Sri A Ramesh

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Parvatipuram.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2024.

Original Suit No.28 of 2018

Between:

1. Adhikari Krishnam Naidu, S/o.Gumpaswamy Naidu, aged 68 years, Hindu, retired Teacher, residing at Ramamandiram Street, D.No.1-58, Sivini village, Vikarampuram Post, Komarada mandal, Vizianagaram District, Cell No.9010116171.

2. Adhikari Satyam Naidu, S/o.Gumpaswamy, aged 57 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, residing near Rama Mandiram, D.No.1-27, Sivini village, Vikrampuram Post, Komarada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Cell No.9849618517.

............Plaintiffs

And

Arasada Prasada Rao, S/o.late Julian near Balayesu Church, Main road, D.No.3- 128, Sivini village, Vikrampuram Post, Komarada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

............Defendant

This suit coming on 19.4.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Sankara Rao and Sri R.Sesibhushana Rao, Advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri P.Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for a decree in their favour by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and hired goondas from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is:

The plaintiffs are the natives of Sivini village, Vikrampuram Post,

Komarada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiffs are the owners of the dry land covered by survey No.120/4 of Sivini revenue Village to an extent of 0.05 cents in the name of the 1st plaintiff and Ac.0-05 cents of dry land in the name of the 2nd plaintiff, situated adjacent to the Balayesu Church in Sivini village, Komarada Mandal. Both the plaintiffs are having absolute rights over the said property. The Revenue Authorities also having recognized the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs, got mutated their properties in all revenue records and also issued Pattadar Passbooks and title deeds and the plaintiffs were given 1B,

Adangal and other relevant records showing their rights. Whileso, in the year 1997 or 2000 ie., about 20 years back, the defendant had approached the plaintiffs and expressed his intention to purchase the suit schedule property in favour of Church with a view to donate the same to the Church in memory of his late father for which the plaintiffs have refused. The plaintiff recently proposed to sell away the said property and they have expressed their desire to sell away the same to others in the village. Having known the above said fact, the defendant has been deliberately proclaiming in the village that he already purchased the same about 20 years back and also threatening the people who have come forward to purchase the property that he would not keep mum and he would like to see the end of the purchasers and also threatening to create unnecessary troubles and litigation and also drag to the Court of law. The defendant has been black mailing and threatening and creating terror to the public and also threatening the plaintiffs to file a false case against them by misusing the facility provided to them under PCR Act. He is also proclaiming in the vicinity that he would like to create false documents against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs raised so many disputes before the elders and in every dispute the defendant while admitting his faults, continuing his acts. Hence, the plaintiffs got issued a registered legal notice dated 09.02.2018 to the defendant calling upon him to stop all the illegal acts and also not to create any troubles, not to create false documents to defraud the valuable rights of the plaintiff but the defendant refused to take notice and also continuing his act and deeds, giving hurdles to the public and also to the plaintiffs. Recently, on 10.03.2018 the defendant along with his henchmen tried to trespass into the suit schedule property and also trying to dig pits in the land of the plaintiffs and when the plaintiffs questioned the high handedness of the defendant, he grew angry and raised his hand to beat the man of the plaintiffs and the elders intervened and stopped the nuisance and restrained the defendant from causing hurt. Hence this suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contending that the plaintiffs along with the sons of the 2nd plaintiff Ramesh and Srinivasa Naidu, who are minors by then, through their father 2nd plaintiff, jointly sold away an extent of Ac.0-09 cents of land with specific boundaries and mentioned the survey number as Sy.No.120/5 of Sivini village under a sale deed dt.15.04.2000 to the wife of the defendant by name

Vimalamma and immediately, the wife of the defendant was put in possession of the said property and since then she had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The boundaries as mentioned in the said sale deed dt.15.04.2000 and the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule are one and the same. It is not known whether the plaintiffs wantonly or without knowledge of the fact, mentioned the survey number in the sale deed dt.15.04.2000 as 120/5 however the said land can be easily identified by boundaries and the same is in possession and enjoyment of the wife of the defendant since the date of purchase. The wife of the defendant has raised

Neelagiri plantation in the said land. From the year 2000 till recently, the plaintiffs never claimed the said land at any point of time and recently in view of the hike of the land values, taking advantage of the non registration of the sale deed, now the plaintiffs started claiming the said property and filed the above suit falsely, but the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs themselves admitted in the legal notice and plaint itself that the defendant is claiming the said property and denied the title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs ought to have file a suit for declaration, but they cannot file a suit for injunction simplicitor. When the wife of the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiff suppressed the said fact and filed the above suit falsely against the defendant with a malafide intention to obtain a decree against the defendant and thereby on the guise of the said decree to occupy the suit property by dispossessing the wife of the defendant forcibly.

There is no cause of action for this suit and the cause of action as mentioned in the plaint is not correct. Hence he prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction with respect to plaint schedule property against the defendant as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws 2 and 3 and got marked Exts.A.1 to A.4 documents. On behalf of the defendant, himself is examined as D.W.1 and also examined D.Ws 2 to 5. He got marked Ex.B.1 on his behalf.

ISSUE No1 and 2 :

6.It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property covered in survey No.120/4 of Sivini revenue Village for an extent of Ac.0.05 cents stands in the name of the 1st plaintiff and Ac.0-05 cents stands in the name of the 2nd plaintiff. The Revenue

Authorities also having recognized the right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property, got mutated their names in all revenue records and also issued Pattadar Passbooks, title deeds, 1B and Adangal to the plaintiffs. It is the further case of the plaintffs that in the year 1997 or 2000 ie., about 20 years back, the defendant had approached the plaintiffs and expressed his intention to purchase the suit schedule property in favour of Church with a view to donate the same to the Church in memory of his late father for which the plaintiffs have refused to sell the same. The plaintiff recently proposed to sell away the said property to others. Having known the above said fact, the defendant is proclaiming and threatening purchasers who come forward that he has already purchased the plaint schedule property about 20 years ago and he also threatened to foist false cases against the purchasers. The plaintiffs also raised several disputes before the elders and also got issued a registered legal notice

dated 09.02.2018 to the defendant calling upon him to stop all the illegal acts

and also not to create any false documents to defraud the valuable rights of the plaintiffs. Recently, on 10.03.2018, the defendant along with his henchmen tried to trespass into the suit schedule property and also trying to dig pits in the said land of the plaintiffs but with the assistance of elders, they stopped the high handed acts of the defendant.

