Smt.ushakranthi Vampu

Addl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal

Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex · Jogulamba Gadwal · Telangana

SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU, Addl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal, is posted at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana, India. 2,072 court orders on record since 2017. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

2,072

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/91/2010

MSHRATH CHANDRA PRAKASH vs MUMAMAHESHWAR

12 Oct 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018.

PRESENT:- Smt.V.Usha Kranthi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

O.S.No. 91 OF 2010.

BETWEEN:

1. M.Sharath Chandra Prakash S/o M.Uma Maheshwar, Ate:16 Years, Occ:Student,

2. M.Ravi Raja S/o M.Uma Maheshwar, Age:14 years, Occ:Student, Both Minors under guardianship of mother Amareesha @ Parimala Occ:ANM Nurse, R/o Malapally Village of Manthralayam Village, Kurnool District. … Plaintiffs.

And

1. M.Uma Maheshwar S/o Basava Lingaigh, age:40 Years, Occ:Agril., R/o Aize Vg.,

2. Shiva Raju S/o Basava Lingaiah, age:49 Years, Occ:Govt. Employee, R/o Aize Vg., Now at Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad

3. Budamorsu Venkatesh S/o Sunkanna, age:41 Years, Occ:Govt. Employee, R/o H.B.Colony, Gadwal,

4. Sub Registrar, Gadwal Town. … Defendants.

This Original Suit coming before me for hearing on 29-08-2018 in the presence of Sri.K.Md.Ismail, Counsel for Plaintiffs and of Sri.K.Krishn Mohan

Reddy, counsel for Defendant No.3, Defendant NO.1,2 and 4 were set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit filed by the Plaintiffs for cancellation of registered gift deed vide document No.4428/2006 against the Defendants in land bearing

Sy.NO.65/A to an extent of Ac,.5-00 guntas situated at Aize Village and for perpetual injunction orders against the Defendants from alienating the SSP to 3rd parties.

2.The brief facts of the plaint in a nut shell as follows:

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 2

The Plaintiffs are the sons of Defendant No.1 and the land bearing

Sy.No.65/A to the extent Ac.5-00 guntas situated at Aize Village is the ancestral property of the father of the Plaintiffs. The father of the Plaintiffs have succeeded the land through his maternal grandfather Mattam Guru

Shanthaiah through registered gift deed. The father of the Plaintiff NO.1 and 2 addicted to bad habits and the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are residing at

Malapally Village of Manthralayam Mandal, Kurnool District, as the mother of

Plaintiff is working as ANM Nurse. The Plaintiffs submits that the father of

Plaintiffs is having limited rights over the suit schedule lands and the

Plaintiffs are having equal rights along with month their father in the suit schedule lands. The father of Plaintiffs have created a registered gift deed in favour of his elder brother M.Shiva Raj vide document NO.4428/2006, dt:18- 09-2006 by way of ignoring Plaintiff rights. Being the head of the family the

Plaintiffs father is having only 1/3 rd rights to alienate the property as per his choice. The senior paternal uncle M.Shiva Raj inturn created another document in favour of Defendant No.1.

3. Accordingly as per the Hindu law the Plaintiff are entitled to 1/3rd share each and the father of Plaintiffs is having rights only 1/3rd share and therefore the gift deed document No.4428/2006 and other documents subsequently executed are not binding on the Plaintiffs and may be declared as null and void and not binding of the Plaintiffs.

4. The mother of the Plaintiffs came to know about execution of gift deed on 07-07-2010 when she approached Sub Registrar, Gadwal and obtained CC copy of Gift Deed and got filed the present suit for cancellation

before this court. The Sub Registrar, Gadwal is also made as proforma

Defendant. The Plaintiffs apprehended the danger of alienation of suit schedule land by the Defendant No.3 to 3rd parties and therefore got filed this suit for cancellation of registered gift document No.4428/2006, dt:18-09-

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 3 2006 by declaring the document as null and void and not binding on Plaintiffs to the extent of 2/3rd share to the suit land. Hence the suit.

5.On the other hand Defendant No.3 entered his appearance and got filed written statement and submitted by the Defendant No.3 that the suit of the Plaintiffs are neither just nor sustainable in the eye of law and denied the plaint averments. And submits that he purchased the suit schedule property after due verification and clarification only and he is the bonafide purchaser.

The Plaintiffs have filed the suit only to harass the Defendant for wrongful gain. And submitted that originally the suit belongs to Mattam Guru

Shanthaiah who is the paternal grandfather of father of Plaintiff to the extent of AC.9-00 guntas in Sy.No.65 at Aize Village. Mattam Guru Shanthaiah gifted the Ac.9-00 guntas in Sy.No.65 to father of the Plaintiff vide document

No.1720/1979 and the father Plaintiffs have became the absolute owner of the property. The father of the Plaintiffs have sold property to his brother i.e.,

M.Shiva Raj through Registered gift deed document No.3850/2006 and 4428/2006. Inturn M.Shiva Raj sold an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas to one

Nasara Krishna Reddy through document No.6584/2006. Further M.Shiva Raj sold an extent of 3-15 Cents to Defendant No.1 and executed a GPA registered document No.3260/2010. Further Defendant No.1 sold to

Defendant No.2 through sale deed document No.4837/2010. The Defendant

No.3 submits that the suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by limitation and is deserved for dismissal for want of non-joinder of necessary parties. And contended that the father of the Plaintiffs and M.Shiva Raj in collusion with malafied intention got filed false suit against the Defendants and as the

Plaintiffs are not pattadar and possessor not to entitled to any relief. And further the Defendant No.3 contended that the Plaintiff suppressed the real facts which are that father of the Plaintiff has gifted 9 acres in land Sy.No.65 to M.Shiva Raj through registered gift document No.3850/2006 to the extent

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 4 of Ac.4-00 guntas and the document No.4428/2006 to the extent of Ac.5-00 guntas. In turn M.Shiva Raj sold out 5 acres to Nasara Krishna Reddy to the extent of AC.5-00 guntas vide document No.6584/2006 which is suppressed by the Plaintiffs. And prayed that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non- joinder of necessary parties again M.Shiva Raj executed agreement of sale- cum-GPA to Defendant No.1 to the extent of 3-15 Cents through GPA document No. 3260/2010 and the Defendant No.1 executed sale deed to

Defendant No.2 through document No.4837/2010.

6.Further the Defendant No.3 submits that the father of the Plaintiffs have gifted suit schedule property through to registered gift deeds

No.3850/2006, dt:22-08-2006 and 4428/2006, dt:18-09-2006 and the

Defendant denied Plaintiffs entitlement to 2/3rd share. And contended that mother of Plaintiffs is well aware of the transaction of the suit schedule property and she created false cause of action for the purpose of creating cause of action and suit is liable to deserve to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party and payment of insufficient court fee. Hence prayed to dismissed the suit.

7.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues also settled for trial by my learned predecessor.

1)Whether the Registered Gift Deed has true valid and not binding on the Plaintiffs?

2) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction to alienate against the Defendant No.1 and 3 as prayed for?

3)If so to what relief?

8. Both the parties lead evidence on both sides. This court after hearing the arguments and when the matter was posted for Judgment this court sue motto case opened the suit for framing of additional issues. The issues which were framed earlier on 19-06-2014 are not sufficient to decide the

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 5 suit and accordingly the issues need to be re-casted and the following issues are framed.

1)Whether the Registered Gift Deed No.4428/2006 is liable to be cancelled or not?

2) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3)Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4)Whether the suit is bad in law for non joinder of necessary party?

5)If so to what relief?

9.In order to prove the suit pleadings the Plaintiffs got examined their natural mother guardian as PW-1 and got marked as Ex.A1 to A3 and also examined PW-2 Siddiq Ahmed, Document Writer, PW-3 is Veera Shekar who is the paternal uncle of Plaintiffs. On the other side the Defendants got examined Defendant No.3 as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B1 to B7. Further

Defendant No.3 got examined J.Anil Kumar as DW-2 and DW-3 as P.Adi

Shekar.

10.Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the records.

11.For the sake of conversance issued are not dismissed in serial manner.

12. ISSUE No.1

Whether the Registered Gift Deed No.4428/2006 is liable to be cancelled or not?

The Plaintiffs in support of their case and contention examined their natural mother as PW-1 and filed chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination by reiterating the contents of plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to

A3. Ex.A1 is the original registered gift deed vide document NO.1720/1979,

dt:21-12-1979, which is admittedly executed by Mattam Guru Shanthaiah

who is the grandfather of Plaintiff’s father in respect of half of the suit lands herein. Ex.A2 is CC copy of registered gift settlement deed vide document

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 6

NO.4428/2006, dt:18-09-2006, Ex.A3 is the CC of registered sale deed vide document No.3260/2010, dt:16-04-2010. Which is also Ex.B1 filed by

Defendant No.1. As seen from the pleadings and evidence on record the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 document by the Plaintiff’s grandfather in favour of Plaintiff in respect of the suit land is not disputed. The relationship between the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 and 2 are also not in dispute. But it is contended by the Plaintiffs that the brother of Plaintiff’s father by name

Shiva Raju who is Defendant No.2 got executed Ex.A2 document by ignoring the rights of Plaintiffs who are having 1/3rd share rights in the suit schedule property. Further contended that the Defendant No.1 has got acquired the above said land through Mattam Guru Shanthaiah having limited rights. The father of the Plaintiffs got addicted to bad habits ignored the rights of

Plaintiffs and got created Ex.A2/Ex.B3 document. The Defendant No.2 inturn have created another document vide Ex.A3 and Ex.B5. and hence it is invalid and void document and therefore it is liable to be cancelled.

