Sri V. Radha Krishna Krupa Sagar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri DR.V. Radha Krishna Krupa Sagar,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Wednesday, the 3 rd day of April, 2019.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.587/2016

From what court the appeal I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. is preferred.

No. of the case in that C.C.No.189/2014. court. Name and description of theThorlikonda Srinivasa Rao S/o.Thirupathaiah, aged appellantabout 30 years, R/o.Abburu village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Guntur Dsitrict.

Name and description of theThe State SHO, Sattenapalli Rural P.S., rep.by Public respondents.Prosecutor, Guntur The sentence and law underAccused is found not guilty for the offence under which it was imposed in theSec.323 IPC and he is acquitted for the ofrfence court below.under Sec.255(1) CrPC. However, the accused is found guilty for the offence under Sec.509 IPC and he is convicted under Sec.255(2) CrPC, and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Sec.509 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

Whether confirmed, modified or reversed and if modified, the modification.MODIFIED

Date of presentation11.11.2016

Date of filing11.11.2016 Date of notice issued to 15.11.2016 appear

Date of bail bond if --- appellant has/have been let out on bail. Date of order to appear23.12.2016

Date of hearing20.03.2019 Date of judgment.03.04.2019

This appeal came up on 20.03.2019 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri N.Singaraiah, Advocate for appellant/ accused and of the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent/ complainant, and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.A convict/ accused filed this criminal appeal under Sec.374(3) of CrPC.

2.In C.C.No.189/2014 by a judgment dated 28.10.2016 the appellant was tried for the offences under Sec.323, 509 IPC by learned I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Sattenapalli, and he was found not guilty for the offence under Sec.323 IPC but was found guilty for the offence under Sec.509 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year, and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant paid the fine and filed this appeal challenging the conviction as well as sentence.

3.On behalf of the respondent/ state, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment both on facts and law.

4.The case of the prosecution is that a married woman / LW.1 Rajeswari with her two children was sleeping on terrace of her house in Abburu village. On 15.4.2014 at about 2 a.m., during that night, her neighbour/ accused came on to the terrace and dragged her bed sheet which was lying on her body and when she woke up, he indecently reached her, telling her that he liked her and about to hold her to satisfy his sexual desire. She raised alarm, and on hearing it her husband / LW.2 Sri

Christu babu, who was in the ground floor of the house came on to the terrace and saw the accused, and attempted to catch him, but the accused escaped. The spouses reached the house of Sri Bojjaiah, who is the elder brother of the accused, and complained him about the indecent behaviour of accused. He did not believe it and then the spouses went to the house of accused and questioned him and the accused expressed his annoyance and beat them with a lean stick and with hands.

On the written information lodged by the victim lady at 6 p.m. on 17.4.2014, police registered Cr.No.93/2015. During the course of investigation witnesses were examined and rough sketch of scene of offence was prepared. On 19.4.2014 accused was arrested and was sent to court for remand. On completion of investigation charge sheet was laid before the learned Magistrate.

3

5.The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under

Sec.323, 509 IPC and registered the case as C.C.189/2014. On securing the presence of accused, who was on bail, he was furnished with copies of documents, and the accused was examined for both the offences in terms of Sec.251 CrPC and the accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, further trial followed.

6.At the trial, the victim testified as PW.1 and her husband testified as

PW.2. A neighbour to them deposed as PW.3. The investigating sub-inspector deposed as PW.4. Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the written information given by PW.1 to police about the crime incident. Ex.P.2 is FIR. Ex.P.3 is rough sketch of scene of offence.

7.The incriminating material available on record was offered to the accused under Sec.313 CrPC, and he denied the truth of the evidence. In defence accused did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence.

8.After hearing arguments on both sides and on scrutiny of the entire material on record, the learned trial judge found that the injuries allegedly caused by accused to PW.1 and PW.2 were not supported by medical evidence, and therefore, found the accused not guilty for the offence under Sec.323 IPC and acquitted him.

However, coming to the intrusion into privacy of the victim lady, the learned trial court found truth in the incident and concluded that accused was liable for the offence under Sec.509 IPC. The impugned judgment indicates elaborate discussion of evidence of witnesses that came on record during their examination in chief as well as cross-examination. Various discrepancies that were pointed out to the trial

judge were negatived saying that they were on insignificant facts and do not bear

upon the credibility of the witnesses.

