence, Accused pleaded for mercy and prayed time to pay the entire due amount to the complainant company. This is not a case, where P.O Act can be applied and Judgment cannot be postponed as this case is pertaining to the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act for dishonour of the cheque issued by the accused to the complainant company for discharge of the debt due by him.

21.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, Accused is convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) for the offence U/s. 138 of N.I.Act. in default of payment of fine, Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 10 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

The remand period, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be

entitled for set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.,

Accused is informed about his right to get Free Copy of Judgment and he has

right to approach the Appellate Court and also legal assistance from the Mandal

Legal Services Authority, Vijayawada, if he is entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 8th day of May, 2023. (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-

2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1 :- Sri Yadala Koteswara Rao

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- -- None --

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

EXHIBITS DATE DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTS

Ex.P.1 :-18-01-2012Notarized copy of the GPA issued by the complainant company to PW1 Ex.P.2 :- 04-03-2018 toNet copy of the statement of account pertaining 29-07-2019to the loan of accused maintained by the complainant company Ex.P.3 :-03-06-2019Original cheque issued by the accused to the complainant company for Rs.1,80,631/- drawn on Coastal Area Bank Ltd., Enikepadu, Vijayawada Ex.P.4 :-06-06-2019Cheque return memo issued by complainant bank, i.e., HDFC Bank, Vijayawada with an endorsement “funds insufficient” in the account of the accused to honour Ex.P3 cheque. Ex.P.5 :-22-06-2019Office copy of the statutory legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant to the accused along with postal receipt dt.25-06-2019. Ex.P.6 :-04-07-2019Returned postal cover pertaining to Ex.P5 statutory legal notice with a postal endorsement “not claimed by the addressee” hence returned to the sender.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 11 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

Ex.P.7 :-18-06-1979Notarized copy of certificate of incorporation issued by register of companies, Tamilnadu pertaining to complainant company. Ex.P.8 :-30-01-2018Notarized copy of Hypothetication cum loan agreement entered in between complainant company and the accused.

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.P

I.A.C.M.M, VJA.

CC/4519/2019 Convicted

M/S .Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd,Vijayawada RepY.Koteswara Rao vs Lakshmaiah Purama

08 May 2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.4519/2019

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of

offence Apprehen- Release on Commence- Closure of Sentence or

sion of bail ment of trial trial order accused 06-06-2019–--14-09-202225-01-202308-05-2023

1. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its GPA holder Yadala Koteswara Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, 35 years, R/o. Guntur.

2. NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Lakshmaiah Purama, S/o.P. Surya Narayana, Hindu, R/o.D.No.3-82, Ramanagar, Nidamanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. OFFENCE : U/s.138 of N.I.Act

4. FINDING : Accused is found guilty

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 2 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 8th day of May, 2023 (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

C.C.No.4519/2019

Between:

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its GPA holder Yadala Koteswara Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, 35 years, R/o. Guntur.

... Complainant

AND Lakshmaiah Purama, S/o.P. Surya Narayana, Hindu, R/o.D.No.3-82, Ramanagar, Nidamanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 01-03-2023 in the presence of Sri B.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Complainant and of

Sri K. Ajay, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused U/s.190 and 200

Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as

N.I.Act for brevity).

02. The averments of the complaint are as follows:-

03.The complainant submits that the accused entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the complainant company on 30.01.2018 for a loan

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 3 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

Enikepadu Branch, for sum of Rs.1,80,631/-.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 4 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

07.During the course of trial, the complainant company has examined P.W.1 and through him, Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.

09.Arguments heard.

10. Now the Point for consideration before this Court is:

“Whether the accused has discharged the entire loan amount obtained from

the complainant company as contended by him or whether there is legally

enforceable debt due to the complainant company from the accused and in order to

discharge the said debt, the subject cheque has been issued by the accused

knowingfully well that there are no sufficient funds in his bank account to honour the subject cheque and made believing the complainant company that it will be honoured

and committed this offence as contended by the complainant company and whether

the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 5 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

POINT:-

11.This complaint is filed by the complainant company, which is having its head office at Chennai and branches all over Andhra Pradesh and one of such branch at

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 6 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 7 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

The accused all through right from raising the loan till filing of this complaint as per the statement of account vide ex.P.2 never adhered to the terms and conditions of the agreement vide Ex.P.8.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 8 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

Instruments Act that “any cheque is filed U/s.138 of N.I.Act that the same has been issued by the accused for discharge of the debt due to the complainant company and

when once the complainant company alleges that the subject cheque has been

dishonoured due to insufficiency of the funds in the account of the accused, it can be

presumed that the accused has given the said cheque for discharge of legally

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 9 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

17.In the light of above discussion, I answered this Point in favour of the complainant.