13.The case of the Defendant on the other hand in respect of the contention of the Plaintiffs regarding the execution of Ex.A2/Ex.B3 document under addiction of bad habits is total denial and the Defendant NO.3 contended that Ex.A2/B3 was executed voluntarily in his favour.

14.PW-1 during her evidence and cross examination maintaining that the brother of Defendant No.1 by name Shiva Raju got executed Ex.A2/B3 by him under addiction of bad habits and ignoring the rights of the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff also examined PW-2 and 3 who filed their respective chief affidavit in support of the case of the Plaintiff stating that the Defendant No.2 and his brother obtained registered gift deed Ex.A2/Ex.B3 by ignoring the rights of 2/3rd share of persons. PW-2 is one Siddiq Ahmed who is the 3rd party and PW-3 is the senior paternal uncle of Plaintiffs. Therefore the burden heavily lies upon the Plaintiffs to establish that Ex.A2/Ex.B3 executed

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 7 by Plaintiff father in favour of Defendant No.2 in respect of suit schedule property. But surprisingly it is seen from the records that the father of the

Plaintiffs Defendant No.1 is still alive and he was set exparte.

15. On collective reading of the pleadings of both parties and their evidences it is observed by this court that the Plaintiffs by their natural guardian have specifically contended that the sale deed Ex.A2/Ex.B3 is not actually intended and the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed is not correct and they relied oral and documentary evidence to prove the same. Further the Plaintiffs right from the filing of the plaint have contended that the Defendant No.1 ignored 2/3rd share rights of Plaintiffs and got executed document Ex.A2/Ex.B3. Except pleaded that the father of the

Plaintiffs i.e., Defendant No.1 addicted to bad voices by ignoring Plaintiffs rights has created gift deed in favour of Defendant No.2 and no details were given to show that the Defendant No.1 got executed with bad voices in favour of Defendant No.2. As per the Section. 33 of Specific Relief Act of 1963 the parties who can seek cancellation is the person who are parties to the documents and once a written document is executed and it is registered, any amount of oral evidence to contradict the contents thereof, is impermissible in law. However the plea of bad voices is raised it is required to be elaborated explaining the circumstances. The persons who are acquaintance with such facts, must be examined as witnesses. Here in the present case on hand the Plaintiffs are not at all parties to the document

Ex.A2/B3. Since the Defendant No.1 and 2 are very much available and are alive. As the factual position it is settled law that in presence of two persons the documents must be executed. However in the present suit Ex.A2/B3 was executed between father of the Plaintiffs i.e., Defendant No.1 and 2.

Furthermore unless one of the party to the document is examined the

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 8 dispute to prove that the gift deed Ex.A2/B3 document was executed with bad voices the Plaintiffs have no case at all.

16.Furthermore the grandfather of Defendant No.1 (Plaintiff’s father) stated in his written statement whether it is ancestral or self acquired property have executed gift deed in the year 1979 vide document

No.1720/1979 Ex.A1/B1 when the Plaintiff’s father was at age of 10 years. As per Section.122 Transfer of Property Act and the fit should be accepted there is no concept of limited interest. In the present case Ex.A1/B1 contents if perused the grandfather Mattam Guru Shanthaiah has executed gift deed with vested rights in favour of Defendant No.1 (Plaintiff’s father) and the same was accepted and after the Defendant No.1 attaining majority the property becomes Defendant No.1 self acquired property. It is Defendant

No.1 wish and well that he can alienate or dispose to anybody. Accordingly

Defendant No.1 (Plaintiff father) executed gift deed in favour of Defendant

No.2 through document Ex.A.2/B3 and subsequently Defendant No.2 becomes absolute owner of the property and he can sell/alienate/enjoy/dispose off to anybody. Similarly Defendant No.2 got executed Registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.3 i.e., by virtue of

G.P.A sale deed Ex.B5. Defendant No.3 become absolute owner, Defendant

No.3 contended that after due verification in encumbrance certificate he got purchased the suit land becomes bonafide purchaser and hence the Plaintiff cannot seek cancellation since they are multiple transactions.

17. That apart PW-1 in her cross examination admitted that herself and her husband (Defendant No.1) are living separately. And admitted that

Ex.A2/B3 document was executed without consideration. And she knows that

Ex.B4 document was executed in favour of one Nasara Krishna Reddy and she came to the knowledge in the year 2010 and further contended that she do not know about the execution of Ex.B2 and B5 documents. And denied

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 9 that the suit was filed for wrongful gain and that suit was filed against the

Defendant No.3 to harass him and denied that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any claim as the father of Defendant No.1 is still alive.

18.PW-2 admitted that he is the document writer and at the time of scribing of Ex.A1 document the grandfather of Defendant No.1 Mattam Guru

Shanthaiah and witnesses Veera Bhadraiah, Rangu Venkatramudu were present and the gift deed was executed in favour of Defendant No.1 i.e.,

Uma Maheshwar.

19.PW-3 admitted in the cross examination that as per Ex.A2/B3 document alienate to 3rd parties out of his wish and further Defendant No.1 in Two occasions i.e., on 18-09-2006 and 22-08-2006 have executed registered gift deed vide documents Ex.B2 and B3 and the Defendant No.2 executed in favour of Nasara Krishna Reddy vide Ex.B4 document. And

Defendant No.2 further executed Ex.B5 to the extent of 3-15 Cents in favour of Defendant No.3 and denied that he do not know subsequent transfers made under Ex.B6 and B7 documents to one Anil Kumar and one Adi Shekar.

And he denied all the relevant suggestions.

20. However as Plaintiffs father is very much alive and he did not chose to file written statement, as the Plaintiffs are away from Defendant No.1 having no amicable terms are not entitle any relief especially to relief of cancellation claiming 2/3rd rights. However the Defendant No.2 who is also was set exparte who is the party to the document in Ex.A2/B3 and the subsequent transfers/alienations made by Defendant No.2 under Ex.B2,B4 to

B7 documents are not decided by any competent authority as void documents. Therefore both Defendant No.1 and 2 who are parties to the documents are the rightful persons for any clarification and both the parties are the rights persons to get the documents Ex.A2/B3 get cancelled. As the

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 10

Defendant No.1 and 2 were set exparte an adverse inference is drawn against the contention of the Plaintiffs. And the Plaintiffs got filed the collusive suit against Defendant No.3 only to harass the Defendant No.3 and are not entitled any relief. As there are as many as many transactions in the form of Ex.B2 to B7 by the subsequent purchaser and the Defendant

No.3/DW-1 who is the bonafide purchaser have purchased after due verification his document under Ex.B5 holds good document which was executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of him and is valid as per law. Having regard to all the admissions and the records available before this court. The document Ex.B5 which Plaintiffs intends to get cancelled is good document and is not a void document and needs no cancellation. Therefore the point is answered accordingly the against the Plaintiffs.

21. ISSUE NO.3:

Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

As seen from the records Ex.A2/B3 document was executed in the year 2006 and the Plaintiffs mother got knowledge of the same in the year 2010 who is living separately from her husband Defendant No.1 cannot take shelter of 2/3rd entitlement of share in favour of her sons and she is estopped as she is not the party to the suit. However the Defendant No.1 and

Defendant No.2 are very much alive and are available, but did not chose to contest the suit are intentionally did not appeared before this court except to harass the Defendant No.3 and therefore as per Section 33 of the S.R Act the parties to the suit can ask for cancellation. However this is the peculiar case that the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 who are parties to the suit did not file cancellation or not entitled to any relief since the document

Ex.A2/B3 was executed in the year 2006 and the Plaintiff got knowledge in the year 2010 is hard to believe that she living separately from Defendant

No.1 cannot be take plea of having knowledge i.e., cause of action on 07-07-

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 11 2010 and the suit filed in the year 2010 is barred under Limitation Act as per

Article 58 which says that the “suit for cancellation can be filed within 3 years or from the date of knowledge”. However as the both parties

Defendant No.1 and 2 are behind the back of the suit the Plaintiffs cannot ask for cancellation to approach this court with unclean hands. And therefore as the suit is barred by limitation Act, issue No.2 is answered against the

Plaintiffs and in favour of the Defendants.

22.ISSUE NO.4:

Whether the suit is bad in law as to non-joinder of necessary party?

Admittedly the present suit herein is got filed for cancellation of gift deed of Ex.A2/B3 document in favour of Plaintiffs but on perusal of the pleadings, evidences of the witnesses the court is bound to look after the possession of the party who wants to this court of relief and whose possession was disturbed, interfered, dispossessed by another party but nowhere in the entire pleadings the Plaintiffs contended that they are in the suit schedule property. However this court on careful perusal of the records and documents before this court. It is observed that the father of Plaintiffs have gifted 9-00 acres land in Sy.No.65 to M.Shiva Raj (Defendant NO.2) who is the own brother of Defendant No.1 got executed registered gift deed document No.3850/2006, dt:22-08-2006 to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas i.e.,

Ex.B2 document and document No,.4428/2006, dt:18-09-2006 to the extent of Ac.5-00 guntas i.e., Ex.B3 document. Ex.B1/A1 document is the gift deed document executed by grandfather (Mattam Guru Shanthaiah) in favour of

Plaintiffs father Uma Maheshwar Defendant No.1. The recital of the documents goes to show that the grandfather have executed out of love and affection have gifted in Sy.No.65/A to the extent of AC.9-00 guntas in favour

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 12 of Plaintiffs father, when the Plaintiff’s father was minor to alienate to sell and enjoy the suit schedule property to the Plaintiffs father. And as per

Section 122 of Transfer and Property Act the gift deed under Ex.A1/B1 document created vested interest in favour of Defendant No.1 be and

Ex.A1/B1 document holds good document and subsequent transactions made under Ex.B2 to B7 documents are valid in the eye of law as they are not declared as null and void by any competent authority. The documents filed under Ex.A1 to A3 are no way helpful to the Plaintiffs case.

