Sri A. Umar Farooq

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION )::

THAMBALLAPALLE.

Present: SRI UMAR FAROOQ,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Thamballapalle.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Original Suit No. 33 of 2021.

Between:

Musalikunta Reddemma, aged 47 years, Wife of Nagamuni Reddy, Hindu,

Cultivation, Residing at Thatimakulapalle village, H/o Kalicharla post,

Peddamandyam Mandal, Annamayya District.

...Plaintiff.

And:

Komma Nagalingeswar Reddy, aged 50 years, Son of K.Sahadeva Reddy,

Hindu, Cultivation, working as A.D., in veterinary hospital, Kambaduru village & Mandal, Anantapur District. Resident of D.No.43/18-6, Murlikrishna street, Rayachoti Town, Kadapa District.

...Defendant.

* * * * *

This suit came up on 27.02.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri

Y.V.Shesha Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration. Upon perusing the material papers on the record and after hearing arguments, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,71,733/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy one thousand seven thirty three Only) being the principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 01.07.2014 said to have been executed by the

Page 2 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24% per annum and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

a) The defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.

2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) in cash from the plaintiff on dated 01.07.2014 for his family and business necessities and after receiving the said amounts, the defendant executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Further due to repeated demands by the plaintiff the defendant paid an amount of Rs.

2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to her towards suit promissory note and same was endorsed.

b) Furthermore the plaintiff again made several demands on the defendant for repayment of debt amounts due under the suit promissory note, but the defendant did not choose to repay the debt amount either principal or interest and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. In spite of demands on the defendant, including issuance of the legal notice, dated 07.11.2019 calling upon him to repay remaining debt amount covered under the suit promissory note, the defendant failed to repay the remaining debt amount. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of debt amount due under the suit promissory note with subsequent interest and costs.

3. The defendant filed written statement by denying all the allegations made in the plaint and further took the following contentions:

Page 3 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle

a) The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the suit promissory note and the signatures on suit promissory note and endorsed on rear side of suit promissory note are not belongs to the defendant. Due to recent ill-feelings between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff created and manipulated the suit promissory note and filed the above suit in order to harass and embarrass the defendant. No consideration was passed under the suit promissory note. Hence, the suit may be dismissed, otherwise the defendant shall be put to irreparable loss and legal injury.

4. On considering the submissions made on behalf of both parties and perusing the pleadings, written statement and the entire record, the following issues were settled on 01.12.2023 by the then Presiding

Officer:

i. Whether suit promissory note dated 01.07.2014 and endorsement dated 19.06.2017 are true, valid supported by

consideration and binding on the defendant?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as claimed for?

iii. To what relief?

5. In order to prove his claim, the plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and got exhibited the suit promissory note dated 01.07.2014 for Rs.

2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only), endorsement dated 19.06.2017,

Office copy of legal notice, dated 07.11.2019 issued to the defendant,

Postal returned cover, as Exhibits A.1 to A.4.

6. The defendant got examined himself as D.W.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

Page 4 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence establishes that the defendant borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note under Exhibit A.1 and made part payment of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand rupees only) towards suit promissory note under Exhibit A.2. The defendant failed to disprove the same and therefore, the suit may be decreed with costs.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the evidence of D.W.1 shows that the plaintiff got created and manipulated

Exhibits A.1 suit promissory note and also the part payment of Rs.

2000/- (Two thousand rupees only) towards suit promissory note under

Exhibit A.2. She filed the above suit against the defendant in order to harass the him due to ill-feelings between them, further argued except plaintiff, no attestor of Ex.A1 has been examined, non examination of the attestor is fatel to the case of plaintiff and creates serious doubt regarding the execution of the Ex.A1 and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. In view of the rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused.

10. ISSUE NO.I:

a) It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) and executed Exhibit A.1 promissory note in her favour and he further made part payment of

Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand rupees only) towards suit promissory note under Ehxibit A.2 and so, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining suit amount with subsequent interest. Whereas, the defendant denied

Page 5 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle the execution of the same in the written statement and also took the plea that the said promissory note is created and manipulated one.

b) Indisputably, the suit documents i.e., Exhibits A.1 promissory note is

Negotiable Instrument. In a suit for recovery of amount based on the promissory note which is the Negotiable Instrument, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of suit promissory note by defendant in the circumstances pleaded by her. In the instant case, to discharge her initial burden, the plaintiff got examined herself as

P.W.1. The oral testimony of P.W.1 coupled with Exhibit A.1 promissory note goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) from her on 01.07.2014 and after receiving the said amount, the defendant executed Exhibit A.1 promissory note in her favour by agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to

P.W.1 or to her order on demand and he further made part payment of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand rupees only) towards suit promissory note under Exibit A.2 and in spite of her repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the remaining debt amount.

Therefore, the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dated 07.11.2019 under Exhibit A.3 and the same was returned from the defendant under Exhibit A.3 and so, the defendant is liable to pay the suit amount with subsequent interest.

c) During the cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that the defendant himself scribed the Exhibit A1 suit promissory note on 01.07.2014 in the presence of attestor and also Exhibit A2 endorsed on rear side of suit promissory note, by that time of the execution of Ex.A1 the plaintiff passed Rs.500/- notes towards consideration under the suit promissory note. These details tallied with that of Exhibit A.1 suit promissory note and Exhibit A2 part payment of Rs. 2000/- endorsed

Page 6 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle on rear side of suit promissory note. The P.W.1 was able to give all the minute details regarding execution of the suit promissory note by the defendant. Except putting suggestion that the plaintiff did not lent an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) to the defendant and he did not execute suit promissory note and no part payment made under the suit promissory note, which was denied by the P.W.1, no material inconsistencies were elicited to shake the credence of the testimony of P.W.1. So, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff, with his evidence coupled with the documentary evidence has discharged her burden and established that the defendant executed Exhibit A.1 promissory note in her favour and made part payment under Exhibit A.2 rear side of suit promissory note.

d) Whenever the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved, Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play which reads as follows:

SECTION 118: PRESUMPTIONS AS TO NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENTS: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:

(a) of consideration — that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

(b) as to date — that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;

(c) as to time of acceptance — that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;

(d) as to time of transfer — that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;

Page 7 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle

(e) as to order of indorsements — that the endorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;

(f) as to stamps — that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped;

(g) that holder is a holder in due course — that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:

Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.

e) Thus, section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act enables the

Court to presume that such negotiable instrument was supported with consideration. However, such presumption is rebuttable one. The defendant can rebut such presumption either by adducing evidence or by eliciting untruthfulness in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff by way of cross-examining the witnesses of plaintiff.

f) Now it has to be seen as to whether the defendant is able to rebut the said presumption by proving that the suit promissory note was created and manipulated or fabricated one. To prove the same, the defendant got examined himself as D.W.1. His evidence is just replica of his written statement. But, during his cross-examination, D.W.1 failed to appear before the court after the conditional order of this Hon’ble court on 24.12.2025. Hence the chief affidavit of DW1 was eschewed, and no further evidence was adduced by the defendant to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence. It creates serious doubt on the defendant.

g) Moreover, the learned council for defendant argued non examination of the attestor of Ex.A1 is fatal to the case of plaintiff and creates

Page 8 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle serious doubt regarding the execution, the same denied by the learned council for plaintiff. Thus, it is evident that a promissory note does not requires compulsory attestation under law, therefore non examination of the attestor is not fatal to the case of plaintiff.

h) Even the defendant did not filed any application seeking to send

Exhibit A.1, promissory note and Exhibit A.2 endorsed on rear side of suit promissory note to any handwriting expert for scientific examination and comparison of the disputed signature of defendant with the admitted signature to prove that the suit promissory note and endorsed are created and rank forgery. But the defendant did not do so. Apart from this, if really, the defendant did not borrow the amount from the plaintiff, he might have taken legal action against the plaintiff for creating and manipulation of Exhibit A.1 suit promissory note and

Exhibit A.2 endorsed on rear side of suit promissory note . But, the defendant did not take any such step. He simply denied the debt transaction. Such evasive denial inclines the Court to draw an adverse inference that he took the false pleas, in order to evade the repayment of debt to the plaintiff. Thus, in the absence of any suspicious material, the Court holds that the self serving testimony of the defendant is not sufficient to elicit any amount of doubt that the suit promissory note is created or fabricated document or not supported with consideration or a materially altered document. Thus, the pleas of the defendant i.e., created, manipulated or got up, are found to be baseless.

i) For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the defendant failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and so, the plaintiff could avail the presumption provided under section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff with the

Page 9 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle evidence adduced by her, has established that Exhibits A.1 suit promissory note dated 01.07.2014 and Exhibit A.2 endorsed on rear side of suit promissory note dated 07.11.2019 are true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported with consideration of Rs.

2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) and part payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand Only) . Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. ISSUE NO’S. II AND III:

a) In view of the discussion and findings in issue No.1, the Court holds that the defendant is liable to pay the debt amount under the suit promissory note. Apparently, the defendant did not repay any amount subsequent to filing of the suit. The suit is filed on 16.03.2020. i.e., within the period of limitation (three years) from the date of endorsed (07.11.2019) on the suit promissory note. So, the Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.

Accordingly, this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff against the defendant with costs for Rs. 4,71,733/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy one thousand seven thirty three Only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit,till the date of decree, with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs Only) covered under Exhibit A.1 promissory note.

Page 10 of 10 Date of Institution: 16.03.2020.

O.S.No.33 of 2021

Date of Disposal: 13.05.2026. J.C.J., Thamballapalle

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- A.Umar Farooq,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Thamballapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: M.Reddemma.

FOR DEFENDANT:

D.W.1: K.Nagalingeshwar Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

 Exhibit A.1: Original promissory note, dated 01.07.2014 for Rs.

2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs Only) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

 Exhibit A.2: Part payment endorsement for Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands Only)  Exhibit A.3: Office copy of legal notice, dated 07.11.2019.

 Exhibit A.4: Postal return covers from the defendant.

FOR DEFENDANT:

- NIL -

Sd/- A.Umar Farooq,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Thamballapalle.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

THAMBALLAPALLE.

PRESENT: Sri A. Umar Farooq,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

Monday, this the 28th day of October, 2024

C.C.No.843 of 2021

Between:

The Sub Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu Police Station.

... Complainant

And:

1. Srirangi Sravan Kumar, age 22 years, S/o Suresh Kumar, Dwarakanadha colony, Basinikonda, Kiondamarripalli, Madanapalle Mandal. Driver of Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing No.AP 03 TG 1437.

2. Mariveni Ramaiah, S/o Eswaraiah, Vijayanagar colony, Madanapalle town and mandal, owner of Mahindra Bolero Pickup bearing No.AP 03 TG 1437.

… Accused

This case came up before me on 22.10.2024 for final hearing and posted to judgment in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. D. Siddalinga Reddy, Advocate for the accused; and on hearing arguments on both sides, and on perusal of entire record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu police station has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime

No.82/2021 of Molakalacheruvu police station for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-A, 338 IPC and Sec.146 r/w 196 of MV

Act.

2

2. On 22.03.2021 as per the instructions of Agriculture officers he, his colleague Ramakrishna went to Thummanagunta village on

TVS XL-100 motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 DE 2104 for conducting awareness program regarding agriculture without investing money, after completion of their work they went to petrol bunk at

Burakayalakota for filling the petrol, after filling the petrol at 7.00

PM they came on the road from petrol bunk, mean time the accused, driver of Bolero Mahindra pickup vehicle bearing No.AP 03

TG 1437 came from Madanapalli side in a rash and negligent manner and dsahed their TVS XL-100, as a result the deceased

Venkatramana, who is the pillion rider and he fallen on the road and received grievous injuries on his head, right leg, right hand and died on the spot, the rider of motor cycle LW-8 Ramakrishna received grievous injury on his right hand. Then LW3 who is the younger brother of deceased came to the spot and told the accident facts to the LW1. Then injured LW8 Ramakrishna was shifted to Govt.,

Hospital, Kadiri in a 108 ambulance. This accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the accused A1 being the driver of

Mahindra Bolero Pickup vehicle and he is responsible for the death of deceased..

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections Sec. 304-A, 338 IPC and Sec.146 r/w 196 of MV Act.

against the accused Nos.1 & 2.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents have been furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Accused Nos.1 & 2 were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under sections Sec. 304-A, 338 IPC and Sec.146 r/w 196 of

MV Act informing the substance of the accusation made against 3 them for which they denied having committed the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. Accused Nos.1 & 2 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C putting forth the incriminating material that appears against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

The case of both the accused is denial. No evidence either oral or documentary has been adduced by the accused Nos.1 & 2 in defence.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution, by examining as many as five witnesses and marking the documents Exs.P1 to P14, has categorically proved the offence committed by the accused against PW1. It is also submitted that the evidence of PW1 to PW8 have categorically corroborated in narrating the offence committed by the accused Nos.1 & 2 and is more sufficient to convict the accused and so the accused is liable to be punished.

8. whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

the accused Nos.A1 & A2 beyond all reasonable doubts for

offence U/Sec. 304-A, 338 IPC and Sec.146 r/w 196 of MV

Act?

09. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 before this court. PW1 stated in his evidence at the time of incident he was present in his shop at the time his junior paternal uncle PW3 phone call to PW1 and reported the said incident his father while proceeding on

Molakalacheruvu town as pillon rider in the two wheeler of his friend to met with an accident at SLV petrol bunk, Burakayalakota, in the 4 result said Venkataramana received bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of his body and died at the spot. Immediately PW1 informed same to the PW2 and other relatives went to scene of offence to saw the dead body of his father. PW1 stated he was present at the dead body of his father S. Venkataramana,

Molakalacheruvu police came there and obtained his signatures on some written papers. PW1 further stated he do not know anything about the facts of the case, manner of the accident and particulars of the driver of crime vehicle, registration number of crime vehicle and who negligence the accident was occurred. As per the request of learned APP PW1 declared as hostile. In cross examination of learned APP fails to elicit any evidence from PW1 in support of prosecution.

PW2 was the wife of deceased S. Venkataramana she also corroborated the evidence of PW1. The learned APP request the

Hon’ble court to declare as hostile witness for not supporting the

prosecution. In cross examination of PW2 by learned APP fails to elicit any evidence to help prosecution. Denies all suggestions of learned APP.

PW3 was the brother of deceased S. Venkataramana he also corroborated the evidence of PW1. The learned APP request the

Hon’ble court to declare as hostile witness for not supporting the

prosecution. In cross examination of PW3 by learned APP fails to elicit any evidence to help prosecution. PW3 denies the suggestions of learned APP.

PW4 and PW5 were the relative of deceased S.

Venkataramana he also corroborated the evidence of PW1. The learned APP request the Hon’ble court to declare as hostile witness 5 for not supporting the prosecution. In cross examination of PW4 and

PW5 by learned APP fails to elicit any evidence to help prosecution and suggestions of learned APP was denied by them.

PW6 was the eyewitness of the said incident, he also stated

before the court he do not know facts of the case, manner of

accident, particulars of driver of crime vehicle, number of crime vehicle and he did not witness any accident and he do not know whose negligence the accident was occurred. The learned APP request the Hon’ble court to declare as hostile witness for not supporting the prosecution. In cross examination of PW6 by learned

APP fails to elicit any evidence to help prosecution. PW6 denies the suggestion of learned APP.

PW7 was the injured in the said accident he stated in his evidence he was sitting as pillon rider of deceased S.

Venkataramana and two wheeler has been given to deceased S.

Venkataramana when they reached near HP petrol bunk some unknown vehicle hit the two wheeler in the result he received injuries then immediately he became unconsciousness except this

PW7 fails to give evidence relating to said accident. He also not support the prosecution. The learned APP request the Hon’ble court to declare as hostile witness for not supporting the prosecution. In cross examination of PW7 by learned APP fails to elicit any evidence to help prosecution. PW7 denies the suggestion of learned APP.

PW8 was the relative of deceased S. Venkataramana. PW8 was acting as a inquest panchayathdar of deceased S.

Venkataramana. He stated in his evidence he was present the dead body of S. Venkataramana at Govt., Hospital Madanapalle at that time SI of Molakalacheruvu PS conducted inquest over the dead 6 body of deceased S. Venkataramana. PW8, LW9 and LW11 were attested the inquest report of deceased S.Venkataramana. Cross examination of PW8 denies the suggestions asked by the counsel of accused.

PW9 witnesses before this court after receiving report from the

PW1 on 23.03.2021 PW9 visited District Govt., Hospital Madanapalle and found dead body of deceased S. Venkataramana, aged 57 years and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of PW8, LW9 and LW11 and prepared inquest panchanama of deceased. Lated PW9 secured the presence of PW1 to PW5 and recorded their 161 statements in his part II CD. Later PW9 shifted the dead body of deceased for PM examination. On the same day

PW9 visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. They PW9 secured in the presence of PW6 and LW6 and examined them and recorded their statements under 161 Cr.P.C.

statements in his part II CD. Later PW9 shifted the Mahindra Bolreo crime vehicle bearing No.AP03 TG 1437 for safe custody and PW9 filed a requisition before LW12 Y. Sunitha MVI for inspection of crime vehicle and for report . During the course of investigation on 24.03.2021 PW9 received PM certificate of deceased from LW13 on the same day the accused voluntarily surrender before him in the police station and admitted his guilt and produced crime vehicle records. On verification of crime vehicle records PW9 found that the crime vehicle was not insured in the name of owner M. Ramaiah.

Hence PW9 added him as accused No.2 and invoked the offences

U/Sec.146 r/w 196 of MV Act. Later PW9 secured Sec.41 Cr.P.C.

notice to accused. During the course of his investigation on 30.03.2021 PW9 received a MVI report from LW12. After completion 7 of investigation PW9 laid charge sheet in this case. The cross examination of defence counsel PW9 admitted that the skid marks on the road was not mentioned in the Ex.P12 rough sketch of scene of offence and PW9 denies all suggestions asked by the counsel of accused A1 and A2.

As per the keen observation of PW1 to PW9 evidence this court concluded that the prosecution fails to identify the accused who drove the crime vehicle at the time of incident. The witnesses were not supported the prosecution for prove the guilty of accused.

PW7 injured in the said accident was also not supported and he turned hostile. PW8 attestor of inquest of deceased

S.Venkataramana was also stated in his evidence he only put signature on the inquest report of deceased S. Venkataramana except the signature he fails to stated any evidence before the court. PW9 was acting as a investigation officer in the above case, sole evidence of the PW9 how this court decided that accused A1 drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligence manner and caused the death of deceased S. Venkataramana and cause injured PW7. In the evidence of PW9 revealed that the crime vehicle was seized by the police at the scene of offence and the said vehicle having no valid insurance. The defence counsel also fails to prove that the crime vehicle having valid insurance at the time of incident. In this case prosecution utterly fails to prove the guilty of accused A1 for drove the crime vehicle rash and negligence manner and caused the death of deceased S. Venkataramana and caused injury to PW7.

The prosecution proves the crime vehicle Bolero Mahindra

Pickup bearing No.AP03TG 1437 not having valid insurance at the time of accident.

8

10.In the result, the accused A1 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 304-A, 338 IPC. Accused A2 is guilt for section 196 of MVI Act for fine of Rs.2,000/- if the accused A2 fails to pay the Rs.2,000/- he may under gone simple imprisonment for 3 months U/Sec.255 Cr.P.C. The crime property if any non valuable destroyed after appeal time, if valuable given to appropriate owner of property. The bail bonds of the accused A1, A2 shall be in for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28thday of October, 2024. Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judl., Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 : S. Srinivasulu Nil PW2 : S. Venkatasubbamma PW3 : S. Vijayasekhar PW4 : K. Harinath PW5 : B. Sekar Babu PW6 : J. Rajendra PW7 : K. Ramakrishna PW8 : K. Sriramulu PW9 : P. Ramakrishna

Documents marked

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 Nil Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW2 Ex.P4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW3 Ex.P5 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW4 Ex.P6 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW5 Ex.P7 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW6 Ex.P8 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW7 Ex.P9 : is the inquest report dt.23.03.2021 Ex.P10 : is the written report of PW1 Ex.P11 : is the FIR Ex.P12 : is the rough sketch Ex.P13 : is the PM certificates Ex.P14 : is MVI report of crime vehicle

Sd/xxxxxxxx

JMFC/TBPL

10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, THAMBALLAPALLE.

CALENDER IN C.C.NO.843/2021

Date of offence: 22-03-2021 Date of complaint: 22-03-2021 Date of taken on file: 21-10-2021 Date of apprehension of accused: 24-03-2021 Date of commencement of trial: 07-11-2023 Date of close of trial: 22-10-2024 Date of sentence or order: 28-10-2024 Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu P.S. in Cr.No.35/2021

Name of the accused Father’s NameAge

A1- Srirangi Sravan KumarSuresh Kumar22 years

A2- Maruveni RamaiahEswaraiah

VillageMandalReligionCalling

A1- Dwarakanadha colonyMadanapalle----

A2- Vijayanagar colony Madanapalle

Nature of offence: 304-A, 338 IPC and Sec.146 r/w 196 of MV Act

Finding of the Court: Not guilty Sentence or order: In the result, the accused A1 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 304-A, 338 IPC. Accused A2 is guilt for section 196 of MVI Act for fine of Rs.2,000/- if the accused A2 fails to pay the Rs.2,000/- he may under gone simple imprisonment for 3 months U/Sec.255 Cr.P.C. The crime property if any non valuable destroyed after appeal time, if valuable given to appropriate owner of property. The bail bonds of the accused A1, A2 shall be in for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE.

Present : - Sri A. Umar Farooq,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle. Friday, the Twenty Fifth(25th) day of October, 2024

Calendar Case No.19 of 2022

Between :-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu Police Station.

….Complainant And :- Chintamanupalli Marapu Reddy, age 35 years, S/o Nasi reddy, Peyalavanipenta, H/o Devalacheruvu, Molakalacheruvu Mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 24.10.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the state and of Sri. D.Sidda linga Reddy, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police of

Molakalacheruvu station who registered a case as in Crime Number 212/2020 against the accused for the offence as under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

02.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 03.06.2020 at about 05:30 PM, the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW1), Molakalacheruvu P.S. conducted excise raids at western side on the Peyalavanipenta, H/o Devalacheruvu, Molakalacheruvu

Mandal,about illegal possession and transportation of tetra packets along with his staff and found illegally selling 08 liquor packets from his possession i.e.,1) 04 packets of Bangalore whisky 180 ml, worth

Rs.195.80/-2) 04 Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml worth Rs.120.32/- 2 total worth Rs.316.12/- on seeing the police party, he tried to escape, but they surrounded and detained him. Then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Molakalacheruvu P.S. (PW1) verified and found 08 liquor packets from his possession i.e.,1) 04 packets of Bangalore whisky 180 ml, 2) 04

Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml. The Sub-Inspector of Police (PW.1) has lifted one packet as sample from the packets and labelled, seized the property and arrested accused under the cover of police proceedings. The police proceedings were drafted on the spot and after returning to the station registered a case in Crime No.212/2020 under

Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act. The sample was sent to Chemical

Analysis by Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.1) and the Chemical

Examiner, Chittoor opined that the sample is India Made liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after due verification of investigation LW4 laid the charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act , against the accused.

04.On appearance of accused in the Court, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

05.This court having considered the record, examined him as under 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 34(A) of AP Excise

Act, against the accused and the same was read over and explained to him for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution had examined PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 & M.O.2

The prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses i.e. L.W.1 to 3.

07.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence against him and they denied the same. The accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

3

08.Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

09.Now the point that arises for consideration is;

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove and establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence as under Section 34(A) of AP

Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:- PW-1 is S.I of Police and wherein P.W.1 reported that he along with LW1 to 3 accompanied P.W.1 on receiving credible information and proceeded on 03.06.2022 at about 04:30 PM, the S.I of Police, Molakalacheruvu P.S. conducted raids at western side on the

Peyalavanipenta, H/o Devalacheruvu, Molakalacheruvu Mandal, along with his staff and found illegally selling 08 liquor packets from his possession i.e.,1) 04 packets of Bangalore whisky 180 ml, 2) 04

Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml and on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away, on suspicion, he caught hold of him and on enquiry, he revealed his name as marginal accused Chintamanupalli Marapu

Reddy and further confessed that he is having possession 08 liquor packets from his possession i.e.,1) 04 packets of Bangalore whisky 180 ml, 2) 04 Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml and he brought them to sell the same for higher prices. However under the cover of police proceedings which was drafted at the scene and the same is marked as Ex.P1, the version of P.W.1 of conducting raid and going to the scene and arresting the accused by P.W1 under the police proceedings i.e. Ex.P1. However, P.W.1 after the arresting the accused and also registered the F.I.R. i.e. Ex.P2 and stated that on receiving the credible information he along with his staff with the assistance of

P.W.1 and others reached the scene and affected the arrest of the accused under Ex.P1 and he was carrying 08 liquor packets from his possession i.e.,1) 04 packets of Bangalore whisky 180 ml, 2) 04

Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml to sell the same and he was in 4 possession of the said liquor and thereby under the cover of Ex.P1 he arrested him, drawn the sample and sent the sample to the chemical analysis and brought the accused to the police station and issued FIR and the same marked as Ex.P2 and subsequently he received the chemical analysis report which got marked as Ex.P3 and on perusal of the same it clearly shows that it is Indian Made liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. However, from the common set of questions put forth during the cross examination of

P.W.1 by the learned counsel for the accused all the witnesses admitted and confession cum seizure and arrest panchanama i.e.

Ex.P1 was drafted under police proceedings and it is silent with respect to the measurements of the packets and the cover in which it was found and also that they were unable to secure independent mediators from the scene. However, they denied that only for statistical purpose they have foisted this case against the accused.

11.The prosecution relies on the corroborative evidence of

P.W.1 and prays the Hon’ble Court to convict him. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that no 08 liquor packets from his possession i.e.,1) 04 packets of Bangalore whisky 180 ml, 2) 04

Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml was seized from the possession of the accused and this is a false case foisted against the accuse for statistical purpose. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the confession of crime by the accused and also the seizure of the 08 liquor packets from his possession i.e.,1) 04 packets of

Bangalore whisky 180 ml, 2) 04 Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml from the possession of the accused. The search proceedings were also not conducted in the presence of the inhabitants of the same locality.

Thus, the prosecution failed to follow the procedure established under

Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. For the above said reason, he prays to acquit the accused from this case.

5

12. In the light of above discussion wherein it is elicited that the accused was arrested in an open place and search along with seizure was conducted wherein there was very much availability of local persons as independent witnesses and as per Section 100 (4) of

Cr.P.C, the prosecution must conduct the seizure panchanama in the presence of inhabitants of that locality where the property is seized.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to corroborate the link that the samples said to be drawn by P.W.1 are from possession of accused as under M.O.1& M.O.2 and thereby it raises a reasonable doubt with respect to seizure of case property from the possession of accused and the prosecution failed to follow the procedure under Section 100 (4) of

Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court fairly considers the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the crime by the accused and also seizure of the 08 liquor packets from his possession i.e.,1) 04 packets of Bangalore whisky 180 ml, 2) 04 Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml from the possession of the accused and the contents of the police proceeding. Furthermore, as per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act, confession made before a Police

Officer is inadmissible as evidence their after AP Excise Act.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C. The material object marked as M.O.1 &

M.O.2 sample packets are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and, if any appeal is preferred, the same shall be subject to the result of the appeal.

6 Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of October,

2024. Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution:

PW-1: P.Ramakrishna S.I of police

Defence: - None –

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Police proceedings Ex.P2: First Information Report in Cr.No.212/2020 Ex.P3: Analysis report.

Defence:

-NIL-

Material Objects marked:

Prosecution:

M.O.1 & M.O.2: are the unexpanded portion of sample packets

Defence: - Nil –

Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE.

CALENDER IN C.C.NO. 19/ 2022

Date of offence: 03.06.2020

Date of complaint: 03.06.2020

Date of taken on file: 23.02.2022

Date of apprehension of accused : 03.06.2020

Date of commencement of trial: 30.07.2024

Date of close of trial: 24.10.2024

Date of sentence or order: 25.10.2024

Complainant: The Sub- Inspector of Police,

Molakalacheruvu in Cr.No.212/2020

Name of the accusedFather’s NameAge

Chintamanupalli Nasi reddy 35 years Marapu reddy

VillageMandalReligionCalling

PeyalavanipentaMolakalacheruvu----

Nature of offence: 34(A) of AP Excise Act. Finding of the Court: Not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 34(A) of AP Excise Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C. The material object marked as M.O.1& M.O.2 sample packets are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and, if any appeal is preferred, the same shall be subject to the result of the appeal.

Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE.

Present:- Sri A. Umar Farooq

Judl., Magistrate of I Class Thamballapalle.

Friday, the Twenty Fifth(25th) day of October, 2024

Calendar Case No.135 of 2023

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between :-

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu Police Station.

….Complainant And :-

B. Ramamurthi, age 50 years, S/o Thimanna, Coolie, Sompalli village, Molakalacheruvu Mandal. ….Accused

This case is coming on 22.10.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the state and of Sri. S. Gaffar Saheb, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police of

Molakalacheruvu P.S. who registered a case as in Crime Number 43/2023 against the accused for the offence as under Section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020.

02.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 08.06.2023 at about 08:00 AM, the Sub Inspector of police (PW2), Molakalacheruvu PS, on receiving the credible information 2 proceeded at near Sompalli bus stop, Sompalli, Molakalacheruvu

Mandal along with his staff and found the accused was involving himself in illicit possession and sale of liquor bottles for getting their personal gain, on seeing the uniformed officers, he tried to escape, but they surrounded and detained him. Then S.I of Police,

Molakalacheruvu P.S. verified and found 20 liquor bottles containing the brand of King’swell Indian Brandy each 180 ML bottle worth of Rs.3,000/- seized the property and arrested Accused under the cover of police Proceedings. The police proceedings were drafted on the spot and after returning to the station registered a case in

Crime No.43/2023 under Section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020. The sample was sent to Chemical Analysis by S.I and the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after due verification of investigation L.W.4 laid the charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) A.P. Prohibition Act 2020 against the accused.

04.On appearance of accused in the Court, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.This court having considered the record, examined him as under 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 7 r/w 8 (b)

(i) A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 against the accused and the same was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution had examined PW1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and 3

M.O.1. The prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses i.e.

L.W.2 & 4

07.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same. The accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

09.Now the point that arises for consideration is;

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove and establish

the guilt of the accused for the offence as under Section 7

r/w 8 (b) (i) A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020, beyond

all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:- PW-1 is Head Constable of police and P.W.2 is S.I. of police wherein P.W.2 reported that he along with his staff accompanied P.W.2 on receiving credible information and proceeded on 08.06.2023 at about 08.00 AM at Sompalli bus stop, Sompalli,

Molakalacheruvu Mandal along with his staff and found one male person on seeing the uniformed officers, he tried to escape, but they surrounded and detained him. Then LW3 verified and found white colour plastic can and it contains 20 liquor bottles containing the brand of King’swell Indian Brandy each 180 ML bottle, on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away, on suspicion, they caught hold of him and on enquiry, he revealed his name as marginal accused B. Ramamurthi and further confessed that the he is having possession of liquor bottle and they brought them to sell the same for higher prices. However under the cover of police proceedings which was drafted at the scene and the same is marked as Ex.P1. In addition to that, the prosecution also examined the other witness 4 i.e. Head Constable as P.W.1 and he also corroborated the version of P.W.2 of conducting raid and going to the scene and arresting the accused by L.W.3 under the police proceedings i.e. Ex.P1.

However, L.W.3 after the arresting the accused and also registered the F.I.R. i.e. Ex.P2 and he corroborated his version with that of the prosecution case and stated that on receiving the credible information he along with his staff with the assistance of P.W.2 and others reached the scene and affected the arrest of the accused under Ex.P1 and he was carrying liquor bottle to sell the same and he was in possession of the said liquor bottle and thereby under the cover of Ex.P1 he arrested him, drawn the sample and sent the sample to the chemical analysis and brought the accused to the police station and issued FIR and the same marked as Ex.P2 and subsequently he received the chemical analysis report which got marked as Ex.P3 and on perusal of the same it clearly shows that it is illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. However, from the common set of questions put forth during the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by the learned counsel for the accused all the witnesses admitted that the scene of offence is an open place and confession cum seizure and arrest panchanama i.e. Ex.P1 was drafted under police proceedings and it is silent with respect to the measurements of the plastic cover in which it was found and also that they were unable to secure independent mediators from the scene of offence. However, they denied that only for statistical purpose they have foisted this case against the accused.

11.The prosecution relies on the corroborative evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and prays the Hon’ble Court to convict him. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that no 20 liquor bottles 5 containing the brand of King’swell Indian Brandy each 180 ML was seized from the possession of the accused and this is a false case foisted against the accused for statistical purpose. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the confession of crime by the accused and also the seizure of the 20 liquor bottles containing the brand of King’swell Indian Brandy each 180 ML from the possession of the accused. The search proceedings were also not conducted in the presence of the inhabitants of the same locality. Thus, the prosecution failed to follow the procedure established under Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. For the above said reason, he prays to acquit the accused from this case.

12. In the light of above discussion wherein it is elicited that the accused was arrested in an open place and search along with seizure was conducted wherein there was very much availability of local persons as independent witnesses and as per Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C, the prosecution must conduct the seizure panchanama in the presence of inhabitants of that locality where the property is seized. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to corroborate the link that the samples said to be drawn by P.W.1 are from possession of accused as under M.O.1 and thereby it raises a reasonable doubt with respect to seizure of case property from the possession of accused and the prosecution failed to follow the procedure under

Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court fairly considers the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the crime by the accused and also seizure of the 20 liquor bottles containing the brand of King’swell

Indian Brandy each 180 ML from the possession of the accused and the contents of the police proceedings. Furthermore, as per Sec.25 6 of Indian Evidence Act, confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as evidence.Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and thereby the accused is acquitted as under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The material object marked as M.O.1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused will be in force for a period of six months as under Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of October, 2024.

Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judl., Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution:

PW-1: P.V.Ramana, Head Constable.

PW-2: C.Madhu Rama Chandrudu, S.I of Police

Defence: - None –

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Police proceedings Ex.P2: First Information Report in Cr.No.43/2023. Ex.P3: Analysis report.

Defence:

-NIL-

Material Objects marked:

Prosecution:

M.O.1: is the Sample bottle

Defence: - Nil –

Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judl., Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE.

CALENDER IN C.C.NO.135/2023

Date of offence: 08.06.2023

Date of complaint: 08.06.2023

Date of taken on file: 21.10.2023

Date of apprehension of accused: 08.06.2023

Date of commencement of trial: 17.09.2024

Date of close of trial: 22.10.2024

Date of sentence or order: 25.10.2024

Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, MolakalacheruvuP.S. in Cr.No.43/2023

Name of the accused Father’s NameAge

B.RamamurthiThimanna50 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling

Sompalli villageMolakalacheruvu----

Nature of offence: Under Section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) A.P. Prohibition Act 2020.

Finding of the Court: Not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w 8 (b) (i) A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and thereby the accused is acquitted as under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The material object marked as M.O.1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused will be in force for a period of six months as under Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Sd/xxxxxxxx Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE.

Present : - Sri A. Umar Farooq,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle. Friday, the Twenty Fifth(25th) day of October, 2024

Calendar Case No.137 of 2023

Between :-

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu Police Station.

….Complainant And :-

Bandrevu Raja Reddy, S/o Late Malli Reddy, age 72 years, Coolie, Kotapalli, H/o Gudupalli, Molakalacheruvu Mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 22.10.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the state and of Sri. M. Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police of

Molakalacheruvu station who registered a case as in Crime Number 33/2023 against the accused for the offence as under Section 34(a) of

A.P Excise Act.

02.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 07.05.2023 at about 11.00 AM, the Sub Inspector (PW2),

Molakalacheruvu PS, on receiving the credible information proceeded at near Kotapalli bus stop, Kotapalli, H/o Gudupalli, Molakalacheruvu

Mandal, along with his staff and found one male person in a possession of 30 liquor bottles of Kingswell Indian Brandy, each containing 180 ML found in one black color plastic cover, on seeing the police party, he tried to escape, but they surrounded and detained him. Then Sub-Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu (PW2) verified 2 and found 30 liquor bottles of Kingswell Indian Brandy, each containing 180 ML, the Sub-Inspector of police (PW.2) has lifted one packet as sample from the bottles and labelled, seized the property and arrested accused under the cover of police proceedings. The police proceedings were drafted on the spot and after returning to the station registered a case in Crime No.33/2023 under Section 34(A) of A.P

Excise Act. The sample was sent to Chemical Analysis by Sub-

Inspector of Police (P.W.2) and the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor opined that the sample is India Made liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after due verification of investigation LW4 laid the charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act against the accused.

04.On appearance of accused in the Court, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

05.This court having considered the record, examined him as under 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise

Act against the accused and the same was read over and explained to him for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution had examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1.

The prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses i.e. L.W.1 & 4.

07.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating evidence against him and they denied the same. The accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard the arguments of the Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

09.Now the point that arises for consideration is; 3

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove and establish the

guilt of the accused for the offence as under Section 34(A) of A.P

Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:- PW-1 is Police Constable and P.W.2 is Sub-

Inspector of Police wherein P.W.2 reported that he along with PW1,

LW1, accompanied P.W.2 on receiving credible information and proceeded on 07.05.2023 at about 11.00 AM, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Molakalacheruvu PS on receiving the credible information proceeded at near Kotapalli bus stop, Kotapalli, H/o Gudupalli,

Molakalacheruvu Mandal, along with his staff and found one male person in a possession of 30 liquor bottles of Kingswell Indian Brandy, each containing 180 ML and on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away, on suspicion, he caught hold of him and on enquiry, he revealed his name as marginal accused Bandrevu Raja Reddy and further confessed that he is having possession of 30 liquor bottles of

Kingswell Indian Brandy, each containing 180 ML and he brought them to sell the same for higher prices. However under the cover of police proceedings which was drafted at the scene and the same is marked as Ex.P1. In addition to that, the prosecution also examined the other witness i.e. Police Constable as P.W.1 and he also corroborated the version of P.W.2 of conducting raid and going to the scene and arresting the accused by P.W.2 under the police proceedings i.e. Ex.P1. However, P.W.2 after the arresting the accused and also registered the F.I.R. i.e. Ex.P2 and he corroborated his version with that of the prosecution case and stated that on receiving the credible information he along with his staff with the assistance of

P.W.1 and others reached the scene and affected the arrest of the accused under Ex.P1 and he was carrying 30 liquor bottles of

Kingswell Indian Brandy, each containing 180 ML to sell the same and they were in possession of the said liquor and thereby under the cover 4 of Ex.P1 he arrested him, drawn the sample and sent the sample to the chemical analysis and brought the accused to the police station and issued FIR and the same marked as Ex.P2 and subsequently he received the chemical analysis report which got marked as Ex.P3 and on perusal of the same it clearly shows that it is Indian Made liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

However, from the common set of questions put forth during the cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 by the learned counsel for the accused all the witnesses admitted and confession cum seizure and arrest panchanama i.e. Ex.P1 was drafted under police proceedings and it is silent with respect to the measurements of the packets and the cover in which it was found and also that they were unable to secure independent mediators from the scene. However, they denied that only for statistical purpose they have foisted this case against the accused.

11.The prosecution relies on the corroborative evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and prays the Hon’ble Court to convict him. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that no 30 liquor bottles of

Kingswell Indian Brandy, each containing 180 ML was seized from the possession of the accused and this is a false case foisted against the accuse for statistical purpose. He further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the confession of crime by the accused and also the seizure of the 30 liquor bottles of Kingswell Indian Brandy, each containing 180 ML from the possession of the accused. The search proceedings were also not conducted in the presence of the inhabitants of the same locality. Thus, the prosecution failed to follow the procedure established under Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. For the above said reason, he prays to acquit the accused from this case.

12. In the light of above discussion wherein it is elicited that the accused was arrested in an open place and search along with 5 seizure was conducted wherein there was very much availability of local persons as independent witnesses and as per Section 100 (4) of

Cr.P.C, the prosecution must conduct the seizure panchanama in the presence of inhabitants of that locality where the property is seized.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to corroborate the link that the samples said to be drawn by P.W.2 are from possession of accused as under M.O.1 and thereby it raises a reasonable doubt with respect to seizure of case property from the possession of accused and the prosecution failed to follow the procedure under Section 100 (4) of

Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court fairly considers the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused and the prosecution failed to prove the crime by the accused and also seizure of the 30 liquor bottles of Kingswell Indian Brandy, each containing 180 ML from the possession of the accused and the contents of the police proceeding.

Furthermore, as per Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act, confession made

before a Police Officer is inadmissible as evidence their after AP Excise

Act. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C. The material object marked as M.O.1 sample packet is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and, if any appeal is preferred, the same shall be subject to the result of the appeal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th day of October,

2024.

Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

6

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution:

PW-1: B. Prem Kumar, Police Constable

PW-2: C. Madhu Rama, Sub-Inspector

Defence: - None –

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Police Proceedings Ex.P2: First Information Report in Cr.No.33/2023. Ex.P3: Analysis report. Defence:

-NIL-

Material Objects marked:

Prosecution:

M.O.1: is the unexpanded portion of sample bottle.

Defence: - Nil –

Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE.

CALENDER IN C.C.NO. 137/ 2023

Date of offence: 07-05-2023

Date of complaint: 07-05-2023

Date of taken on file: 21-10-2023

Date of apprehension of accused : 07-05-2023

Date of commencement of trial: 17-09-2024

Date of close of trial: 22-10-2024

Date of sentence or order: 25-10-2024

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Molakalacheurvu, in Cr.No.33/2023

Name of the accusedFather’s NameAge

Bandrevu Raja ReddyLate Malli Reddy72 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling

KotapalliMolakalacheruvu--Coolie

Nature of offence: Under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act. Finding of the Court: Not guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C. The material object marked as M.O.1 sample packet is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and, if any appeal is preferred, the same shall be subject to the result of the appeal. Sd/xxxxxxxx

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Thamballapalle