9.Learned trail judge recorded that as per the evidence of PW.1 and 2 accused went on to the terrace and removed the blanket and went nearer the lady /

PW.1 and expressed his lust and on her cries her husband/ PW.2 came and found 4 the presence of the accused. This evidence was further found supported by PW.3, who was met by PW.2 in that night, and who was informed of the incident. Learned

Trial court found the victim and accused are related to each other and are neighbours and there was no cause for her to speak falsehood since there were no disputes between them. Therefore, it convicted the accused as indicated earlier.

10.It is that judgment which is challenged in this appeal. Various contentions are raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal; they shall be dealt with now.

11.POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

Whether the impugned judgment suffers from errors of

law or facts and whether it requires any interference?

POINT ANSWERED:

1.It is contended that when the evidence of PW.1 was not believed for the offence under Sec.323 IPC, her evidence ought not to have been believed for the offence under Sec.509 IPC. Having analyzed the material on record and the impugned judgment this court finds no merit in this contention.

2.At para 14 of the impugned judgment the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was invoked stating that coming to the hurt allegedly caused by the accused, the evidence of prosecution witnesses was full of embellishments and the spouses said that they suffered several injuries and PW.2 was hospitalised for a month, but there was no evidence of a medical man to establish this fact nor was there evidence of any other witness to support. It was in those circumstances the evidence of PW.1 was found not worthy for the proof of Sec.323 IPC. Coming to the other accusation the learned trial judge recorded that there was no reason for PW.1 to put her womanhood at risk and make any allegation against her own relative / accused. It was further mentioned that the evidence of PW.1 about accused coming to the terrace and reaching her, and speaking to her lewdly was to be believed since the conduct of the woman shouting and her husband reaching, and her husband 5 watching the accused established the presence of accused at that odd hour at a place which does not belong to him. On the material it was found that in that night itself the spouses going to accused and questioning him was to be taken to be true since an independent witness / PW.3 said that at that odd time he was called and was told about this incident by PW.2. It is for these reasons, the learned trial court accepted the evidence of PW.1 for the offence under Sec.509 IPC. This court finds absolutely no error in the approach of the trial court in appreciating the evidence.

Therefore, this contention of the appellant is negatived.

3.For the appellant it is contended that there is 36 hours delay in lodging

FIR, and the trial court failed to give due regard to it. Having examined the record, this court finds no merit in this contention. Ex.P.1 contains the earliest version of the crime incident as narrated by victim lady herself. As per this, in the night on 15.4.2014, she and her children slept on the terrace. Then, at 2 a.m., the crime incident occurred. Thereafter, they met the brother of accused and then accused, and there the alleged galata took place. Thus, by the time all that was over, it was early hours of 16.4.2014. Instead of lodging FIR at that time it was lodged on the next day at 6 p.m., Learned trial court noticed this and recorded that when modesty of a woman is involved, it was quite natural for her to think twice before knocking the doors of criminal justice machinery. One cannot deny this reality in life. Learned trial court also recorded the subculture of police in not registering FIR soon after receiving written information. This is also one truth in life and one cannot deny it.

Moreover, the defence failed to show what was the possible embellishment that could have got its place in Ex.P.1 by the delay stated above. It is for these reasons, one should find that delay by itself has not created any suspicion to discard the sworn evidence of PW.1 which is completely in tune with averments in Ex.P.1. In fact, in Ex.P.1 there is explanation for delay saying that elders in the village prevented her for an amicable settlement and she declined for that and overcoming them took time and therefore, the time lapsed. This part of Ex.P.1 is not challenged 6 by the defence. Its only argument is about its non incorporation in coloumn No.8 of the FIR. Failure of PW.4 in not incorporating this cause of delay in his printed FIR, cannot be a cause to disbelieve PW.1. Therefore, the delay is properly explained by prosecution. For these reasons, this contention of appellant is negatived.

4.Appellant contends that the police and prosecution did not examine the children of PW.1 and that amounts to suppression of material evidence. Having considered this submission in the light of the material on record, this court finds no merit in it. Learned trial court answered this point saying that in a case where modesty of a mother is involved the children may not be appropriate witnesses, and therefore, it found justification for non-examination of the children. This court finds that PW.1 is aged 29 years and it is not known the date of her marriage and the ages of her children. Going by her age, it is not incorrect to think that they were kids. There is no evidence showing that those kids got up and witnessed this incident. Thus, non-examination of these kids has no bearing. Therefore, this contention of appellant is negatived.

5.Appellant contends that there are two possibilities from the evidence and the one that favours accused ought to have been favoured but the trial court failed. It must be recorded here, that the appellant could not show what were those two possibilities from the evidence available on record. Therefore, this contention is negatived.