23.Furthermore thereafter M.Shiva Raju (Defendant No.2) who is the paternal uncle of Plaintiffs alienated 5 acres of land to one Nasara Krishna

Reddy through registered sale deed document No.6584/2006, dt:23-11-2006 and the same is got marked as Ex.B4 document to the extent of Ac.5-00 guntas on Defendant No.3 side. Thereafter again Defendant No.2 Shiva Raju got executed agreement cum GPA to Defendant No.1 to an extent of 3-15 cents through registered sale deed document No.3260/2010, dt:16-04-2010 i.e., Ex.B5 document. The Defendant No.3 inturn executed sale deed in favour of one J.Anil Kumar vide document No.4837/2010, dt:07-07-2010 i.e.,

Ex.B6 document. The Defendant No.3 from the filing of written statement have contended that the Plaintiffs got no rights for entitlement of 2/3rd share as they are not the parties to the documents and multiple/number of transactions took place after execution of Ex.B1 and A1 documents. However on perusal of records which goes to show that the Plaintiffs father is very much alive and cited as Defendant No.1 and this fact was admitted when the

PW-1 was examined by this court. Therefore the father of the Plaintiffs have alienated the suit schedule property to Defendant No.2 under Ex.A2/B3 document documents and therefore the Plaintiffs are estopped to seek for entitlement of 2/3rd share of each. Furthermore it is found on record that the document No.6854/2006, dt:23-12-2006 Ex.B4 which is alienated by

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 13

Defendant No.2 Shiva Raju in favour of Nasara Krishna Reddy to the extent of Ac.5-00 guntas but the said Nasara Krishna Reddy is not made as the party to the suit. Therefore non joinder of Nasara Krishna Reddy, and subsequent purchaser J.Anil Kumar, P.Adi Shekar under subsequent documents where not impleaded as to the parties to the suit and therefore the suit is bad in law. It appears that the Plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts about the alienations made by Defendant No.2 under Ex.B2 document and subsequent alienations under Ex.B4 to B7 documents are not entitled to any relief and it is found that and record goes to show that the

Plaintiffs are not at all in possession of the suit schedule property as PW-1 made a remarkable admissions that she is residing at Malapally Village,

Manthralayam Mandal of Kurnool District not living with her husband is not entitled to any relief from this court and however it is settled law that the person who misstated the facts Attada Gangu Naidu Vs Deepula

Chandramouli reported in 2011 (5) ALD 770 in which it has been clearly held that a party who comes to court with unclean hands is not entitled to the equitable relief of permanent injunction. Notwithstanding the law quoted by this court, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as he failed to establish his ownership over the suit schedule properties as admitted by her.

Therefore considering the Hon’ble Apex court judgment the Plaintiffs herein have approached this court with unclean hands and or not entitled to any relief and more over the suit is bad as to the nonjoinder of necessary party i.e., Nasara Krishna Reddy, J.Anil Kumar, P.Adi Shekar and etc. And therefore the issue No.3 is answered against the Plaintiffs.

24. ISSUE NO.2 and 5:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for?

To what relief?

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 14

In general in a suit for perpetual injunction the court is bound to look over the possession of the parties, but entire records goes to show that the

Plaintiffs are nowhere in possession and their possession was dispossess.

The pleadings of the plaint does not reveals any cause of action.

Furthermore the Plaintiffs contended that on 07-07-2010 the PW-1 mother got approached Sub Registrar Office, and obtained CC of registered gift deed

No.4428/2006 which was executed by Defendant No.1 and 2 the mother

PW-1 got knowledge of the execution of the documents Ex.A2/B3. Therefore the version of the Plaintiffs is not cogent and not inspiring confidence.

Having regard to about factors as there is no cause of action in the entire pleadings and however the issues Nos. 1 to 4 are answered against the

Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs are not in possession the relief of injunction which is equitable and discretionary relief is granted to person who is in possession of the suit schedule property and whose possession need to be protected.

However it is settled law that if there is no cause of action the plaint is liable to be dismissed. As there is no cause of action in the present suit herein the

Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for.

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 12th day of October, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: PW-1: Amaresha,DW-1: B.K.Venkatesh, PW-2: Siddiq Ahmed,DW-2: J.Anil Kumar, PW-3: Veera ShekarDW-3: B.Adi Shekar.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 15

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the original registered gift deed vide document NO.1720/1979,

dt:21-12-1979, Ex.A2 is CC copy of registered gift settlement deed vide

document NO.4428/2006, dt:18-09-2006, Ex.A3 is the CC of registered sale deed vide document No.3260/2010, dt:16- 04-2010.

DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1 is the CC of registered gift deed vide document NO.1720/1979, dt:21- 12-1979, Ex.B2 is the registered gift deed vide document NO.3850/2006, dt:22-08- 2006, Ex.B3 is registered sale deed vide document NO.4428/2006, dt:18-09-2006 Ex.B4 is registered sale deed vide document NO.6584/2006, dt:23-12-2006, Ex.B5 is registered sale deed with GPA vide document NO.3260/2010, dt:16- 04-2010, Ex.B6 is registered sale deed vide document NO.4837/2010, dt:07-07-2010, Ex.B7 is registered sale deed vide document NO.6369/2011, dt:19-08-2011.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ]

OS/106/2017

T.Vijaya Laxmi vs E.Nagaveni

05 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021.

PRESENT:- Smt.V.Usha Kranthi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal.

O.S.No. 106 OF 2017.

BETWEEN:

T.Vijaya Laxmi W/o Sarva Reddy, age:63 Years, occ:House Wife, R/o Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gadwal District. … Plaintiff.

And

E.Nagaveni W/o Late Jangilappa Goud, aged:50 Years, Occ:House Wife, R/o Aloor Village, Ghattu Mandal, now at present H.NO.7-11-155, Srinivasa Colony, Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gawal District. … Defendant.

This Original Suit coming before me for hearing on 04-10-2021 in the presence of Sri.K.Krishna Mohan Reddy, Counsel for Plaintiff and of Sri.S.Srikanth, counsel for

Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for the recovery of money Rs.1,91,200/- from the

Defendant basing on a promissory notes dated:06-10-2014 along with interest @ 3 % per month and for the costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows.

The defendant approached the plaintiff on 06-10-2014 and borrowed Rs.50,000/- each from her to meet her family necessities agreeing to repay the same along with the interest @ 36 % per annum and executed two promissory notes to that effect. The

Plaintiff several times demanded the Defendant to discharge the debt and the defendant went on postponing the same. Being vexed with such attitude the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant dt:14-03-2017 and the same was returned as out of station, hence the suit.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 2

3. The defendant entered her appearance and filed her written statement with following defence. The suit is not maintainable in law as the same is liable to be dismissed. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note in her favour. The promissory note as relied by the plaintiff depicts material alterations and is forged one. When the defendant did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff, the question demand for repayment does not arise. The defendant never received any demand notice from the plaintiff much less on 14-03-2017. The plaintiff and defendant are known to each other through plaintiff husband Sarva Reddy who is the Retd. Employee in Judicial department. There is no cause of action to file the suit in fact the plaintiff is doing money lending business without having valid license and the plaintiff and her husband through this defendant use to run money lending business, as such there were disputes between them and the defendant have not hand over the promissory notes to the plaintiff. The plaintiff created the suit promissory notes and filed the false suit against the defendant and the same is barred by limitation. The two promissory notes depicts material alterations and are void documents, the same are filed for wrongful gain and hence her suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the rival contentions the following issues were settled for trial.

1) Whether the suit pronotes dt:06-10-2014, are true valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit pronotes amount from the defendant?

3) To what relief?

5. To establish her case the plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the 1st suit promissory note for Rs.50,000/-, dt:06-10-2014, Ex.A2 is 2nd suit promissory note for Rs.50,000/-, dt:06-10-2014, Ex.A3 is demand notice,

dt:14-03-2017, Ex.A4 is the Regd. postal receipt, Ex.A5 is returned postal cover, Ex.A6

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 3 is returned postal cover, Ex.A7 is refused postal cover, Ex.A8 is refused postal cover,

dt:01-04-2017. The plaintiff further examined the attest of Ex.A1 & A2 as PW-2.

6. On the other hand the defendant got examined herself as DW-1 no documents are marked on her behalf.

7. Heard both sides at length.

8. The PW-1 reiterated her plaint averments and deposed that on 06-04-2014 the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- for twice from her and executed the Ex.A1 and A2 to that effect agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 36 % per annum. She stated that the PW-2 attested the Ex.A1 & A2 and the transaction was taken place at

Gadwal Town. She further deposed that as her demands were become a futile, she got issued a demand notice on 14-03-2017 under Ex.A3 and the same was returned by the

Postal department under Ex.A5. In her cross examination the PW-1 denied that she lents amount to several persons on interest basis along with her husband and admitted that her husband filed suit for recovery of amount on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Gadwal on the same defendant. The PW-1 denied that the defendant

borrowed the loan amounts from her under Ex.A1 and A2 and that she never executed the documents. The PW-1 further denied that the writings on Ex.A1 and A2 are written with two ink pens.

9. The PW-2 who is the attest of Ex.A1 supported the version of PW-1. The PW-2 stated that on 16-04-2014 the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- twice from the PW-1 and executed the Ex.A1 and A2 to that effect and he attested the same. In his cross examination the PW-2 admitted that the plaintiff husband is retired Judicial employee and further denied that plaintiff husband is doing money lending business. Therefore the version PW-2 is throwing light on the case of Plaintiff that the transactions were taken place at Gadwal Town.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 4

10. Issues No.1 & 2.

1) Whether the suit pronotes dt:06-10-2014, are true valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit pronote amounts from the defendant?