7.It is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiffs along with the sons of the 2nd plaintiff have jointly sold away an extent of Ac.0-09 cents of land with specific boundaries and mentioned the survey number as Sy.No.120/5 of Sivini village under a sale deed dt.15.04.2000 to the wife of the defendant by name Vimalamma and immediately, the wife of the defendant was put in possession of the said property. The boundaries as mentioned in the said sale deed dt.15.04.2000 and the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule are one and the same. The defendant does not know the fact that whether the plaintiffs wantonly mentioned the survey number as 120/5 in the sale deed dt.15.04.2000. Since 2000 the wife of the defendant has been in possession and enjoying of the plaint schedule but due to hike of the land prices, the plaintiffs filed this false case. The defendant is claiming the title in the plaint schedule property as mentioned in the legal notice of the plaintiffs. The mere suit for injunction is not maintainable as the defendant claiming the title.

8.To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff is examined as P.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating the contents of their plaint. During his cross-examination, he deposed that on the

Eastern side of the suit schedule property, there is a Church. There are Neelagiri trees in the suit schedule property. On the Southern side of the suit schedule property, there is Harijana Street. He does not know whether the property within the four boundaries of suit schedule property falls within the Sy.No.120/5 but not

Sy.No.120/4. The signature shown to him on the document dt.15.04.2000 is not belongs to him. He denied the suggestion that himself and 1st plaintiff along with his sons sold away the suit schedule property with Sy.No.120/5 to the wife of the defendant by way of un registered sale deed dt.15.04.2000 and possession was delivered to her at the time of sale. He further denied the suggestion that eversince she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by raising Neelagiri trees. He further denied the suggestion that to grab the suit schedule property, he filed this false suit by furnishing the wrong survey number and they have no right or enjoyment over the suit schedule property at any time.

9.The P.W.2 filed his chief affidavit contending that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit schedule land which is situated adjacent to Balayesu

Church in Sivini village, Komarada Mandal. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the said property till today and the revenue authorities recognized the possession of the plaintiffs and issued title deed and passbook in their favour.

Recently, the plaintiffs proposed to sell the said land and expressed their intention in their village. The defendant started to proclaim in the village that he already asked plaintiff that he want to purchase the suit schedule property in the name of his deceased father long back and as such he purchased the same, but he did not show any sale deed in his favour. The plaintiffs also raised a dispute

before him and other elders. In the said dispute, the defendant admitted his fault

and again continued the same. The defendant finally on 10.03.2018 trespassed into the land of the plaintiffs and tried to dig pits in the suit schedule land. Then the plaintiffs stopped the defendant along with elders and the defendant quarrelled with all of them. The plaintiffs planted 15-20 Neelagiri plants in the said land. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he knows the disputed property in which Neelagiri plants are raised. According to him, the plaintiffs have right in the suit schedule property and the defendant has been disputing the same that he purchased the said property around 1 ½ to 2 years back. He denied the suggestion that actually the wife of the defendant Vimalamma planted the Neelagiri plants in the suit schedule property but not the plaintiffs herein and that he is deposing false evidence. He further denied the suggestion that the wife of the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

10.The P.W.3 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination following the lines of P.W.2. During his cross-examination, he deposed that the plaintiffs are not related to him. He has no land near the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs raised some plants in the suit schedule property, but he cannot say the name of the plants. In his presence a panchayat was held one year back by calling the defendant and the plaintiffs and in the presence of

Adhikari Trinadha. In the said panchayat, the plaintiffs proposed to sell away the suit schedule properties to the 3rd parties, thereupon the defendant claimed that the suit property shall be sold to him only. Except the aforesaid panchayat, no panchayat was held in respect of the plaint schedule property between the parties to the suit in his presence. He denied the suggestion that no panchayat was held in the suit schedule property before him.

11.The defendant is examined as D.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating the contents of his written statement. In his cross-examination, he deposed that himself and plaintiffs are residents of the same village. His wife’s name is Arasada Vimalamma. His contention in his written statement is that they purchased the plaint schedule property in the year 2000. They purchased the plaint schedule property under un-registered sale deed. He has not verified the 1B, Pattadar passbook and Adangal of their vendor.

His vendor has mentioned wrong survey number and extent in their un-registered sale deed. They did not file any application before MRO to mutate the name of his wife with regard to property purchased in the name of his wife. He did not issue any notice to his vendor to rectify the survey number and extent mentioned in his un-registered sale deed. Except Ex.B.1, he has no other document to show that he has right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property. He denied the suggestion that the plaint schedule property has not been in his possession and enjoyment. He further denied the suggestion that while he was digging pits and trying to interfere into the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs filed this suit. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiffs never executed

Ex.B.1 in favour of his wife.

12.The D.W.2 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination contending that he is a native of Sivini village and he has been residing in the said Sivini village. His house is situated opposite to the suit land beyond the main road. During the year 2000, the plaintiffs and the son of the 2nd plaintiff by name

Ramesh have sold an extent of Ac.0-09 cents of land to the wife of the defendant.

In his presence and one Adhikari Surinaidu, the negotiations were taken place to sell the said land and at the time of execution of sale deed, he was not present.

Since the date of purchase, the wife of the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he has no land nearby plaint schedule property. The defendant requested him to give evidence prior to filing of his chief affidavit. He was not a signatory in

Ex.B.1. Himself and defendant are residents of the same street. He does not know the plantation of Neelagiri Thota in the plaint schedule property.

13.The D.W.3 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by following the lines of chief affidavit of D.W.2. During his cross-examination, he deposed that his counsel did not read over the contents of his chief affidavit. The defendant planted Neelagiri tope in the plaint schedule property at about 5 years ago. He knows the said fact personally as the plaint schedule property is situated on the back side of his backyard. The P.W.2 is his cousin brother. The defendant requested him to give evidence prior to filing of his chief affidavit. The defendant informed about the dispute regarding the plaint schedule property. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false with a view to help the defendant.

