Sri A Manikantha

CC No. 404 of 20191Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, 

FOR EXCISE CASES, AT HYDERABAD

Tuesday, Dated this the 27nd day of February, 2024.

Present:­ Sri. A Manikanta,

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR

EXCISE CASES, HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR CASE No. 404 of 2019

Between :

The State of Telangana, through The Bahadurpura Police Station. …. Complainant. AND

Shivaji Kishan Rao Ghavani, S/o. Kishan Rao, Age. 53 years, Occ. Driver, R/o.H.No.4­7­24/10/1, N.M Guda, Kishanbagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. …. Accused. 

This case coming on 15­02­2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Smt. Anitha Deshmuk, Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. J. Gopala Krishna, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The then Sub­Inspector of Police Bahadurpura has laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 304­A of IPC.

2.The gravamen of charge sheet is as follows:

i) On 05­10­2019 at 22.00 hours, the defacto complainant Pw1/Irfan Ahmed lodged report to the police stating that, on 05­10­2019 at about 12.00 hours, his cousin brother

Pw6/Azarath Ali alongwith his elder son Sofiyan Ahmed(deceased) aged 4 years went out from the house on the two wheeler vehicle No. AP 29 CA 2807 i.e., Splender Pro to eye hospital. Pw6 was returning back to his house and PW1’s son was sitting on the back side of the vehicle and reached near Bahadupura X Roads signals. At 15.00 hours, one DCM vehicle

B.No. AP 29 EC 0885 came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle. Due to which the son of Defacto­Complainant/Sofiyan Ahmed fell down on the road and the DCM driver forcefully hit him due to which the child sustained severe injury on the

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 20192Judgment

body. The local people shifted the injured to the Osmania General Hospital for treatment but, the duty doctors declared that, his son Sofiyan Ahmed was brought dead. Hence, prayed to take action against the DCM driver.

ii)Based on report a case was registered in Cr. No. 210/2019 for the offence under Sec.

304­A of IPC. Further Pw7/Shiva Krishna SI of PS Bahadurpura took up furhter investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. Later he proceeded to Osmania General Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and handed over the body of the deceased for PME.

Iii) During the course of investigation the accused was issued Section 41­A Cr.P.C. Notice and the accused furnished sureties. The crime vehicle was inspected by Motor Vehicle

Inspector and he opined that, the accident is not due to any mechanical defect or fault. The

PME report disclose that, the cause of death of the deceased is due to blunt injury on the abdomen. The investigation shows that, the deceased was sitting on the back side of the vehicle and they were returning back. The accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike due to which the deceased fell down on the road and the DCM driver forcefully hit the deceased due to which the deceased sustained severe injury.

When he was shifted to the hospital the doctors declared as brought dead. After due investigation charge sheet is filed. 

3. The case was taken on file by this court Sec. 304­A of IPC against the Accused.

4. After the accused made his appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed from trial.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 20193Judgment

6. The prosecution have cited (12) witnesses but examined PW1 to 7. Ex. P1 to P7 are marked. Pw1 is the Defact­Complainant and father of deceased, PW2 is Eye Witness, PW3

Panch for Scene of Offence and Rough Sketch, PW4 is Panch for Inquest, PW5 Motor Vehicle

Inspector, PW6 Eye Witness and Cousin Brother of Defacto Complainant, PW7 is the

Investigating Officer. 

7. The accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against him, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Sec. 304­A of

IPC , beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point :

10. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the fact that, the accused drove the DCM vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike from the back side and due to which the deceased fell down on the road and expired.

11. The death of the deceased in a road accident is not in dispute. Now, initial burden is on prosecution to be elicit that the death of the deceased is caused only due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. 

12. In order to establish the same the prosecution examined PW1­ Irfan Ahmed who is defacto complainant in the present case and he deposed that, on 05­10­2018 his brother/PW6 proceeded to the hospital along with his son who is the deceased. Later his brother called him and informed him that, he met with an accident by one lorry came from back side and dashed his bike. His son was shifted to the hospital and the doctors declared as brought dead. PW1

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 20194Judgment

deposed that, the lorry B.No.0885 which was driven by the accused have caused the accident.

Ex.P1 is the report. PW3/Shaik Ahmed deposed that, the police have conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P3 i.e., CDF alongwith rough sketch. PW4 Mohammed Akeel deposed that, the police have conducted inquest panchanama over the body of the deceased and he has noticed the injuries on the stomach. Ex.P4 is inquest panchanama. PW2/Abdul

Jabbar who is the eye witness have turned hostile and did not support case of prosecution.

13.The Motor Vehicle Inspector is examined as PW5 M. Gyaneshwar and he deposed that, based on the requisition of police Bahadurpura he inspected the crime vehicle i.e., AP 29 PC 0885 found no damages and opined that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect

Ex.P5 is MVI report. In the Cross Examination PW5 deposed that he did not visit the scene of offence. PW5 admitted that if the vehicle is break down it is impossible to move the vehicle to

RTA office.

14.Further the prosecution in order to establish the rash and negligent act of accused have examined PW6/Azarath Ali who is the cousin brother of defacto complainant and uncle of deceased. He deposed that, the deceased was sitting on the back side of the bike and lorry came on the back side and dashed in negligent manner. He also deposed that, the said accident he did not sustained any injury. Further the incident took place in the Bahadurpura X

Roads Near Signal. PW6 have also stated and identified that the accused was driving the vehicle and he came to know his name as Shivaji Kishan Rao from the local people. In the cross examination PW6 admitted that, there was construction of flyover at the time of accident but denied the road was not proper at the time of accident due to construction of flyover. He also denied that, since the lorry dashed to his bike from back side there is no scope for him to see the driver of the vehicle. PW6 specifically stated that, he has seen the driver and also came to know that, accused is the same person driving the vehicle.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 20195Judgment

15.The Investigating Officer who is examined as PW7/M. Shiva Krishna deposed that, he has conducted investigation by conducting scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama and also examined witnesses and investigation disclose that, when deceased was sitting back side of the bike the accused came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike. In the cross examination PW7 deposed that, since the incident took place at 3.00 pm there no chance of heavy crowd near the scene of offence. PW7 deposed that there are CCTV cameras but they are not in working condition and admitted that, he did not sent the vehicle of PW6 for inspection. PW7 denied that, the vehicle of the Pw6 was not in condition and PW6 was triple riding the vehicle.