To establish her case the plaintiff executed two promissory notes

dated:06-10-2014 marked as Ex.A1 and A2 and relied upon the oral evidence of herself

and PW-2. On perusal of the contents of Ex.A1 and A2 which shows that on 06-10-2014 the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- twice from the plaintiff to meet her family necessities and agreed to repay the same along with the interest @ 3 % per month and the Ex.A1 and A2 further reveals that it is scribed by one Basava Raju and attested by

PW-2. Ex.A3 is the demand notice, dt:14-03-2014, Ex.A4 is the Regd. postal receipt,

Ex.A5 is returned postal cover, Ex.A6 is returned postal cover, Ex.A7 is refused postal cover, Ex.A8 is refused postal cover, dt:01-04-2017. Ex.A7 and A8 are the refused postal covers. The evidence of plaintiff and PW-2 is quite corroborate with each other as to the loan transactions claimed by the plaintiff. Further it is also not her case that

PW-2 is having enmity or animosity towards her to implicate her in a false suit. It is the specific statement of PW-2 who is the attestor that the transaction took place in his presence and he attested his signatures on the suit promissory notes. There is no occasion to doubt the statement of PW-1 & PW-2 with regard to execution of promissory notes. That apart, a careful perusal of cross examination of PW-1 & PW-2 shows that the learned counsel for Defendant failed to elicit anything to discredit their testimonies regarding the execution of Ex.A1 & A2 promissory notes by the Defendant.

Though, the defendant pleaded that Ex.A1 manifests material alterations but the defendant failed to sent the same to hand writing expert.

11. On the other hand the Defendant resisted the suit claim and she pleaded that she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and A2 and she never executed Ex.A1 and A2 to that effect. According to her the plaintiff PW-1 husband is

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 5 retired Judicial employee and she worked for them and some disputes arose between herself and PW-1 and as such the plaintiff fabricated the false promissory notes and filed the present suit. She further claims that the Ex.A1 and A2 manifests material alterations as such it is clear that Ex.A1 and A2 are barred by limitation. She relied on the oral evidence of herself in the cross examination PW-1 denied that she did not obtain any loan under Ex.A1 & A2 but she admitted her signature on the written statement, summons and vakalathnama.

12. Though, the evidence of defendant is that she worked under plaintiff husband

Sarva Reddy who is the retired Judicial employee, who is engaged in money lending business, the defendant did not handed over the promissory notes to the defendant because of the disputes. The plaintiff created false promissory notes and got filed the suit is no much credence and inspiring confidence.

13. The another plea of Defendant is that Plaintiff is doing money lending business without any valid license and that the suit is hit under A.P. Money Lenders (Telangana

Area) Act and on that sole ground the suit is liable to be dismissed. To decide this point first we must see what under Telangana Money Lenders (Telangana Area) Act is providing. The Telangana Money Lenders (Telangana Area) Act is providing that if it is proved that the Plaintiff is a money lender as defined in sub-section (7) of Section2, but does not hold a license granted U/s.3 of that Act, the Court shall dismiss the suit.

14. In the present case it is the allegation of Defendant that the Plaintiff is a money lender doing money lending business without valid license. To substantiate this plea the

Defendant needs to prove firstly that the Plaintiff is a money lender, and secondly the

Plaintiff is doing such money lending business without valid license. Though the

Defendant has taken this plea that the Plaintiff is a money lender doing money lending business, failed to brought into record the material in support of that contention, and further did not placed any material to show that the Plaintiff is a money lender and that the Defendant cannot seek benefit under Telangana Money Lenders (Telangana Area)

Act.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 6

15. The defendant mainly disputing that the suit promissory notes contains material alterations, but have not taken any steps for getting the Ex.A1 & A2 examined by the

Hand Writing Expert, this court holds that every positive presumption has to be drawn about the genuineness of Ex.A1 & A2. And in view of the above as the evidence of

PWs-1 & 2 are corroborate with each other as to the execution of promissory notes

Ex.A1 &A2 by the defendant and about the passing of the consideration there under, this court holds that plaintiff is entitled for the benefit of presumption available Under

Section.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act as to the date of documents and as to the passing of the consideration there under. However, this presumption is rebuttal one and the defendant may rebut the said presumption by producing cogent evidence.

16. To rebut the case plaintiff the defendant examined herself as DW-1 and is her evidence is no help to her. Therefore, this court holds that the oral testimony of

Defendant cannot be construed as the rebuttal evidence to discredit the plaintiff case and that evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available Under

Section.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is in favour of Plaintiff.

17. The presumption available U/s.118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act is the rebuttal one and after drawing the presumption and U/s.118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act in favour of the Plaintiff the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to prove non- existence of the consideration. It is settled position of law that the burden in this regard lies on the Defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe the non-existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of possibilities showing that the existence of consideration was in improbable, doubtful or illegal.

18. In this connection reference may be made to a land mark decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Bharat Barrel and Drum

Manufacturing Company Vs Amin Chand Payrelal” reported in “1993(3) SCC

35”. In paragraph 12 of the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 7 summarize the law relating to shifting of burden U/s.118(a) of N.I.Act and what happens if Defendant discharges the burden shifted upon him, and the Hon’ble Court observed and held that “ Upon consideration of various Judgments as noted herein- above, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted or proved, the presumption U/s.118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The

Defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the Defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the Plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the Defendant of proving the non- existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.

In such an even, the Defendant is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the Plaintiff as well. In case, where the Defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the Plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising

U/s.118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act in his favour. The court may not insist upon the Defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the Plaintiff.

To disprove the presumption, the Defendant has to bring on record such facts, and circumstances upon consideration of which the Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was no probable that prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it does not exist.”

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 8

19. In this suit, the Plaintiff desires to obtain a decree in her favour and that she pleaded, got examined herself as PW-1 and attestor of suit promissory notes as PW-2 and produced Ex.A1 & A2 promissory notes to prove her case and discharged her part of burden as prescribed U/s.101 of Indian Evidence Act. The Defendant pleads and asserts that the suit promissory notes are forged and also pleaded certain other pleas, and by that she desires that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed, but failed to substantiate any of her pleas.

20. Upon careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff, it appears that the Plaintiff has proved that she lent money under Ex.A1 &

A2 promissory notes on 06-10-2014 and the Defendant on the same day executed

Ex.A1 & A2 promissory notes by undertaking to repay the same with future interest @ 3 % per hundred per month and that the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding upon the Defendant, and there is no evidence available on record, neither

Defendant lead any documentary evidence on that regard to show that the suit promissory notes Ex.A1 & A2 manifests material alterations except oral contentions that the suit promissory notes are fabricated ones.

21. Therefore, this court hold that the defendant failed to rebut the case of the plaintiff and thus, this court found that Ex.A1 & A2 are true valid documents and are executed for consideration and plaintiff is entitled to recover of suit debt from the defendant. Issue No.1 & 2 are decided affirmative.

22. Issue No.3:

While answering the issues No.1 & 2 it is found that Ex.A1 & A2 are true valid document and as executed for consideration. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with the contractual rate as mentioned in Ex.A1 & A2 and her suit is to be decreed accordingly. Issue No.3 is decided accordingly.

23. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against the defendant for Rs.1,91,200/- together with subsequent interest on the principal amount

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ] 9 of Rs.1,00,000/- @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 5th day of October, 2021.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: T.Viajaya Laxmi, DW-1:Nagaveni PW-2: K.Narsimhulu.

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.A1 is 1st suit promissory note for Rs.50,000/-, dt:06-10-2014, - Nil -

Ex.A2 is 2nd suit promissory note for Rs.50,000/-, dt:06-10-2014,

Ex.A3 is demand notice, dt:14-03-2017,

Ex.A4 is the Regd. postal receipt,

Ex.A5 is returned postal cover,

Ex.A6 is returned postal cover,

Ex.A7 is refused postal cover,

Ex.A8 is refused postal cover, dt:01-04-2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GADWAL.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [Prl.JCJ]

CC/167/2018 Acquitted

The SHO Aize vs N.Naga Raju and other

11 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT: GADWAL.

DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021.

PRESENT:- Smt.V.USHA KRANTHI,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Gadwal

C.C. No. 167 of 2018.

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana Rep. by P.S. Aize. … Complainant

AND

A-1: Nallabothula Nagaraju S/o Maldakal, age:35 Years, Occ:Tractor Driver, A-2: Nallabothula Babu S/o Keshanna, age:40 Years, Occ:Tractor owner, Both are R/o Pedda Dhanwada Village of Rajoli Mandal. … Accused No.1 & 2.

This case coming before me on 11-10-2021 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.M.D.Khaja Moinuddin, counsel for Accused No.1 & 2 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Station House Officer, Aize filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 & 2 for the offence Under Section.379 R/w 34 of IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act.

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

That on 11-07-2018 at 1030 hours the LW-1 Thalari Divakar, Police constable of

Aize PS lodged a written petition with the contents that on credible information to SHO,

Aize about few Tractors were committing sand theft at Thungabadra river via

Medikonda Village and illegally transporting the sand to Aize Village, on 11-07-2018

LW-1 along with LW-2 V.Narendra Varma were proceeding to neary by Thupathrala

Village, meanwhile one sand loaded Tractor bearing Engine No.3B45000A18 and Chassis bearing No.M1TAF31RDAD000146 and its Trailer Chassis bearing No.B201807205

SAGRNGL001700502TT coming from opposite direction, on seeing the police officials the Tractor driver stopped his Tractor and fled away from the spot leaving the sand loaded Tractor. On enquiry with the villagers, they came to know that the driver of

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 2

Tractor was transporting the sand illegally and without having any permission from the concerned department or Government. On enquiry with the villagers came to know about the tractor driver name as Nallabothula Nagaraju S/o Maldakal, R/o Pedda

Dhanwada Village of Rajoli Mandal. Thereafter the police officials shifted the crime vehicle to the police station, Aize and lodged a petition for taking necessary legal action.

