A.vijay Raj Kumar

C.C.No.11/20231 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

APVZ0A0000582023

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

:: GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present: A.Vijay Raj Kumar, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.

THURSDAY,THIS THE 14th DAY OF MAY, 2026 (14-05-2026)

CALENDAR CASE No.11/2023

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Andra police station. …Complainant. And:

1. Gonderi Rajesh, S/o Late Narayana, Aged about 30 years, R/at Kandili Village, Pottangi Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha State.

2. Pemal Tirupathi S/o Apparao, Aged about 34 years, R/at Kandili Village R/at Pottangi Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha State.

3. Ganderi Mojesh S/o Relli, Aged about 32 years, R/at Kandili Village, Pottangi Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha State.

4. Gunel Paramesh S/o Late Asu, Aged about 55 years, R/at Kandili Village, Pottangi Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha State. ….Accused.

This case is coming on 29.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-complainant and of Sri K.Sai Sekhar, learned counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

C.C.No.11/20232 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.45/2021 for the offence charged under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The provenance of case facts are that :-

On 02.03.2021 early hours, LW-9/Sk. Sankar received credible information regarding the illegal transportation of ID arrack at out skirts of

Lotugedda Village, Mentada Mandal. On that he along with LW's 1 to 4 G.Poli

Naidu, R.Vijay Kumar, K.Srinivasa Rao and M.Dhanunjaya Rao respectively left Andra police station and rushed to outskirts of Lotugedda Village,

Mentada Mandal, at that time two motor cycles are coming to their side in a suspicious manner. Immediately LW-9/Sk Sankar stopped the said two motorcycles with help of LW's 1 to 4. And found two persons in each motorcycle by carrying one bag on each motor cycle. On seeing the police party they try to escaping from that place. Then immediately LW-9/Sk Sankar along with his staff caught hold them and questioned about their identity and why did they escaping from that place, On seeing the police party?. On that the persons fumbled at first later The first person who is rider of Motorcycle

Bearing No: OR 10H 5942 disclosed his name and address as Ganderi

Rajerh S/o Late Narayana. Later the second person who is Pillion Rider of

Motor Cycle Bearing No: OR10H5942 disclosed his name and address as

Pemal Tirupathi S/o Apparao. The Third person who is rider of Rider of Motor

Cycle Bearing No. AP35AN2114 disclosed his name and address as Ganderi

Mojesh S/o Relli. Later the Forth person who is Pillion Rider of Motor Cycle

Bearing No.AP35AN2114 disclosed his name and address as Gunel

Paramesh S/o Late Asu. Later LW-9/Sk.Sankar found one bag in each motorcycle. Later he asked about the bags to the said four persons. Later

C.C.No.11/20233 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM they confessed that they purchased ID Arrack Natu sara/Hooch from un- known person at Odisha State and same was shifted to surrounding villages of Lotugedda village for getting more profits, in the mean while they were caught by Police. Then LW-9/Sk. Sankar verified the Two bags and found 150 Small packets (Each 100 ml) each bag of ID Arrack "Natu sara Hooch and its total Worth about 150+150 =300x15 =4500/-. Immediately LW-9/Sk.

Sankar arrested the accused and informing them the grounds of their arrest as illegal possession and transportation of ID arrack is an offence U/s 7-A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act-1995. As there is no mediators available, As such he drafted the same under the cover of occurrence report and seized 300 Small packets (Each 100 ml) of ID Arrack 'Natusara '/Hooch along with motorcycles

Bearing Nos. 1. OR10H5942, 2. AP35AN2114 from their possession of the accused (A1 to A4). Then LW-9/Sk Sankar separated 250ml from seized property for sending chemical analysis. The occurrence report was drafted on 02.03.2021 from 03.00 hrs to 04.00 hrs. Then the accused were brought to the Police station.

Basing on the occurrence report, on 02.03.2021 at 0430 hrs.

LW-09/Sk.Sankar registered as a case in Cr.No.45/2021 U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition of Act-1995 of Andra P.S. During the course of investigation on 02.03.2021, he sent the accused to remand. Later he sent the samples to Regional Proh. & Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam and obtained expert opinion. LW-5/L.Madhavi, Govt. Chemical Examiner who analyzed the samples issued opinion stating that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide

C.E.No.641/2021 receptively. Later on 16.06.2021 LW.9/Sk.Sankar obtained the confiscation and disposal orders to the seized contraband property

C.No.21/ID/Excise/Destruction/DCRB/VZM/2021 dated 16.06.2021 from

Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram. As per the orders of orders of the

Superintendent of Police. Vizianagaram vide C.No.21/ID/ Excise /Destruction/DCRB/VZM/2021, dated 16.06.2021. On 22.07.2022 at 14.15

C.C.No.11/20234 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM hrs to 1600 hrs at Andra Police station, LW.8/B.V.Ramana, ASI-1142 of

Andra police station disposed off the seized property in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation,L.W.10/S.Sudarsan, SI of Police,

Andra police station filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 U/sec.

7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition of Act-1995.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 against accused 1 to 4.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 before the Court, copies of the documents have been furnished to them as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and denied all allegations and they are pleaded not guilty.

Hence, the charge under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed against the accused No.1 to 4. The said charge read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, after understood the same for which, they are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4, prosecution examined P.W.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and produced

M.O.1. The evidence of other witnesses was given up by learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor as endorsed on the charge sheet.

6. After closure of evidence of prosecution, this court examined the accused No.1 to 4 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed against accused in Telugu language for which the accused No.1 to 4 submitted that the evidence of prosecution was false. They reported no evidence on their behalf.

7.Later, this court heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel for the Accused.

C.C.No.11/20235 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

8.Now, the points that would arises for determination are as under:-

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 02-03-2021 early hours, while PW-1/LW-9 along with LWs.1 to 4 rushed to Lotugedda village, when they reached there, accused were found having possession of 150 small packets of ID arrack and they were transporting the same for onward sale and thereby, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the AP Prohibition Act ?

(ii) What order ?

:: REASONS ::

9. Point No.(i) :-

Before adverting to the consideration, it is relevant to note down the

provisions of AP Prohibition Act, 1995- Section -7A. Prohibition of Production etc., of arrack – The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

Section 8(e) contravenes the provisions of section 7A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend upto 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.

To substantiate the charges under sections 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused was transporting the said illicit liquor illegally or clandestinely and without any permission for onward sale and thereby he committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

To prove the same, prosecution cited LW-1 to 10 witnesses, but examined only LW-9 as P.W 1 and LW.6 as PW.2.

C.C.No.11/20236 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

10.Coming to the evidence of PW-1(Shaik Sankara Rao, S.I of

Police, Andra Police station), he testifies that on 02-03-2021 at about 2.30

AM he received credible information with respect to transportation of country made liquor. On that he along with L.W.1 and L.w.2 went to the place of scene of offence situated at out skirts of Lothugedda and at that time the accused A.1 to A.4 were coming on two motor cycles bearing No.AP 35 AN 2114 and OR 10 H 5942 with bags. On seeing them they tried to flee away from them but they caught the accused and asked their particulars. The accused disclosed their identity particulars and further confessed that they are in possession of 300 1.D.liquor sachets of 100 ml each. He verified the bags it contains 300 I.D.liquor sachets. The accused further confessed that they purchased the said ID liquor from unknown persons and bringing the same to their village and selling the same higher rates. He informed the accused possession of I.D.liquor is an offence and there is no availability of mediators as such he drafted the occurrence report and also took the sample from the above said I.D arrack .Occurrence report, dated 02-03-2021 is marked as Ex.P.1. He arrested the accused and brought them to police station. Basing on that Ex.P.1, he registered the case in Cr.No. 45/2021 and issued the FIR. Original FIR is marked as Ex.P.2. Later he prepared the remand report and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. Later he sent the samples to the chemical examiner and received the analysis report. Chemical Analysis report is marked as Ex.P.3. Copy of destruction proceedings is marked as Ex.P.4. Sample sachet of I.D.liquor is marked as M.O.1. After completion of investigation LW.10/S.Sudarsan, S.I. of

Police, Andra Police station filed charge sheet.

It was culled out from the cross examination of PW-1 that, while he was present at police station he received credible information at about 3.00 am. He went to scene of offence along with L.Ws.1 and 2 on two motor cycles. The distance between scene of offence to their police station is about

C.C.No.11/20237 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM 1 km., they reached to scene while crossing some villages. He did not mention in the occurrence report that in which direction towards them the accused were coming on motor cycle. He did not secure any independent mediators. He did not conduct any litmus test to the contraband and same was not mentioned in the occurrence report. He did not seize the bag of contraband. He denied the suggestion put by the learned counsel for accused that he did not go to scene of offence on information and he foisted a false case against the accused No.1 to No.4.

PW.2/LW-6(R.Malli Swamy) who is mediator for destruction of property, deposed that on 22-07-2021 at about 1.00 pm., the S.I.of Andra

Police Station called him and requested him to act as mediator for destruction of seized I.D.liquor in Crime No.45/2021. On that himself and

L.W.5/K.Srinivasa Rao, went to police station. On 22-07-2021 at about 3.00 p.m., the S.l.of police Andra P.S destroyed the property in their presence and prepared mediators report in their presence. True copy of mediator report is marked as Ex.P.5.

11.To manifest the offence under sections 7-A r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act, the prosecution case hinges on oral testimony of P.W.1,

PW.2 and documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O-1 sample bottle.

12.After extensive examination of oral evidence of P.W-1, PW.2 and documentary evidence available on record, it is discernible that, admittedly,

PW-1 rushed to the scene on credible information, they reached to scene, but did not secure any local independent respectable mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him, where police persons having an opportunity to take respectable mediators even after receipt of credible information, but they did not make any effort to take such mediators. PW-1 candidly stated that six persons were present at time of reaching to the scene, but they fails to examine any person. As seen Ex.P-1-occurrence

C.C.No.11/20238 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM report contents also did not disclose that the names of persons with whom they requested to act as mediators and which place they tried to get mediators. Really, if any person refused to act as mediator, they can issue notice to the said persons compelling them to appear before him act as mediator, but PW-1 failed to take any steps under section 160 Cr.P.C. If really, the police sincerely made efforts to secure mediators, but could not secure the mediators, then same would be reflected in the Ex.P-1 occurrence report.

13.Further, for better appreciation of the evidence, it is relevant to extract

Section 100(4), (5) & (8) of the Code of Criminal procedure, which reads as under:

“(4)before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”, (5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it., (8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code.”

Further, I am fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Pothabathula Abbulu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by its Public Prosecutor in Para No.8 wherein held that

Further, the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited in the appeal, by the revision petitioners, being

Ganjamker Narayana v. State of A.P., Mudavath Mothia v.State of A.P., T. Subbanna v. The State of A.P., Yeduru

C.C.No.11/20239 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Sreenivasul Reddy v. State of A.P. and Prohibition and

Excise Inspector, Kovvur v. Madaparthi Srinivasulu, were cases where seizure of articles was not accepted by the

Courts on account of discrepancies or lack of panch witness at the time of seizure. Conviction of the accused on the basis of such evidence would not be appropriate.

Apply the above law and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh to the case at hand, If really the version of PW-1 is true that every effort was made to get the mediators, it should have been reflected in the Ex.P1- occurrence report, which was prepared at the scene of offence.

But, PW-1 failed to furnish any cogent reasons for not securing the independent witnesses. The evidence of P.W-1 clearly shows that they did not follow the procedure as mandated under sec.100(4) & (5) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution story of seizing the contraband from custody of the accused has to be look with suspicion.

14.As seen further from the aforementioned evidence of PW-1,

Ex.P.1- Occurrence report which was drafted by PW-1 who is the

Investigation Officer in this case cannot be believed as the confession recorded by Police Official in the proceedings become inadmissible and is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of Cr.P.C. As seen the evidence. A glance at the evidence of PW-2 who is mediator to the destruction of seized contraband in various cases. PW-2 fails to state in which cases the police destroy the contraband in the police station. PW-2 not received any written requisition from the police to attend for destruction of seized liquor.

C.C.No.11/202310 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

15.Another insurmountable circumstance is that upon careful perusal of the record and evidence of PW-1 (SI of Police) and Ex.P-3 chemical analysis report, the said ID liquor seized on 02-03-2021 and drawn sample for chemical analysis. There is no date on the letter of advise when he sent to the sample to the chemical examiner. The chemical examiner received the sample on 15-03-2021. There is delay of 13 days in sending sample to the analysis. Delay in sending sample to the analysis also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

16. Besides, the evidence of PW-1 is the government official, who are certainly interested witness. PW-2 who is mediator to the destruction proceedings. Except PW-1 and PW.2, there is no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the search and seizure. The evidence let in by the prosecution must be inspire and confidence. A reading of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 does not inspire confidence and believing their evidence is always fraught with the danger of miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, this court feels that in the absence of independent testimony, the evidence of PW- 1 and PW-2 could not be relied upon.

17.It is trite in law that in a criminal trial, it is the duty of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. By virtue of my discussions supra, therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the charge leveled under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act against accused not proved by the prosecution by adducing probable evidence and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of the accused.

18.Therefore, this court is of the humble opinion that, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sections 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act against

C.C.No.11/202311 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the point under consideration is answered in the negative.

19. Point No.(ii) :-

In view of my findings on point No.(i), this court proceed to pass the following:-

:: ORDER ::

Accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 sample sachet is ordered to be destroyed being worthless, after the appeal period is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 :Sk.Sankar Rao P.W.2 :R.Malli Swamy

For Defence:Nil.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Occurrence Report, dated 02.03.2021 Ex.P.2: First Information Report, dated 02.03.2021 Ex.P.3:Chemical Analysis report dated 25.03.2021 Ex.P.4:Attested copy of destruction proceedings dated 15.07.2022. Ex.P.5:True copy of mediator report dated 22.07.2021

C.C.No.11/202312 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

For Defence :Nil.

Material Objects :

For Prosecution:

M.O.1 :Sample sachet of I.D.arrack.

For Defence : Nil

Judicial First Class Magistrate , Gajapathinagaram.

C.C.No.11/202313 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

APVZ0A0000582023 (Format of Calendar & Judgment as per amended Rule 67 of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Rules of Practice dated 22-03-2024)

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

FORM -A

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

PRESENT: A.Vijay Raj Kumar Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.

THURSDAY,THIS THE 14th DAY OF MAY, 2026 (14-05-2026)

CALENDAR CASE No.11/2023

(Crime No.45/2021 of Andra Police station)

Complainant:The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station.

Represented by : Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Accused: 1) Gonderi Rajerh S/o Late Narayana, Aged about 30 years, Kandil. Village, Pottangi Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha State.

2) Pemal Tirupathi S/o Apparao, Aged about 34 Years, Kandili Village Pottangi Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha State.

3) Ganderi Mojesh S/o Relli, Aged about 32 Years, Kandili Village, Pottangi Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha State.

4) Gunel Paramesh S/o Late Asu, Aged about 55 years, Kandili Village, Pottangi Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha State.

Represented by :Sri. K.Sai Sekhar, Advocate

FORM -B

C.C.No.11/202314 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Date of Offence09.08.2020 Date of FIR09.08.2020 Date of Charge Sheet07.12.2022 Date of Framing of Charges22.12.2025 Date of Commencement of evidence05.03.2026 Date of which Judgment is reserved29.04.2026 Date of the Judgment14.05.2026 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any--

Accused Details:

Period of Detention Under- Rank Whether gone dur- Name of Date of Offences Sen- of the Date of Acquitted ing Trial the Ac-Release charged tence Ac-Arrestor Con-for pur- cusedof Bailwithimposed cusedvictedpose of section 428 Cr.P.C

U/sec 7-A 02.03.2009.03.20 A-1 G.Rajerhr/w 8(e) of Acquitted nil nil 2121 APP Act

U/sec 7-A P.Tirupat02.03.2009.03.20 A-2r/w 8(e) of Acquitted nil nil hi2121 APP Act

U/sec 7-A 02.03.2009.03.20 A-3G.Mosesr/w 8(e) of Acquitted nil nil 2121 APP Act

U/sec 7-A G.Param02.03.2009.03.20 A-4r/w 8(e) of Acquitted nil nil esh2121 APP Act

FORM -C

LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES

A. PROSECUTION

Nature of Evidence (Eye witness, Police Witness, Expert RankName Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

P.W-1Sk.Sankara RaoPolice witness

P.W-2R.Malli SwamyPanch witness B.DEFENCE WITNESSES, IF ANY:

C.C.No.11/202315 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Nature of Evidence RankName(Eye witness, Police Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

D.W-1 - None -None C. COURT WITNESSES, IF ANY: Nature of Evidence RankName(Eye witness, Police Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

C.W-1- None - - None-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

1. PROSECUTION Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription 1Ex.P-1/PW-1Occurrence Report dated 09.08.2020

2.Ex.P-2/PW-1First Information Report dated 09.08.2020

4.Ex.P-3/PW-1Chemical Analysis report dated 26.10.2020

5.Ex.P-4/PW-1Attested copy of destruction proceedings dt: 14.12.20

6.Ex.P-5/PW-2True copy copy of mediator report dt: 22.07.2021 2.DEFENCE : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription

--- --- ---

3. COURT WITNESSES, IF ANY : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription

------------

4. MATERIAL OBJECTS : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription 1MO-1/PW-1One sample bottle of ID arrack Explanation for the delay and remarks :

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram

Copy submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District.

C.C.No.11/202316 Date: 14.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

2. The Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram District.

Digitally Signed by

AGGALAVIJAY

AGGALAVIJAY RAJ KUMAR

RAJ KUMAR

Date: 2026.05.20 15:26:20 +0530

C.C.No.128/20251 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

APVZ0A0013932024

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

:: GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present: A.Vijay Raj Kumar, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 (12-05-2026)

CALENDAR CASE No.445/2024

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Andra Police Station.

…Complainant.

And:

Lenka Suresh, S/o late Narayanarao, aged about 32 years,

Marupalli village, Gajapathinagaram Mandal.

….Accused.

This case is coming on 05.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-complainant and of Sri S.R.A.Vasudeva Rao, learned Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

C.C.No.128/20252 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.61/2024 for the offence charged under section 34 (a)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

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

On 16.04.2024 at evening while the LW-4/B.Devi, Sub-Inspector of Police of Andra PS was present in the police station and he received credible information regarding the illegal possession of IMFL bottles at

Kompangi village, Mentada Mandal she along with LW-1 (K.Appanna,

PC-467) and LW.2 (V.Ganapathi, HG-402 of Andra Police station) left the police station and proceeded to Kompangi village, at 4.00 pm, at that time the accused was coming to Kompangi village in suspicious manner by carrying one white colour bag on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 FY 6393. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape from that place.

Immediately they caught hold the accused and questioned about his identity and why did he escaping from that place on seeing the police party? And what contains in the bag? On that the accused fumbled at first later disclosed his name and address and he confessed that he is living by doing coolie works, as the income from him coolie work is not enough to maintain his family, he is sending unknown persons to Challapeta village wine shops and buy three by three IMFL bottles and kept the same in one white colour bag and bringing the same to Kompangi village for sale at sale at high prices to get profits, in the mean while he was caught by the police. Then

LW.4(B.Devi) verified the bag and found 30 BDH Epic Reserve classic whisky each 180 ml then he asked the accused that had he any license or permission from Government to possession/transport of wine bottles, on that the accused replied, he has no any license or permission to possession/transport/sale of the wine bottles. Immediately she arrested the accused by informing the grounds of his arrest as illegal possession and transportation of IMFL bottles is an offence U/s 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

C.C.No.128/20253 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Act-1968 and seized motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 FY 6393 and 30 IMFL bottles and separated one bottle from seized IMFL bottles for sending the same to Regional Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis, under the cover of occurrence report as there is no one come forward to act as mediators. As such he drafted the same under the cover of occurrence report on 16-04.2024 from 16.00 hours to 17.00 hours.

Basing on the occurrence report, she registered as a case in

Cr.No.61/2024 U/sec. 34(a)(1) AP Excise Act of Andra police station and investigated into. During the course of investigation, she served notice to the accused u/sec.41-A (1) of Cr.P.C.. Later she sent the sample to Regional

Proh. and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam and obtained expert opinion.

Later she obtained CE Report from LW.3 (A.Muneesari, Govt. Chemical

Examiner) who analyzed the sample and issued C.E. report vide

C.E.No.1325/2024 and opined that the sample at Sl. No: 4499 is Indian liquor and after completion investigation, she filed charge sheet against accused.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents have been furnished to him as required under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and he denied all allegations and he is pleaded not guilty. Hence, the charges under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused. The said charge read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, after understood the same for which, he is pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and produced MO.1 sample bottles. The evidence of LW-1 (K.Appanna, PC-467), LW.2(V.Ganapathi, HG-402) and

LW.3 (A.Muneeswari, Govt. Chemical Examiner) were given up by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor as endorsed on the charge sheet.

C.C.No.128/20254 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

6. After closure of evidence of prosecution, this court examined the

Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence to accused in Telugu language, in which he reported that the evidence of prosecution was false. He reported no evidence on his behalf.

7.Later, this court heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel for the Accused.

8.Now, the points that would arises for determination are as under:-

(i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 16.04.2024 around 4:00 PM on information PW-1/LW-4 went to Kompangi village, Mentada village along with LWs-1 and 2, there accused was found in possession of 30 IMFL bottles without any license or receipt for onward sale and thereby, the accused committed the offence punishable under 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act?

(ii) What order?

:: REASONS ::

9. Point No.(i) :-

Before appraising the facts and appreciating the evidence of the

present case, it is imperative to encapsulate the relevant legal provision germane to the adjudication of the present case. In order to prove the guilt of offence under section 34 of AP Excise Act, to prove the following ingredients:

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 licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,- (a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.Apply the above parameter, tosubstantiate the charges under Sections 34(a)(i) of

A.P. Excise Act prosecution cited LW.1 to 4 witnesses, but examined only

LW-4 as P.W 1.

C.C.No.128/20255 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

10.Turning to the evidence of PW-1/LW-4 (B.Devi, Sub-Inspector of police), she testifies that on 16-04-2024 evening hours she received a reliable information with regard to transportation of Indian made foreign liquor. On that she accompanied L.W.1/K.Appanna, PC-467 and

LW.2/V.Ganapathi, HG-402 proceeded to Kompangi village and at that time the accused came to the place of scene of offence on motor cycle bearing

No.AP 39 FY 6393 with one white colour bag and on seeing them the accused tried to escape from that place and on that they caught hold the accused and questioned the accused. Then accused disclosed his identity as an accused and confessed that he is in possession of I.D.liquor. She verified the bag and found 30 IMFL bottles of BDH Epic Reserve Classic whisky.

Later she questioned the accused with regard to the source of said IMFL bottles, on that accused confessed that he purchased the said IMFL bottles from various wine shops and bringing the same to his village and selling the same at higher rates. She informed the accused possession of IMFL bottles without any valid licence or receipt is an offence and there is no availability of mediators, as such she drafted the occurrence report and also took the sample bottle for analysis. Occurrence report is marked as Ex.P.1. Basing on occurrence report he registered a case in Cr.No.139/2024. Original FiR is marked as Ex.P.2. Later she served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released him on bail. Then she sent the sample to Chemical

Examiner and received the Analysis report. Chemical Analysis report is marked as Ex.P.3. Copy of destruction proceedings dated 16-08-2024 is marked as Ex.P.4. Sample bottles is marked as M.O.1.

It was culled out from the cross examination of PW-1 she admitted that she did not secure any independent witnesses even though she received credible information. The scene of offence is busy locality. She did not conduct further investigation with regard to purchase of bottles by the accused. She did not mention the batch numbers of seized bottles in the occurrence report. The gunny bag usually available in the open market.

C.C.No.128/20256 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

11.To manifest the offence under Section 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise

Act the prosecution sought to rely upon oral testimony of P.W.1 and documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P4 and MO-1.

12.Having gone through the entire evidence of P.W-1 and documents relied by the prosecution, it is discernible that admittedly, she went to the scene on credible information around 4.00 pm on 16-04-2024.

Certainly, the scene of offence is a busy locality, but police did not secure any local independent mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. Admittedly, the PW-1 did not prepare the rough sketch though the scene is situated at busy locality. Further, they could not trace out from whom the accused purchased the said seized bottles. Upon scrutiny of the evidence of PW-1, it clearly reveals that where police persons having an opportunity to take respectable mediators even the scene of offence is residential locality and PW-1 received credible information about the commission of offence, but they did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version.

13.Besides, PW-1 clearly admitted that some houses are situated in and around the scene of offence. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused was trying to transporting the the IMFL bottles. PW-1 testifies that they tried to secure mediators, but no one come forward. Further, they did not mention the names of persons whom they requested to act as mediators.

A glance at the Ex.P-1- occurrence report it would reveal that the contents of

Ex.P-1 also did not disclose that the names of persons with whom they requested to act as mediators and which place they tried to get mediators.

Really, if any person refused to act as mediator, they can issue notice to the said persons compelling them to appear before him act as mediator, but

PW-1 failed to take any steps under section 160 Cr.P.C.

14.For better appreciation of the evidence, it is relevant to extract

Section 55 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, which reads as under:

C.C.No.128/20257 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM "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 Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector, has reason to believe that an offence under section 34, 35, Section 36, 37 or 37-A, has been, is being or 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" and Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them”

Further, I am fortified by thedecision rendered by the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabadin the case law in between

Mudevath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 1 , their lordships held that “Once Excise Officials are interested with the investigation of cognizance offence under A.P. Excise Act they become police officials, as such, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure procedure drafted and also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sec. 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.”

Apply above law and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh to the case at hand, If really the version of PW-1 is true that 12002 SCC OnLine AP 1457 : (2002) 1 ALT (Cri) 437

C.C.No.128/20258 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM every effort was made to get the mediators and mention the reasons for not securing the search warrant, it should have been reflected in the Ex.P1- occurrence report, which was prepared at the scene of offence. But, PW-1 failed to furnish any cogent reasons for not securing the independent witnesses. The evidence of P.W-1 clearly shows that they did not follow the procedure as mandated under Section 100(4) & (5) of Code of Criminal

Procedure and Section 55 of AP Excise Act. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution story of seizing the contraband from custody of the accused has to be look with suspicion.

15.As seen further from aforementioned evidence of PW-1, Ex.P.1-

Occurrence report which was drafted by PW-1 who is the Investigation

Officer in the presence of LW-1 the police person cannot be believed as the confession recorded by Police official in the proceedings become inadmissible and is hit by Section 23(1) and proviso of sec.162 of Cr.P.C.

16.A glance at the Ex.P-3 chemical analysis report, the another insurmountable circumstanceis that the IMFL bottles seized on 16.04.2024 and drawn sample for chemical analysis. There is no date on the letter of advise when he sent to the sample to the chemical examiner. The sample sent to the chemical examiner received by the PW-1 on 03.07.2024 for analysis, as such there is delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis.

There was inordinate delay in sending the case property to the Chemical

Analyser and possibility of tempering was not ruled out.

17.In addition to that, the evidence of PW-1 the police officer, who is certainly interested witness. Except PW-1, there is no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the search and seizure. The evidence let in by the prosecution must be inspire and confidence. A reading of the evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence and believing their evidence is always fraught with the danger of miscarriage of justice.

C.C.No.128/20259 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, this court feels that in the absence of independent testimony, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be relied upon.

18.It is trite in law that in a criminal trial, it is the duty of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. By virtue of my discussions supra, therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the charges leveled against accused not proved by the prosecution by adducing probable evidence and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of the accused.

19.Therefore, this court is of the humble opinion that, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)(1) A.P.Excise Act against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the point under consideration is answered in the

Negative.

20. Point No.(ii) :-

In view of findings on point No.(i), this court proceed to pass the following:

:: ORDER ::

Accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act. The accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for offence punishable under Section 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act. The Accused is directed to execute self bond of Rs.10,000/- and same shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 (one sample bottle) ordered to be destroyed being worthless, after the appeal period is over.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Judicial First Class Magistrate , Gajapathinagaram.

C.C.No.128/202510 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 :B.Devi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station.

For Defence:Nil.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Occurrence Report, dated 16.04.2024 Ex.P.2: First Information Report, dated 16.04.2024 Ex.P.3:Chemical Analysis report dated 03.07.2024 Ex.P.4: Attested copy of destruction proceedings dated 16.08.2024.

For Defence :Nil.

Material Objects :

For Prosecution:

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

For Defence : Nil

Judicial First Class Magistrate , Gajapathinagaram.

C.C.No.128/202511 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

APVZ0A0013932024 (Format of Calendar & Judgment as per amended Rule 67 of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Rules of Practice dated 22-03-2024)

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

FORM -A

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

PRESENT: A.Vijay Raj Kumar Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 (12-05-2026)

CALENDAR CASE No.445/2024

(Crime No.61/2024 of Andra Police Station)

Complainant:The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station.

Represented by : Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Accused: Lenka Suresh, S/o late Narayanarao, aged about 32 years, Marupalli village, Gajapathinagaram Mandal.

Represented by :Sri. S.R.A.Vasudeva Rao, Advocate

FORM -B

Date of Offence16.04.2024 Date of FIR16.04.2024 Date of Charge Sheet24.09.2024 Date of Framing of Charges18.07.2025 Date of Commencement of evidence15.04.2026 Date of which Judgment is reserved05.05.2026 Date of the Judgment12.05.2026 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any--

Accused Details:

C.C.No.128/202512 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Period of Detention Under- Rank Whether gone dur- Name of Date of Offences Sen- of the Date of Acquitted ing Trial the Ac-Release charged tence Ac-Arrestor Con-for pur- cusedof Bailwithimposed cusedvictedpose of section 428 Cr.P.C

Section Section U/sec 34(a) Lenka A-1 41-A 41-A of AP Ex-Acquitted nil nil Suresh Cr.P.C.Cr.P.C.cise Act

FORM -C

LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES

A. PROSECUTION

Nature of Evidence (Eye witness, Police Witness, Expert RankName Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

P.W-1B.DeviPolice witness B.DEFENCE WITNESSES, IF ANY: Nature of Evidence RankName(Eye witness, Police Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

D.W-1 - None -None C. COURT WITNESSES, IF ANY: Nature of Evidence RankName(Eye witness, Police Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

C.W-1- None - - None-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

1. PROSECUTION Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription 1Ex.P-1/PW-1Occurrence Report dated 16.04.2024

2.Ex.P-2/PW-1First Information Report dated 16.04.2024

4.Ex.P-3/PW-1Chemical Analysis report dated 03.07.2024

5.Ex.P-4/PW-1Attested copy of destruction proceedings dt.16.08.24 2.DEFENCE : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription

--- --- ---

C.C.No.128/202513 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

3. COURT WITNESSES, IF ANY : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription

------------

4. MATERIAL OBJECTS : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription 1MO-1/PW-1Sample bottle

Explanation for the delay and remarks : There is no delay.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram Copy submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Vizianagaram District.

Digitally Signed by

AGGALAVIJAY

AGGALAVIJAY RAJ KUMAR

RAJ KUMAR

Date: 2026.05.20 15:26:25 +0530

C.C.No.128/20251 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

APVZ0A0004782025

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

:: GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present: A.Vijay Raj Kumar, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 12th DAY OF MAY, 2026 (12-05-2026)

CALENDAR CASE No.128/2025

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station. …Complainant.

And:

Karri Appalanaidu, S/o late Pentayya, aged about 64 years, R/at Maradam village, Dattirajeru Mandal. ….Accused.

This case is coming on 08.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-complainant and of Sri R.Sai Suresh, learned Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.149/2024 for the offence charged under section 34 (a)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

C.C.No.128/20252 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

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

On 08.12.2024 at about 5.00 pm, while the LW-4/K.Seetharamulu,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra PS was present in the police station and he received credible information regarding the illegal possession of IMFL bottles at

Kuntinivalasa village, Mentada Mandal he along with LW-1 (K.Srinivasa Rao,

PC-1199) and LW.2 (K.Appanna, PC-467 of Andra Police station) left the police station and proceeded to Kuntinivalasa village, at 5.30 pm, at that time the accused was selling wine in front of his house. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape from that place. Immediately, they caught hold the accused and questioned about his identity and why did he escaping from that place on seeing the police party? And what contains in the bag? On that the accused fumbled at first later disclosed his name and address and he confessed that he is living by doing coolie works, as the income from him coolie work is not enough to maintain his family, he purchased IMFL bottles from various wine shops at Mentada Mandal one by one and kept the same in one while colour bag and bringing the same to his village for sale at sale at high prices to get profits, in the mean while he was caught by the police. Then LW.4(K.Seetharamulu) verified the bag and found 52 IMFL Bottles ie., 1) Mc Dowells No.1 Luxury

Supreme whiskey 09-bottles -180 ml each 2) Old Admiral Fire VSOP Brandy -43 bottles each 180mlm then he asked the accused that had he any license or permission from Government to possession/transport of wine bottles, on that the accused replied, he has no any license or permission to possession/transport / sale of the wine bottles. Immediately he arrested the accused by informing the grounds of his arrest as illegal possession and transportation of IMFL bottles is an offence U/s 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act-1968. As there is no one come forward to act as mediators, he drafted the occurrence report which is commenced at 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM and seized 52 IMFL bottles and separated one bottle from each brand from seized IMFL bottles for sending the same to

Regional Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis, under the cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report, she registered as a case in Cr.No.149/2024 U/sec. 34(a)(1) AP Excise Act of Andra police station

C.C.No.128/20253 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he sent the accused for judicial remand. Later he sent the sample to Regional Proh. and Excise

Laboratory, Visakhapatnam and obtained expert opinion. Later he obtained CE

Report from LW.3 (A.Muneesari, Govt. Chemical Examiner) who analyzed the sample and issued C.E. report vide C.E.No.3439/2024 and opined that the sample at Sl. No: 22451 & 22452 are Indian liquor and after completion investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents have been furnished to him as required under Section 230 of BNSS.

The accused was examined under Section 262 of BNSS and he denied all allegations and he is pleaded not guilty. Hence, the charges under section 34(a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused. The said charge read over and explained to the accused in telugu, after understood the same for which, he is pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-4 and produced MO.1 sample bottles.

The evidence of LW-1 (K.Srinivasa Rao, PC-1199) and LW-2 (K.Appanna,

PC-467 and LW.3 (A.Muneeswari, Govt. Chemical Examiner) were given up by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as endorsed on the charge sheet.

6. After closure of evidence of prosecution, this court examined the

Accused under Section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating evidence to accused in Telugu language, in which he reported that the evidence of prosecution was false. He reported no evidence on his behalf.

7.Later, this court heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel for the Accused.

C.C.No.128/20254 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

8.Now, the points that would arises for determination are as under:-

(i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 08.12.2024 around 5:30 PM on information PW-1/LW-4 went to Kuntinavalasa village, Mentada village along with LWs-1 and 2, there accused was found in possession of 52 IMFL bottles without any license or receipt for onward sale and thereby, the accused committed the offence punishable under 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act?

(ii) What order?

:: REASONS ::

9. Point No.(i) :-

Before appraising the facts and appreciating the evidence of the

present case, it is imperative to encapsulate the relevant legal provision germane to the adjudication of the present case. In order to prove the guilt of offence under section 34 of AP Excise Act, to prove the following ingredients: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 licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,- (a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.Apply the above parameter, tosubstantiate the charges under Sections 34(a)(i) of A.P. Excise Act prosecution cited LW.1 to 4 witnesses, but examined only LW-4 as P.W 1.

10.Turning to the evidence of PW-1/LW-4 (K.Seetharamulu, Sub-

Inspector of police),he testifies that on 08-12-2024 at 5.00 PM he received a reliable information with regard to transportation of Indian made foreign liquor.

On that he accompanied L.W.1/K.Srinivasa Rao, PC-1199 and LW.2/K.Appanna,

PC-467 proceeded to Kuntinavalasa village and at that time the accused came to the place of scene of offence with one can and on seeing them the accused tried to escape from that place and on that they caught hold the accused and questioned the accused. Then accused disclosed his identity as an accused and confessed that he is in possession of 52 IMFL bottles. He verified the bag and found 52 IMFL bottles. Later he questioned the accused with regard to the

C.C.No.128/20255 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM source of said IMFL bottles, on that accused confessed that he purchased the said IMFL bottles from various wine shops and bringing the same to his village and selling the same at higher rates. He informed the accused possession of

IMFL bottles without any valid license or receipt is an offence and there is no availability of mediators, as such he drafted the occurrence report and also took the sample bottle for analysis. Occurrence report is marked as Ex.P.1. Basing on occurrence report he registered a case in Cr.No.139/2024. Original FiR is marked as Ex.P.2. Later he issued section 35(3) BNSS notice to the accused and released him on bail. Then he sent the sample to Chemical Examiner and received the Analysis report. Chemical Analysis report is marked as Ex.P.3.

Copy of destruction proceedings dated 22-02-2025 is marked as Ex.P.4. Sample bottles is marked as M.O.1.

It was culled out from the cross examination of PW-1 he admitted that he did not secure any independent witnesses even though he received credible information. The scene of offence is busy locality. He did not conduct further investigation with regard to purchase of bottles by the accused. He did not mention the batch numbers of seized bottles in the occurrence report. The gunny bag usually available in the open market.

11.To manifest the offence under Section 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act the prosecution sought to rely upon oral testimony of P.W.1 and documentary evidence of Ex.P1 to P4 and MO-1.

12.Having gone through the entire evidence of P.W-1 and documents relied by the prosecution, it is discernible that admittedly, she went to the scene on credible information around 5.00 pm on 08-12-2024. Certainly, the scene of offence is a busy locality, but police did not secure any local independent mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him.

Admittedly, the PW-1 did not prepare the rough sketch though the scene is situated at busy locality. Further, they could not trace out from whom the accused purchased the said seized bottles. Upon scrutiny of the evidence of

PW-1, it clearly reveals that where police persons having an opportunity to take

C.C.No.128/20256 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM respectable mediators even the scene of offence is residential locality and PW-1 received credible information about the commission of offence, but they did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version.

13.Besides, PW-1 clearly admitted that some houses are situated in and around the scene of offence. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused was trying to transporting the the IMFL bottles. PW-1 testifies that they tried to secure mediators, but no one come forward. Further, they did not mention the names of persons whom they requested to act as mediators. A glance at the Ex.P-1- occurrence report it would reveal that the contents of

Ex.P-1 also did not disclose that the names of persons with whom they requested to act as mediators and which place they tried to get mediators.

Really, if any person refused to act as mediator, they can issue notice to the said persons compelling them to appear before him act as mediator, but PW-1 failed to take any steps under section 160 Cr.P.C.

14.For better appreciation of the evidence, it is relevant to extract

Section 55 of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968, which reads as under:

"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 Excise Officer not below the rank of an Excise Sub-Inspector, has reason to believe that an offence under section 34, 35, Section 36, 37 or 37-A, has been, is being or 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"

and

Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of

C.C.No.128/20257 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them”

Further, I am fortified by thedecision rendered by the Hon’bleHigh

Court of Judicature at Hyderabadin the case law in between Mudevath Mothia

Vs. State of A.P. 1 , their lordships held that “Once Excise Officials are interested with the investigation of cognizance offence under A.P. Excise Act they become police officials, as such, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure procedure drafted and also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sec. 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.”

Apply above law and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh to the case at hand, If really the version of PW-1 is true that every effort was made to get the mediators and mention the reasons for not securing the search warrant, it should have been reflected in the Ex.P1- occurrence report, which was prepared at the scene of offence. But, PW-1 failed to furnish any cogent reasons for not securing the independent witnesses. The evidence of P.W-1 clearly shows that they did not follow the procedure as mandated under Section 103(4) & (5) (section 100(4) & (5) of Code of Criminal

Procedure) and Section 55 of AP Excise Act. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution story of seizing the contraband from custody of the accused has to be look with suspicion.

15.As seen further from aforementioned evidence of PW-1, Ex.P.1-

Occurrence report which was drafted by PW-1 who is the Investigation Officer in the presence of LW-1 the police person cannot be believed as the confession recorded by Police official in the proceedings become inadmissible and is hit by

Section 23(1) and proviso of section 183 of BSA/sec.162 of Cr.P.C.

12002 SCC OnLine AP 1457 : (2002) 1 ALT (Cri) 437

C.C.No.128/20258 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

16.A glance at the Ex.P-3 chemical analysis report, the another insurmountable circumstanceis that the IMFL bottles seized on 08.12.2024 and drawn samples for chemical analysis. There is no date on the letter of advise when he sent to the sample to the chemical examiner. The sample sent to the chemical examiner received by the PW-1 on 15.02.2025 for analysis, as such there is delay in sending the sample for chemical analysis. There was inordinate delay in sending the case property to the Chemical Analyser and possibility of tempering was not ruled out.

17.In addition to that, the evidence of PW-1 the police officer, who is certainly interested witness. Except PW-1, there is no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the search and seizure. The evidence let in by the prosecution must be inspire and confidence. A reading of the evidence of PW-1 does not inspire confidence and believing their evidence is always fraught with the danger of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, this court feels that in the absence of independent testimony, the evidence of PW-1 cannot be relied upon.

18.It is trite in law that in a criminal trial, it is the duty of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. By virtue of my discussions supra, therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the charges leveled against accused not proved by the prosecution by adducing probable evidence and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of the accused.

19.Therefore, this court is of the humble opinion that, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a)(1) A.P.Excise Act against accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the point under consideration is answered in the Negative.

20. Point No.(ii) :-

In view of findings on point No.(i), this court proceed to pass the following:

:: ORDER ::

C.C.No.128/20259 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act. The accused is acquitted under section 271 (1) of BNSS for offence punishable under Section 34(a)(1) of A.P. Excise Act. The Accused is directed to execute self bond of Rs.10,000/- and same shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 (two sample bottles) ordered to be destroyed being worthless, after the appeal period is over.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Judicial First Class Magistrate , Gajapathinagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 :K.Seetharamulu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station.

For Defence:Nil.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Occurrence Report, dated 08.12.2024 Ex.P.2: First Information Report, dated 08.12.2024 Ex.P.3:Chemical Analysis report dated 15.02.2025 Ex.P.4: Attested copy of destruction proceedings dated 22.02.2025.

For Defence :Nil.

Material Objects :

For Prosecution:

M.O.1 : Two Sample bottles

For Defence : Nil

Judicial First Class Magistrate , Gajapathinagaram.

C.C.No.128/202510 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

APVZ0A0004782025 (Format of Calendar & Judgment as per amended Rule 67 of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Rules of Practice dated 22-03-2024)

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

FORM -A

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

PRESENT: A.Vijay Raj Kumar Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 12th DAY OF MAY, 2026 (12-05-2026)

CALENDAR CASE No.128/2025

(Crime No.149/2024 of Andra Police Station)

Complainant:The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Andra Police Station.

Represented by : Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Accused: Karri Appalanaidu, S/o late Pentayya, aged about 64 years, R/at Maradam village, Dattirajeru Mandal.

Represented by :Sri. R.Sai Suresh, Advocate

FORM -B

Date of Offence08.12.2024 Date of FIR08.12.2024 Date of Charge Sheet11.03.2025 Date of Framing of Charges09.02.2026 Date of Commencement of evidence18.03.2026 Date of which Judgment is reserved08.05.2026 Date of the Judgment12.05.2026 Date of the Sentencing Order, if any--

Accused Details:

C.C.No.128/202511 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

Period of Detention Under- Rank Whether gone dur- Name of Date of Offences Sen- of the Date of Acquitted ing Trial the Ac-Release charged tence Ac-Arrestor Con-for pur- cusedof Bailwithimposed cusedvictedpose of section 428 Cr.P.C

Karri Sec.35 Sec.35 U/sec 34(a) A-1 Appala (3) (3) of AP Ex-Acquitted nil nil NaiduBNSSBNSScise Act

FORM -C

LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES

A. PROSECUTION

Nature of Evidence (Eye witness, Police Witness, Expert RankName Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

P.W-1K.SeetharamuluPolice witness B.DEFENCE WITNESSES, IF ANY: Nature of Evidence RankName(Eye witness, Police Witness, Medical Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

D.W-1 - None -None C. COURT WITNESSES, IF ANY: Nature of Evidence RankName(Eye witness, Police Witness, Panch Witness, Other Witness)

C.W-1- None - - None-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS

1. PROSECUTION Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription 1Ex.P-1/PW-1Occurrence Report dated 08.12.2024

2.Ex.P-2/PW-1First Information Report dated 08.12.2024

4.Ex.P-3/PW-1Chemical Analysis report dated 15.02.2025

5.Ex.P-4/PW-1Attested copy of destruction proceedings dt.22.02.25 2.DEFENCE : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription

--- --- ---

C.C.No.128/202512 Date: 11.05.2026 JFCM/GPNRM

3. COURT WITNESSES, IF ANY : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription

------------

4. MATERIAL OBJECTS : Sl.No.Sr.No.RankDescription 1MO-1/PW-1Two sample bottles Explanation for the delay and remarks : There is no delay.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajapathinagaram

Copy submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram District.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Vizianagaram District.

Digitally Signed by

AGGALAVIJAY

AGGALAVIJAY RAJ KUMAR

RAJ KUMAR

Date: 2026.05.20 15:26:20 +0530

Dt.14-05-20261 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

APVZ0A0001972024

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

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present: A.Vijay Raj Kumar

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gajapathinagaram.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026. (14.05.2026)

O.S.No.42/2024

Between:

Revalla Prasad, S/o Papinaidu, aged 40 years, Occupation: Cultivation, R/at Gadasam village, Dattirajeru mandal, Vizianagaram District.

......Plaintiff

And

Muddada Apparao, S/o Appanna, aged about 41 years, R/at Kota Gandredu village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

.....Defendant

This suit came up on 12.05.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri.R.Srinivasa naidu, learned counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri.B.Ravi and Sri.R.Sai Suresh, learnedcounsels for defendant, and upon hearing on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This is a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money advanced on the foot of promissory note dated 15-03-2021 together with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

Dt.14-05-20262 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

A synoptical resume of case facts are that:-

2.

₹ The defendant borrowed an amount of 2,00,000(Rupees two lakhs only) for the purpose of sheep business from the plaintiff on 15-03-2021, evidencing the said transaction, he executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the amount together with interest at the rate 24% p.a. to the plaintiff or his order or on demand. Subsequently, on 02-02-2023, the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.2,90,000/- towards the principal and interest. The plaintiff presented the cheque in his banker, but said cheque was returned with an endorsement

Funds insufficient. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding him to repay the amount, and he received the notice, but neither issued any reply nor pay the amount. On that the plaintiff filed a complaint vide CC 200/2023 before JFCM, Gajapathinagaram and same was pending for adjudication. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit.

3. The nub of the written statement of the defendant

That defendant has traversed the principle allegations in the plaint apart from raising several other contentions are that the plaintiff is novice to the defendant. One Majji Srinivasarao who is resident of Gadasam village used to maintain unregistered chits. This defendant and one Boddana Satish joined as members in 4 chits run by the said Majji Srinivasarao. At the time of joining of the chit said Majji Srinivasarao took the signatures of this defendant on some printed papers as security. This defendant paid the chit amounts regularly but the said

Majii Srinivasarao failed to pay the chit amount to this defendant on that this dispute the said Majji Srinivasarao agreed that the 3rd chit amount will be given to defendant raised dispute before the Gajapathinagaram Police Station. In that this defendant and 4th chit amount will be withhold with him compromise was effected

before Police but the said Maiji Srinivasarao failed to pay the chit amount to this

defendant. On that this defendant again approached to the S.H.O.,

Gajapathinagaram but the said Majji Srinivasarao by using his influence in the

Police Station they stated that it is civil dispute. While so, the said Majji

Dt.14-05-20263 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

Srinivasarao bore grudge against this defendant and the present plaintiff colluded and created suit promissory note and the alleged Cheque dated 02-02-2023 and filed this suit and a criminal case. This defendant have no necessity to borrow any amount from anybody. This defendant submits the attestors and scribe are henchmen of said Maiji Srinivasa Rao and plaintiff. The suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.On the strength of pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled for trial:-

(i). Whether the suit promissory note dated 15-03-2021 is true, valid and supported by the consideration and are binding on the defendant ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is stranger to the defendant as pleaded in the written statement?

(iii). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount together with subsequent interest as prayed for ?

(iv) To what relief?

5.To prop up the contention of both parties, on behalf of the plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A.1. Besides examined one Budi

Kiran Kumar as PW-2. On the contrary, the defendant fails to adduce his side evidence and no documents were exhibited.

6.Heard the arguments of plaintiff and defendant. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on the record.

:: REASONS::

7. ISSUES No.(i) and (ii) :

Dt.14-05-20264 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

(i) Whether the suit promissory note dated 15-03-2021 is true, valid and supported by the consideration and are binding on the defendant ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is stranger to the defendant as pleaded in the written statement?

Since issues No.(i) and (ii) are interrelated to each other. Hence, to avoid repetition of facts they are taken together.

Before delving into merits of the case, the defendant in his written

statement contending that he did not execute the said suit promissory note on the aforesaid date except admitting signature on it and same was subscribed in the chits of one Majji Srinivasa Rao. Therefore, the burden lies on the defendant to establish that there is no consideration on the Ex.A-1 suit promissory note.

To reinforce the contention of the plaintiff, he examined himself as

P.W.1(R.Prasad) and exhibited Ex.A1. His testimony would reiterate all the averments in the plaint that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him for sheep business and discharging other debts and executed promissory note on 15-03-2021 (Ex.A-1) in his favour agreeing to repay the same to his order or on demand. On 02-02-2023, the defendant issued a cheque in his favour, but upon presentation it was returned with remarks “funds insufficient”.

Thereafter, he filed a criminal complaint vide CC 200/2023 for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act before JFCM court, Gajapathinagaram and same was pending for adjudication. During cross examination PW-1 eloquently stated that Ex.A-1 transaction took place about 9:00 AM to 9:30 AM at his house.

At the time of Ex.A-1 transaction him, defendant, attestors and scribe were

Dt.14-05-20265 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

present. He denied the suggestion that there is no transaction took place in his presence.

8. To fortify his case and to prove the execution of Ex.A.1 by the defendant, the plaintiff further examined one B.Kiran Kumar who is one of the attestor of Ex.A-1 promissory note as PW-2. His evidence is in tune with the evidence of PW-1 as the defendant executed Ex.A.1 promissory note on 15-03- 2021 in favour of the plaintiff in their presence upon receiving the cash consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant put his signature on the Ex.A-1 promissory note after receipt of cash consideration from the plaintiff.

PW-2 in his cross examination testifies about date and time of transaction in toto with the PW-1. He further testifies that the denomination of

Ex.A-1 amount is Rs.500/- notes. He denied the suggestion that the defendant not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and no transaction took place in his presence.

9.Having carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties, and meticulously perused the oral testimonies of PWs. 1 and 2 and other material on record, would makes it abundantly clear that the defence itself offered a circumstance that the signature appearing on Ex.A1 is that of the defendant. In such circumstances, though the defendant flatly denied the entire suit transaction and his plea that said promissory note was obtained by one Majji Srinivasa Rao who used to run chit business, therefore, it is for him to establish as to how his

Dt.14-05-20266 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

signature is appearing on Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Thereby a presumption as such can be raised in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that such signature should have been subscribed in the circumstances stated in Ex.A1 itself basing on its intrinsic worth along with the testimony of P.W.1 and PW-2. In these circumstances, rebuttal is required specifically from the defendant.

10.The contention has been canvassed by the defendant is that one

Majji Srinivasarao used to maintain unregistered chits, in which him and one

Boddana Satish joined as members in 4 chits. At the time of joining of the chit said

Majji Srinivasarao took the signatures of this defendant on some printed papers as security. This defendant paid the chit amounts regularly but the said Majii

Srinivasarao failed to pay the chit amount to this defendant on that this dispute the said Majji Srinivasarao agreed that the 3rd chit amount will be given to defendant raised dispute before the Gajapathinagaram Police Station. In that this defendant and 4th chit amount will be withhold with him compromise was effected before

Police but the said Maili Srinivasarao failed to pay the chit amount to this defendant The defendant’s case is totally relying on the cross examination of

PW-1 and PW-2.

On close watch of oral evidences of PW-1 and 2, they are consistently testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 15-03-2021 from the plaintiff. PW-1 and PW-2 completely denied the suggestion that said Ex.A-1 obtained as security by said Majji Srinivasa Rao. Except suggestions and minor variations nothing much elicited from their evidences. They

Dt.14-05-20267 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

are consistent throughout and there is nothing to suspect the veracity of the witnesses and did not shake on any aspect and completely corroborated with each other with regard to execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note transaction.

11.Significantly, be noted that for a while if really Ex.A-1 was obtained by one third party Majji Srinivasa Rao who used to run chit business in which the defendant is one of the subscriber and said Srinivasa Rao obtained his signatures on some papers towards security, what prevented him to take steps to get back the said promissory note. Undoubtedly, except stray statement there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the defendant is one of the chit subscriber of the said Majji Srinivasa Rao and Ex.A-1 issued to him towards security.

Therefore, no steps were taken by the defendant, when the plaintiff of said Majji

Srinivasa Rao had retained blank promissory notes containing his signatures with him without demanding their return.

12.On the facts, the unequivocally admitted evidence emerged out from the cross examination of the PW-2 completely supported the plaintiff’s version regarding the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. No vested interest can be attributed to him as he deposed falsehood

before this court, with a view to help the plaintiff for the reason, no worthwhile

admissions elicited from him and in collusion with him, plaintiff fabricated the

Ex.A.1 promissory note. By way of examining the material witnesses, plaintiff could establish the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant, in his favour on the aforesaid date.

Dt.14-05-20268 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

13.It is suffice to say that once the execution of Ex.A.1 pronote is proved by the plaintiff presumption U/sec.118 of N.I.Act, 1881 comes into play regarding passing of consideration which reads as follows:“Until the contrary is proved, the following presumption 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.” The said presumption

U/sec.118 of N.I.Act, 1881 is rebuttable presumption. The burden lies on the defendant to rebut the presumption U/sec.118 of N.I.Act. In view of the above law referred above, apply to the case at hand, by way of examining the material witnesses, plaintiff could establish the execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note by the defendant, in his favour on 15-03-2021 and consideration was passed. Hence, the onus on the defendant to prove non-existence of consideration by adducing convincing rebuttal evidence.

14.To demolish the case of the plaintiff, the defendant put forth his contention is that said promissory note (Ex.A-1) was taken by one Majji Srinivasa

Rao who used to run unauthorized chit business towards security. On that the plaintiff colluded with the attestors and scribe created the Ex.A-1 promissory note.

Hence, it is his responsibility to prove the said allegations that he has discharged entire debt amount to the plaintiff on the promissory notes. However, the defendant did not enter into witness box to give evidence in support of his

Dt.14-05-20269 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

pleading. Except his written statement, defendant did not place any such cogent evidence to prove that the allegations made in the written statement. At this juncture, it is relevant to note down the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in

VIDHYADAR VS MANIKRAO

(1999) 3 SCC 573 : AIR 1999 SC 1441

wherein their lordships held that :-

Para No.16“Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbaksha Singh v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh, AIR 1930 Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat, AIR 1970 Madhya Pradesh 225, also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbaksh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath, AIR 1971 All. 29 held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haiyana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 Punjab and Haryana 7, drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box.””.

In view of the conspectus authority referred above is aptly applicable to the case on hand, since defendant did not enter into the witness box to prove his case. Since no trustworthy material placed by the defendant to discharge his evidentiary burden lies upon him. No probative material has been placed by the defendant to corrode the sterling quality of Ex.A-1. Although there has been no evidence to amply suggest, that there is no consideration passed under Ex.A-1.

Dt.14-05-202610 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

Hence, the Court can draw adverse inference that he is intentionally evading the same to suppress the truth.

15.It is indeed true, the plaintiff adduced oral evidence in the form of

PW-1 and PW-2 apart from producing Ex.A1 to prove his case. Therefore, I am of the humble opinion, that the defendant failed to rebut the presumption en-grafted under section 118(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act on a mere preponderance of probability in her favour by placing acceptable material.

16.Harking back to the present case, in view of the preceding discussion, it is clearly establishing that Ex.A-1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported by consideration. Therefore, there is no difficulty at all to hold the point in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. Thus, issueS

No. (i) and (ii) are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff.

17. ISSUE No. (iii) . Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for ?

In view of the findings in the Issue No.(i) and (ii), the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree passed in his favour against the defendant for the suit claimed amount with subsequent interest thereon as per section 34 of CPC. Thus, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

It is needless to say that costs to follow the event under section 35 of

CPC.

18. ISSUE No.(iv) : To what relief?

Dt.14-05-202611 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupees three lakhs forty four thousand only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree on the principle sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), and thereafter, at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only).

Typed to dictation in Adalat AI, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR :-

Plaintiff:

P.W.1: R.Prasad

P.W.2: B.Kiran Kumar

Defendant :

--- NIL ---

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff :

Sl.No Date Description of the document Remarks

Ex.A1 15-03-2021Promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/-executed Original by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Defendant :

Dt.14-05-202612 O.S.42/2024

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn)/ GPNRM

--- Nil ---

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Digitally Signed by

AGGALAVIJAY

AGGALAVIJAY RAJ KUMAR

RAJ KUMAR

Date: 2026.05.20 15:26:23 +0530

1 Dt.11.05.2026

Civil Judge(Jr.Dn)/GPNGRM

APVZ0A0001672026

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

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Present: A.Vijay Raj Kumar

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Gajapathinagaram.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026. (11.05.2026)

O.S.No.27/2026

Between:

Vanukuru Venkata Swamy, S/o China Narasimhulu, aged about 40 years, Cultivation, R/at Pedamedapalli village, Mentada mandal, Vizianagaram District.

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

And

Savalla Apparao, S/o Apparao, aged about 35 years, R/at Kotyada village, L.Kota mandal, Vizianagaram District.

.........Defendant

This suit came up on 08-05-2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri.P.Adinarayana, learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and he remains exparte on 24-03-2026 and upon hearing of plaintiff counsel and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This is a suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,98,933/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety eight thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) together with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2 Dt.11.05.2026

Civil Judge(Jr.Dn)/GPNGRM

A conspectus of case of the plaintiff is:-

2.

That the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 14-01-2024 for the purpose of family necessitites, agreeing to repay the same with an interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or her order on demand and the defendant executed promissory note for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in his favour. Subsequently, on 15-12-2025, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice demanding him repay the amount, and he received the same, but did not pay any amount to him. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit.

3. The summon duly served to the defendant, but he did not appear before the court and also fails to file any written statement. Hence, the defendant remains exparte as per the docket order dated 24-03-2026.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A-3. There is no oral or documentary evidence for the defendant.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

6. Now the point for determination is:-

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree passed for suit

claimed amount against the defendant as prayed for?"

POINT:-

7. To shore up the contention of the plaintiff, he examined himself asPW.1(V.Venkata Swamy) and got exhibited Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3. His unchallenged oral evidence coupled with Ex.A1 (original promissory note,

dated 14-01-2024) goes to show that there is money transaction between

3 Dt.11.05.2026

Civil Judge(Jr.Dn)/GPNGRM

himself and the defendant on 14-01-2024 and consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- was passed under Ex.A-1 promissory note and same was executed by the defendant. He further stated that on 15-12-2025, he issued a legal notice (Ex.A-2) to the defendant demanding him to repay the amount, and on 23-01- 2026, said notice was served through his office Commandant (Ex.A-3), but he did not pay any amount. Since his evidence remains unchallenged and the plea of the plaintiff is neither denied nor disputed. Therefore, the due execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A-1 proved by the plaintiff.

Hence, the plea of the plaintiff can be safely accepted.

8. Albeit, the defendant fails to appear before the court and failed to defend the suit by way of filing his written statement to dent the Ex.A-1 promissory note. Therefore, the presumption en-grafted under section 118(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be safely drawn in favour of the plaintiff.

Hence, the point is held in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,98,933/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety eight thousand nine hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakhs only).

Typed to dictation in Adalat AI, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

4 Dt.11.05.2026

Civil Judge(Jr.Dn)/GPNGRM

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR :-

Plaintiff:

P.W.1: V.Venkata Swamy

Defendant :

Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff :

Sl.No Date Description of the document Remarks

Ex.A114-01-2024Promissory note executed by the Original defendant in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A215-12-2025Legal notice Office copy

Ex.A323-01-2026Letter issued by office of the Original Commandant, CRPF, Sopore (J & K)

Defendant : Nil.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GAJAPATHINAGARAM

Digitally Signed by

AGGALAVIJAY

AGGALAVIJAY RAJ KUMAR

RAJ KUMAR

Date: 2026.05.20 15:26:21 +0530