14.The D.W.4 filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination in the lines of D.W.2. During his cross-examination, she deposed that she is resident of Indira colony. She has been residing in her own house. She cannot say the boundaries to the plaint schedule property. She denied suggestion that she does not know anything about his case but she is deposing false with a view to help the defendant.

15.The scribe of Ex.B.1 is examined as D.W.5. In his chief examination, he deposed that he used to scribe documents occasionally. He knows the plaintiffs and defendant. He does not know the wife of the defendant. On confrontation, he stated that he scribed Ex.B.1. He scribed Ex.B.1 at the instructions of the defendant. The plaintiffs were not present at the time of scribing the document. He did not sign as scribe in Ex.B.1. Generally, he sign as scribe if all parties sign in the said document. On confrontation, he identified his signature in Ex.B.1 as scribe. He denied the suggestion that he scribed Ex.B.1 in the presence of both the parties, he is deposing false at the instance of plaintiffs.

During cross-examination, he deposed that no consideration was passed in his presence and nobody signed in Ex.B.1 in his presence. After obtaining the signatures of both the parties by the defendant in Ex.B.1 he signed as scribe in

Ex.B.1. He does not know whether the transaction under Ex.B.1 was taken place or not. At the request of the defendant, he scribed Ex.B.1.

16.As per the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 and 2 have right, title, possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and the revenue authorities also issued title deeds, pattadar passbooks, 1-B and Adangals in their names in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs got marked Ex.A.1, the certified copy of 1-B dt.28.09.2017 in the name of the 1st plaintiff and 1-B in the name of the 2nd plaintiff dt.30.01.2018. As seen from

Ex.A.1, the 1st plaintiff by name Adhikari Krishnam Naidu has Ac.0-05 cents of land in Sy.No.120/4 and the 2nd plaintiff by name Adhikari Satyam naidu has Ac.0- 05 cents of land in Sy.No.120/4 in his name. The Ex.A.2 also reveals that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were in possession in the plaint schedule property covered in

Sy.No.120/4. Further, the plaintiffs also got issued legal notice to the defendant, the same is returned as refused. Though the counsel for the defendant cross- examined the witness for the plaintiffs, he did not elicit anything in respect of execution of Ex.B.1 by the plaintiffs and delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property by mentioning Survey number as 120/5.

17.As per the case of the defendant, the plaintiffs and the sons of the 2nd plaintiff jointly sold away an extent of Ac.0-09 cents within specific boundaries by mentioning Survey number as 120/5 under an un-registered sale deed dt.15.04.2000, which is nothing but the plaint schedule property, to the wife of the defendant by name vimalamma and delivered possession to the said

Vimalamma. In this case, the plaintiffs denied the execution of Ex.B.1. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, he denied his signature in Ex.B.1 and execution of Ex.B.1. Though the defendant got examined the D.W.5 who is the scribe of Ex.B.1, he categorically deposed that he scribed the Ex.B.1 at the instance of the defendant and no consideration was passed in his presence and parties to the documents have not signed in Ex.B.1 in his presence. Further, the defendant failed to examin even the alleged attestors of Ex.B.1. When the plaintiffs denied the very execution of Ex.B.1, it is the bounden duty of the defendant to prove the execution of Ex.B.1. Further, though the plaintiffs denied their signatures in Ex.B.1, he did not take any step to prove that the plaintiffs and the sons of 2nd plaintiff executed Ex.B.1 and signed thereon.

18.Further, the counsel for the defendant argued that one Vimalamma who is the wife of the defendant purchased the plaint schedule property in her name in Sy.No.120/5 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

The defendant also paid deficit stamp duty along with penalty levied on Ex.B.1.

As the defendant paid deficit stamp duty and penalty on Ex.B.1, the Ex.B.1 itself is sufficient to prove possession of the wife of defendant over the plaint schedule property. In our present case, except Ex.B.1, the defendant did not file any scrap of paper to show their possession over the plaint schedule property. At this stage,

I have gone through the decision of our Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

T.Purushottam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 11 AP CK 0091 wherein it is held that :

9. In the premises as above, the writ petition is allowed.

Respondent No.3 is directed to receive deficit stamp duty from the petitioners and release the document to them. It is however made clear that collection of deficit stamp duty by Respondent

No.3 does not amount to his accepting the genuineness or otherwise of the document which issue requires to be adjudicated by the Court before which the civil suit between the parties if pending if such an issue is raised by the Respondent

Nos.4 to 10 or any other party to the suit.”

In our present case though the defendant paid deficit stamp duty and penalty, levied on Ex.B.1, it is the bounden duty of the defendant to prove the genuineness of the document before this Court by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence. The above decision is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Further, as per the case of the defendant, his wife purchased the plaint schedule property from the plaintiffs and planted

Neelagiri plantation in the plaint schedule property and since the date of Ex.B.1, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Admittedly, the wife of the defendant did not get mutated her name in revenue records or even the wife of the defendant or the defendant did not make any representation to the revenue people to issue 1-B or Adangal or rectify the survey number as 120/4 instead of 120/5. The evidence on record clears that though the defendant claiming right, title, possession over the plaint schedule property, he did not file any document to show his possession or make any attempt to prove genuineness of Ex.B.1. The plaintiffs have filed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 and they have proved the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. Except oral evidence and Ex.B.1, the defendant failed to adduce cogent evidence to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property. The only oral evidence along with Ex.B.1 is no way useful to the case of the defendant. In view of Ex.A.1 to A.4 and oral evidence the plaintiffs proved their possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

19.In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in this case the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the plaintiffs, as such the plaintiffs are entitled for the discretionary relief of permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3:

20.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendant, his men and hired goondas from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 23rd day of April, 2024.