Basing on the contents of the petition, LW-7 Venkatrami Reddy, Head Constable No.289 of Aize PS registered a case in Cr.No.135/2018 for the offence U/s.379 of Indian Penal

Code and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW-7 examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 and LW-2 at police station. Thereafter LW-7 secured two mediators as LW-3 V.Narendra Varma and LW-4 K.Kiran, in their presence

LW-7 conducted seizure panchanama of crime vehicle. On 20-07-2018 the Accused No.1 & 2 voluntarily surrendered before the LW-7, on interrogation the Accused No.1 & 2 admitted their guilt of offence and confessed. Thereafter Later LW-7 secured two mediators as LW-5 G.Ramesh and LW-6 Chinna Sandyapogu Anjaneyulu, in their presence LW-7 conducted confession panchanama of Accused No.1 & 2, during the confession panchanama Accused No.1, he confessed his guilt of offence that on the instructions of Accused No.2, the driver of Tractor Accused No.1 used to commit sand theft by said crime vehicle at Thungabadra river and the same has been sold in Aize

Village on higher rates for gain easy money. The Accused No.2 also confessed his guilt.

Later LW-7 visited the scene of offence leading the Accused No.1 & 2 along with confession panchas, in their presence LW-7 conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn a rough sketch of scene in prescribed crime details form. On 20-07-2018 LW-7 served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the Accused No.1 & 2. The LW-7 noticed that the Accused No.1 & 2 have no valid driving license to the crime vehicle in violation of M.V. Act Rules and norms U/s.181 of M.V. Act. Thereafter LW-7 forwarded the letter to the Asst. Director, Mines and Geology, Jogulamba Gadwal District and the officer imposed fine amount of Rs.5000/- against the above Tractor. As such the

Accused No.2 who was the owner of the Tractor paid penalty. During the course of interrogation LW-8 C.H.Raju, S.I of Police, Aize took up the case from the LW-7 verified

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 3 investigation done by him and found it on proper lines. The Thahasildar, Aize receipt of furnished sand unloaded at Tahasil office premises. After completion of the investigation

LW-8 laid charge sheet against the Accused No.1 & 2 for the offence Under Section.379

R/w 34 of IPC and Sec.181 of M.V. Act.

3. The case is taken on cognizance Under Section. 379 R/w 34 of IPC against the

Accused No.1 & 2. After appearance of the Accused No.1 & 2, copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to them and when they were examined

U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the charges leveled against them in vernacular for committing the offence Under Section. 379 R/w 34 of IPC, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined Six witnesses as PWs-1 to PW-6 and exhibited Ex. P-1 to P-11. The prosecution not served summons to LW-2 and LW-8. Hence this court closed the evidence of the same after giving reasonable opportunity.

5. After closure of prosecution side evidence the Accused No.1 & 2 were examined

U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material voiced against them to which they pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now point for determination :

Whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond all the reasonable doubt for the offence U/s. 379 R/w 34 of IPC against the Accused No.1 & 2?

8. The APP argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses more particularly the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 are clearly proving the guilt of the Accused No.1 and 2 as such they prayed the court to convict the Accused No.1 & 2.

9. The case of the Accused No.1 & 2 are one of total denial. The learned defense counsel argued that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6 are no way connecting the

Accused No.1 & 2 and the hostile behavior of PW-2 to PW-5 proving the innocence of the Accused No.1 & 2 as such they prayed the court to acquit the Accused No.1 & 2.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 4

10. This court have gone through the evidence of PW-1 (T.Divakar) who is

Complainant, Police Constable and he deposed that on 11-07-2018 as per the instructions of

LW-7 Venkatrami Reddy about myself along with HG 78 proceeded to Thuppatrala Village, there they noticed one Tractor bearing No.AP-22-AN-7115 and its Trailer bearing No.TS-33-0742. On seeing Police the Accused fled away from the scene. On enquiry with the villagers they revealed the driver name as Nallabothula Nagaraju S/o Maldakal, R/o Pedda Dhanwada Village and they shifted the crime vehicle to police station. In this regard LW-1 lodged petition before the Police,

Ex.P1 is petition. Further he was examined by Police and the Police recorded his statement.

11. PW-2 (Kashapogu Kiran) and PW-4 (V.Narendra Varma) who are panchas for seizure of crime vehicle and they turned hostile.

12. PW-3 (Chinna Sandhyapogu Anjaneyulu) and PW-5 (G.Ramesh) who are panchas for confession of A-1 and A-2 and they turned hostile.

13. PW-6 (Venkatrami Reddy) who is Investigation Officer and he deposed that on 11-07-2018 he received petition Ex.P1 from PW-1, basing on the contents of petition he regd. a case in Cr.No.135/2018 U/s.379 R/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P6 is FIR.

Thereafter he examined and recorded the statements of PW-1 and LW-2 Narsimha

Reddy at PS, he secured PW-2 and PW-4 as mediators, in their presence conducted seizure panchanama of the crime vehicle, Ex.P7 is seizure panchanama. During the course of investigation on 20-07-2018 the Accused No.1 & 2 voluntarily surrendered

before him and orally confessed their guilt immediately he secured PW-3 and PW-5

conducted confession panchanama of A-1 and A-2, Ex.P8 is confession panchanama of

A-1 and A-2. Accused No.1 confessed that he is the driver of crime vehicle and upon instructions of Accused No.2, he committed theft from the Thungabadra river. Accused

No.1 & 2 also laid them to the scene of offence, there he also drafted the scene of offence panchanama before the same mediators, Ex.P9 is scene of offence panchanama. On verification of the crime vehicle he found that there is motor vehicle violation rules and hence added section of law Sec.181 of MV Act, PW-6 also addressed a letter to Asst. Director, Mines and Geology for imposing fine amount, the kind officer

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 5 imposed fine amount of Rs.5000/-, Ex.P10 is challan. He deposed that he addressed a letter to Thahasildar, Aize for safe custody of sand. Ex.P11 is letter addressed to

Tahasildar. Thereafter PW-6 handed over the CD file to LW-8 CH.Raju, SHO for investigation, he know LW-8 he is his superior. And he identified LW-8 signature. He further deposed that the above said crime vehicle deposited before this court and the same was released vide Crl.M.P.No.209/2018 in Cr.No.135/2018 of PS Aize. After completion of entire investigation LW-8 SHO, PS Aize laid charge sheet against the

Accused No.1 & 2.

14. POINT NO.1:

Whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond all the reasonable doubt for the offence U/s. 379 R/w 34 of IPC against the Accused No.1 & 2?

15. The main contention of APP that the evidence of police witnesses i.e. PW-1 &

PW-6 are sufficient to convict the Accused No.1 & 2. But, the learned defence counsel contended that the police has not followed the provisions of Sec. 165 Cr.P.C

Proceedings and the accusation against the Accused No.1 & 2 are not proved by them. It is true in this case the entire case is based on the evidence of only police witnesses i.e., PW-1 & PW-6. Since, the other independent eye witnesses was not examined by the police, further PW-2 to PW-5 are seizure panchas and confession panchas and they turned hostile, the evidence of police officials can be relied on if it is convincing in nature”. But, in this case, the evidence of PW-1 & PW-6 are not convincing in nature for the reason that the panchanama for confession and seizure of property was done at the police station not at the scene of offence. Further the Accused

No.1 & 2 voluntarily surrendered before the LW-7 and on interrogation the Accused

No.1 & 2 admitted their guilt and even the police officers PW-1 and LW-2 Varla

Narsimha Reddy, Police Constable who detected this case were not present when the seizure panchanama was prepared and they did not signed on that panchanama. Apart from it, the hostile behaviour of mediators for seizure of crime vehicles and scene of panchanama is also creating doubt about the genuineness of the case. The un- corroborated testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 are unsafe to rely as such this court has no

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 6 formidable evidence before it to invoke the presumption as per Sec.114 (a) illustration of Indian Evidence Act.

16. Apart from it, the prosecution failed to prove that special authority was given to the complainant to file this case. Even though this court has taken U/s. 379 R/w 34 of

IPC and the evidence of PW-6 is not proved the essential ingredients of U/s. 379 R/w 34 of IPC. Since prosecution failed to show the authority that the property which was stolen is indirectly owned by the complainant. On that point also the case is not proved in a proper way and the scant evidence of PW-1 & PW-6 are unsafe to rely on in view of the hostile behavior of other witnesses.

17. In a case reported in GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (AIR 2013

SUPREME COURT 3395), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered a question whether the prosecution case has to be doubted if all the witnesses are from police department. While referring to the previous case on the subject, it is categorically held in the said decision at Para Nos. 25 and 26 and also in GURUJALA RAMESH Vs.

STATE OF A.P. 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 12 .A.P. the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh has categorically held that when a Police Officer who detected the offence and arrested the accused, gave a report which was registered as FIR and the same officer investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, any conviction based on such investigation cannot be sustained and considering the Judgments and the ratio laid down in the above both cases this court is inclined to not consider the evidence of

PW-6. As the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, as the point is answered U/s. 379 R/w 34 of IPC the Accused No.1 & 2 are entitled for acquittal.