6.Appellant contends that looking at the antecedents of the accused, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Defence has not brought out anything concerning accused either during the phase of evidence at trial or during the phase of sentence hearing. Learned trial court stated that because it is a case of indecency towards a woman and the precedent guided him not to invoke benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders

Act, he declined to set the accused on probation. In the appeal, nothing contrary is shown. Therefore, this contention is negatived.

7

7.Learned counsel for appellant submits that the sentence inflicted is harsh. As per record, accused is aged 30 years. As per record, there is no other criminal history against this accused. The established evidence does not indicate accused physically touching the victim lady. It is a case of intrusion into the privacy of a lady in a village. In the opinion of this court, incarceration is unwarranted in the present case. Therefore, while upholding the finding of guilt and conviction for the offence under Sec.509 IPC, the impugned judgment deserves modification concerning sentence. The simple imprisonment for one year is set aside and the fine of Rs.1000/- is modified and the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. It is to be recorded that he had earlier paid Rs.1000/- in the trial court, and he shall remit the remaining balance of Rs.4000/-, in default of which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, this appeal is allowed for a modification, while upholding the finding of guilt and conviction for the offence under Sec.509 IPC, the impugned judgment is modified concerning sentence. The simple imprisonment for one year inflicted by the trial court is set aside and the fine of Rs.1000/- is modified and the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. It is to be recorded that he had earlier paid

Rs.1000/- in the trial court, and he shall remit the remaining balance of Rs.4000/-, in default of which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. To the above effect the impugned judgment, dt.28.10.2016 in C.C.189/2014 of leaned I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, stands modified.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2019.

(Sd/-) DR. V. RADHA KRISHNA KRUPA SAGAR,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR.

Copy to: The I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR.

Present: Sri DR.V.RADHA KRISHNA KRUPA SAGAR,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Wednesday, the 3 rd day of April, 2019.

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.23/2014

Between: Bh Prudhvinarayana S/o.Veera Bhadra Rao, Rtd., Deputy Supdt of Police, now advocate, 62 yrs., 2nd lane, Kannavari thota, Guntur. … Petitioner.

And

1. Kollirala Srinivasa Rao @ Bujji S/o.Venkateswararao, aged 50 years, Hitha Nagar, Sattenapalli Road, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.

2. The State, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Guntur.

...Respondents.

(Against orders passed in Crl.M.P.1140/2013, dt.5.6.2013 on the file of

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.)

This Criminal Revision petition is coming on 28.03.2019 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Krishna Rao, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and Sri P.Anjaneya Chowdary, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, and the learned

Addl.P.P for the State/2nd Respondent, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:-

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 and 399 of

Cr.P.C by one of the accused in PRC 35/2008 challenging the orders dated 5.6.2013 of learned V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.1140/2013, dt.5.6.2013.

2.The revision petitioner is shown as A1 in PRC 35/2008. He was formerly Sub-Divisional Police Officer and during his tenure this case mentioned facts were alleged against him. On his retirement he is practicing as an Advocate at the Bar.

3.R1 /Sri Kollirala Srinivasarao @ Bujji, is stated to be an accused in several criminal cases including Cr.No.44/2005 for possession of explosives and

Cr.No.341/2005 for assaulting police officers. It is that R1 who made a private 2 complaint dated 25.2.2006, before learned Magistrate alleging that he (R1 herein) is an executive member of Executive Committee of Guntur District Telugudesam

Party. The revision petitioner herein, though a police officer, openly proclaims his support to Congress party and threatens that he would implicate them in false cases and he used to abuse them in filthy language and used to warn them to stop their political activities. On 15/16-9-2005 at 2 a.m., police officer and two other police officers came to his house, trespassed into it, and started forcibly taking him away from the house without assigning any reasons and when the wife of the complainant intervened, she was abused in filthy language, and she was pulled by her shoulder, and warned that her chastity would be disturbed and he was forcibly put into a Jeep and was taken to Narasaraopet Rural police station, and was wrongfully confined and was beaten with sticks, and threatened him that they would kill him, and this revision petitioner took out a revolver and pointed it towards his head and then left him. Pursuant to this complaint, and after recording the statements of complainant and witnesses, and after due enquiry the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sec.324, 354, 307, 506 r/w.34 IPC, against the present revision petitioner and other accused. That case is PRC 35/2008. This revision petitioner and other accused responded to summons issued by the learned Magistrate and put up their appearance before the learned

Magistrate.