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvatipuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

P.W.1:Adhikari Satyam NaiduD.W.1: Arasada Prasada Rao P.W.2: Adhikari Trinadha NaiduD.W.2: Yamala Dalayya P.W.3: Gojana Satyam NaiduD.W.3: Yamala Gowri D.W.4: Batha Krishnamma D.W.5: Belagam Somasekhara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of 1B dt.28.9.2017 in the name of the 1st plaintiff and 1B in the name of the 2nd plaintiff. Dt.30.1.2018 obtained from meeseva in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. Ex.A.2: Adangal copies dt.27.3.2018 for the fasli No.1427 of Sivini village, Komarada Mandal, obtained from meeseva. Ex.A.3: Office copy of the notice dt.9.2.2018 issued on behalf of the plaintiffs to the defendant Ex.A.4: Returned cover dt.20.2.2018 with an endorsement of refusal

For Defendant:

Ex.B.1: Sale deed dt.15.04.2000

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvatipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parvatipuram.

Thursday, the 18th day of April, 2024.

Calendar Case No. 375 /2021

Between:

State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram Town Police station. …… Complainant. And:

A1. Alamanda Suresh babu @ Mukesh S/o late Simhachalam, aged 26 years, Komarada village and Mandal, R/o Bobbili.

A2. Kadraka Ramaswamy S/o Venkanna, aged 30 years, Rangalaguda village, Parvathipuram mandal.

A3. Bantu Praveen Kumar S/o Dasu, aged 25 years, Bantuvanivalasa village of Parvathipuram mandal.

...Accused.

This case coming before me on 15.12.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant/state and of Sri M.Manmadha Rao, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Parvathiuram Town Police station laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No.166/2021 of Parvathipuram Town Police station for the offence punishable u/s.353 of IPC.

2. The case of the Prosecution in nut shell is that:

On 28.06.2021 at 09.00 hours M.Satyanarayana, Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, Parvatipuram Town Police station/LW1 along with

P.Srinivasa Rao, Head constable/L.W.2 and Aluri Atchutha Rao, Police constable/L.W.3 visited the Municipal office, Parvathipuram town in order to perform BB in connection with the dharna staged by the SFI students and 2

Union leaders. Around 12.00 hours, on the part of Dharna all the students and union leaders are suddenly raised slogans loudly against the State government by demanding to publish the job calendar immediately and they tried to enter into the municipal office forcibly. Then M.Satyanarayana,

Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police, P.Srinivasa rao, Head constable and Aluri

Atchutarao, Police constable(LWs 1 to 3) prevented them and as well as explained that as the section 30 of Police act is being in force no one violate the rules and requested them to make representation in peaceful manner.

But they put deaf ear the words of police party and exhibited their aggressive manner and tried to enter into the office by pushing

M.Satyanarayana, Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police, P.Srinivasa rao, Head constable and Aluri Atchutarao, Police constable(LWs 1 to 3). To curb their highhanded act, the police party tried to take custody of the students, but suddenly the accused No.1 to 3 who are the leaders of said federation pounced upon M.Satyanarayana, Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police, P.Srinivasa rao,

Head constable and Aluri Atchutarao, Police constable(LWs 1 to 3) and threatened them and obstructed the public servants while discharging their legitimate duties by using criminal force. Immediately the M.Satyanarayana,

Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police, returned to Parvathipuram town police station and presented a report against the accused.

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this Court took cognizance of the offence

U/s.353 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before this court, the relevant copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated

U/s.207 Criminal Procedure Code.

3

5.After appearance of accused before this Court, the accused were examined u/s.251 of Criminal Procedure Code and the allegations for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 IPC are read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges under section 353 r/w 34 IPC are framed against accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu language.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P4 document.

7. After closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of

Prosecution witnesses and having understood the same, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

Point :-

10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 28.06.2021 at about 09.00 hours while M.Satyanarayana, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police,

Parvatipuram Town Police station/LW1 along with P.Srinivasa Rao, Head constable/L.W.2 and Aluri Atchutha Rao, Police constable/L.W.3 visiting the

Municipal office, parvathipuram town in order to perform BB in connection with the Dharna staged by SFI Students and Union leaders, at about 12.00 hours all the students and Union leaders raised slogans against the government demanding to publish job calendar. Some of the student leaders tried to enter into Municipal office and the accused No.1 to 3 entered into 4

Municipal office high highhandedly and obstructed M.Satyanarayana,

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvatipuram Town Police station/LW1 along with P.Srinivasa Rao, Head constable/L.W.2 and Aluri Atchutha Rao, Police constable/L.W.3 from discharging their official duties.

11. Tosubstantiatethecaseoftheprosecution,

M.Satyanarayana/ASI/LW1 is examined as PW1 in his evidence he deposed that on 28.06.2021 at about 09.00 AM the SI of police instructed them to go to Municipal office as there was a dharna for job calendar by students. On that they went to scene of offence and instructed the protesters not to conduct dharna as there is police Act in force. The leaders of SFI and some of the students entered into municipal office by pushing away the police party and also obstructed them from discharging their official duties. During his cross examination he deposed that there is no mention in his report that the accused and students conducted dharna for job calendar. There is no mention in his report that they informed to the students and leaders of SFI that section 30 of police Act was in force. There is no mention in his report that at what time the students and leaders of SFI entered into municipal office. There is no mention in his report that who specifically entered into municipal office and that they can identify them. Generally the municipal office will be opened at about 10.00 AM. He was there at scene of offence even after the said incident by discharging our duties. The SI of police orally instructed me to go to scene of offence. There is no mention in his report that the accused tried to enter into municipal office from which gate. There are sixty members in the said dharna. He stated to the police that the accused entered into municipal office by pushing gates.

12.Aluru Atchuta Rao LW2/constable is examined as PW2, he deposed in his evidence that on 28.06.2021 their SI of police directed him,

PW1 and LW2 to go to Municipal office as there was a Dharna. On that they 5 went to Muncipal office, Parvathipuram. There they obstructed some persons who tried to enter into Municipal office demanding job calendar.

However some of the persons entered into Municipal office by pushing them and also obstructed them from discharging their official duties. During his cross examination he deposed that the Dharna was started by SFI at about 09.30 AM. They lodged report mentioning that they conducted dharna at left side gate of Municipal office. The SI of police did not give any written instructions to them to go to Municipal office. They did not state to the police that specifically who obstructed them while discharge their official duties.