18. In the result, the Accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence Under

Section.379 of IPC and Sec. 196, 181, 192(1) of M.V. Act, accordingly they are acquitted

U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 & 2 shall stands cancelled set at liberty. The unmarked case property which was given to its owner vide in

Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2018 in Cr.No.135 of 2018 of PS Aize in CC.No.167 of 2018, dt.16-08-

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 7 2018 towards interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW-1: T.Divakar, - None - PW-2: K.Kiran, PW-3: Chinna Sandhyapogu Anjaneyulu, PW-4: V.Narendra Varma, PW-5: G.Ramesh, PW-6: Venkatrami Reddy, I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: Ex.P-1: Petition, -NIL- Ex.P-2: Portion of PW-2 signature on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P-3: Portion of PW-3 signature on Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama, Ex.P-4: Portion of PW-4 seizure panchanama, Ex.P-5: Portion of PW-5 signature on Confession panchanama, Ex.P-6: FIR, Ex.P-7: Seizure panchanama, Ex.P-8: Confession panchanama, Ex.P-9: Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-10: Challan, Ex.P-11: Letter addressed to Tahasildar.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION:- -NIL- FOR ACCUSED: -NIL-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 8

CALANDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT: GADWAL.

C.C. No. 167 OF 2018.

1. Complainant : State, SI of Police, P.S, Aize.

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No.135/2018 U/s.379 R/w 34 IPC

3. Name of the accused :

A-1: Nallabothula Nagaraju S/o Maldakal, age:35 Years, Occ:Tractor Driver, A-2: Nallabothula Babu S/o Keshanna, age:40 Years, Occ:Tractor owner, Both are R/o Pedda Dhanwada Village of Rajoli Mandal.

D A T E S:

4. OFFENCE 05-07-2018

5. COMPLAINT 05-07-2018

6. APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED 20-07-2018 Served 41-A Cr.P.C.

7. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL 25-02-2021

8. CLOSURE OF TRIAL 27-09-2021

9. JUDGMENT 11-10-2021

10. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Not Guilty

11. SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, the Accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence Under Section.379 R/w 34 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted

U/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 & 2 shall stands cancelled set at liberty. The unmarked case property which was given to its owner vide in

Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2018 in Cr.No.135 of 2018 of PS Aize in CC.No.167 of 2018, dt.16-08-

2018 towards interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time is over.

12. REMARKS: -Nil-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

To: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Dis. No.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM]

CC/238/2016 Acquitted

P.S.Dharoor vs Bandavai. Masi Reddy

05 Oct 2020

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

Dated this the 5thday of October, 2020

PRESENT:- Smt.V.USHA KRANTHI, Judicial First Class Magistrate, FAC Addl. JFCM, Gadwal.

C.C. No. 238 of 2016.

BETWEEN:-

The State of Telangana Rep. by SHO, Dharoor PS. … Complainant

AND

A-1) Bandabai Masi Reddy S/o Chinna Ramanna, age:45 Years, A-2) Bandabai Vasantha Reddy S/o Chinna Ramanna, age:50 Years, A-3) Bandabai Radhamma W/o B.Masi Reddy, age:38 Years, All are R/o Uppair Village of Dharoor Mandal. … Accused No.1 to 3.

This case coming before me on 05-10-2020 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri.S.Srikanth, and

Sri.Manshoor Ahmed, counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Dharoor filed charge sheet in

Crime No.10 of 2016 for the offence punishable Under Section. 324 R/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code against the Accused No.1 to 3.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

That on 20-01-2016 at 1800 hours the Complainant Chakali Pedda Kotanna

S/o Chinnaiah, R/o Uppair Village of Dharoor Mandal came to police station and lodged a written petition in Telugu, in which he stated that on 06-01-2016 at about 2000 hours while the Complainant was returning to his house from his agricultural fields, meantime in the middle of the way nearby Chakali Govindu Dabba, the

Accused No.1 to 3 were already present and the Accused No.1 stopped the LW-1/

Complainant and questioned about the dispute between his caste person Chakali

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 2

Dasu S/o Hanmanthu and Accused No.1 Masi Reddy. When the Complainant stated that they will talk about in the morning, then the Accused No.3 was given an iron rod to Accused No.1 and the Accused No.1 picked up quarrel with the Complainant and beaten with rod, as the result the Complainant/LW-1 received bleeding injuries on his head. Later the Accused No.2 took the rod and beat his motor cycle doom, for which the doom was damaged. Then immediately the LW-1/Complainant went to Govt.

Hospital, Gadwal for treatment and returned to police station and lodged a petition against the Accused No.1 to 3. As such the LW-1/Complainant requested to take necessary action against the Accused No.1 to 3. Basing on the petition complaint

LW-9 registered a case and issued FIR in Cr.No.10/2016 for the offence U/s.324 R/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW-9 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 at police station. Later LW-9 visited the scene of offence which is situated at Uppair Village, there LW-9 examined and recorded the statements of LW-2 to 5 and secured two mediators LW-6 and 7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of scene in crime details form. On 05-02-2016 the Accused No.1 & 2 voluntarily came to police station and surrendered before the LW-9 and confessed to have committed the offence.

Thereafter the LW-9 issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the Accused No.1 & 2. On 18-04- 2016 the LW-9 served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the Accused No.3. Further the LW- 8/Medical Officer who treated the injured person LW-1 issued Medical Certificate, in which he opined that the injuries received by LW-1 are “Simple in nature”. After completion of the investigation LW-9 laid charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 3.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence Under Section.324 R/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code against the Accused No.1 to 3. The copies of the documents were furnished to the Accused No.1 to 3 as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, when they were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by framing charges for the offence punishable Under

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 3

Section.324 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, the Accused No.1 to 3 were pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused the prosecution got examined

PW-1 to PW-7, and got marked as Exs.P-1 to P-7. This court closed the evidence of

LW-8 & 9. After closure of prosecution evidence Accused No.1 to 3 were examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against the Accused No.1 to 3 for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

5. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

6. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section.324 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused No.1 to 3?

7. The learned APP argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses more particularly the evidence of PW-1 is clearly proving the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 3 as such he prayed the court to convict the Accused No.1 to 3.

8. The case of the Accused No.1 to 3 are one of total denial. The learned defense counsel argued that the evidence of PW-1 evidence is based on improvements and he is having prior disputes with the Accused and the scant evidence of PW-1 and he is not the eye witness to the case and the hostile behavior of PW-2 to 7, and is no way connecting the accused No.1 to 3 as such they prayed the court to acquit the Accused NO.1 to 3.

9. POINT: In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7. PW-1 is Complainant and injured,

PW-2, PW-5 to PW-7 are eye witnesses, PW-3 & PW-4 are panch as for scene of offence.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 4

10. PW-1 (Chakali Pedda Koitanna) who is complainant and injured in this case, he stated that he know Accused No.1 to 3, LW-3 Dasharath, LW-4 Narsimulu they belongs to his village. And further he deposed that in the year 2016 one Chakali

Dasu and A-1 quarreled themselves. Keeping in the mind same in the same year when he was coming from Uppair road when his vehicle reached Govindu kirana shop, he saw A-1 to A-3 were already standing there and the crowd of people were also present. He enquired with the crowd as to what was happened. Meanwhile A-3 handed over A-1 iron rod and A-1 attacked him with the rod and hit on his head for which he sustained bleeding injury. Accused No.2 also beaten all over his body, and that Dabba Govindu, Anjaneyulu rescued him from the clutches of A-1 to A-3. The

SHO of Police/LW-9 have recorded the names of eye witnesses wrongly as LW-2

Dhasarath Naidu and P.Narasimhulu and LW-3 but the eye witnesses are Govindu and Anjaneyulu. In this regard he approached the police and police referred him to hospital. Thereafter he lodged petition before the police, Ex.P1 is petition. Police examined and recorded his statement.

11. PW-2 (Dasharatha Naidu) is eye witnesses, he turned hostile.

12. PW-3 (Dharmakari Rajesh), PW-4 (Kammari Monaiah) who are panchas for scene of offence and they also turned hostile.

13. PW-5 (Chinna Kotanna), PW-6 (Chinna Narsimhulu), PW-7 (Pasula

Narsimhulu) are eye witnesses, they also turned hostile.

14. The only evidence available on record to appreciate is PW-1. PW-1 is complainant and injured, PW-2,5 to 7 are eye witnesses to the case.

15. On perusal of cross examination of PW-1, he categorically admitted that there is a criminal case against him U/s.307 IPC is pending before the Hon’ble III Addl.

District and Sessions Court, Gadwal vide SC.No.189/2016. And during the gallata there are were 20 to 30 members gathered at the scene and that Ex.P1 was scribed by Anjaneyulu and the specific overtacts of Accused No.1 to 3 were not stated either

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 5 in the Ex.P1 or in 161 Cr.P.C statements (improvements), Police have not seized any blood stain cloths and denied that in order to counter blast Sc.No.189/2016 he got filed the present case. It was also the version of PW-1 that there was a mob already present at Dabba Govindu kirana shop, but the Investigation Officer did not examined any witnesses who where in the mob. Further PW-1 stated that soon after the galltata he reached Area hospital, Gadwal at 11:00 PM, but the wound certificate was not marked on prosecution side. Further inspite of this court giving ample opportunities the prosecution did not produced the witnesses LW-8 & LW-9 to the best reasons known to them. Moreover as there are prior disputes between Accused party and Complainant there is every possibility of exaggeration of the story of the prosecution and improvemental behaviour is also creating legible doubt on the mind of this court. And it is unsafe to rely the version of PW-1, as his evidence is not cogent and reliable and also PW-2, PW-5 to 7 are independent witnesses to the case did not support of the case of the prosecution. When the Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined them at length PW-2, PW-5 to PW-7 failed to state in favour of prosecution. PW-3 and PW-4 are the scene of offence panchas in the case, they categorically stated that police obtained their signatures on white papers and Police have not seized the iron rod which was used in the commission of offence. And therefore seizure of the weapon in such type of simple hurt case is also lacunae on part of investigation. Except Ex.P1 petition no document was marked on behalf of prosecution which is favorable to them. Furthermore PW-1 stated that A-2 beaten all over his body, but no where Ex.P1 reflects so and PW-1 improved his version and also stated that Station House Officer, Dharoor PS have cited eye witnesses names are wrongly and that actual eyewitness to the scene of offences are Dabba Govindu and Anjaneyulu who were not examined by the Investigation Officer which is also creating suspicion on the version of prosecution.