16.The Learned APP submitted that, the accused being driver of Crime Vehicle AP29 TC 0885 came in rash and negligent manner at Bahadupura X Roads near Signals and dashed the bike from the back side. The material witnesses I.e., PW6 who is the eye witness to the incident have identified the accused that, who was riding the vehicle at the time of incident.

The act of Accused is Rash and Negligent, hence, prayed to convict the accused.

17.The Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that, the police have foisted a false case against the accused and the accused is no way concerned with the present case. As per the case of the prosecution the deceased was sitting back side of the rider when the accident took place. Since the deceased is aged about 4 years he could not sit properly and he fell down on the road and sustained injuries.

18.The Learned Counsel also disputed inrespect of identification of the driver at the time of the accident stating that, PW6 who is the rider of the vehicle cannot see the person on his back at the time of accident. As such the question of identifing the accused by PW6 to state that accused was driving the crime vehicle does not arise. He also contended that, PW6 was driving the two wheeler which is not in proper condition and that too a triple riding. At the time of incident there was construction of flyover at Bahadupura and the roads were not in

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 20196Judgment

proper condition. The accident caused does not form part of rash and negligent act of the accused, that the police foisted this case only at the instance of complainant to claim compensation. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused. 

19.On care ful perusal of record, the death of deceased in the road accident is not in dispute. As per the case of prosecution PW6 was riding the two wheeler when the deceased sitting on the back side. The said accident took place near Bahadupura X Roads which is also not in dispute. The only contention was in respect identification of the accused to state that, whether Accused was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident and also in respect of rash and negligent act of the Accused.

20.The prosecution have examined PW6 to state that, he is the eye witness to the incident and he specifically depsoed that he saw the accused at the time of accident. The only contention of the accused is that, when the lorry dashed from the back side and the rider i.e.

Pw6 also fell down on the road and there is no scope for him to see the driver of the lorry. In this case PW6 specifically stated that he did not sustain any injuries. PW6 denied that, there is no possibility for him to see the driver of the crime vehicle. It is pernitent to note that, since

PW6 being the rider of the vehicle did not sustain the injuries then he would be in the position to ascertain how the accident took place and can turn back immediately when the lorry dashed the bike from the back side. As such the contention of the accused that, PW6 cannot see the driver when dashed from the back side cannot be considered. Hence the identification of the

Accused to state he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident is established.

21.Now it is to see wheather the Act of the Accused was Rash and Negligent, The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 2986 held that, rash and negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the present case the accident took place at Bahadurpura Signals. The accused in this case in hand have raised the contention that, the vehicle of PW6 was not in

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 20197Judgment

condition but no such record is placed in support of said contention. The Accused also raised a plea stating that, the road was not proper due to the construction of the flyover. In this case the accident took place near the signals of PS Bahadupura and the accident took place at 3.00 pm and as per the Investigating Officer the scene of offence is not over crowded. Further immediately after the signals are given to proceed the Accused is duty bound more particularly while driving the heavy vehicles. But the Accused have acted in a very negligent manner when the signals are given proceed forward and dashed the bike from back side. The evidence placed disclose that, accused immediately after the signals are given proceeded in a rash and negligent and dashed to the bike from back side. The accused was duty bound to follow the signals and keep in mind and maintain the speed of his vehicle by crossing the signals. Further the contention by the accused is that, PW6 was driving the bike which was triple ride. But there is no material placed by the accused in support of said contention.

22.Further the contention raised by the Accused is that, the deceased who was sitting back side is aged about 4 years and unable to sit properly fell down on the road. This contention cannot be believed since the 4 years child would able to hold the rider. In the present case in hand it is only when the lorry dashed from the back side the child fell down and later sustained injuries. The evidence of eye­witnesse i.e. Pw6, particularly is reliable, trustworthy in respect of the accident.

23. In view of the the evidence put forth by the prosecution catagorically establish the rash and negligent act of the accused at the time of incident which lead to the death of the deceased. The prime ingredients for the offence U/sec. 304­A of IPC have established beyond all reasonable doubts.

24.With the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution successfully established the identity, rash and negligent drive of accused which resulted in the death of the deceased. This point is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 20198Judgment

25.Since, the Prosecution have established the gulit of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The Accused is found gulity of the Offence under Sec. 304­A of IPC.

26.In the result, accused is found guilty of the offences U/Sec. 304­A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accordingly he is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. 

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2024.

SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

FOR EXCISE CASES :: AT HYDERABAD

27.The accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence under section 255(2)

Cr.P.C., he stated that he is having children and family to lookafter. He further stated that except him no other person are the bread winners of their family and in his absence they will be put to starvation and pleaded mercy. 

28. Upon hearing the plea submitted by the accused and in view of the offence established against him, this court opines that it is not a fit case of apply Sec. 360 of Cr.P.C. or is not inclined to apply Probation of offenders Act. 

29.Lastly, counsel for the accused submitted that some lenient view may be taken in respect of the sentence by noticing the age of accused.

30.In the result, noticing the age of accused, Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence Under Sec. 304­A of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of two month. 

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 20199Judgment

31.The Accused was informed that he has got a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment before the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally.

32.The office is directed to issue a copy of Judgment to the Accused. 