13.T.Ramesh who is mediator to the scene of offence examined as

PW3 in his evidence he deposed that on 28.06.2021 at about 03.00 PM himself and LW4 went to Municipal office at the request of SI of police. There the police conducted scene observation and drafted rough sketch and prepared scene observation report and obtained their signatures in the said report. During his cross examination he deposed that the SI of police did not serve any written notice to them in this case. The SI of police prepared scene observation report.

There is no signature of the scribe in scene observation report. There is a old bus stand in front of Municipal office. The said bus stand is situated on the northern side of Municipal office.

14.The investigation officer is examined as PW4. In his evidence he deposed that on 28.06.2021 at about 09.00 hours he along with his staff went to Municipal office, Parvathipuram for bundobustu duty as there was a Dharna by SFI student unions. At about 03.00 PM the PW1 lodged a report in this case.

Basing on the said report he registered a case in Cr.No.166/2021 under sections 353 of IPC. He also examined PW1 and LW2 at police station and recorded their statements. Later he has visited scene of offence along with mediators and there he prepared scene observation report and drafted a rough 6 sketch at scene of offence in the presence of mediators. During his cross examination he deposed that there is no signature of the complainant in column No.14 of FIR. There is no mention in the report of PW1 that they perform their duties from which time to which time. they did not receive any report from municipal office in this case.

15.As per the case of the prosecution on 28.06.2021 some of the students and leaders of SFI union conducted Dharna at Municipal office, Parvathipuram on 28.06.2021 and some of the students and leaders of the SFI unions tried to enter into Municipal office by raising slogans and that the A1 to A3 entered into

Municipal office and also obstructed the police people from discharging their official duties. As per the evidence of PW1 there are sixty members who participated in the said protest and A1 to A3 entered into Municipal office and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. As per the evidence of

PW2 some of the persons tried to enter into municipal office and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. Except the evidence of PW1 there is no corroborative evidence to prove that the A1 to A3 entered into municipal office by raising slogans and obstructed the police party from discharging their official duties. Further except the PW.1 no other witness stated about the offence comitted by the accused. Admittedly there are sixty persons participated in the said Dharna and that the municipal office is a public office and there may every chance to secure witnesses from municipal office or any local people who visited to the municipal office on the date of incident. In our present there is no material even to show that the police tried to secure any witness from municipal office or any general public who visited municipal office on the date of incident to prove the case that the accused entered into municipal office and obstructed the police from discharging their official duties.

The PW3 is the mediator to the scene of offence who presented along with SI of police during the time of visiting of scene of offence. The PW4 who is 7 investigation officer in this case, only deposed about receiving of report in this case, registering of this case and visiting of scene of offence. In such case the evidence of PW2 to PW4 is no way useful to the case of the prosecution. The only remaining evidence of PW1 who is official witness and interested witness from out come of this case is also no way useful to the case of the prosecution as there is no independent evidence and corroborative evidence.

16.In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Prosecution failed to place sufficient evidence before this Court to prove that the accused participated in the said alleged Dharna at municipal office, Parvathipuram and they entered into municipal office by raising slogans and obstructed the police from discharging their official duties, beyond reasonable doubt, as such the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence u/sec.353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused No.1 to 3 are directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each under Section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear

before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. The bail bonds if any

shall stand cancelled after six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1 : M.Satyanarayana/ASI of police -None- P.W.2: A.Atchuta rao/Constable P.W.3: Tirumareddi Ramesh P.W.4: G.Kaladhar the Sub-Inspector of Police 8

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution :

Ex.P.1 : Report. Ex.P2 : FIR in Cr.No.166/2021 of Parvathipuram Town PS Ex.P3 : Scene observation report. Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch.

For Defence:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil.

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar case tried by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Date of Offence : 28.06.2021 Date of report or Complaint : 28.06.2021 Date of apprehension of accused : 28.06.2021 Date release on bail, if any: 28.06.2021 Date of commencement of trial : 05.12.2023 Close of trial : 11.04.2024 Date of sentence or other order: 18.04.2024 Explanation of delay and remarks : The matter under went several adjournments as prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.375 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Junior

Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram Town Police station in Cr.No.166/2021 of Parvathipuram Town Police station u/sec.353 r/w 34 IPC. ================================================ Name of the accused, Father/Husband, Age, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal. A1. Alamanda Suresh babu @ Mukesh S/o late Simhachalam, aged 26 years, Komarada village and Mandal, R/o Bobbili.

A2. Kadraka Ramaswamy S/o Venkanna, aged 30 years, Rangalaguda village, Parvathipuram mandal.

A3. Bantu Praveen Kumar S/o Dasu, aged 25 years, Bantuvanivalasa village of Parvathipuram mandal.

Offence : Section 353 r/w 34 IPC: Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.

Finding : Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 353 r/w 34 IPC.

Sentence : Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused No.1 to 3 are directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each under Section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. The bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled after six months.

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Parvathipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Parvatipuram.

Friday, the 19th day of April, 2024

Calendar Case.No. 104/2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police station. …… Complainant.

And:

A1 Vaddi Sankar rao S/o Satyanarayana, aged 29 years, Komarada Village and Mandal.

A2 Vaddi Narayana rao S/o Krishnamurthy, aged 31 years, Komarada village and mandal. ……. Accused

This case coming before me on 18.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri G.Murali Mohana Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada

Police station, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in

Cr.No.182/2023 of Komarada Police station for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 17.10.2023 at about 05.00 hours LW4 along with LW1 and 2 went to outskirts of Gangireguvalasa village near by railway gate Komarada.

There they noticed A1 and A2 coming by bike bearing No.AP 35 AN 7208 along with white colour gunny bag on motor cycle. On seeing the police party they tried to escape from them. The police caught hold the A1 and A2 and on enquiry they disclosed their names and identity particulars as noticed in the margin. On verification of the said gunny bag they noticed 1) 2

Mangeera classic whiskey 180 ml 25 bottles 2) Classic blue whiskey 180 ml 19 bottles 3) 8 PM whiskey 180 ml 06 bottles 4) Boom Boom beers 650 ml 10 bottles in total 60 bottles worth of Rs.9,300/-. On enquiry the accused confessed that they are going to sell the same at higher price in their village.