16. Having regard to all the above factors into consideration since PW-1 and

Accused are having rivalry between themselves and counter cases pending against

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 6 them and other independent witnesses are turned hostile, even the scene of panch witnesses also not supported the prosecution, and even the Ex.P1 is showing improvements and also the material objects which was used in the commission of offence is not seized the Police officials/Non-seizure of causative weapon creates doubtful circumstance. Further as there are strained relationship between PW-1 and

Accused there is every possibility of exaggeration of version of PW-1, it is not all safe to rely upon the evidence of PW-1 and the scant evidence of PW-1 is not sufficient to hold conviction. In view of all these circumstances this court hold that prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence

U/s.324 R/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and thus Accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence Under

Section.324 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled subject to

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day October, 2020.

ADDL.JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: - Nil – PW-1: Chakali Pedda Koitanna

PW-2: Dasharatha Naidu

PW-3: Dharmakri Rajesh

PW-4: Kammari Monaiah,

PW-5: Chinna Kotanna,

PW-6: Chinna Narsimhulu,

PW-7: Pasula Narsimhulu.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 7

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: -Nil- Ex.P1: Petition, Ex.P2: 161- Cr.PC statement of PW-2, Ex.P3: Portion of PW-3 signature on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4: Portion of PW-3 signature on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5: 161- Cr.PC statement of PW-5, Ex.P6: 161- Cr.PC statement of PW-6, Ex.P7: 161- Cr.PC statement of PW-7.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION:- - NIL - FOR ACCUSED: -NIL-

ADDL.JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GADWAL.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT: GADWAL.

C.C. No. 238 OF 2016.

1. Complainant : The State of Telangana Rep. by SHO, Dharoor PS.

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : Cr.No.10/2016 U/s.324 R/w 34 of IPC.

3. Name of the accused :

D A T E S:

4. OFFENCE 06-01-2016

5. COMPLAINT 20-01-2016 05-02-2016 (Served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the Accused No.1 & 2)

6. APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED 18-04-2016 (Served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the Accused No.3)

7. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL 27-01-2020

8. CLOSURE OF TRIAL 13-03-2020

9. JUDGMENT 05-10-2020

10. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Not Guilty

11. SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence Under Section.324 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled subject to Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. for a period of six months. The unmarked case property shall all be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

12. REMARKS : -Nil-

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GADWAL.

To:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 9

Mahabubnagar. Dis. No.

SMT. V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM]

CC/379/2019 Acquitted

The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Venkat Reddy

11 Oct 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT: GADWAL.

Dated this the 11th day of October, 2021.

Present: Smt.V. USHA KRANTHI Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal

C.C.No. 379 of 2019..

Between:- The State Through Proh. & Excise S.I. Gadwal

..... Complainant

Venkat Reddy S/o Somi Reddy, age:32 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Garlapad Village of Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

... Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me on 11-10-2021 in the presence of the A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.N.Vijay Kumar, counsel for the Accused and having stood upon hearing him and on perusing the record available, 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 brief facts of the charge sheet are that on 02-01-2018 at about 05:30 PM

LW-3 L.Shivaiah, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, SHO, Excise PS Gadwal along with his staff proceeded to Garlapad Village by securing two mediators, and explained them that on reliable information regarding the illegal sales of liquor by one Venkat Reddy at his house at Garlapad Village. For which police officials and mediators went in a jeep to the house of Accused at Garlapad Village. There they noticed one person present and conducting the sales of liquor, on enquiry he revealed his name as Venkat Reddyk S/o

Somi Reddy, R/o Garlapad Village. During the search LW-3 found (10) King Fisher

Premium beer bottles, each 650 ml. On enquiry about the liquor, the Accused stated that the said liquor bottles were sold to public for higher rates. On demand he failed to produce any valid license or permit to sell the liquor, LW-3 informed him that without license the sales of liquor is an offence under Excise Act. LW-3 seized the liquor bottles and drawn two samples each sample containing (01) beer bottle, and sealed them as

SMT.V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 2 per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas by LW-3.

Immediately LW-3 apprehended the Accused and shifted him to Excise Police Station along with samples. Thereafter LW-3 issued PCOR No.1/2018 U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise

Act, 1968 and he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the Accused. Further the LW-3 deposited the samples before this court vide CPR No.99/2018, dt:03-03-2018 with a request to send one of the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise

Laboratories, Hyderabad for analysis report. The Chemical Examiner vide in his report

No.3168/2018/1, dt:29-05-2018 opined that “The sample contains alcohol sugars and carbon dioxide, it is beer”. Thereafter remaining seized property i.e., beer bottles are deposited into the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise,

Mahabubnagar. Further LW-3 handed over the CD file to LW-4 G.Gopal, Prohibition and

Excise Inspector of Police, Excise Police, Gadwal for further investigation. After completion of the investigation LW-4 filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence

U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968.

2. Upon taking cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 this court furnished copies of documents to the Accused. When the Accused examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C by framing charges for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 and the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove the guilt of Accused, Prosecution examined as PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex’s:P1 to P5, MO.1. The prosecution failed to produce the witness LW-3 and this court closed the evidence of the same, after giving reasonable opportunity.

4. After closure of prosecution evidence the Accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against the Accused for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5. Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Accused and perused the material on record.

SMT.V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 3

6. Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968?

7. POINT: To make out its case for an offence U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3. The PW-1 & PW-2 are eye witnesses and

PW-3 is Investigation Officer and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO-1 (Sample of liquor bottle).

8. PW-1 & PW-2 are the independent mediators said to have assisted the LW-3

L.Shivaiah, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Excise PS Gadwal in the detection of the offence and for recording the confession-cum-seizure panchanama and they turned hostile. Though the PW-1 & PW-2 admitted their signatures, categorically stated that the Excise police obtained their signatures on some papers and they do not know the contents of the said papers and further they deposed that the Accused/no person never confessed and police did not seized toddy in their presence. As they turned hostile, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor cross examined them at length, wherein the PW-1 &

PW-2 denied that the police conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seizure of liquor bottles.

9. PW-3 who is Investigation Officer he deposed that on 02-01-2018 at about 05:30 PM LW-3 L.Shivaiah, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, SHO, Gadwal along with staff proceeded to Garlapad Village, on reliable information of illegal sales of liquor, there LW-3 secured two mediators and went to Garlapad Village, there LW-3 noticed one person conducting sales of liquor bottles in his house. There they noticed one person present and conducting the sales of liquor, on enquiry he revealed his name as

Venkat Reddyk S/o Somi Reddy, R/o Garlapad Village. During the search LW-3 found (10) King Fisher Premium beer bottles, each 650 ml. On demand he failed to produce any valid license or permit to sell the liquor, LW-3 informed him that without license the sales of liquor is an offence under Excise Act. LW-3 seized the liquor bottles and drawn two samples each sample containing (01) beer bottle, and sealed them as per

SMT.V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 4 procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas by LW-3, Ex.P3 is seizure panchanama. Immediately LW-3 apprehended the Accused on the spot and returned excise station along with seized samples. Thereafter LW-3 issued PCOR

No.1/2018 for the offence U/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, Ex.P4 is PCOR. Thereafter he issued 41-A notice to the Accused. The samples were deposited before this court vide

CPR No.99/2018 and sent the samples to the Chemical Examination. Ex.P5 is Chemical

Analysis Report. Thereafter LW-3 handed over the case papers to him for further investigation. He verified the investigation done by LW-3 who is his colleague and he identified his signatures and he laid charge sheet against the Accused. MO-1 is sample of liquor bottle. In the cross examination, PW-3 admitted that he do not know whether

LW-3 have examined any independent eye witnesses or not and that he do not know whether the scene of offence was busy locality or not and that he do not know whether the LW-3 have pasted search memo at Accused house door and no search memo placed

before this court and hence the version of PW-1 & PW-2 are not inspiring confidence

and it appears LW-3 conducted perfunctory investigation, more so LW-3 was not examined by the Police.

10. In the absence of evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 the evidence remained for consideration is that of PW-3 who is Excise police officer and he is the person who laid except charge sheet.

11. It is settled law that unless independent witnesses corroborates the version of the police official, his evidence alone cannot be sustained to record the conviction of the

Accused. The Hon’ble High Court of A.P. considered a similar case in the decision reported in 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 66 (A.P.) between Poddutur Sarvam Reddy Vs

State of A.P., and it was held that the evidence of a complainant cum investigation officer alone cannot be based to convict the Accused for an excise offence in the absence of any corroborative independent evidence.

SMT.V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 5

12. However, as per the PW-3, the accused confessed before the LW-3/Prohibition and Excise Inspector his guilt and basing on the said confession panchanama, LW-3 apprehended the accused and seized the property. The contents of Ex.P5, clearly shows that it was recorded in the immediate presence of the police. Section. 25 and 26 of

Indian Evidence Act provides a bar to receive the confession made to police officer.

Since the contents of PW-1 & PW-2 and the evidence of PW-3 clearly shows that it was recorded in the immediate presence of the police official, this court hold that the confession cum seizure panchanama as relied by the prosecution under Ex.P3 is inadmissible in evidence. The said aspect was considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a decision reported in 2005 (1) ALD (NOC) 52 between

Mudavath Mothia Vs State of Andhra Pradesh held that the confession made to the police officials and the seizure there under is hit by Sec.25 and 27 of Indian

Evidence Act and the Hon’ble High Court hold as follows.

13. “The offence U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confessions recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover Ex.P3 is hit by Section.25,27 of the Evidence

Act and Section. 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any cases due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the Accused. Once the Ex.P5 is hit by Sections.25 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and Section.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witness are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing of toddy from the custody of the Accused has to the looked with suspicion. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar Under Section.25 and 27 of the

Evidence Act and Section.161 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt.“

SMT.V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 6

14. To sum up, in view of the above observations as the independent mediators i.e.,

PW-1 & PW-2 did not supported the case and it is found that the confession-cum- seizure panchanama is inadmissible in evidence in view of the above legal bar and in view of the above legal principles laid by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. This court hold that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for an offence

U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 and the Accused is entitled for an acquittal.

15. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34(a) of T.S.

Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted Under Section.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

Accused shall stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. The MO-1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GADWAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : Srinu, -None- PW-2 : T.Anjaneyulu, PW-3 : G.Gopal, I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence

Ex-P1 : Portion of PW-1 signature on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama, - Nil - Ex-P2 : Portion of PW-2 signature on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex-P3 : Confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 : PCOR, Ex-P5 : Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1: Sample of liquor bottle.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GADWAL.

SMT.V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM] 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT: GADWAL.

C.C. No. 379 OF 2019.

1. Complainant : The State Through Proh. & Excise S.I. Gadwal.

2. Cr.No. & Nature of Offence : PCOR. No.1/2018 U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968

3. Name of the accused :

Venkat Reddy S/o Somi Reddy, age:32 Years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Garlapad Village of Dharoor Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

D A T E S:

4. OFFENCE 02-01-2018

5. COMPLAINT 02-01-2018 02-01-2018 (Served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to

6. APPREHENSION OF ACCUSED Accused)

7. COMMENCEMENT OF TRIAL 23-03-2021

8. CLOSURE OF TRIAL 30-03-2021

9. JUDGMENT 11-10-2021

10. PLEA OF THE ACCUSED Not Guilty

11. SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted Under Section.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled and he is set at liberty. The

MO-1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

12. REMARKS: - Nil -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GADWAL.

To:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Dis. No.

SMT.V.USHA KRANTHI [JFCM]

Order Record 2,066 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/167/2018	The SHO Aize vs N.Naga Raju and other	11 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
CC/379/2019	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Venkat Reddy	11 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
CC/654/2020	The SHO Maldakal vs Harijan Thimothi	08 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
OS/3/2021	C.K.Gopal vs Baidoddi Eerappa	05 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/106/2017	T.Vijaya Laxmi vs E.Nagaveni	05 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/178/2020	K.Shiva Raju vs K.Baswa Raju	05 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1484/2019	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Kurva Shantamma	05 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/553/2017	The SHO Aize vs Sandyapogu Janaiah and 03 others	04 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/169/2018	Harijan Thikkanna vs Jangilanna	01 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/177/2021	Jayanna vs Srinivasulu	01 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/127/2020	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Lacha Goud	01 Oct 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/75/2020	Telugu Ramakrishna vs Savaranna	30 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/122/2020	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Kurumurthy Goud	30 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1286/2019	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Boya Swamy	30 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/55/2019	K. Thimmappa vs P. Abbash Khan	27 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/154/2021	T. Jayanthu Babu Rao vs Harijan Pedda Satyanna	27 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/228/2021	D. Nageshwar Rao vs T. Shivaraju	27 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/709/2020	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Bandaiah GOud	27 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/712/2020	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs E. Bandalaiah	27 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/50/2019	state Bank of india vs Sri Sai Mahila Podupu Sangam Thumkunta	24 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/481/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Ediga Mahendra Goud	24 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/8/2021	Dasari keshava swamy vs D. RAnganna	23 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/134/2020	Kurva Narsanna vs Kurva Devendra	23 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/397/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Kurva Thirumalesh	23 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/545/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Md Vali	23 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/39/2019	K. Devendra Chary vs D. Sreekanth	22 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/415/2019	The SHO Aize vs Ediga Anjaneyulu	22 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/471/2019	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Devappa Naik	21 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/962/2019	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Baswaraj Goud	20 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/114/2021	Wadde Dindappa vs Shamsshalam	17 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/182/2018	The SHO Maldakal vs Vagula Narasimlu	17 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/973/2019	The SHO Excesi Gadwal vs Nandan GOud	17 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/93/2020	Koteswar Goud vs Bangi Chinna	16 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/23/2020	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Narsimlu	16 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/63/2020	Gachinti Anjaneyulu vs Gorkasu Savari	15 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/98/2019	GANDLA RAVINDRAPPA vs KUNDETI MUNISWAMY	15 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/147/2021	T. Pedda Narsimlu vs Boya Bheemudu	15 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/430/2019	The SHO Maldakal vs Pujari Thuirumalesh	15 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/81/2020	B. Jayavardhan vs T. Jalandhar	14 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/149/2019	Arepslli Chinna Kondamma vs Mulakapaali Prakasham	13 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/237/2021	J. Ravi vs M. Chekrapani	13 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
STC/174/2021	The SHO Ieeja vs Manikinda Samelu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/196/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs Dasari Venkatesh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/197/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs N.Govardan Reddy	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/198/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs Chakali Thirumalesh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/199/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs Mangali Thirumalesh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/200/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs J.Kurva Narshimulu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/201/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs Addakula Babu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/202/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs H.Ravi Kumar	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/207/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs Siddi Narshimulu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/208/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Venkatesh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/209/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Kenchala Shivakumar	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/210/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Chilukuru Venkatesh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/211/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Raghuveer	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/212/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Mohd.Iqbal	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/213/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Rodda Paramesh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/214/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Manzoor Ahmed	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/215/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Shankar Nadhu singh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/216/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs D.Rambabu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/217/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Rafi	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/218/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Hanumana	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/219/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Ramanjaneyulu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/220/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Sriram Basava Chari	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/221/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Md.Shareef	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/222/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Chilukuru Prakash	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/223/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs C.Rajesh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/224/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Veeraiah Shetty	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/232/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs V.Narshimulu Goud	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/233/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs Chakali Maldakal	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/234/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs M.P.Ramakrishna	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/235/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs Mala Ramudu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/236/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs M.Chinna Maldannagari Narshimulu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/237/2021	The SHO Maldakal PS vs Maddur Narshimulu	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/251/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Chakali Bheemesh	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/253/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Mabasha	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/255/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs Lavakumar	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/256/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs T.Vinod	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
STC/258/2021	The SHO Ieeja PS vs M.Vinay Kumar	11 Sep 2021	ORDER	—
CC/523/2019	The SHO Aize vs Vadde Parusharamudu	09 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/104/2017	R.Satyanarayana vs P.Bheemesh Setty	08 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/51/2021	Satya Reddy vs Thimmapa	07 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/166/2018	The SHO Aize vs Jangam Ravi and other	07 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/41/2020	V.Maheshwar Reddy vs Gudise Pogula Hanumanthu	06 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/237/2016	V.Shivashankar Reddy vs A.Rajashekar Redy	06 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/942/2019	The SHO Aize vs Vadde Satish and three others	06 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/73/2019	K Nagaraju vs Harijan P Bhaskar	03 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/964/2019	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Boya Laxmanna	03 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1234/2020	PS Aize vs Nesha Naresh	03 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/84/2021	Vema Reddy vs Venu gopal Reddy	02 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/233/2021	E. Maldakal Goud vs K. Govindu	02 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1470/2019	The SHO Aize vs Boya Anjaneyulu	02 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/128/2020	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Krishnaiah Goud	01 Sep 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/11/2017	V.Ganganna vs Chinna Bichanna	31 Aug 2021	JUDGMENT	—
STC/75/2018	The SHO Aize vs B.Shiva	31 Aug 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/38/2018	The SHO Aize vs Chakali Tirumalesh	27 Aug 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1208/2019	The SHO Aize vs Vadde Naganna and other	26 Aug 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1427/2019	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Ranganna Goud	25 Aug 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/52/2021	Golla Narsimlu vs Golla Suryanarayana	24 Aug 2021	JUDGMENT	—
OS/96/2020	Ediga Pallaiah Goud vs Kurva Anjaneyulu	24 Aug 2021	JUDGMENT	—
CC/1295/2019	The SHO Excise Gadwal vs Yerukali Kirshna	24 Aug 2021	JUDGMENT	—

Showing 100 of 2,066 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2021		11
Sep 2021		81
Aug 2021		29
Jul 2021		79
May 2021		9
Apr 2021		16
Mar 2021		41
Feb 2021		44
Jan 2021		21
Dec 2020		5
Nov 2020		4
Oct 2020		3

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU handled?

SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU has handled 2072 court orders since 2017 at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 47 orders per month.

What types of cases does SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU hear?

Based on available records, SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU currently posted?

SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU is posted as Addl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex, Jogulamba Gadwal, Telangana.

Are judgments by SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU dispose cases?

SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU disposes approximately 47 cases per month, based on 2072 orders handled over their tenure at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU serving?

SMT.USHAKRANTHI VAMPU has been serving at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 51%

STC 24%

OS 21%

EP 2%

PRC 1%

MC 0%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Mar 2019 — Jan 2021

Addl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal · 71 orders
Jan 2019 — Oct 2021

Prl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal · 1,403 orders
May 2017 — Oct 2018

Prl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal · 598 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Other Judges at this Court

S.ravi Kumar

Principal District and Sessions Judge Gadwal

12 orders

Vodela Srinivas

Fast Track Special Court for Rape and POCSO Act ca...

52 orders

Mr. Venkatesh Durva

Prl. Junior Civil Judges Court, Gadwal

0 orders

Sri. A.Nagaraju

Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Session...

0 orders

Smt.T Lakshmi

Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Assis...

205 orders

← View all judges at Jogulamba Gadwal, PDJ Court Complex