18. In the result, Accused is found guilty and he is convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 8th day of May, 2023. (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-

2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 10 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

The remand period, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be

entitled for set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.,

Accused is informed about his right to get Free Copy of Judgment and he has

right to approach the Appellate Court and also legal assistance from the Mandal

Legal Services Authority, Vijayawada, if he is entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 8th day of May, 2023. (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-

2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1 :- Sri Yadala Koteswara Rao

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- -- None --

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

EXHIBITS DATE DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTS

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 11 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.P

I.A.C.M.M, VJA.

CC/4519/2019 Convicted

M/S .Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd,Vijayawada RepY.Koteswara Rao vs Lakshmaiah Purama

08 May 2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.4519/2019

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of

offence Apprehen- Release on Commence- Closure of Sentence or

sion of bail ment of trial trial order accused 06-06-2019–--14-09-202225-01-202308-05-2023

1. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its GPA holder Yadala Koteswara Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, 35 years, R/o. Guntur.

2. NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

Lakshmaiah Purama, S/o.P. Surya Narayana, Hindu, R/o.D.No.3-82, Ramanagar, Nidamanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. OFFENCE : U/s.138 of N.I.Act

4. FINDING : Accused is found guilty

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 2 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 8th day of May, 2023 (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

C.C.No.4519/2019

Between:

M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Vijayawada, represented by its GPA holder Yadala Koteswara Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, 35 years, R/o. Guntur.

... Complainant

AND Lakshmaiah Purama, S/o.P. Surya Narayana, Hindu, R/o.D.No.3-82, Ramanagar, Nidamanuru, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 01-03-2023 in the presence of Sri B.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Complainant and of

Sri K. Ajay, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused U/s.190 and 200

Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after called as

N.I.Act for brevity).

02. The averments of the complaint are as follows:-

03.The complainant submits that the accused entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the complainant company on 30.01.2018 for a loan

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 3 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

Enikepadu Branch, for sum of Rs.1,80,631/-.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 4 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

07.During the course of trial, the complainant company has examined P.W.1 and through him, Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.

09.Arguments heard.

10. Now the Point for consideration before this Court is:

“Whether the accused has discharged the entire loan amount obtained from

the complainant company as contended by him or whether there is legally

enforceable debt due to the complainant company from the accused and in order to

discharge the said debt, the subject cheque has been issued by the accused

knowingfully well that there are no sufficient funds in his bank account to honour the subject cheque and made believing the complainant company that it will be honoured

and committed this offence as contended by the complainant company and whether

the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 5 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

POINT:-

11.This complaint is filed by the complainant company, which is having its head office at Chennai and branches all over Andhra Pradesh and one of such branch at

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 6 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 7 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

The accused all through right from raising the loan till filing of this complaint as per the statement of account vide ex.P.2 never adhered to the terms and conditions of the agreement vide Ex.P.8.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 8 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

Instruments Act that “any cheque is filed U/s.138 of N.I.Act that the same has been issued by the accused for discharge of the debt due to the complainant company and

when once the complainant company alleges that the subject cheque has been

dishonoured due to insufficiency of the funds in the account of the accused, it can be

presumed that the accused has given the said cheque for discharge of legally

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 9 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

17.In the light of above discussion, I answered this Point in favour of the complainant.