4.In the backdrop of above alleged facts, the present case has to be examined. This petitioner filed Crl.M.P.1140/2013 under Sec.197 CrPC before the learned Magistrate contending that he being public servant cognizance is prohibited without sanction being obtained and since no sanction was obtained for prosecution he shall be discharged. According to him, not discharging him is abuse of process of law.

5.In response to that, the respondent in the above miscellaneous petition filed a counter detailing various aspects of political affairs and 3 commitment of this revision petitioner to one political party, and his misdeeds as against men of other political parties, and about encounter deaths on his part.

Finally it is stated that committing an offence is not part of official duty and question of sanction can be determined from the beginning till the end at any stage of the case and Sec.197 CrPC is not a provision enabling a court to discharge an accused and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and after perusing the record, learned V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, passed the impugned order on 5.6.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.1140/2013 stating that the petition is not maintainable since on the same point the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court and their Lordships rejected the contentions of the petitioner and ordered that the question of sanction in this case shall be decided after full-fledged trial and at the final hearing. Making those observations that petition filed by the revision petitioner under Sec.197 CrPC before the learned Magistrate was dismissed. In challenge to that order, the present revision is filed wherein copious references to pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are mentioned and all of them pertain to the need for sanction for prosecution and the stage at which it has to be obtained and the effect of non-availability of sanction for prosecution and how an accused is entitled to show some material and the court is bound to look at the material to decide whether sanction is required or not. It is further stated in this revision petition that the learned Magistrate failed to take into consideration Sec.197 CrPC, and it had not perused sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses and a perusal of them would have shown that there was no prima facie case to take cognizance and taking cognizance without material goes to the root of the case. This revision also narrates as to how this

PRC came to be filed as a counter blast to the other criminal cases filed against the respondent / defacto complainant and draws references to various remand reports, statements of accused and in those remand reports, the medical evidence 4 showing no injuries on the accused involved in those cases, and the appropriateness of police investigation in all those crimes and notorious nature of the accused in those cases and requests the court to consider all those facts and hold that the complaint in PRC 35/2008 is false. For these reasons, he prays to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.

7.For R1, there has been no representation. For R2 learned Additional

Public Prosecutor made appearance.

8.The learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted oral arguments and cited legal authorities.

9.To begin with, I shall record one of the rulings cited by the revision petitioner-- Abdul Wahab Ansari Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2000)8

Supreme Court Cases 500, a Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India elaborately dealt with the law concerning sanction for prosecution under Sec.197

CrPC and the various stages at which absence of sanction can be canvassed by an accused public servant. On this proposition there can be no disagreement.

Keeping that principle in mind, the question raised before this court has to be considered.

10.The point for consideration:

Whether the impugned order suffers from illegality or irregularity or impropriety?

POINT ANSWERED:

11.It is undisputed that revision petitioner was a public servant by the time of offences alleged against him. At the behest of R1, a private complainant was filed and after due enquiry learned Magistrate made it PRC 35/2008 and summoned this revision petitioner and he made his appearance. Challenging the

PRC 35/2008 and requesting to quash it, this petitioner filed Criminal Petition

No.148/2009 before the Hon’ble High Court and their lordships by order dated 5 23.08.2012 held at paragraph No.5, “The question as to whether the petitioner acted in discharge of his official duties or not would be adjudicated only after full- fledged trial. At this stage, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings”.

With those observations, their Lordships dismissed the criminal petition.

12.Having invited such an order from the Hon'ble High Court, on the same point of sanction he filed Crl.M.P.No.1140/2013 before the learned V

Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Citing the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the learned Magistrate held that since the point was already decided by their

Lordships, it is not within his competence to decide it once again and a petition of this nature could not be maintained and dismissed it. Not satisfied with these two orders, one by their Lordships, another by the committing Magistrate, the petitioner has preferred this revision once again asserting the law concerning

Sec.197 CrPC, and further about requirement of need for discussion of facts for a

Magistrate to take cognizance, and how that failure to consider the facts resulted

in taking cognizance, and requests this court not only to set aside the impugned order but also to set aside the order of cognizance taken against him and discharge him.

13.Having fully considered his plea this court finds no merit in it and the reasons for such conclusion are briefly recorded here:

1.A learned Magistrate following the orders of the Hon'ble High

Court in the same case and then passing an order is fully in accordance with law and it cannot be said to be illegal or improper or irregular. Since the order does not fall in any of those categories, this court sitting in revision has nothing more to do, except supporting the Impugned order.