On that the LW4 informed the accused that the possession of IMFL liquor without having valid license is an offence. They seized entire contraband under the cover of occurrence report and took the sample from each brand.

They brought the accused and seized contraband to the police station.

Basing on the occurrence report they registered a case in Cr.No.182/2023 under section 34 (A) of AP Excise Act. After that he also produced the accused before the court for remand. he has handed over this case file to the LW5. The LW5 sent sample for analysis and obtained analysis report and after verification of investigation he filed charge sheet before this court.

3. The case is taken on file by this Court against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

4. On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 case copies were furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 as required under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused were examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code for the offence u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. The charge sheet contents were, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Charge u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act,1968 has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and 2 and got marked exhibit P.1 to P.3 documents.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for 3 which, they denied the incriminating evidence made out against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt? POINT:

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 are corroborating with each other with regard to the offence committed by the accused. He further argued that there are no inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. As such the Prosecution successfully established the case against the accused. Hence prayed to convict the accused.

11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defence submitted that no independent mediator was examined by the prosecution, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, as such the Prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. Hence he prayed to acquit the accused.

12. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 17.10.2023 on credible information, P.W.2 along with his staff caught the accused who were in possession of IMFL bottles at outskirts of Gangareguvala village near by railway gate. He seized the contraband from the accused. When the accused were asked about the permission or licence to transport /sell IMFL, then they stated that they did not have any licence. He explained the reasons of arrest and seized the above property under the cover of occurrence report. On the strength of the occurrence report, he registered

FIR in Cr.No.182/2023 u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Later he arrested the 4 accused and sent him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation,

LW5/K.Neelakantam filed charge sheet before the Court.

13. To substantiate the case of the Prosecution, G.Gowrisankara rao/Head constable/LW2 is examined as PW1. In his evidence, he deposed that on 17.10.2023 at about 05.00 hours on credible information to the LW4 himself, LW1 along with LW4 while conducting vehicle checking at railway gate which is situated at the outskirts of Gangareguvalasa village they noticed two persons coming by bike along with gunny bag. They caught hold the accused. On enquiry they found 1) Mangeera classic whiskey 180 ml 25 bottles 2) Classic blue whiskey 180 ml 19 bottles 3) 8 PM whiskey 180 ml 06 bottles 4) Boom Boom beers 650 ml 10 bottles. They seized the said contraband under occurrence report as no mediator was available. They took sample for analysis. During his cross examination he deposed that there is no mention in occurrence report that they requested VRA, VRO or surpanch of Gangareguvalasa village to act as mediator in this case. They did not mention in occurrence report about batch numbers or name of the manufacturer of the seized contraband.

14. The investigating officer is examined as P.W.2. In his evidence he deposed following the lines of P.W.1 that they found accused in possession of 60 IMFL bottles worth of Rs.9,300/- and as no mediator was available, they seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report. Thereafter he registered case in Cr.No.182/2023 under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act. He produced the accused before the Court for remand. He handed over the case file to LW5/K.Neelakantam, he sent sample for analysis and obtained analysis report and filed charge sheet before this court. During cross examination, he deposed there is no mention in the occurrence report that they requested the VRO, VRA and surpanch of gangareguvalasa village to act as mediator in 5 this case. There is no mention in occurrence report about names of manufacturer or batch numbers of seized contraband.

15. It is clear from the record that the Prosecution only examined the official witnesses. In their evidence, they deposed that they did not secure mediators from the scene of offence. No independent mediators were examined to prove the case of the Prosecution. P.W.1 and 2 clearly deposed in their cross examination that the they did not try to secure any independent local mediators. Even they did not secure VRO, VRA or

Surpanch of Gangiraguvalasa village or any other local persons to act as mediator, which creates doubt with regard to seizure of contraband from the possession of accused.

16.As per the procedure laid down u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. while police or other Excise officials making search or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality, if no inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. In this case, the police even did not try to secure any person of Gangiraguvalasa village or any other local person to act as mediator. Furthermore, from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 it is clear that they did not try to secure surpanch, VRO, VRA of Gangaraguvalasa village to act as mediator. This is contrary to procedure laid down under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

17.Further, the material on record reveals that the Investigation officer collected samples from the seized ID liquor on 17.10.2023. As seen from the Ex.P.3 it manifests that the Investigation officer sent the ID liquor for chemical analysis after lapse of 42 days from the date of collection.

Therefore, there is a delay more or less 42 days in sending samples for analysis. There is no whisper or explanation about the said delay either in 6 charge sheet or in the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no evidence to show that the samples were kept in proper custody without giving scope for tampering. In our present case also approximately there is delay of 42 days but there is no explanation from the Prosecution for delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis. The same is also fattal to the case of the prosecution.

18. In view of the above circumstances, the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly, Accused are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each under section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. The bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19 th day of April, 2024. Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge -Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Parvathipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1: G.Gowri Sankara rao/Head constable- None – P.W.2: D.Rajaratnam/Head Constable. Documents Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.182/2023 of Komarada Police station Ex.P.3 : Chemical analysis report. For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects

NIL

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Parvathipuram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar case tried by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Date of Offence : 17.10.2023 Date of report or Complaint : 17.10.2023 Date of apprehension of accused : 17.10.2023 Date release on bail, if any : 20.10.2023 Date of commencement of trial : 27.02.2024 Close of trial : 04.04.2024 Date of sentence or other order : 19.04.2024 Explanation of delay and remarks : The matter under went several adjournments as prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.104 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior

Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police station in Crime No.182/2023 of Komarada Police station u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. ================================================== Name of the accused, Father /Husband, Age, Calling, Religion, Village and Mandal.

A1 Vaddi Sankar rao S/o Satyanarayan ageda 29 years, Komarada Village and Mandal.

A2 Vaddi Narayana rao S/o Krishnamurthy, aged 31 years, Komarada village and mandal.

Offence : Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act : Importing, exporting, transporting, manufacturing, collecting or possessing or selling any intoxicant contravening AP Excise Act.