18. In the result, Accused is found guilty and he is convicted U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 8th day of May, 2023. (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-

2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 10 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

The remand period, if any, already undergone by the accused shall be

entitled for set off U/s.428 Cr.P.C.,

Accused is informed about his right to get Free Copy of Judgment and he has

right to approach the Appellate Court and also legal assistance from the Mandal

Legal Services Authority, Vijayawada, if he is entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 8th day of May, 2023. (As per Crl.M.P.No.854/2023, dt.31-05-

2023, name of the month in the judgment amended)

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1 :- Sri Yadala Koteswara Rao

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- -- None --

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

EXHIBITS DATE DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTS

C.C.No.4519/2019 - 11 - I ACMM Court

Date: 08.05.2023 VJA.

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.P

I.A.C.M.M, VJA.

CC/242/2018 Acquitted

The State Represented Assistant Director of Argriculture vs M/S.The Ithavaram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Dealer Sri.Maddali Anil Secretary

10 May 2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C.No.242/2018

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of

offence Apprehensio Release on Commencem Closure of Sentence or

n of accused bail ent of trial trial order Prior to –--23-03-202213-07-202210-05-2023 27-08-2014

1. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :

State represented by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Nandigama, Krishna District.

2. NAME OF THE ACCUSED :

M/s. The Ithavaram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society (Dealer), Ithavaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Dealer represented by Responsible person Sri Maddali Anil, Secretary, S/o.Purnaiah, R/o.D.No.1-117, Opp Panchayath Office, Ithavaram Village, Nandigama Mandal. (Cognizance not taken against the above accused)

A1 -- M/s. A.P.Markfed (Distributor), Distributor represented by Responsible person Ch. Srinivasa Rao, District Manager, S/o.China Nagaiah, 42 years, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

A2 – M/s. Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, (Manufacturer), D.No.40-25-62, Flat No.GF-2, Palace Heights, Santhinikethan road, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada. Represented by Responsible person P.Srinivas, Regional Manager, S/o.P.V.Rama Rao, D.No.40-25-62, Flat No.52, Palace Heights, Santhinikethan road, Patamatalanka, Vijayawada.

3. OFFENCE : U/s.7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955

4. FINDING : A1 and A2 are found not guilty

5. SENTENCE : A1 and A2 are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.,

6. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : Cognizance of case was taken for the offence U/s.7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the accused on 19.01.2018. On 27.04.2018 on appearance of Accused, copies of case documents furnished to them U/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 18.09.2019 P.W.1 examined, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked. On 12.06.2018 A1 and A2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C, and charge framed Us/.240 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.7 (1) (a) (ii) of E.C.Act, 1955 and the accusation read-over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to try the case. On 23.03.2022 P.W.1 was cross examined. On 20.04.2022 P.W.2 was examined. On 29.06.2022 P.W.3 was examined and on the same day prosecution side evidence was closed. A1 and A2 were examined Under Section 313

(b) of Cr.P.C on 13.07.2022 and reported no defence evidence, hence, defence was closed. Heard Arguments on 28.12.2022. Judgment was pronounced in open court on 10.05.2023. Hence the delay.

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

C.C.No.242/2018 - 2 - I ACMM Court

Date: 10.05.2023 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of May, 2023

C.C.No.242/2018

Between:

State represented by the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Nandigama, Krishna District.

... Complainant

AND

M/s. The Ithavaram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society (Dealer), Ithavaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, Dealer represented by Responsible person Sri Maddali Anil, Secreatry, S/o.Purnaiah, R/o.D.No.1-117, Opp Panchayath Office, Ithavaram Village, Nandigama Mandal. (Cognizance not taken against the above accused)

A1 -- M/s. A.P.Markfed (Distributor), Distributor represented by Responsible person Ch. Srinivasa Rao, District Manager, S/o.China Nagaiah, 42 years, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

This case is coming for hearing before me on the day of 30.01.2023 in the presence of Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri

E. Rama Kumar, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.This complaint is filed by the complainant against 3 accused originally U/s.19 (a)

(b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and r/w. Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955 and my Learned Predecessor has taken cognizance against A2 and A3 only and the cognizance against A1 has not been taken. For the sake of

C.C.No.242/2018 - 3 - I ACMM Court

Date: 10.05.2023 VJA.

convenience, this court while trying the mater after deleting A1, A2 and A3 remained and they are given nomenclature as A1 and A2 for all the purposes of this case.