6

2.Even according to the ruling cited by the petitioner, question of sanction can be considered by a court from the time of cognizance till the time of final arguments. Therefore, failure of the committing court in not considering his plea of want of sanction does not prejudice his rights in any way and he is well within his competence to agitate them at the final hearing of the case. In fact, that was the command of their

Lordships in the Criminal Petition No. 148/2009.

3.One of the contentions of learned counsel for revision petitioner is that despite the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, this court sitting in revision can take a different view. I am afraid that such position is not tenable.

4.The substance of grievance of the petitioner is that if material on record is properly considered no case was made out and

Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance against him.

5.It is in this regard one requires to keep in mind the law as contained in Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs.State of Rajasthan,

AIR 2013 SC 633. Speaking on the powers of a Magistrate under Sec.190 CrPC in a case exclusively triable by court of

Session, their Lordships held that it is not open to the committal court to launch on a process of satisfying itself whether a prima facie case has been made out on the merits for taking cognizance or not. The Magistrate shall proceed with an assumption that the facts alleged are correct, and he has to simply commit the case to the Court of Session. If made-up facts unsupported by any material lie on the file, it is perfectly open to the Sessions Court to act under Sec.227

CrPC, and discharge the accused. The Magistrate cannot 7 probe into a matter of a Sessions triable case for discharging an accused. One shall also keep in mind a judgment of the

Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Hardeep Sing Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 1400, and another Constitutional Bench decision in Dharam Pal Vs

State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 3018. The purport of these decisions is that the Magistrate at the stage of cognizance under Sec.190 CrPC cannot appreciate the evidence on record and reach a conclusion as to which evidence is acceptable and relied upon and which evidence cannot be accepted. Once the allegations indicate offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, he must commit the case to the Court of Session and under Sec.193 CrPC it is the

Sessions Court which has to take cognizance as a court of

original jurisdiction, and therefore, the Magistrate while committing the case is not expected to take cognizance and he must commit it. Their Lordships stated that Magistrate shall play a passive role in committing the case to preserve the powers of the Sessions Court under Sec.193 CrPC. In the light of these principles, the contention of revision petitioner about his good conduct and the facts related to that and the bad conduct of R1 and the facts related to that and failure of the Magistrate in considering all these facts cannot be accepted. In a case exclusively triable by Court of Session this is not within the realm of learned Magistrate to discharge an accused who had already put in his appearance in response to summons. Since the allegation is about pointing out a revolver at the head of the individual and telling that he 8 would kill him is available on record, the committing court taking cognizance for the offence under Sec.307 IPC and registering the case as PRC cannot be called as a judicial act against any principles of law. Therefore, even on merits, I find no merit in this revision. Hence, the point is answered against the revision petitioner.

6.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for Revision petitioner submits that concerning aspect of cognizance the docket of the committal court shows that the learned

Magistrate had recorded that there is separate order

indicating his reasons and noted the provisions of law under which he had taken cognizance. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the separate order mentioned on the docket is not available on record. This court finds that this aspect of the matter seems to have been available for consideration in CRP 30/2018, and therefore, does not require any decision herein.

14.In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed and as a consequence of it, the impugned order dated 5.6.2013 of learned V Addl. Junior

Civil Judge, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.No.1140/2013 in PRC 35/2008 stands confirmed.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 3 rd day of April, 2019.

(Sd/-) Dr.V.Radha Krishna Krupa Sagar,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- NIL –

(Sd/-) Dr.V.Radha Krishna Krupa Sagar, I A.D.& S.J. Guntur.

Copy to :

The V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl. District and Sessions Juge

Case No. :EP/0000124/2018 M/S. Shriram Transport Fin Ltd Vs Banala Vijaya Kumar

Date : 09-04-2019

Business: DHr called absent. No representation during call work and thereafter too. Batta ordered on 01.03.2019 has not been paid so int he result this EP.124/2018 is dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 09-04-2019 I Addl. District and Sessions Juge

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl. District and Sessions Juge

Case No. :EP/0000124/2018 M/S. Shriram Transport Fin Ltd Vs Banala Vijaya Kumar

Date : 09-04-2019

Business: DHr called absent. No representation during call work and thereafter too. Batta ordered on 01.03.2019 has not been paid so int he result this EP.124/2018 is dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 09-04-2019 I Addl. District and Sessions Juge

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl. District and Sessions Juge

Case No. :EP/0000230/2018 M/S. Shriram Trasport Fin Ltd Vs Isac Paul Borugadda

Date : 03-04-2019

Business: Batta not paid. DHR filed memo not pressing this EP. Recorded. In the result, this EP.230/2018 is dismissed as not pressed. No costs. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 03-04-2019 I Addl. District and Sessions Juge