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2024.

SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

FOR EXCISE CASES :: AT HYDERABAD

PPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution 

PW1: Irfan Ahmed (Defacto Complainant). PW2: Abdul Jabbar (Eye Witness). PW3: Shaik Amer (Panch for Sceen of Offence and Rough Sketch). PW4: Md. Akheel (Panch for Inquest). PW5: M. Gyneshwar (Motor Vehicle Inspector). PW6: Azrath Ali (Eye Witness and Cousin Brother of Defacto Complainant). PW7: M. Shiva Krishna the then SI of PS Bahadupura (Investigating Officer).

For Defense : NIL

Documents Marked

Prosecution documents

Ex.P1: is the Report. Ex.P2: is the Section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2. Ex.P3: is the CDF along with Rough Sketch. Ex.P4: is the Inquest Panchnama. Ex.P5: is the MVI Report. Ex.P6: is the FIR. Ex.P7: is the PME Report.

Defense Documents : NIL

Material Objects Marked : NIL

SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

FOR EXCISE CASES :: AT HYDERABAD

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 404 of 201910Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 404 OF 2019

DATE OF :

Offence: 05-10-2019

Report: 05-10-2019

Apprehension of accused: Issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C Notice.

Release of accused: –

Filing of Charge sheet : 29-11-2019

Taking Cognizance: 19-12-2019

Furnishing of copies to accused : 11-08-2022

Plea of Accused: 17-10-2022

Commencement of trial : 12-06-2023

Closure of trial: 18-01-2024

Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: 24-01-2024

Judgment or Order : 27-02-2024

Name of the complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police Bahadurpura Police Station.

Name of the Accused : Shivaji Kishan Rao Ghavani, S/o. Kishan Rao, Age. 53 years.

Reasons for delay: --

Offences under Sec.: 304-A of IPC.

Finding : In the result, noticing the age of accused, Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence Under Sec. 304-A of IPC. In default of payment of fine, accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of two month.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To:

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks :

Calendar Case No.: 404 of 2019

Date of Judgment: 27-02-2024

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2024, Dated :

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20201Judgment

THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, FOR EXCISE CASES,

AT HYDERABAD

Dated this the 14 th day of February, 2024.

Present:- Sri. A Manikanta, B.A., L.L.M.

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR

EXCISE CASES, HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR CASE No. 299 of 2020

Between :

The State of Telangana,through The Kalapathar Police Station. …. Complainant. AND

A-1: Md Noman, S/o. Md Sulthan, Age.21 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Amjadullah Bagh, Kalapathar, Hydeabad.

A-2: Mohd Zubair, S/o. Mohd Akbar, Age. 20 years, Occ. Student,R/o.H.No.19-2-21/D/38, Near Masjid E Munnawar, Amjadullah Bagh, Kalapathar. …. Accused No.1 and 2.

This case coming on 08-02-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Smt. Anitha Deshmuk, Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of M/s. Ashwin K Jaiswal, Learned Counsel for the Accused No.1 and 2, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The then Sub-Inspector of Police Kalapathar has laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence U/Sec. 269, 353 of IPC.

2.The gravamen of charge sheet is as follows:

i) On 17-04-2020 at 21.30 hours, defacto complainant PW1/G. Sridhar Kumar

PC 2362 of PS Kalapathar lodged a report stating that, he alongwith PC’s 3256, 8012, 5235 and PW2/SI P. Mahender Reddy was performing vehicle checking, in in respect of on-going issue of Covid-19 virus, to prevent the virus by following the orders mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.45/GAD, dt.23-03-2020. Further he submitted that,

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20202Judgment

at 17.15 hours as a part of vehicle checking near Fathima Hospital, Kalapathar a two persons who are accused No.1 and 2 were coming on two wheeler B.No. TS 12

EF 1239, HF Deluxe (black color) without mask from Alibagh towards Kalapathar

PS. When PW1 stopped the said persons and the Accused No.2 who was sitting behind the rider caught hold his uniform collar, pushed him and abused him in filthy language questioned him that, why you stopped his vehicle. In the meantime, Accused No.1 and 2 started abusing in filthy language. The said accused were brought to the police station and accordingly, he lodged the report to the police for necessary action.

3. Based on the report a case was registered in Cr.No. 98 of 2020 for the offence U/sec. 188, 269, 353 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses LW1 to 3 were recorded and scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators. The offence U/sec.

188 of IPC was deleted. The accused was issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice with a direction to appear before the court on the receipt of summons. Further, the investigation reveals that the Accused No.1 alognwith Accused No.2 were found violating the order of Government during Covid-19 by not wearing the mask.

When PW1 asked to stop the vehicle Accused No.1 caught hold of collar of PW1 and abused in filthy language. As such charge sheet is filed U/sec. 269, 353 of

IPC.

4. The case was taken on file by this court for the offence U/Sec. 269, 353 of

IPC.

5. After the accused made their appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20203Judgment

6.The accused were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed from trial.

8. The prosecution have cited (7) witnesses but examined PW1 to 4. Ex.P1 to

P4 are marked.

9. The accused No. 1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against them, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on their behalf.

10. Heard both sides.

11. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 269, 353 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point :

12. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the fact that the accused were found with no mask during Covid-19 and violated the Government orders. Further, they have obstructed the legimated duties of PW1 and more particularly Accused

No.1 have caught hold of collar of PW1 and both Accused No.1 and 2 abused PW1 in filthy language.