02. The averments of the complaint are as follows:-

Thecontention of the complainant that on 27.08.2014 L.W.1 Mandal Agricultural

Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, Nandigama, Krishna District verified the stock of DAP

LITE of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd, (NFCL), which were exhibited for sale in

M/s.The Ithavaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (Dealer), Ithavaram

Village, Nandigama Mandal. L.W.1 has drawn the sample of DAP LITE from the available stock of 9.00 MTS from the shop of the Ithavaram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative

Society, Ithavaram, who is the dealer and the sampling procedure has been done according to the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 in the presence of mediators, i.e., L.W.2

Sri A.Ramakrishna, and L.W.3 Sri Ch.Venkatappayya under cover of mediatornama. First sample has been sent to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, FCO Coding Center,

SAMETI , Old Malakpet, Hyderabad for analysis and 2nd sample handed over to the dealer, i.e.,Ithavaram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Ithavaram Village and the 3rd sample sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Nandigama as referee sample.

03.The complainant submits that the Analyst has sent the analysis report in Form-L in respect of the aforesaid sample through memo No.F/952/14, dt.26-09-2014 and informed that the sample is not according to the specifications and fails in NACS P2O5 content as per FCO-1985 and the same analysis report is handed over to the dealer aforesaid by obtaining acknowledgment on 07.10.2014 in the presence of aforesaid mediators. The Fertilizer Inspector (L.W.1) verified the stock register and non-standard fertilizer stock of DAP LITE and there is no stock available with the dealer aforestated.

Then, the Fertilizer Inspector (L.W.1) taken photostat copies of stock register pages of concerned fertilizer, delivery order cum tax invoice dt.27.12.2013 of Markfed,

Vijayawada.

C.C.No.242/2018 - 4 - I ACMM Court

Date: 10.05.2023 VJA.

04.The complainant submits that show cause notice was issued to the accused herein along with the dealer on receipt of the show cause notice, the dealer replied that they have not done any mistake and request not to take any action against him.

After following of due technicalities, the complainant has filed the complaint for contravention of Clause 19 (a) & (b) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and punishable

U/s.7 (1) (a) (ii) of E.C.Act, 1955.

05. My learned predecessor has taken cognizance of this case against A1 and A2 for the offence U/s.7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and issued summons to Accused and after their appearance, A1 and A2 were furnished with copies U/s.207

Cr.P.C., and they were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., and the charge was framed for the offence U/s.7 (1) (a) (ii) of E.C.Act, 1955 and the allegations of the prosecution against accused have been read over and explained to them in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

06.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.16 were marked on its behalf.

07.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused has been read over and explained to them in Telugu language and they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the accused.

08.Arguments heard.

09. Now the Point for consideration before this Court is:

“Whether the Manufacturer, i.e., A2 has manufactured substandard fertilizer,

i.e., DAP LITE and distributing the same to distributor and dealers for sale as

contended by the prosecution and whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt”?

C.C.No.242/2018 - 5 - I ACMM Court

Date: 10.05.2023 VJA.

POINT:-

10.The case of the prosecution is that L.W.1 Mandal Agricultural Officer and

Fertilizer Inspector, Nandigama of Krishna District, who was examined as P.W.1 on 27.08.2014 inspected the premises of the Ithavaram Primary Agricultural Co-Operative

Society, Ithavaram, who is the Dealer and found stock of DAP LITE of Nagarjuna

Fertilizer exhibited for sale and drawn the samples, in order to send the same for analysis and accordingly, as per the norms of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, the samples were drawn and sent for analysis and received Analyst report vide Ex.P.5 that the sample is non-standard. The aforesaid samples were drawn in the presence of mediators under cover of mediatornama vide Ex.P.6. Thereafter, the Analyst report vide

Ex.P.5 has been served on the Dealer and the accused herein in the presence of mediators and they in turn, gave reply for the show cause notice vide Ex.P.9 to discharge them from registering any case, as they are not aware of the substandard nature of the sample drawn in the capacity of the Dealer and Distributor and so far the

Manufacturer is concerned, i.e., A2 herein, it is submitted that the said product is imported from other countries and they got no intention to deceit the farmers. Having not satisfied with the explanation given by the accused herein and Dealer, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

11.The above said contentions of the prosecution has been categorically deposed by P.W.1 Mandal Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, Nandigama in his examination in chief and through him, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked. The learned counsel for the accused has cross examined at length on different aspects regarding lifting of the sample, preserving of the sample and opportunity to the accused in sending the referee sample to the referral laboratory. As can be seen from the Analyst report vide Ex.P.5, the variation of substandard nature of the fertilizer is -1.74 Neutral

Ammonium Citrate Soluble P2O2 by weight and it is the responsibility of the investigating agency / Agriculture Department to see that all the norms as per the

Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 has to be duly followed while lifting the sample, sending the sample and serving the Analyst report to the concerned. According to P.W.1, the

C.C.No.242/2018 - 6 - I ACMM Court

Date: 10.05.2023 VJA.

sample drawn has to be sent to the Analyst within 7 days from the date of lifting the sample and in the present case on hand, the sample has been received on 18.09.2014 by the laboratory, when the sample lifted on 27.08.2014 after expiry of the stipulated period. Added to the above, the show cause notice vide Ex.P.10 has been issued to the

Manufacturer, i.e., A2 herein, two years after lifting the sample. The irregularities committed by investigating agency clearly deviates from the norms stipulated to them and when opportunity is given for the accused to send the referee sample to the referral laboratory, the said opportunity has been deprived by the prosecution and had the 2nd analysis report is placed before this court by sending the referee sample to the referral laboratory, it gives a clear picture that what is the variation of substandard nature of the sample drawn so also, whether there is any procedural irregularity in lifting the sample can be crystal clearly projected before this Court. It is also clear from the cross examination of P.W.1 that any contamination of the apparatus in lifting the sample, which they are used will effect the result of the sample and nowhere it has been mentioned either in the complaint or in the evidence of P.W.1, the procedure and using the apparatus by P.W.1 for lifting the sample. The mediators who arrayed were not examined as their whereabouts not known.

12.The Assistant Director of Agriculture (L.W.4), who was examined as P.W.2 has issued show cause notice vide Ex.P.9 to the Dealer and Distributor and they in turn, given reply vide Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 respectively. Subsequently, P.W.2 has also issued show cause notice to A2 herein, who is the Manufacturer vide Ex.P.10 and they in turn, gave reply for the said show cause notice vide Ex.P.13. In the reply given by A2, i.e.,

Manufacturer vide Ex.P.13, it is categorically stated that the sample drawn has not been manufactured by them. An analysis report issued by the Regional Fertilizer Control

Laboratory, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai pertaining to the Department of

Agricultural Corporation has been appended to the letter vide Ex.P.15 issued by A2, showing that the sample lifted has been tested in the laboratory and it is found standard. The reply of A2 clearly shows that the Agricultural Department / investigating agency in this case has not given the opportunity to the accused to send the referee

C.C.No.242/2018 - 7 - I ACMM Court

Date: 10.05.2023 VJA.

sample to the referral laboratory and thereby deprived the right of opportunity to prove their innocence. Added to the above, if the sample is sent for re-analysis, which is lying with the Assistant Director of Agriculture, after receipt of show cause notice due to passity of time, the said referee sample cannot give the correct analysis report of the sample fertilizer. Right from the lifting of the sample till filing of complaint, there are no so many lacunaus in the case of the prosecution.

13.This complaint has been filed by L.W.5 Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Nandigama, who was examined as P.W.3 and she has not made any enquiries or further investigated into the matter and after she taken charge, she simply filed this complaint as per the record available in her office. The cross examination of P.W.3 clearly shows that she has not filed any documentary proof to show that the sample drawn belongs to A1 and A2 and the time taken between drawing of the sample and serving of show cause notice on accused for 2 years and further, till issuance of show cause notice, they have not made any correspondence with the accused regarding the samples drawn. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that the investigating agency is not bestowing any interest to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and they are making a table investigation and filing statistical complaint, which is not appreciable and the complaints does not stand for judicial scrutiny. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly shows that they are more particular in meeting their targets in registering the cases, but they are not showing interest to project and prove those cases against the accused as alleged with cogent and convincing evidence.

14.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, this complaint is filed by the complainant, who was examined as P.W.3 for statistical purpose only and the prosecution has not given the opportunity to the accused to sent referee sample to the referral laboratory within the time stipulated and thereby deprived the opportunity of the accused. At no point of time right from filing the complaint till conclusion of the trial, the case of the prosecution could be established and the entire investigation of

C.C.No.242/2018 - 8 - I ACMM Court

Date: 10.05.2023 VJA.

P.W.1 to P.W.3 is substandard and no case has been made out against A1 and A2 and they are entitled for acquittal for the charge levelled against them and accordingly, they are acquitted.

15.In the light of above discussion, I answered this Point against the prosecution.

16. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted U/s.248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 10th day of May, 2023.

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.Prakash,

I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1 :- Sri Md. Nishad Ahammed (Mandal Agriculture Officer) P.W.2 :- Smt J. Santhi Jaya Prada (Assistant Director of Agriculture) P.W.3 :- Sri D. Ramana Murthy (Assistant Director of Agriculture, (R)

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- – None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

EXHIBITS DATE DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENTS

Ex.P.1 :-27-08-2014Form-J Ex.P.2 :-27-08-2014Form-P Ex.P.3 :-27-08-2014Form-K Ex.P.4 :-27-08-2014Mediators report Ex.P.5 :-26-09-2014Letter of Deputy Director of Agriculture, Fertilizer Coding Center, Hyderabad with the Analyst report Form-L to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Nandigama Ex.P.6 :-07-10-2014Mediator report

C.C.No.242/2018 - 9 - I ACMM Court

Date: 10.05.2023 VJA.

Ex.P.7 :-10-10-2014Letter addressed to the Secretary, Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Ithavaram Village, Nandigama Mandal. Ex.P.8 :-17-10-2014Reply given by the PACS, Ithavaram to the show cause notice issued by the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Nandigama Ex.P.9 :-20-11-2015Show cause notice from the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandigama to the accused and another Ex.P.10 :-15-02-2016Show cause notice from the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandigama to A2 Ex.P.11 :-23-11-2015Reply given by the PACS, Ithavaram Ex.P.12 :-23-01-2016Letter of A.P. Markfed, Vijayawada to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (Regular), Nandigama Ex.P.13 :---Letter of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandigama Ex.P.14 :---Form-N Ex.P.15 :---Analyst report of Regional Fertilizer Control Laboratory, Chennai Ex.P.16 :-22-09-2017Letter to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Nandigama addressed by Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- Sri T.V.S.S.P

I.A.C.M.M, VJA.

CC/24/2021

IKF Finance ltd., Rep by its Authorized Signatory, Pilli Dasu vs M/s Vinayaka Sanitaryware, Rep. by its Proprietor Dhana Lakshmi

10 May 2023

Order Record 1,599 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/334/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs Karunasri Kunuku	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/335/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs Koppu Rajya Lakshmi	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/338/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs Sannidhi Durga Prasad	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/339/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs Metla Veera Venkateswara Rao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/340/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs Kolabattula Eswari	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/341/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs Bommareddy Mahesh Reddy	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/342/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs Medisetty Ramesh Babu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/343/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs N. S. B. Sarmista Tulam	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/344/2022	M/s Indusind Bank Ltd., Rep. by its GPA Holder, Vinjamuri Peda Venkaiah vs Kodi Somanna	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/347/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Shaik Jilani	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/349/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Hari krishna Chowdary Alluri	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/350/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Vara Lazmi Gudipudi	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/351/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Gundapau Siva Naga Pawan Kumar	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/353/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Pothina Raja Sekhar	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/354/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Pasupuleti Venkaiah	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/360/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Hanumayya Irla	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/384/2021	Lakshmi Finance rep by Myneni sai Prakash vs Arlagadda Babu Rao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/420/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Gandu Muthyalababu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/421/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Gudeti Sundhara Rao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/423/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Shaik Zakeer Pasha	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/424/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Rangisetty Chandra Mohanrao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/425/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Chalamala Sai Kiran	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/426/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Shaik Karimunnisa	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/429/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Shanmuka Sai Devi Reddy	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/433/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Yarra Venkateswarlu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/437/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Bevera Lakshmana Naidu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/438/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Tirupathi Javalamma	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/440/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Challagulla Naresh	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/441/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Vallepu Alivelamma	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/442/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Madhu Mendem	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/443/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Challagulla Naresh	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/444/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Annapurna Chinta	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/445/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Ravi Moguluri	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/447/2021	M/S. Shriram Transport finance ltd rep by Y.Koteswara rao vs Pendurthi Ajay Kumar	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/448/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Siva Rama Krishna Tammisetti	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/449/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Cherukuri Purushotham	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/450/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Venkateswara Rao Tammisetty	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/451/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Tanala Ganesh Kumar	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/452/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Dokka Chanti	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/453/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Ankaraju Challa	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/455/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Sivaiah Kolusu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/459/2022	M/s Navabharat Seeds, Rep. by its Office Branch Incharge, Yarragunta Venkateswara Rao. vs M/s Sri Rama Fertilizers and Pesticides, Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Yerabolu Ram Reddy	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/460/2022	M/s Navabharat Seeds, Rep. by its Office Branch Incharge, Yarragunta Venkateswara Rao. vs M/s Lakshmi Seeds Rep. by its Proprietor Sri Pammi Venkata Seeta Reddy	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/468/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Koteswara Rao Challa	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/469/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Daveedu Jonapoodi	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/472/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Ibrahim Shaik	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/473/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Vasireddy Kesavachand Vidya Sagar	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/474/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Venkat Rao Battula	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/475/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Chatla Jaya Kumari	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/476/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Musunuru Venkateswara Rao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/479/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Rajesh Kalatoti	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/480/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Namala Srinivasa Rao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/481/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Naga Raju Upputala	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/482/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Musunuru Looth Mary	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/483/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Rajesh Kalatoti	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/484/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Bhukya Venkateswara Rao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/486/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Shaik Affifa Begum	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/487/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Chennakesavula Bhavani	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/488/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Kiran Balla	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/489/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Raju Ramala	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/490/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Durga Rao Vallepu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/492/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Chennuboyina Siva Prasad	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/494/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Naga Raju Kunchalla	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/496/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Naga Lakshmana Ranga Chellu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/497/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by GPA Holder, Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Koppera Anil Kumar	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/511/2022	Koduru Rupesh vs Vasireddy Latha Sree	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/650/2021	Shriram transport finance ltd rep by Y.Koteswara rao vs Yarlagadda Srikanth	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/705/2022	Sugguna Subrahmanyeswara Rao vs Arigay Prasad	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/706/2022	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep. by Mediboina Venkateswara Rao vs Kanagala Sangameswara Rao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/712/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs Vijaya Sankar Vuyyala	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/715/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs Kollu Ramakrishna Prasad	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/717/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs Pottabathini Narender	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/718/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs Kompelly Ramaiah	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/719/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs Relangi Ramakrishna	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/724/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs Lakshmana Kumar Dakarapu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/779/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs Oduru Suryanarayana Murthy	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/780/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs V. Koteswaramma Venigalla	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/867/2022	Anumolu Purna Chandra Rao vs Budige Kavitha	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/942/2022	Kaza Sambasiva Rao vs K. Anu Radha	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/991/2022	Anumala Durga vs Bandi Samuel	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/993/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs M. Adinagaraja Rao	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/994/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs S. Shavalli Syed	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1015/2022	Peoples Mutually Aided Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory vs Raavi Gopi Krishna	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1061/2021	Shriram transport finance compmany ltd rep by M.Venkateswara rao vs Manamani Turaka	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1062/2021	Shriram transport finance company ltd rep by M.Venkateswara rao vs Kuncham Venkanna	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1076/2021	Shriram transport fiance company ltd rep by M.Venkateswara rao vs Vinod kuncham	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1096/2021	HDB Financial service ltd rep by Mohammad khasim vs Gogulamudi Bhimji	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1097/2021	HDB Financial service ltd rep by Mohammad Khasim vs Oakridge Educational society rep by B.Ashok Babu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1105/2021	HDB financial service ltd rep by Mohammed Khasim vs Takkellapati Venkata Ravindra Reddy	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1108/2021	HDB Financial service ltd rep by Mohammed Khasim vs A.Kusuma	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1109/2021	HDB financial service ltd rep by Mohammad Khasim vs Sabbi Ramakrishna	31 May 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1116/2022	Mekala Venkata satyanarayana Murthy vs Arja Anil Kumar	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1138/2021	HDB Financial service ltd repby Mohammad Khasim vs Noble Educational society rep by B Ashok babu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1141/2021	HDB Financial service ltd rep by Mohammad Khasim vs Bhanu Teja kondapaneni	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1144/2021	HDB Financial service ltd rep by Balla venkanna babu vs Venkata Durga ram Gandu	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1152/2021	Kotak mahindar bank rep by S.Leela krishna Nagaraju vs Subba rao Gorrepati	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1168/2022	Narendra Kumar Koppolu vs Gogikarru Devanand	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1280/2022	Koyyalapu Padma vs Patnam Raja Ramesh	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/1290/2022	HDFC Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, Rep. by its Legla Manager cum Authorized Signatory Y. Pavan Kumar vs Satyasai Naik Devat	31 May 2023	Order	—
CC/2797/2021	M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Rep by Authorized Signatory, Y. Koteswara Rao vs Vijaya Lakshmi Pasala	31 May 2023	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,599 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2023		275
Apr 2023		264
Mar 2023		144
Feb 2023		37
Jan 2023		134
Dec 2022		255
Nov 2022		234
Oct 2022		27
Sep 2022		31
Aug 2022		22
Jul 2022		28
Jun 2022		22

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash handled?

Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash has handled 1622 court orders since 2021 at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada. The average disposal rate is 80 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash hear?

Based on available records, Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.

Where is Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash currently posted?

Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash is posted as I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash available online?

Yes. 7 judgments by Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash dispose cases?

Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash disposes approximately 80 cases per month, based on 1622 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.

Since when is Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash serving?

Sri Tata Venkata Siva Surya Prakash has been serving at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada since 2021.

Case Types

CC 85%

DVC 15%

Posting History

Oct 2021 — Jun 2023

I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada · 1,622 orders

Outcomes on Record

Convicted 3

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

M.Suneel Kumar

II Addl. District Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions...

15 orders

Smt. L. Thejovathi

III Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

0 orders

K.neelima

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

0 orders

G.Rajeswari

V Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

686 orders

Bandela Abraham

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) V...

620 orders

N.padmavathi

VIII Additional District and Session Judge (FTC)...

3 orders

Sri G.Subrahmanyam

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)...

3 orders

Smt M.Sudha

XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)...

7 orders

Smt K. Madhavi Devi

Principal Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

218 orders

Smt.K.Vani

I Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

458 orders

Smt.k.aruna

III Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

0 orders

Smt.M.Satya Kumari

IV Addl Senior Civil Judge cum V ACMM Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri K.P. Sai Ram

VI Addl Senior Civil Judge Vajayawada

408 orders

Sri.Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao

VII Addl Senior Civil Judge Vajayawada

377 orders

Sri Chapala Srinivasa Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Metropolitan Magis...

1,336 orders

Ms. G.devika

I Addl Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Metr...

301 orders

Sri S.Srikanth

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Additional Met...

0 orders

Shaik Rehana

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- III Additional...

969 orders

T.anjani S.s.rama Aditya Rishik

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- IV Additional M...

600 orders

Smt P Santhi

V Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- V Addition...

0 orders

B Radha Rani

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,518 orders

M.S.Karimulla

I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,985 orders

Smt.Nettem Radhika

II Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

319 orders

Sri.P.Tirumala Rao

III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,555 orders

Sri U.Ram Mohan

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

15 orders

Sri.Marapu Sridhar

VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawad...

0 orders

Sri P.Ramana Reddy

IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada

0 orders

KP Sai Ram

XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri Kandepu Seeta Rama Krishna Rao

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada

125 orders

A.anitha

Spl. Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases Relating to...

18 orders

N Radhika

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Vijaya...

70 orders

Kampa Jayalakshmi

Special Judge for POCSO Act Vijayawada.

0 orders

Sri G.Bhupal Reddy

Special Judge for Commercial Disputes Vijayawada

28 orders

← View all judges at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada