// 1//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT PADERU
Present:- Sri. A.Ramu Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paderu Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026
C.C.No.390/2025
Between: The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Paderu.
……...Complainant
And : Boya Prasad S/O Apparao, aged 45 years C/o Valmiki, (ST), R/o Maddigaruvu Village, G.Madugula Mandal, ASR Dist. (Aadhaar No.254786646454).
………..Accused
This case is coming on 15.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and
Excise Station, Paderu filed charge sheet in Cr.No.175/2024 U/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise
Act 1968 Amendment act 2020.
2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :
This is an offence of illegal possession and transportation of duty paid Liquor which is punishable under the above section of Law At Maddigaruvu Village, and
Junction, G.Madugula Mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju District which comes under
Jurisdiction of this Court.
On 02-05-2024 at about 17.00 hrs the LW3 Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-
Inspector, Paderu, Along with Staff LW1& LW2, While conducting patrolling for
Prohibition &Excise Crimes, At Maddigaruvu Village, and Junction, G.Madugula Mandal,
Alluri Sitharama Raju District, at the time of patrolling one male person carrying white plastic Bag. On seeing the raid party he tries to escape. Then LW3 detained the male person with help of his staff. On questioning he stated that the white Gunny Bag contains IML bottles. Then LW3 deputed LW1 for securing mediators, after some time
LW1 returned back and said no one was willing to be act as mediators. Then the LW3 verified the white Gunny bag and found of 20 Nip bottle of SCIX Premium Malt Blended // 2//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 whisky, all are NDPL also found the all bottles are for sale in Oddisha. only. On further interrogation he revealed her personal identity and also stated that above bottles purchased separately in small quantity from different at Paderu Mandal and same was selling for profit at his house. he has no license or permit for selling bottles. Then the
LW3 drawn one sample bottle for chemical analysis from above property and sealed and affixed identification slips duly signed by all. Then seized the property and arrested the accused after informing grounds of arrest. The arrest information intimated his blood relatives. Then under the cover of an occurrence report drafted at the scene of offence.. Then the LW3 Special Enforcement Bureau, Sub-Inspector registered the case in Cr.No. 175/2024 of Proh. & Excise Station, Paderu U/S 34(a) of
A.P. Prohibition Act 1995. Then provisions issued the accused and released on self bail.
During the course of investigation LW3 Special Enforcement Bureau, Sub-
Inspector, Paderu is sent the sample to the Regional Chemical Examiner, Proh. &
Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam through Letter of Advice for analysis. The LW3 received analysis report.
After analysis The Chemical Examiner opinion vide C.E.No:1477/2024,
dt:30.05.2024 that the sample at Sl.No: 6726 is Indian Liquor. Later L.W-3 produced
the property except sample before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,
Visakhapatnam for confiscation and destruction orders and Vide Rc.No. 526/2022/ SEB
VSP/A1, dt. 26.06.2024 of Deputy commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau,
Visakhapatnam the property was destroyed on 26.06.2024 in the presence of District
Prohibition & Excise Officer, Paderu, basing on the analysis report the LW5 filed charge sheet. From the above facts it is evident that the above accused has committed an offence of possession and sales of iml is punishable U/sec. 34(a) of
A.P.Prohibition Act 1995. Hence, the charge.
3).On receipt of charge-sheet, this case was taken-on-file for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020, against Accused.
4).On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 230 of BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023.
// 3//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 5).When examined under section 262 of BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, accused is denied the allegations leveled against them. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, a charge had been framed against accused, under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 which was read- over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.
6).During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, LW.1 examined as PW.1 and Ex's.P1 and MO.1 and 2 were marked. LW4 examined as PW.2 and got marked
Ex.P2 and got marked Ex.P2 to P4. As material witness examined as PW.1 and P.W.2 all material marked. The remaining witnesses, LW’s.2 and 5 were given-up by the
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in view of the evidence of PW.1.
7).On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, accused was examined under section 351 of BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023. with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, he was denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
8).Heard the arguments on both-sides and perused the record.
a)The Learned APP argued that the evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.P1 and MO.1 clearly discloses that the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused is Indian made liquor and he has no valid license to sell the same in open market for profit which contravenes the provision under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise
Amendment Act, 2020. As such, the Accused is liable for punishment for the above section.
b)Per contra the counsel for accused argued that no property was seized from the possession of the accused as alleged by prosecution. Admittedly, the scene of offence where the contraband alleged to have seized from the possession of the accused was situated in a busy locality. The evidence of PW.2 contradicting with other evidence in respect of the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused.
When the independent witnesses are available in the scene of offence what prompted one constable to scribe Ex.P1/Chemical Analysis report and Ex.P.1/Occurrence Report.
// 4//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 The above referred circumstances clearly goes to show that nothing was seized from the possession of the accused as stated by the prosecution. At the same time, no measurements or any amount was seized from the possession of the accused to prove the alleged sale of liquor. As such, the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the Accused. Hence, he requested this Court to acquit accused for the offence leveled against them.
9).After hearing both-sides arguments and considering the entire material on record, now the points for determination before the Court is :
“1. Whether the police seized the entire contraband from the possession
of the Accused”
“2. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused
beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P.
Excise Amendment Act?” 10).Point No.1:
a) In order to prove the case of prosecution and to establish the seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused, the prosecution got examined PW.1 and
P.2 and exhibited the documents Ex’s.P1 to P4. who conducted raid along with his staff, under cover of Ex.P1/Mediators report, 2) signature on written paper, 3) Original
FIR 4) Letter of advise 5) Chemical analysis report, and obtained PW.2 filed the charge-sheet after completion of investigation.
b)In the instant case, PW.1 in his chief examination he deposed that on 02-05- 2024 at about 17.00 hrs, himself along with staff LW1 & LW2, while conducting patrolling at Maddigaruvu Village, and G.Madugula Mandal, at the time of patrolling one male person carrying white plastic bag. On seeing the raid party he tries to escape. Then, he detained the male person with help of his staff. On questioning he stated that the white gunny bag contains IML bottles. Then, he deputed LW1 for securing mediators, after some time LW1 returned back and said no one was willing to be act as mediators. Then the he verified the white gunny bag and found of 20 NIP bottle of SCIX Premium Malt Blended Whisky, all are NDPL also found the all bottles are for sale in Oddisha. Further, he questioned to accused revealed his particulars, he stated before him,above bottles purchased separately in small quantity from different at Paderu and same was selling for profit at his house. He has no license or permit for selling bottles. Then, he drawn one sample bottle for chemical analysis from above // 5//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 property and sealed and affixed identification slips duly signed by all. MO.1 one sample bottle. Then, he drafted occurrence report at the scene of offence. Ex.P1 occurrence report. Then, himself and LW1 and LW2 along with Ex.P1, MO.1, went to police station. Basing on the Ex.P, MO.1, he registered a case in Cr.No. 175/2024, under section 34-A of A.P.P act 1995. Ex.P2 Original F.I.R. During the investigation, he sent to sample to the Regional Chemical Examiner Laboratory, Vishakhapatnam through letter of advice for analysis. Ex.P3 Letter of advise. Then, I received analysis report. After analysis the chemical examiner pinioned vide C.E No. 1477/2024, Dated:
30-05-2024, that the sample at SI.No.6726 is Indian Liquor. Ex.P4 Chemical analysis report. Later I produced the property except sample before the deputy commissioner of P& E Vishakhapatnam, for confiscation and destruction orders and vide
RC.No.526/2022/SEB. VSP/A1, Dt:26.06.2024. for Deputy Commissioner of S.E.B,
Vishakhapatnam the property was destroyed ion 26.06.2024 in the presence of District
P& E, officer, Paderu.
12.PW1, admitted in cross-examination counsel for the accused, PW2 did not mentioned date of the manufacture, and batch number of the seized MO.1, 1 18 NIP bottles, of Royal Stag Reserve Whisky. 2) 09 NIP bottles of Premium Black Laxuiry whisky, all are NDPL. Further, he admitted that, he was not mentioned date and time beneath his signature. In the Ex.P1, not mentioned name of the scribe. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined, except the above evidence what admitted by the PW1, but, did not obtained any relevant evidence for the support of his defence.
13.PW2, in his chief examination he deposed that on 04-05-2024 at about 17.30 hrs, PW1 along with staff himself and LW2, while conducting patrolling at Ontipaka
Village, and Hukumpeta Mandal, at the time of patrolling one male person carrying white plastic bag. On seeing the raid party he tries to escape. Then, PW1 detained the male person with help of his staff. On questioning he stated that the white gunny bag contains IML bottles. Then, PW1 deputed to me for securing mediators, after some time he returned back and said no one was willing to be act as mediators. Then the
PW1 verified the white gunny bag and found of 1) 18 NIP bottles, of Royal Stag // 6//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 Reserve Whisky. 2) 09 NIP bottles of Premium Black Laxuiry whisky, all are NDPL also found the all bottles are for sale in Oddisha. Further, PW1 questioned to accused revealed his particulars, he stated before me, above bottles purchased separately in small quantity from different at Paderu and same was selling for profit at his house. He has no license or permit for selling bottles. Then, PW1 drawn MO.1 and MO.2 Two sample bottle for chemical analysis from above property and sealed and affixed identification slips and arrested the accused duly signed by all. Then, PW1 drafted
Ex.P1, occurrence report at the scene of offence. Then, PW1, himself and LW2 and accused along with Ex.P1, MO.1, went to police station.
14.Further, PW2, is the turned hostile in this prosecution case, he did not obtained any written summons from the PW2, act a mediator in the instant case. He did not obtained any written permission from the his higher authorities, act a mediator in the instant case. The learned APP declared the witness of the PW2, as a hostile and cross- examined, but did not obtained any relevant evidence, prove the mediators report on on 04-05-2024, at about 17.30 hrs. In the present case, LW5 is the another mediator along with PW2, LW4 not examined by the prosecution prove the mediators report. At the stage, the prosecution filed memo and stating that, LW4 working as a church paster, the prosecution served the summons through phone and not lift the phone calls of LW4, and LW4 did not interest adduced evidence in favour of the prosecution case. The prosecution further, did not took up any further steps adducing evidence of
LW4, in support of the prosecution, in prove the mediators report on 04-05-2024.
Hence, this court felt that, PW2 and LW4 crucial witness of the prosecution case, and they were independent witness of the prosecution case. But, they were not support the mediators report, seized MO.1 and Mo.2, from the accused, in their presence.
17.In the present case, PW1 and PW2, are the Excise Constables and they were highly interested witness to the prosecution case, and their evidence cannot be considered in the absence of the independent witnesses. Further, it is admitted that,
PW2 did not make enquiry at any village including with native place of accused, with a view to knew about the name of person form whom accused bought said liquor // 7//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 bottles and also for knowing that whether accused, is doing the business of selling and buying of liquor bottles or not. Further, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that, PW1 and PW2 are public servants and their acts are required to considered as innocent and they have no malice against the accused, and question of implication of accused in this case falsely does not arise. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 is not corroborated by any other independent witness with regard to the seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused and PW1 and PW2 are interested witnesses. Hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are untrustworthy and unreliable. In the instant case, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 are not corroborated by any other independent evidence with regard to material aspects, hence, it is unsafe to convict the accused based on the evidence of PW1 and PW2, in the absence of independent evidence. In the present case, the seizure of liquor and beer bottles from the possession of accused, is doubtful and also some doubts arose in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to why PW2, did not examine by independent witnesses at scene of offence through scene of offence is a busy locality area and why PW2 did not make any enquiry at any village during his investigation with a view to determine the name of person from whom accused brought said liquor and beer bottles, and that whether accused has been doing the business of selling and buying of liquor bottles or not. The benefits of such doubts are extend to the accused. The prosecution did not filed under section 63(4)(c) Certificate in the present case, the prosecution did not had produced electronic record taken from the devise should be mentioned mode number and should be mentioned mobile App E-Sakshya version.
d) Before going into the merits in the case of prosecution, it is pertinent to mention the important provisions basing on which the entire case is rests.
SECTION 34 of AP Excise Act: Penalties for illegal import etc.
Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this
Act,_ (a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any // 8//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 intoxicant;(1) in the case of an offence falling under clause (a),(d) (e) (f) (h) and (i)with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend up to [“eight years”] and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence; and
Section 55 of AP Excise Act : Power to search without warrant Whenever the
Commissioner or a Collector or any police officer not below the rank of an officer-in- charge of a police station or any Prohibition and Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector has reason to believe that an offence under Section 34,
Section 35, Section 36, Section 37 or Section 37-A has been, is being or is likely to be, committed and that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence, he may after recording the grounds of his belief,_ (a) at any time by day or by night enter and search any place and seize anything found therein which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act; and (b) detain and search and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person found in such place whom he has reason to believe to be guilty of such offence as aforesaid.
Section 103 (4) in The Code Of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita-2023.
Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer 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 of any other locality if no such 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.
The above referred provisions clearly discloses that if any police officer wants to seize any articles from the possession of suspected person, he must follow the procedure as contemplated under section 103 (4) in The Code Of Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita-2023. If he fails to secure any independent witness, he must prepare a report as per Sec.55 of AP Excise Act and proceed with the preparation of Special // 9//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 Report. The offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, is made cognizable offence and once the Police officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence. If any police officer failed to follow the above said procedure the entire proceedings undertaken by him are null and void and same cannot be taken into consideration to believe the search and seizure.
d) Coming to the present case on hand, the case of prosecution is that, when the
Police have found the Accused in possession of liquor bottles without having any valid license. During the course of interrogation, Accused voluntarily confessed before them that he was not possessed any valid license and the said liquor bottles were purchased for the purpose of function. When such is the case the Police are at liberty to intercept the said persons by following proper procedure. As per the analysis report marked under Ex.P4, the contraband seized from the possession of the Accused is
Indian Made Liquor. As per the quantity seized from the possession of the Accused is not a permissive one as per orders in G.O.Ms.No.310 Revenue (Excise) Department, dt.26.10.2020. As such the concerned police has every authority to question the illegal possession of liquor bottles by the Accused as it is not a permissive quantity.
The only question remained before the Court is whether the said liquor bottles are in possession of the Accused for the purpose of selling the same in open market. It is an admitted fact that the Accused did not possess any valid license to sell the liquor bottles to third parties for gain.
e) Now, the clinching issue before the Court is whether the said contraband was seized from the possession of the Accused by following the proper procedure or not.
For which the Court has to verify entire prosecution evidence available before this
Court. The evidence of PW.1 not corroborated by the Police who participated in the raid and who present at the time of preparation of Occurrence Report. As such the
Court has scrutinized the evidence of PW.2 to fish-out the original things happened at the time of alleged seizure from the possession of the Accused. As could be seen from the evidence of PW.2, there were several inconsistent versions with regard to securing of mediators and the things alleged to have happened at the time of preparing // 10//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 Ex.P2/Occurrence Report. Moreover it is an admitted fact that the scene of offence was situated in a busy locality. When such is the case, then why the Police Officials did not secure any mediators. Moreover, the scribe of Ex.P2/Occurrence Report was not mentioned in Ex.P2.
f) It is an admitted fact that received credible information with regard to transportation of liquor bottles by Accused. For that reason he was also shown as one of the Accused in this case. Admittedly the scene of offence is the busy locality. To show the visit to the scene of offence, there is no evidence before the Court except the oral testimony of PW.2. As such, the visit of PW.2 to the scene of offence is doubtful. Moreover, the scene of offence is a busy locality, then why the Police Officials did not secure any independent witnesses. It is an admitted fact that though PW.2 visited the scene of offence, he did not scribe Ex.P1/Occurrence Report. The evidence of PW.1 is silent with regard to the name of the scribe of Ex.P1. If really, there is any amount of truth in the evidence of PW.1, there is every possibility to prepare Ex.P1 through PW.2 who is the Investigation Officer. The non-scribing of Ex.P1 by PW.1 creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the visit of PW.1 to the scene of offence along with other police personnel.
g) Except the evidence of official witnesses, there is no other independent evidence on record to show the visit of police to the scene of offence. There is every possibility to examine any of the independent witnesses in that locality to establish their visit and at the time of preparation of Ex.P1/Occurrence Report. As such, PW.1 failed to follow the provision as contemplated section 103 (4) in The Code Of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita-2023., though there is ample opportunity for him to secure any independent witness in the locality. But he did not move his little finger in that angle. The very contention of the Accused is that at the instance of police, PW.1 signed on Ex.P1. In the absence of any positive evidence on record, I find force in the contention of the
Accused. There is every possibility for preparing the Ex.P1/Occurrence Report in the police station. As such, this Court is not inclined to believe the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the seizure of entire contraband from the Accused. Moreover, the Accused // 11//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 is unnecessarily impleaded in this case and he is nothing to do with the offence in this case.
h) It is an admitted fact that the scene of offence was situated in a busy locality.
There is every possibility to secure any independent witness at the scene of offence.
But, PW.2 did not make any such attempt to secure any independent witnesses, in order to believe the version of prosecution. All the referred circumstances clearly goes to show that the visit of PW.2 along with other staff to the scene of offence is doubtful.
There is no positive evidence before this Court that the contraband was seized from the possession of the Accused at the scene of offence, as stated by the prosecution.
As such I am not believe the evidence of PW.1 and 3 with regard to seizure of contraband from the possession of the Accused. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the prosecution.
18).Point No.2 In view of the answer to point No.1, Accused is entitled for acquittal.
19).In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020. Accordingly, the accused
ACQUITTED under section 271(1) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita-2023, for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall in force for a period of Three Months under section 481-A of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita-2023. The MO.1 case property is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation by the Grade -III stenographer, corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2026.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Paderu
CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED
S.NoProsecution Name of WitnessDescription Witness No.
1PW1Mr. S.Bheemeswararao To speak to the facts and he deputed to securing mediators with LW-3 2PW2Mr.M.Sekharam Casesiezureproperty, registered FIR , and sent judicial custody and sending sample , chemical examiner // 12//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 and received analysis report and about destruction of property.
CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS
S.NO.Exhibit Description of Proved by/Attested No.the Exhibitby 1Ex.P.1Mediators Report PW-1 2Ex.P.2Original FIR PW-1 3Ex.P3Letter of AdvicePW- 1 4Ex.P4Chemical analysis PW-1 report
CHART FOR EXHIBITED MATERIAL DOCUMENTS
S.NO.MaterialDescription of the ExhibitProved Object No.by/Attested by 20 Nip bottle of SCIX Premium Malt 1 MO.1PW-2 Blended whisky, all are NDPL
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Paderu.
// 13//
CC.390/2025
Dt.22.04.2026 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT in C.C.390/2025 Calendar Case tried by The JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT PADERU
Date of offence 02-05-2024 Date of report or complaint02-05-2024 Date of apprehension of the Accused02-05-2024 Date of release on bail-- Date of commencement of Trial08-04-2026 Date of Closure of Trial15.04.2026 Date of Sentence or Order 22.04.2026 Place of offence Maddigaruvu village, G.Madugula Mandal Explanation for delay, if any. No-delay Name of the complainant The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Paderu.
Particulars of the Accused : Boya Prasad S/O Apparao, aged 45 years C/o Valmiki, (ST), R/o Maddigaruvu Village, G.Madugula Mandal, ASR Dist. (Aadhaar No.254786646454).
Nature of Offences: Offences punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.
Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 : Penalties for illegal import etc:- “Whoever in contravention of this Act or of rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act”.
(a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.
Finding of the Court : Found Not guilty.
SENTENCE of ORDER : In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 2020. Accordingly, the Accused is ACQUITTED under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 2020. The bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall in force for a period of Six Months under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The MO.1 case property is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Paderu.