13. In order to establish the same the prosecution examined PW1/ G. Sridhar

Kumar Police Constable of PS Kalapathar deposed that, on 17-01-2020 while he was on vehicle checking during Covid-19 pandemic at Fathima Hospital and at about 5.15 PM he found two persons coming on the bike without bearing mask. He immediately stop the vehicle and the pillon rider caught hold of his collar and pushed him by questioning why he stopped the vehicle. The pillon rider also abused him in filthy language. At the time of incident, Dinesh and Mahesh were

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20204Judgment

also present who are their staff. Both the persons were apprehended and taken to the police station. On enquiry he came to know the names of said persons

Mohammed Noman who is the pillon rider and Mohammed Zubair is the rider of said vehicle. He lodged report to the police under Ex.P1. PW1 have identified

Accused No.1 and 2.

14.In the cross-examination by counsel for the accused PW1 stated that, the

GD Diary contains the number of persons on duty. He also admitted that, Ex.P1 does not disclose about the exact time when patrolling duty was allotted. PW1 admitted that, there are CCTV Cameras installed near the scene of offence and admitted that, he did not collect electronic evidence at the time of incident.

Further, PW1 admitted that there are other persons near the scene of offence at the time of incident.

15.PW2/P. Mahender Reddy who is the SI of PS Kalapathar have also supported the case of PW1 and he also deposed that, on 17-04-2020 he was part of vehicle checking and when PW1 stopped one vehicle bike B.No. TS12 EF 1239 the pillon rider caught hold the collar of PW1 and also abused in filthy language. He also deposed that based on the report of PW1 he has registered a case against the

Accused No.1 and 2 and issued FIR under Ex.P2 for the offence U/sec. 188, 269, 353 of IPC.

16.In the cross-examination by counsel for the accused PW2 deposed that, he do not know that the father of accused have lodged the report against him on 30- 01-2018. When the witness confronted with certified copies of charge sheet in

STC No.247 of 2018 he admitted that, he has registered a petty case against the brother of accused No.2 and also admitted that, the case is ended in acquittal.

PW2 admitted that, father of accused have lodged the case against him but the

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20205Judgment

witness stated that, the case is closed. PW2 denied that, he has foisted a false case and stated that he is not the Investigating Officer and did not registered the present case. PW2 admitted that, he did not state about the other police constables present alognwith him at the time of incident.

17.PW3/SK. Nayeemuddin who is panch for scene of offence deposed that, the police have called him near Daccan Bakery and obtained his signature on some papers but no panchanama was conducted. PW3 have identified his signature on scene of offence panchanama marked as Ex.P3. In the cross-examination by learned APP PW3 denied that the police have conducted scene of offence panchanama on 17-04-2020 at Fathima Hospital but admitted that, the police drew the rough sketch and enquired in respect of one person who caught hold the collar of Police. In the cross-examination by counsel for accused PW3 deposed that, in view of Covid-19 restructions general public are not allowed to come out from the houses and admitted that his signature was taken in his house.

18.PW4/S. Veeraiah who is the then SI of PS Kalapathar and Investigating

Officer in the present case deposed that, he has conducted investigation examined LW1 to 3 and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators. PW4 deposed that he also examined Mohammed Khaja

LW4 who is an eye witness. He has served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P4 is the scene of offence panchanama.

19.In the cross-examination by counsel for accused PW4 denied that, he has foisted a false case against the accused to satisfy the grudge of PW2. PW4 admitted that, there is 4 hours delay in registering the case. PW4 admitted that,

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20206Judgment

PW2 have registered a case and thereafter he took up further investigation. PW4 admitted that, he did not mentioned the names of the police party present at the vehicle checking at the scene of offence. PW4 admitted that, he has not examined the police constables with Batch.No. 3256, 5235. PW4 stated that, scene of offence is densely populated area and there are no CCTV Cameras installed near the scene of offence. PW4 admitted that, generally in the offence of No Mask photographs are taken and he admitted that, in the present case no photographs are taken. PW4 admitted that, Accused No.1 and 2 they are not sent for Covid-19

Test. PW4 denied that, he has foisted a false case.

20.The learned APP submitted that, when PW1 was on vehicle checking during

Covid-19 pandemic the Accused No.1 and 2 was proceeding on the bike near

Fathima Hospital without mask. When PW1 stopped the accused No.1 caught hold of collar of PW1, pushed him and abused in filthy language. PW1 and 2 were present at the scene of offence, supported the case of the prosecution. Hence prayed to convict the accused.

21.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that, as per the case of the prosecution PW2 was conducting vehicle checking on 17-04-2020 near Fathima

Hospital and found Accused NO.1 and 2 with no mask. It is also alleged that

Accused No.1 caught hold of collar of PW1. As a matter of fact, the police did not seize the vehicle and even no documents were collected in respect of crime vehicle. PW1 admitted that, he is working under PW2 as a part of vehicle checking. The learned counsel submitted that, there is no written instructions by the Inspector of Police for conducting the vehicle checking and even the

Investigating Officer failed to file GD Register and also Duty Register, to state PW1 was on duty at the vehicle checking point at Fathima Hospital.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20207Judgment

22.The learned counsel submitted that, in the year 2018, PW2 have registered a case against brother of Accused No2 and also the father of Accused No.2 have filed a case against PW2. The same was withdrawn when PW2 sought an apology.

As a matter of fact, PW2 bord grudge against the Accused family and foisted the false case by misusing the powers. The investigating Officer did not collect the

CCTV footage and admittdely the scene of offence is a populated area. There are not eye witnesses examined. PW3 have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel submitted that, accused are no way concerned with the alleged incident and the police have foisted a false case.

Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

23.On careful perusal of record PW1 have supported the case of the prosecution stating that, when he was part of vehicle checking and accused NO.1 and 2 were proceeding on the bike B.No. TS 12 EF 1239 with no mask. When he stopped the Accused No.1 who is the pillon rider have obstructed his legimated duty by catching the collar and also abused in filthy language. Based on the report of PW1, PW2 have registered a case in Cr.No.98/2020 for the offence U/sec.

188, 269, 353 of IPC. PW4 took up further investigation and after conducting scene of offence by recording the statements of witnesses he has filed the charge sheet.

24.PW3 who is the panch for scene of offence turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. As per the charge sheet police constables 3256, 8012, 5235 alongwith PW1 and PW2 were on vehicle checking on 17-04-2020. The Investigating Officer did not examined police constables i.e., with Batch No. 3256, 5235 and they are not even cited as witnesses. PW1 deposed that, Dinesh and Mahesh were present alongwith him but they are not examined by the prosecution. Further, none of the independent eye witnesses Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20208Judgment

were examined to state that the accused were found with no mask and they have obstructed legimated duties of PW1.

25.Admitedely, PW2 is the first Investigating Officer who has registered the case and hand the CD file to PW4. PW2 is also one of the eye witness in the present case and admittedly the father of Accused filed a case against PW2. PW4 took up further investigation but did not seize the vehicle of the accused and did not collect the documents pertaining to the crime vehicle. No photographs are filed to state that, the accused No.1 and 2 are found with no mask. PW1 deposed that there are CCTV cameras installed at the scene of offence but the investigating officer did not collect any CCTV footage to state that the accused

No.1 and 2 have obstructed the legimated duties of PW1 and they are found with

No mask.

26.The scene of offence is a thickly populated area and PW1 alognwith PW2 was on vehicle checking as per the orders of SHO. But no GD or the written orders are filed to state that they were on vehicle checking. The alleged incident took place at Fathima Hospital during evening hours, and there is possibility of general public movement even though there is Covid 19 restrictions. Though the investigating officer have cited LW4 as eye witness he is not examined before this court. There are no independent witnesses examined. PW1, PW2 and PW4 who are police officials and PW2 and PW4 being the Investigating Officers their evidence cannot be believed without the evidence of independent witnesses.

Even the Accused No.1 and 2 were not sent Covid-19 Test and there no report that

Accused No.1 and 2 are moving with an intention to spread the virus, to constitute the offence under Section 269 of IPC.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 20209Judgment

27.In view of said facts and circumstances, the prosecution have failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec. 353, 269 of IPC. As such the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt leading to acquittal.

28.In the result, Accused No. 1 and 2 are found NOT GUILTY for the charge against them for the offence punishable under section 269 353 of IPC. Hence

Accused No. 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2024.

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 202010Judgment

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution

PW1: G. Sridhar Kumar Police Constable of PS Kalapathar (Complainant). PW2: P. Mahender Reddy the then SI of PS Kalapathar (1st Investigating Officer). PW3: SK Nayeemuddin (Panch for Scene of Offence). PW4: S. Veeraiah the then SI of PS Kalapathar (2nd Investigating Officer).

For Defense : NIL

Documents Marked

Prosecution documents

Ex. P1 : is the Report. Ex. P2 : is the FIR. Ex. P3 : is the Signature of PW3 on Scene of Offence Panchanama. Ex. P4 : is the Scene of Offence Panchanama.

Defense Documents : NIL

Material Objects Marked

- NIL -

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 202011Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 299 OF 2020

DATE OF :

Offence: 07-04-2020

Report: 07-04-2020

Apprehension of accused: Issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C Notice

Release of accused: --

Filing of Charge sheet : 22-10-2020

Taking Cognizance: 28-10-2020

Furnishing of copies to accused : 08-01-2021

Plea of Accused: 17-02-2021

Commencement of trial : 21-03-2022

Closure of trial: 01-02-2024

Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: 06-02-2024

Judgment or Order : 14-02-2024

Name of the complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Kalapathar Police Station

Name of the Accused : A-1 Md Noman, S/o. Md Sulthan, Age.21 years. A-2 Mohd Zubair, S/o. Mohd Akbar, Age. 20 years. Reasons for delay: --

Offences under Sec.: 269, 353 of IPC.

Finding : In the result, Accused No. 1 and 2 are found NOT GUILTY for the charge against them for the offence punishable under section 269, 353 of IPC. Hence Accused No. 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To:

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks :

Calendar Case No.: 299 of 2020

Date of Judgment: 14-02-2024

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2024, Dated :

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 299 of 202012Judgment

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 352 OF 20211Judgment

THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, FOR EXCISE CASES, AT

HYDERABAD

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2024.

Present:- Sri. A Manikanta, B.A., L.L.M.

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR

EXCISE CASES, HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR CASE No. 352 of 2021

Between :

The State of Telangana, through The SI of PS Kalapathar, Hyderabad. …. Complainant. AND Mohd. Wajeed @ Wajeed, S/o. Mohd. Rafiq, Age. 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.19-2-21/35/54/A, Biriyanisha Tekdi, Kalapathar, Hyderabad. …. Accused.

This case coming on 26-02-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Smt. Anitha Deshmuk, Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. Abdul Mannan, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The then SI of Inspector of PS Kalapathar has laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act.

2.The gravamen of charge sheet is as follows:

i) On 14-12-2021 at 18.00 hours, PW1/P. Ramakrishna, Police Constable of PS

Bahadurpura stating that, he was on Blue Colts Duty along with PW2/Mohammed

Jahangir and they have noticed the accused in suspicious circumstances. When they have searched the accused they have found one knife in his waist and one botton knife in his pant pocket. The accused was brought to the police station and handed over to the SHO.

Based on the complaint a case was registered in Cr.No. 272/2021 for the offence U/Sec.

25 (1) (a) of Arms Act.

ii)During the course of investigation, the statements of PW1 and 2 was recorded and scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators and also

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 352 OF 20212Judgment

confession of the accused was also recorded in the presence of mediators. Based on the confession one knife length of 13 ½ inches and one button knife of 4 ½ length was seized from the accused. After due investigation charge sheet is filed.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act against the accused.

4. After the accused made his appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. he denied the offence.

charged U/Sec. 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act has been framed against the accused and the contents of charge was read over and explained in Hindi as per section 240(2) Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution have cited 6 witnesses but examined PW1 to 4. Ex.P1 to P5 are marked. MO-1 and 2 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against him, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charge under Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

10. Coming to the appreciation of evidence available on record, The prosecution examined PW1/P. Ramakrishna, PW2/Mohammed Jahangir both are Police Constables of

PS Kalapathar and they deposed that, on 14-12-2021 the accused was found in possession

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 352 OF 20213Judgment

of two knifes which are marked as MO-1 and 2. The accused was taken into custody and produced before the SHO Kalapathar. PW1 lodged report to the police under Ex.P1.

11.PW3/Mohammed Faizullah Khan, PW4/Mohammed Khaja both were Panch for

Confession and Seizure turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

They both specifically stated that, the accused never confessed before them and nothing was seized in their presence. Both witnesses have identified their signatures on

Confession cum Seizure panchanama marked as Ex.P2 and P3 stating that, the police have obtained their signatures on some papers. Even in the Cross Examination by Learned APP nothing was elicited against the accused.

12. PW5/P. Naveen the then SI of PS Kalapathar and Investigating Officer in the present case based on the report given he has registered a case against the accused and issued FIR under Ex.P4. Later he conducted scene of offence panchanama and also recorded the confession of accused in the presence of PW3 and 4. The seized knifes are deposited before the court i.e., MO-1 and 2. Ex.P5 Confession cum Seizure Panchanama,

Ex.P6 Scene of offence Panchanama. In the cross examination PW5 denied that, he has foisted a false case against the accused and conducted table investigation.

13.The learned APP submitted that, the accused is found in the possession of

Prohibited Arms contravening the Provisions of Indian Arma Act. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

14.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that, the police have foisted a false case against the accused and MO-1 and 2 are planted for the purpose of this case. Since the accused is alleged to have been involved in the other offences, this case is also foisted. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

15.On perusal of the record, PW1,2 and 5 are police officials and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution stating that, accused was found in the possession

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 352 OF 20214Judgment

MO-1 and 2 i.e., Prohibited Arms. As per the case of the prosecution, the said arms was seized from accused in the presence of mediators. The panch mediators were examined as PW3 and 4 have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The confession made to the police is inadmissiable. The fact that the MO-1 and 2 seized from possession of Accused is not established as Ex.P5 Confession cum Seizure Panchanama is not established as per prosecution, the accused was alleged to have been found in possession of MO-1 and 2 at about 5.00 pm near Watertank, Biryani Shah Tekri,

Kalapathar, but no eye witness is examined to state Accused was found in possession of

MO-1 and 2.

16.The panch for confession did not support the case of the prosecution as such the evidence of PW1, 2 and 5 who are police officials cannot be solely considered to base the conviction against the accused. Therefore, this court is of the considered view the prosecution have failed to establish the fact that, the accused was found in possession of

Prohibited Arms contravening the provisions of Arms Act.

17. In view of the said facts and circumstances, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt leading to acquittal.

18.In the result, accused is found NOT GUILTY for the charge against for the offence

U/Sec. 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act. Hence accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The material objects marked as MO-1 i.e., Knife 13 ½ inches length and MO-2 i.e., Button Knife 4 ½ inches shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2024.

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 352 OF 20215Judgment

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution

PW1: P. Rama Krishna Reddy, Police Constable (Complainant). PW2: Md. Jahangir, Police Constable, (Eye Witness). PW3: Md. Faizullah Khan, (Panch for Confession cum Seizure Panchnama & CDF). PW4: Md. Khaja (Panch for Confession cum Seizure Panchnama & CDF). PW5: B. Naveen, SI of PS Kalapathar (Investigating Officer).

For Defense : NIL

Documents Marked

Prosecution documents

Ex.P1 : is the Report. Ex.P2 : is the Signature of PW3 on Confession cum Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3 : is the Signature of PW3 on Scene of Offence Panchanama. Ex.P4 : is the Signature of PW4 on Confession cum Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P5 : is the Signature of PW4 on Scene of Offence Panchanama. Ex.P6 : is the FIR. Ex.P7 : is the Confession cum Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P8 : is the Scene of Offence Panchanama.

Defense Documents : NIL

Material Objects Marked

MO-1: Knife 13 ½ Inches length. MO-2: Button Knife 4 ½ Inches length.

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 352 OF 20216Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 352 OF 2021

DATE OF :

Offence: 14-12-2021

Report: 14-12-2021

Apprehension of accused: 14-12-2021

Release of accused: 31-12-2021

Filing of Charge sheet : 21-12-2021

Taking Cognizance: 22-12-2021

Furnishing of copies to accused : 29-12-2021

Plea of Accused: 21-03-2022

Commencement of trial : 23-01-2023

Closure of trial: 08-12-2023

Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: 22-02-2024

Judgment or Order : 27-02-2024

Name of the complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Kalapathar Police Station

Name of the Accused : Mohd. Wajeed @ Wajeed, S/o. Mohd. Rafiq, Age. 33 years.

Reasons for delay: --

Offences under Section: 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act.

Finding : In the result, accused is found NOT GUILTY for the charge against for the offence U/Sec. 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act. Hence accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The material objects marked as MO-1 i.e., Knife 13 ½ inches length and MO-2 i.e., Button Knife 4 ½ inches shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To:

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks :

Calendar Case No.: 352 of 2021

Date of Judgment: 27-02-2024

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2024, Dated :

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 1193 OF 20181Judgment

THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, FOR EXCISE CASES, AT

HYDERABAD

Dated this the 28th day of February, 2024.

Present:- Sri. A Manikanta, B.A., L.L.M.

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR

EXCISE CASES, HYDERABAD.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1193 OF 2018

Between :

The State of Telangana, through The SI of PS Prohibition and Excise, Secunderabad. …. Complainant.

AND A-1: Ajmeer Gandhi, S/o. Shankar, Aged 24 years, R/o.H.No.8-3.1, Narasimha Nagar, Sarvaram Kothagudem, Khammam District.

A-2: Maneesh Singh, S/o. Rooplal Singh, R/o. C/o. Amar Raj Traders, H.No. 14-8-666 to 564/2, Chudi Bazar, Hyderabad. (Absconding) …. Accused.

This case coming on 28-02-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Smt. Anitha Deshmuk, Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. R. Srinivas, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The then SI of Inspector PS Excise Secunderabad has laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 34(1) (ii) of AP Excise Act.

2.The gravamen of charge sheet is as follows:

i) On 18-06-2016 LW5 received credible information about illegal transportation of

Jaggery and Alum in trains from Platform No.2 Secunderabad Railway Station. The

Investigating Officer have rushed to the spot along with two panch witness and found the

Accused No.1 in possession of 50 Kgs of Jaggery and 5 Kgs of Alum in each bag total 200

Kgs of Jaggery and 20 Kgs of Alum. The Accused No.1 has confessed that he has purchased the same from the Accused No.2 at M/s. Amar Raj Traders. The Accused No.1 also confessed that, he is transferring the same for manufacturing ID Liquor.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 1193 OF 20182Judgment

ii)The Panchanama of the accused is recorded and the samples were drawn in the presence of mediators. Accordingly a case was registered in Cr.No. 27/2016 for the offence of 34 (e) of AP Excise Act and Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act. The samples were sent for chemical examination which disclose that, it contains reduced sugars and not fit for human consumption and can be used as raw material in manufacturing of ID Liquor. After due investigation charge sheet filed.

3.The case was taken on file by the Hon’ble X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence under Sec.34 (1) (ii) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and as per the orders of the High

Court, the case is transferred to this court.

4. After the accused made her appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to her as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. She denied the offence.

charged under Sec. 34(1) (ii) of AP Excise Act, 1968 has been framed against the accused and the contents of charge was read over and explained in Hindi as per section 240(2)

Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution have cited 5 witnesses but examined PW1. Ex. P1 to P5 are marked. The summons of LW1 and 2 are return unserved as whereabouts not known.

Accordingly the evidence of LW1 and 2 is closed. LW3 and 4 have assisted PW1 and in view of the evidence of PW1 the evidence of LW3 and 4 is closed.

7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against him, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charge under Sec.

34(1) (ii) of AP Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 1193 OF 20183Judgment

POINT :

10. Coming to the appreciation of evidence available on record, The prosecution examined PW1/Syed Zaheer Ahmed deposed that, on 18-03-2016 he received credible information about illegal transportation of Jaggery of Platform No.2 of Secunderabad

Railway Station. The accused was found possession of four bags each containing 50 Kgs of Jaggery and 5 Kgs of Alum. Total 200 Kgs and 20 Kgs of Alum. The panchanama was conducted and accordingly the contraband was seized in the presence of mediators.

Further samples were drawn. Based on the panchanama the case was registered against the accused. The seized samples were sent for chemical examination which disclose that, it reduce sugars unfit for human consumption. Ex.P1 Search Memo, Ex.P2 is panchanama,

Ex.P3 COR Report, Ex.P4 Chemical Examination Report, Ex.P5 is Acknowledgement of deposit of remaining seized property before Deputy Commissioner for Excise, Hyderabad.

In the Cross Examination he denied that, he has foisted a false case against the accused for the stastical purpose. He also denied that, the accused was not found in the possession of seized property.

11.The Lr APP submitted that, the Accused was found in the possession of Jaggery and Alum and transporting the same for preparing the ID Liquor. The accused do not have valid license for transporting the same. Hence, prayed to convict the Accused. The learned counsel for the accused reported that, the police have foisted a false case.

12.The case of prosecution is supported by PW1 who are police official and investigating officer in the present case. Except the evidence of PW1 his evidence is not corroborated with independent witnesses. Even the panch for confession i.e., LW1 and 2 are not examined. The evidence of PW1 being the Investigating Officer is not credible and trustworthy to state that, accused was found in possession of seized property.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is found in possession of Jaggery and Alum as alleged as such he is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 1193 OF 20184Judgment

13.In the result, accused is found NOT GUILTY for the charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) (ii) of AP Excise Act, 1968. Hence accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2024.

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution

PW.1: Syed Zaheer Ahmed SI of PS Prohibition and Excise, Secunderabad (Investigating Officer).

For Defense : NIL

Documents Marked

Prosecution documents

Ex.P1 : is the Search Memo. Ex.P2 : is the Panchanama dt. 18-03-2016. Ex.P3 : is the COR Report. Ex.P4 : is the Chemical Examination Report. Ex.P5 : is the Acknowledgement of Deposit of Remaining Seized Property to Deputy Commissioner Excise, Hyderabad.

Defense Documents : NIL

Material Objects Marked

NIL

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

Spl JFCM For Excise

CC No. 1193 OF 20185Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 1193/2018

DATE OF :

Offence: 18-03-2016

Report: 18-03-2016

Apprehension of accused: 18-03-2016

Release of accused: 22-04-2018

Filing of Charge sheet : 07-10-2016

Taking Cognizance: 07-10-2016

Furnishing of copies to accused : 05-09-2019

Plea of Accused: 15-09-2023

Commencement of trial : 04-10-2023

Closure of trial: 23-02-2024

Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: 26-02-2024

Judgment or Order : 28-02-2024

Name of the complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Secunderabad Name of the Accused :

A-1: Ajmeer Gandhi, S/o. Shankar, Aged 24 years, A-2: Maneesh Singh, S/o. Rooplal Singh. (Absconding)

Reasons for delay: --

Offences under Sec.: 34 (1) (ii) of AP Excise Act.

Finding : In the result, accused is found NOT GUILTY for the charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) (ii) of AP Excise Act, 1968. Hence accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To:

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks :

Calendar Case No.: 1193 of 2018

Date of Judgment: 28-02-2024

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2024, Dated :

Spl JFCM For Excise

103 of 2019 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR EXCISE CASES:

AT HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2024

Present:- Sri. A Manikanta, B.A., L.L.M. Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate for Excise Cases, Hyderabad.

CALENDAR CASE No. 103 of 2019

Between :

The State of Telangana, through The Sub-Inspector of PS Shahinayathgunj, Hyderabad.…Complainant. AND

Jithu Singh @ Jeetu Singh, S/o. Late Birju Mohan Singh, Aged 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No. 14-8-385/12/R, Jummerath Bazaar, Hydeabad. …Accused.

This case coming on 19-02-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Smt Anitha Deshmukh Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. H. Sudesh Kumar, advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The then Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Shahinayathgunj has laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P Prohibition

Act.

2.The gravamen of charge sheet is as follows:

i. On 18-01-2015 PW1 B. Ganapathi, the then Police Constable of PS

Shahinayathgunj was on patrolling duty and he received credible information about the illegal sales of ID Liquor at Uppalamma Temple and found the accused in possession of ID Liquor sachets in a plastic bag. The accused admitted that, he is selling ID Liquor to the needy public. The accused was taken into custody and produced by LW5 along with the report. Based a case was registered in Cr.No.

286/2015 for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P Prohibition Act.

Spl. JFCM for Excise Cases 103 of 2019 2 ii.During the course of investigation, the statements of LW1 and 4 is recorded and the confession of the accused was recorded in the presence of mediators i.e.,

LW2 and 3 and the contraband was seized in their presence i.e., 170 ID Liquors snatched each 100 ml. The samples were drawn and the same was sent to chemical examination which disclose that it is illict distilled liquor which is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. After investigation charge sheet is filed.

3. The case was taken on file of the offenses under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P

Prohibition Act against the Accused.

4. After the accused made his appearance, necessary copies of case documents were supplied to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence.

charged under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P Prohibition Act and charges has been framed against the accused and the contents of charge was read over and explained in Telugu as per section 240(2) Cr.P.C., for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has cited 7 witnesses in the charge sheet and examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1.

7. The Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against him, in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

Spl. JFCM for Excise Cases 103 of 2019 3

9. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

10. Coming to the appreciation of evidence available on record, the panch mediators i.e. LW2 & LW3 were not examined by the Prosecution and based on the report the evidence of LW2 & 3 is closed.

11. The Prosecution examined PW1 (B. Ganapathi) who is the defacto- complainant and he deposed that when he was on patrolling duty he has found the accused back side of Uppalamma Temple selling ID Liquor. On seeing the police party the accused tried to escape but the police apprehended him. On verification they found 3 polythene bags containing 50 sachets of ID Liquor with each total 150 sachets. The accused was apprehended and produced before SI of

PS Shahanayathgunj. PW1 have lodged report under Ex.P1. In the cross examination he stated that, he did not mentioned the mode of credible information in Ex.P1. PW1 was denied that the accused was never found in possession ID Liquor.

12.Except the evidence of Pw1 who is the police official, there is no independent evidence to support the case of prosecution. The panch witnesses are not examined to establish that the seized property was found in possessoin of the Accused. Hence, the confession cum seizure panchanama is not established beyond all reasonable doubts. The evidence of PW1 cannot sole basis to come to the conclusion that the accused was found in possession of ID Liquor and selling the same to needy.

Spl. JFCM for Excise Cases 103 of 2019 4

13. In view of afore said reasons and discussion, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to acquittal, since prime ingredents of the

Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P Prohibition Act not established.

14. In the result, accused is found NOT GUILTY for the charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P Prohibition Act. Hence, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property i.e., net Cash of Rs.200/- which is deposited before the court vide P.I.No. 311/2015 in this case shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation in the open court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court in this the 20thday of February, 2024.

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR

EXCISE CASES: AT HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution PW1: B. Ganapathi, the then Police Constable of PS Shahanayathgunj (Complainant).

For Defense NIL Documents Marked

Prosecution documents Ex. P1: is the Report.

Defense Documents NIL

SPL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: AT HYDERABAD.

Spl. JFCM for Excise Cases 103 of 2019 5

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES : HYDERABAD.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C. NO : 103 of 2019

DATE OF :

Offence: 10-08-2015

Report: 10-08-2015

Apprehension of accused: Issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C Notice.

Release of accused: --

Filing of Charge sheet : 28-10-2015

Taking Cognizance: 31-10-2015

Furnishing of copies to accused : 29-01-2016

Plea of Accused: 19-09-2019

Commencement of trial : 28-09-2021

Closure of trial: 30-10-2023

Examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.: 16-02-2024

Judgment or Order : 20-02-2024

Name of the complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police Shahinayathgunj Police Station.

Name of the Accused : Jithu Singh @ Jeetu Singh, S/o. Late Birju Mohan Singh,

Aged 33 years,

Reasons for delay : --

Offences under Sec. : 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P Prohibition Act.

Finding : In the result, accused is found NOT GUILTY for the charge against him for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) A.P Prohibition Act. Hence, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property i.e., net Cash of Rs.200/- which is deposited before the court vide P.I.No. 311/2015 in this case shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

FOR EXCISE CASES: HYDERABAD. To:

The Hon’ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Remarks :

Calendar Case No.: 103 of 2019

Date of Judgment: 20-02-2024

Dis No. /SPL.JFCM/HYD/2024, Dated :

Spl. JFCM for Excise Cases