Finding : Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

Sentence : Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and accordingly, Accused are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused are directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) each under section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. The bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months.

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Parvathipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parvatipuram.

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2024

Calendar Case.No. 07/2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police station. …… Complainant.

And:

Rajana Baji, S/o late Gopal, aged 32 years, caste by SC Relli, Gumada Village, Komarada mandal. ……. Accused

This case coming on 19.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri K.Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada

Police station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.102/2023 of

Komarada Police station for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 03.06.2023 at 9.00 hours, on credible information to the LW4/

M.Jagadeesh Naidu/the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police station along with his staff K.Santhosh, Police constable/L.W.1 and T.Gollayya, Police constable/L.W.2 went to outskirts of Gumada village and there they noticed one person from some distance who tried to escape from there. On that the

Lws 1,2 and 4 caught hold him and on enquiry he disclosed his identity particulars as noted in the margin. On verification they found 20 liters of ID arrack in a plastic can which was with the accused. On that the SI of police informed to the accused that possession or selling of ID arrack is an offence.

2

They seized the said contraband under the cover of occurrence report and the SI of police separated sample from seized contraband for analysis.

Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Cr.No.102/2023 under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Immediately he sent original FIR to this court. He also produced the accused before this court for remand. He sent sample for analysis and obtained analysis report from LW3. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet before this court.

3. The case is taken on file by this Court against the accused for the offence u/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code for the accusation u/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and charge sheet contents were read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge under section 7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act was framed, read over and explained the accused in Telugu language.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2; and got marked exhibits P.1 to P.3 documents and

M.O.1.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which, he denied the incriminating evidence made out against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

3

POINT:

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 are corroborating with each other with regard to the offence committed by the accused. He further argued that there are no inconsistencies in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, as such the Prosecution successfully established the case against the accused. Hence prayed to convict the accused.

11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the defence submitted that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, further no independent witness is examined to prove the seizure of contraband from the possession of accused, as such the Prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused. Hence he prayed to acquit the accused.

12. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 03.06.2023, the P.W.2 found the accused in possession of 20 liters of ID arrack at outskirts of

Gumada village of Komarada Mandal. As such he took the accused into custody under the cover of occurrence report, seized the ID arrack and separated the samples. He registered Cr.No.102/2023 u/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act. The Sub-Inspector of Police/P.W.2 sent the samples to

Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam and obtained analysis report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the Court against accused.

13. K.Santhosh Kumar, Police constable/L.W.1 is examined as P.W.1.

In his evidence, he deposed that on 03.06.2023 at about 9.00 hours on credible information to the SI of police, himself, LW2 along with their Sub-

Inspector of Police went to outskirts of Gumada village, there they noticed one person along with one black colour plastic can. On seeing the police party he tried to escape from them. They caught hold the accuse. On 4 enquiry they found 20 liters of ID arrack in the said plastic can. He further confessed that he brought the said ID arrack from Jaykot of Orrissa with a view to sell the same at higher price. After that they seized said contraband under the cover of occurrence report as no mediator was available. During his cross examination he deposed that there is no mention in occurrence report that where it was prepared. There is no mention in occurrence report that they requested VRA, VRO or surpanch of Gumada village to act as mediator in this case.

14. The investigating officer is examined as P.W.2. He deposed in his evidence following the lines of P.W.1 with regard to taking custody of accused on 03.06.2023 while he was in possession of 20 liters of ID arrack in a black colour plastic can. He took the accused into his custody and seized the above said contraband under the cover of occurrence report. He further deposed that basing on the occurrence report, he registered a case in Cr.No.102/2023 under Section 7A r/w 8(e ) of AP Prohibition Act. He produced the accused

before the Court for remand. He sent samples for chemical analysis and

received report. He filed charge sheet before the Court after completion of investigation.

15. As seen from the evidence of Prosecution, only the official witnesses are examined. In their evidence they deposed that they did not secure mediators from the scene of offence. No independent mediators were examined to prove the case of the Prosecution. P.W.2 clearly admitted in his evidence that the scene of offence is a busy locality and there is no mention in occurrence report that they requested the neighbours to act as mediators.

Even then they did not secure any persons nearby Gumada village or other local persons to act as mediator since the scene of offence is admitted to be a busy locality.

16.As per the procedure laid down u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. while police or other Excise officials making search or other person about to make it shall 5 call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality, if no inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. In this case, the police even did not try to secure any person in or around Gumada village or any other local person to act as mediator. This is contrary to procedure laid down under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

17. In our given case, though it appears that the offence was occurred near by Gumada village, the police did not secure any witness nor issued any notice by ordering any person to stand as a witness in order to secure them as mediator. In such a case, it is not possible to believe the version of the prosecution and the evidence of Official witnesses who are interested from outcome of this case that the accused was in the possession of the ID liquor and the same was seized by the police from out of the possession of the accused.

18. Further, the material on record reveals that the Investigation officer collected samples from the seized ID liquor on 03.06.2023. As seen from the Ex.P.3 it manifests that the Investigation officer sent the ID liquor for chemical analysis after lapse of 09 days from the date of collection.

Therefore, there is a delay more or less 09 days in sending samples for analysis. There is no whisper or explanation about the said delay either in charge sheet or in the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no evidence to show that the samples were kept in proper custody without giving scope for tampering. In our present case also approximately there is delay of 09 days but there is no explanation from the Prosecution for delay in sending the samples for chemical analysis.

6

19. In view of the above circumstances, the Prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence u/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and accordingly, the Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) under section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. The bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months.

The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed, to my dictation, by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court , this the 23 rd day of April, 2024.

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge -Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Parvathipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1: K.Santhosh Kumar, Police constable- None – P.W.2: M.Jagadeesh Naidu, the Sub-Inspector of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1: FIR in Crime No.102/2023 of Komarada Police station. Ex.P.2 : Occurrence report dated 03.06.2023 Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report

For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects

For Prosecution: Defence : nil

MO.1: Sample bottle.

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Parvathipuram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar case tried by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Date of Offence : 03.06.2023 Date of report or Complaint : 03.06.2023 Date of apprehension of accused : 03.06.2023 Date release on bail, if any: 08.06.2023 Date of commencement of trial : 27.02.2024 Closure of trial : 04.04.2024 Date of sentence or other order : 23.04.2024 Explanation of delay and remarks : The matter under went several adjournments as prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.07 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police station in Crime No.102/2023 of Komarada Police station u/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. ================================================== Name of the accused, Father/Husband, Age, Calling, Religion, Village and Mandal.

Rajana Baji, S/o late Gopal, aged 32 years, caste by SC Relli, Gumada Village, Komarada mandal.

Offence : Section 7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act: Producing, manufacturing, storing, possessing, collecting, purchasing, selling and transporting of arrack contravening section 7A of AP Prohibition Act, under which the above are prohibited.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.

Sentence :Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the charge leveled against accused. The accused are directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. The bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Principal Junior Civil Judge –Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Parvathipuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Parvatipuram.

Tuesday, the 6th day of February, 2024

Original Suit No.119 of 2023

Between:

Betha Appalanaidu, S/o.late Betha Krishnamurthy Naidu, aged 43 years, Permanent resident of Main road, Tallaburidi village, Parvatipuram Mandalam, Parvatipuram Manyam District, Adhar Card No.9229 9835 9263.

............Plaintiff

And

1. Smt.Betha Yasodamma, W/o.late Betha Madhavarao, aged 65 years, Agriculturist, Tallaburidi village, Parvatipuram mandalam, Parvatipuram Manyam District.

2. Betha Maheswara rao, S/o.late Madhavanaidu, aged 45 years, Agriculturist, Tallaburidi village, Parvatipuram Mandalam, Parvatipuram Manyam District.

3. Betha Sivaraju, S/o.Betha Maheswara Rao, aged 21 years, Agriculturist, Tallaburidi village, Parvatipuram Mandalam, Parvatipuram Manyam Districts.

............Defendants

This suit coming on 01.02.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Santhi Raju, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the defendants 1 and 2 and the 3rd defendant having been called absent and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule Item No.2 mentioned property and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint:

The plaintiff is a permanent resident of Tallaburidi village. Plaintiff and defendants are known to each other and they are also relatives. The plaintiff’s father’s name is Betha Krishnamurthy naidu and brother’s name is Betha

Narayanarao and they are no more. The defendant No.1 is the wife of defendant

No.2 and the defendant No.3 is the son of defendants 1 and 2. During the life time of his father and brother, they sold away the schedule mentioned Item No.1 property to the defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed on 19.10.1996 in

S.No.205/P, Ac.0-20 cents and remaining Ac.0.20 cents in the schedule shown Item

No.2 and the said Item No.2 land is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

The Revenue authorities also mutated plaintiff’s name in all revenue records. The plaintiff is enjoying the schedule mentioned Item No.2 and the defendants are enjoying the schedule mentioned Item No.1. So, the total extent is Ac.0.40 cents in

S.No.205/P. As the things stood thus, the defendants are insisting the plaintiff to sell away the schedule mentioned Item no.2. but the plaintiff refused to sell. The defendants bore grudge against the plaintiff and since two months causing all types of troubles to the plaintiff and trying to trespass into suit schedule Item No.2 property by influencing local people. The plaintiff raised dispute before village elders and they advised the defendants not to interfere into the plaintff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment, but the defendants paid deaf ear to the words of the elders. Since two months, the defendants openly proclaiming in the village that they would trespass into the suit schedule Item No.2 property forcibly and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule Item No.2 mentioned property at any time. Hence, this suit for permanent injunction.

3. The summons to the defendants were served. As per postal endorsement intimation is given to D.2 about summons of D.3. It is deemed served. D.3 called absent. Hence D.3 is set exparte. Inspite of granting sufficient time, the D.1 and

D.2 failed to file their written statements within stipulated time. Hence the D.1 and

D.2 are set exparte.

4.To prove his contention, the plaintiff filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 and A.2 documents on his behalf. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants as they remained exparte.

5.Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.P O I N T:

It is the case of P.W.1 that during the life time of his father and brother, they sold away the schedule mentioned Item No.1 property to the defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed on 19.10.1996 in S.No.205/P, Ac.0-20 cents and remaining

Ac.0.20 cents in the schedule shown Item No.2 and the said Item No.2 land is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The Revenue authorities also mutated plaintiff’s name in all revenue records. The plaintiff is enjoying the schedule mentioned Item No.2 and the defendants are enjoying the schedule mentioned Item

No.1. So, the total extent is Ac.0.40 cents in S.No.205/P. As the things stood thus, the defendants are insisting the plaintiff to sell away the schedule mentioned Item

No.2. but the plaintiff refused to sell. The defendants bore grudge against the plaintiff and since two months causing all types of troubles to the plaintiff and trying to trespass into suit schedule Item No.2 property by influencing local people.

The plaintiff raised dispute before village elders and they advised the defendants not to interfere into the plaintff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment, but the defendants paid deaf ear to the words of the elders. Since two months, the defendants openly proclaiming in the village that they would trespass into the suit schedule Item No.2 property forcibly and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule Item No.2 mentioned property at any time. Hence P.W.1 is constrained to file the present suit praying the Court to pass a decree in her favour as prayed for.

8. In support of his contention, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 documents. To disprove Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the oral evidence of P.W.1, the defendants did not choose to file their written statements and contest the matter. They remained exparte. Further Exs.A.1 and

A.2 establishes the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned Item No.2 property and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant did not deny or contest the suit claim. So, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 and A.2 stands unrebutted and proved by the plaintiff. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for discretionary relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff against the defendants, restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule Item No.2 mentioned property by the plaintiff.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court this the 6th day of February, 2024.

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvatipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiffs:-For Defendants:- P.W.1: Betha AppalanaiduNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1: True copy of sale deed executed by Betha Krishnamurthy Naidu and Betha Narayana rao in favour of Betha Yasodamma dated 19.10.1996. Ex.A.2: Pattadar Pass book in the name of the plaintiff.

For Defendants: NIL

Sd/-A.Ramesh,

Principal Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvatipuram.