Sri Ampolu Krishna Prasad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: NIDADAVOLU.

PRESENT: Sri A.Krishna Prasad,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial 1 of I Class, Nidadavolu. Monday, the 17th day of April,2023.

CALENDAR CASE No. 166 / 2023

Between:

State: The State Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Station, Kovvur. … Complainant.

And

Midde Ramakrishna, S/o Venkanna, Age 42 years,

R/o Ravimetla village, Nidadavole Mandal ...Accused

This case is coming on 13-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri V.Lakshman Rao, Advocate

for Accused and upon hearing the Arguments on both sides having stood

over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, SEB Station, Kovvur filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr. No.345/2021, for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP. Prohibition Act (Amendment Act 2020).

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

2.1) On 05-07-2021 at about 6-00 P.M. LW.3-SI of police, L.W.4-HC of

SEB,Ch.Narasimhacharyulu, L.W.5-EC of SEB B.Pavan Kumar along with mediators i.e. L.Ws. 1 and 2-Madhu Rama Chandra Rao and Enje

Venkata rao respectively went to Ravimetla village near Water tank, when they reached there, they found one person holding one hand bag in his hand and escaped from that place on seeing then by leaving said hand bag. On enquiry from mediators they came to know his name as 2 mentioined as Midde Ramakrishna. On search of said hand bag she found nearly 5 liters of ID arrack and she seized said ID arrack after collecting sample on preparation of mediators report dt.05-07-2021 and she brought the seized property to police station. Based on mediators report, she registered a case in Cr.No.345/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) R/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act (Amendment Act 2020) and issued FIR to the court and examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1,2,4 and 5-Madhu RamaChandra Rao, Enje Venkata

Rao, Ch.Narasimhacharyulu, B.Pavan Kumar at SEB Station. On 28-07- 2021 at about 9-00 A.M., on receipt of credible information about the accused in this case, L.W.3-SI of police , L.W.7 HC of SEB, P.Suneel

Kumar and L.W.8 EC of SEB Smt. K.Bharathi Rani went to Ravimetla village, near house of above named person who is accused in this case and when they reached there said person trying to escape from that place. On suspicion they caught hold said person and enquired him. On enquiry he informed his identity particulars and confessed about the commission of offence in this case and she arrested the accused after preparing special report and she produced the accused before the court for judicial remand and thereafter she sent sample for chemical analysis under letter of advise and she received Chemical analysis report from

RFSL, Kakinada and thereafter L.W.6-CI of SEB of their station sent requisition to DC SEB, Vijayawada for destruction of seized property and on that DC of SEB,Vijayawada issued proceedings for destruction of seized property. Based on said proceedings, CI of SEB, destroyed seized property in this case under mediators report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

3

3. This court took the cognizance under section U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act (Amendment Act 2020). On appearance of

Accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4 Accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., he denied the offence. Hence the charge under U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment Act 2020) is framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence,

Accused has been tried for the said charge.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P8 documents and M.O.1 material object got marked. The evidence of L.Ws.4 to 8-B.Venkatarao, B.Pavan Kumar,

P.Sudheer, P.Suneel Kumar, V.T.V.V.Satyanarayana respectivelyis given up by the prosecution.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied them as false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether Accused is i n illegal possession of 5 liters of ID liquor without authorized license and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment Act 2020)?

4

POINT:

8. It is the case of prosecution is that on 05-07-2021 at about 6-00

P.M., PW1, L.W.4 HC of SEB, Ch.Narasimhacharyulu, L.W.5 EC of SEB,

B.Pavan Kumar along with mediators i.e. LWs. 1 and 2-Madhu Rama

Chandra rao and Enje Venkatarao respectively went to Ravimetla village near Water tank, when they reached there, they found one person holding one hand bag in his hand and escaped from that place on seeing them by leaving said hand bag and on enquiry from mediators they came to know hisname as mentioined as Midde Ramakrisbna and on search of said hand bag she found nearly 5 liters of ID arrack and seized the said ID arrack after collecting M.O.1 sample on preparation of Ex.P1 mediators report dt. 05-07-2021 and brought the seized property to police station. Based on Ex.P1, she registered a case in Cr.No.345/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) R/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition ( Amendment Act 2020) and issued Ex.2 FIR to ths court and examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws. 1,2,4 and 5-Madhu RamaChandra

Rao, Enje Venkata Rao, Ch.Narasimhacharyulu, B.Pavan Kumar at SEB

Station. On 28-07-2021 at about 9-00 A.M., on receipt of credible information about the accused in this case, PW1, LW7 HC of SEB

P.Suneel Kumar and L.W.8-EC of SEB, Smt. K.Bharathi Rani went to

Ravimetla village near house of above named person who is accused in this case. When they reached there said person trying to escape from that place and on suspiction they caught hold said person and enqkuired him and on enquiry he informed his identity particulars and confessed about the commission of offence in this case and arrested the accused after praparing Ex.p3 special report dt.28-07-2021 and she produced the 5 accused before this court for judicial remand and thereafter she sent sample for chemical analysis under Ex.P4 letter of advise and she received Ex.P5 RFSL, report from Kakinada and thereafter LW6 CI of

SEB of their station sent Ex.P6 requisitioin for destruction of property and on that DC of SEB, Vijayawada issued Ex.P7 proceedings for destruction of seized property. Based on Ex.P7, CI of SEB destroyed seized property in this case under Ex.P8 mediators report ( Destruction proceedings) and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet in this case.

9. To discuss about the commission of the offence in this case and to rope the accusedwith the alleged offence it is necessary to discuss about

Section 7-B R/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition ( Amendment 2020 Act)

which reads as follows:

“7-B-Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing, transporting, selling, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.” “8-B-Penalty for sale, export, import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely:-Whoever in contravention of Section 7-B of this Act indulges in sale, export, import or transport of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor shall on conviction be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extent up to eight years and with fine which sale 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.”

10. In order to bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment Act 2020), it is primary duty of the prosecution to prove that Accused is in possession of ID liquor without having license or permit.

6

11. To prove the said aspect, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P8 documents and apart from got marked M.O.1 material objects. M.O.1 is sample bottle, Ex.P1 is mediators report, dt.05-07-2021, Ex.P2 is FIR, Ex.P3 is letter of advise,

Ex.P4 is special report, Ex.P5 is RFSL report, Ex.P6 is requistion for destruction of property, Ex.P7 is permission proceedings issued by DC of

SEB, Ex.P8 is mediators report, ( destruction proceedings).

12. In the above P.Ws. 1 to 3 witnesses, P.W.1 is SI of police, and

P.W.2 and 3 are present at the time of conducting raid. P.W2 and 3 are independent witnesses who turned hostile. Since independent witness i.e. PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile, the only evidence available on behalf of prosecution is PW.1 SI of Police , Hence, the evidence of P.W. 1 has to be examined with care and caution.

13. It is the evidence of P.W.1 is that on 05-07-2021 at about 6-00

P.M., PW1, L.W.4 HC of SEB, Ch.Narasimhacharyulu, L.W.5 EC of SEB,

B.Pavan Kumar along with mediators i.e. LWs. 1 and 2-Madhu Rama

Chandra rao and Enje Venkatarao respectively went to Ravimetla village near Water tank, when they reached there, they found one person holding one hand bag in his hand and escaped from that place on seeing them by leaving said hand bag and on enquiry from mediators they came to know hisname as mentioined as Midde Ramakrisbna and on search of said hand bag she found nearly 5 liters of ID arrack and seized the said ID arrack after collecting M.O.1 sample on preparation of Ex.P1 mediators report dt. 05-07-2021 and brought the seized property to 7 police station. Based on Ex.P1, she registered a case in Cr.No.345/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) R/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition ( Amendment Act 2020) and issued Ex.2 FIR to ths court and examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws. 1,2,4 and 5-Madhu RamaChandra

Rao, Enje Venkata Rao, Ch.Narasimhacharyulu, B.Pavan Kumar at SEB

Station. On 28-07-2021 at about 9-00 A.M., on receipt of credible information about the accused in this case, PW1, LW7 HC of SEB

P.Suneel Kumar and L.W.8-EC of SEB, Smt. K.Bharathi Rani went to

Ravimetla village near house of above named person who is accused in this case. When they reached there said person trying to escape from that place and on suspiction they caught hold said person and enqkuired him and on enquiry he informed his identity particulars and confessed about the commission of offence in this case and arrested the accused after praparing Ex.p3 special report dt.28-07-2021 and she produced the accused before this court for judicial remand and thereafter she sent sample for chemical analysis under Ex.P4 letter of advise and she received Ex.P5 RFSL, report from Kakinada and thereafter LW6 CI of

SEB of their station sent Ex.P6 requisitioin for destruction of property and on that DC of SEB, Vijayawada issued Ex.P7 proceedings for destruction of seized property. Based on Ex.P7, CI of SEB destroyed seized property in this case under Ex.P8 mediators report ( Destruction proceedings) and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet in this case.

14. During cross examination of both P.W 1 she admitted that she did not examine any independent mediator for arrest of accusedand seizure of 5 liters of ID arrack and is sample bottle from the possession 8 of accusedin this case. Though P.W.1 SI of police in her cross examination stated that she did not put her signature in Ex.P1 police proceedings. Non putting of signature in Ex.P1 police proceedings by

PW.1 SI of police raises doubt whether she was actual persons in arresting P.W.1. Hence, for the above said reasons her evidence can not be believed. It is also not evidence of PW1 SI of police, she issued summons to any independent inhabitant of that locality or village officials requesting them to act as mediator for arrest of accused and seizure of ID arrack. That itself shows that P.W.1 SI of police did not make any effort to secure independent mediator or village officials for arrest of the accused and seizure of ID arrack and M.O.1 sample bottle in this case.

15. According to the case of prosecution, accused wasfound in unlawful possession of ID liquor without having any license or permit for the purpose of preparing and selling the same for higher price. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the evidence of P.W.1SI of police is trustworthy and the evidence left with prosecution is only PW.1 investigating officer. Hence it is to see whether PW.1 investigating officer is followed procedure contemplated U/Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C. with reads as follows: In this regard the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in a case between Gajamker Narayana Vs State of AP reported in wherein it was held that:

“U/Sec. 100(4)of Cr.P.C. before making a search the Officer or the other person about to make it sell call upon 2 or more independent respectful inhabitant of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality, if no such inhabitant of the said 9 locality is available or is relevant to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an Order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

It is further held that:

In the absence of specific evidence in that regard Court bound to come to conclusion that provisions of Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the excise contraband and thereafter, seizure made in such case is illegal.”

But in this particular case P.W.1 SI of police did not follow such procedure in arrest of accused and seizure of ID arrack in this case.

16. In the present case on hand, P.W. 1 deposed in her cross examination that they did not make any efforts to secure independent mediators for arrest of accused and seizure of ID arrack and M.O.1. There are a chances of securing some other independent witness at the time of commission of offence. Non taking any such efforts in securing independent mediators by Investigating Officer is certainly fatal to the case of prosecution and the alleged seizure in this case is said to be illegal as held by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in the above discussed decision. When P.W.1 admitted that she has not issued any requisition to independent witness to act as mediators, it creates a suspicion about the case of prosecution which entitles the accused to claim benefit of doubt.

The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is of least significance as they turned hostile and that the prosecution cannot stand on its legs solely on the evidence of P.W.1 SI of police is having interest in out come of this case.

Hence, the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the absence of evidence of independent mediators it can be doubted regarding the genuineness of

Ex.P8 Mediators report and also in view of above mentioned 10 circumstances. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution thoroughly failed in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment Act 2020) beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in the above mentioned circumstances it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of P.W. 1 2 who is only Police Official witness who is having every interest in the outcome of the case as it was allegedly detected by her.

17. In these circumstances basing on the evidence of P.W.1 who is

Police Official witness and having interest in the result of accused it is not at all safe to convict accused for the alleged. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accusedagainst the prosecution.

18. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition ( Amendment Act 2020) and is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused has executed bond of Rs.5,000-00 each U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. undertaking him to appear

before any Appellate Court, if any appeal is referred against this

Judgment.. M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after laps of appeal time.

Type to dictated to Stenographer, directly in my official Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17h day of April, 2023.

Sd/-A.Krishna Prasad.

Principal Junior Civil Judge- Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nidadavole 11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1: G.Basanthi,SI of police. P.W.2: M.Ramachandra Rao P.W.3: Enje VenkataRao For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1 is mediators report, dt.5-07-2021, Ex.P2 is FIR, Ex.P3 is letter of advise, Ex.P4 is special report, Ex.P5 is RFSL report, Ex.P6 is requistion for destruction of property, Ex.P7 is permission proceedings issued by DC of SEB, Ex.P8 is mediators report, ( destruction proceedings) FOR DEFENCE: Nil

M. Os. MARKED M.O.1 is sample bottle, Sd/-AKP P.J.C.J.-Cum-

J.M.F.C.NDD

//True copy//

PJCJ-Cum-

JMFC,NDD

12

Form No. 72

Calendar and Judgment District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 166 / 2023

Nature of Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition(Amendment Act 2020) Date of Judgment 17-04-2023

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offenceReportapprehensionRelease oncommenceclosure of sentence or of accusedbailment of rialorder trial 05-07-202105-07-202105-07-202102-08-202113-04-202313-04-202317-04-2023

Explanation for the delay : the delay is due to non production of witnesses. Complainant:The State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,SEB Station, Kovvur P.S.

Name of accused FatherAge ReligionCalling Residence Mandal. name

Midde Venkanna42HinduCoolieRavimetlaNidadavole Ramakrishnayears

Pleaded : Not Guilty Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition ( Amendment Act 2020) and is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused has executed bond of Rs.5,000-00 each U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. undertaking him to appear

before any Appellate Court, if any appeal is referred against this

Judgment. M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after laps of appeal time.

Sd/-A.Krishna Prasad.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nidadavolu. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru. //True copy//

PJCJ-Cum-

JMFC,NDD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: NIDADAVOLU.

PRESENT: Sri Dr. A.Krishna Prasad,

Principal Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu.

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 20203. CALENDAR CASE No. 229 / 2018

Between:

Smt.Udayagiri Lakshmi, W/o Padmanabham, Age 56 years, Female, Housewife, D.No.3-11-9/3, Kandukuri Vari Street,

Nidadavole – 534 301, West Godavari District. ...Complainant.

AND

Smt. Mukkapati Lakshmi Prasanna, W/o Damodhara Rao, Age 25 years, Hindu, Female, Kandukuri Vari Street, Nidadavole-534 301, Wesg Godavari District.. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 06-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence Sri Ch.Vijay Kumar, Advocate complainant and Sri

S.V.V.Suryanarayana, Advocate for accused and that the same is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This Private Complaint has been filed by complainant by name Smt.

Udayagiri Lakshmi against the accused by name Smt. Mukkapati Lakshmi

U/Sec. 420 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution in brief is that the complainant along with her husband and children are living together in the house bearing No.3-11-9/3, situated at Kandukurivari Street, Nidadavole which is her own house since long back. The accused also lived in the complainant house as tenant. As such the accused got acquaintance with complainant by taking advantage, cheated the complainant on 26-09-2014 by showing forged and fabricated promissory note at Nidadavole.

2 2.1. Since long time, complainant is living at Kandukurivari Street,

Nidadavole, on the same street one Bulusu Ramalakshmi, W/o Venkata

Padmanabham also resides. Accused who is residing adjacent to the complainant’s house as tenant and used to move closely with complainant and said Bulusu Ramalakshmi. The complainant often used to lend amounts to the adjacent neighbours at their urgent expenses. The same was watched by accused, who hatched a plan to cheat the complainant and thereby loot amount from the complainant. The accused is having dishonest intention since one year and used to move closely with complainant and on 26-9-2014 at about 7-00 A.M., while complainant is in taking terms with one Padala Jayalakshmi at the complainant’s house, the accused came to the house of complainant and stated to the complainant that she required

Rs.20,000/- to pay her daughter’s college fee on that day only as that is the last date to pay the fee. For which said Bulusu Ramalakshmi needed

Rs.20,000/- and sent the accused to ask the complainant to lend such amount. For which the complainant insisted the accused to get made a phone call by the said the said Bulusu Ramalakshmi to that effect. But the accused who intentionally came to the complainant to cheat her in a deceitful manner induces the complainant by stating that on that day the said Bulusu Ramalakshmi followed “Mounavratham”, so she used to maintain keep silence on that entire day and also said Bulusu Ramalakshmi is in great worry about the non-payment of her daughter’s college fee until the final day due to lack of money and also on 26-09-2014 is the final day for payment of college fee, otherwise the education of Ramalakshmi’s daughter would fell in troubles. For which the said Ramalakshmi sent the 3 accused to the complainant to ask for an amount of Rs.20,000/- as hand loan and also stated that said Ramalakshmi would execute promissory note in favour of complainant, being innocent house lady the complainant by believing all the words of accused delivered Rs.20,000/- to the accused after taking promissory note said to be executed by Bulusu Ramalakshmi in favour of complainant from the accused. After two months, i.e. on 06-12- 2014, when the complainant demanded said Bulusu Ramalakshmi to repay the debt amount, to the utter shock of the complainant, Ramalakshmi denied the entire transaction i.e. borrowing of money, execution of promissory note etc., and she expressed her anguish about the innocence of complainant and deception of the accused, after came to know about fraud played by the accused immediately the complainant approached the scribe of promissory note by name Polisetty Bapuji and questioned about the genuinenity of promissory note. Said Bapuji informed that the accused asked him to file the promissory note at his house, but he did not witness the signing of the executent, thereby the complainant who perceived that the accused played deception against her, in that connection induced her and cheated her and taken away amount of Rs.20,000/- approached the accused along with elders by name Shaik Shariff and others. The complainant and other elders warned the accused to gave report to police for which accused pleaded merry by admitting fraud played by her and prayed time for one month to return the amount to complainant, meanwhile, all of sudden on one fine day in the month of January 2015, the accused kept vacate her rented house and shifted residence where else, after due search the complainant is unable to trace where about of the accused. Subsequently, 4 the complainant came to know that the accused stayedat Paderu of Vizag

District and oftenly used to visit Nidadavole secretly. As such complaint having no other go obliged to approach the police and gave report to police on 08-01-2015, but whenever the complainant visited to the police station, police in spite of registering the case used to state that they are in search for the accused. For which the complainant obliged to file this complaint.

3. Upon considering the complaint, FIR, and other material on record, cognizance has been taken for the offences U/Sec. 420 of IPC and issued summons to Accused

4. On appearance of Accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. On examination of Accused U/sec. 246 Cr.PC, she denied the allegations leveled against her. Hence, the charge for the offence punishable

U/Sec.420 of IPC is framed, read over and explained to her, in Telugu, for which she denied as false, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence,

Accused has been tried for the said offence.

6. In support of its case, counsel for complainant examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 and P2 documents. Ex.P1 is promissory note dt.26-09-2014, Ex.P2 is the receipt issued by Station House Officer,

Nidadavole. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 to D4 documents are marked.

7. After closure of the complainant side evidence, Accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appeared in the evidence of complainant witnesses, for which she denied 5 them as false and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point arises for consideration is:

Point: Whether the complainant could bring home the

guilt of Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 420 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. During trial, complainant is examined as P.W.1 and got examined one third party to the proceedings as PW2 , scribe of Ex.P1 is examined as P.W.3 and one Bulusu Lakshmi and her husband Bulusu Venkata Padmanabham whose signatures are allegedly forged by accused as P.Ws. 4 and 5 and son of complainant as PW6. Complainant got marked Ex.P1 and P2 documents on her behalf. On behalf of accused Exs.D1 to D4 documents are marked through PW1

11. Case of the complaint in brief is that accused approached complainant on 26-09-2014 at about 6.45 AM with an intention to deceive the complainant and informed her that one Bulusu Rama Lakshmi sent her to bring amount of Rs.20,000/- as hand loan as said Ramalakshmi observing Mounavratham. On that complainant gave Rs.20,000/- to accused and asked her to bring pronote from Bulusu Ramalakshmi. After half an hour accused came to the shop of complainant and gave pronote informing that Bulusu Ramalakshmi and her husband executed the same and thereafter on 06-12-2014 complainant went to the house of Bolusu 6

Ramalakshmi, who told complainant that she did not send accused and accused did not give any amounts to her. Bulusu Ramalakshmi also told that they did not execute any pronote and did not handover the same to accused and accused might have forged their signatures. PW1 deposed during her chief examination in the same lines as mentioned above.

12.PW2 who is third party to the proceedings stated in her chief examination about arrival of complainant to the shop of PW1 and informed to complainant that she was sent by Bulusu Ramalakshmi to take amount from complainant and on that complainant gave Rs.20,000/- to accused in her presence.

13. P.W.3 who is scribe of Ex.P1 stated in his chief examination that on 26-09-2014 at about 7.30 A.M., accused and her husband came his house and requested to fill one printed pronote which was affixed with revenue label informing that one Bolusu Ramalaksmi and her husband borrowed amount of Rs.20,000/- from complainant and accordingly he received the same.

14. Bolusu Ramalakshmi and her husband Padmanabham whose signatures are allegedly forged by accused in Ex.P1 categorically stated in their chief examination itself that they never informed complainant that accused forged their signatures in pronote dt. 26-09-22014 and signatures in the said pronote are belongs to them as complainant obtained same when they scribed Chit with her in the year 2013.

7

14. P.W.6 who is son of complainant stated in his chief examination that on 26-09-2014 accused approached his mother at about 6.30 A.M., and informed his moither as one Bulusu Ramalakshmi sent her to bring money from his mother as it is necessary for her to pay College fee of her daughter and on that his mother asked accused why Bulusu Ramalakshmi did not come and that on questioning by his mother accused informed that said

Ramalakshmi doing Silence Vratham and as suchshe sent accused and since his mother got acquaintance with both accused and Ramalakshmi, his mother gave an amount of Rs.20,000/- to accused and gave pronote to get it signed from Bulusu Ramalakshmi and after 20 minutes accused brought pronote with signatures of said Ramalakshmi and her husband and gave it to his mother who kept it in their home and after one week of the said incident his brother was died as such his mother did not inform any of the them about the said transaction and thereafter, on 06-12-2014 his mother asked Bulusu Ramalakshmi to repay amount under pronote given by accused by showing it to Ramalakshmi and on that Ramalakshmi informed his mother that accused did not give any amounts to her and they did not execute any pronote in favour of his mother and she denied their signatures in the said pronote and on that his mother informed said fact and showed him said pronote and on observing the pronote he thought Ramalakshmi did not put the alleged signature in Telugu as she studied B.Com. and her husband did not put alleged signature in Telugu as he studied M.Sc. Gold

Medalist and as such they came to know accused cheated her moither by forging signatures of said Ramalakshmi and her husband and on that himself, his mother one Sharief went to the house of accused and asked her 8 why she cheated his mother and on that accused confessed about her guilt in cheating his mother and promised to pay said amount within one month, but she did not repay said amount and moreover fled away to Paderu of

Visakhapatnam District, hence, on 08-01-2015 they lodged report with police and police examined him and recorded his statement, but police did not take any action, hence, they lodged private complainant U/Sec. 156

Cr.P.C. and even thereafter police filed referred charge sheet based on which his mother filed this complaint and since accused, Ramalakshmi and her husband are belongs to same community they are supporting accused in admitting signatures on pronote as the same are belongs to them through said signatures are forged by accused.

15. As per evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 complainant gave an amount of

Rs.20,000/- to accused on 26-09-2014 at about 6.45 AM.,she told complainant that she was sent by Bulusu Ramalakshmi to bring amount of

Rs.20,000/- from complainant as the same is necessary for Bulusu

Ramalakshmi to pay School fee of her daughter and when complainant insisted to talk with said Ramalakshmi accused told that she is observing

Mownavratam. But own witness of complainant i.e. P.W.2 stated in her cross examination that she has not seen when P.W.1 gave amount to accused. The said evidence of PW2 in her cross examination is quiet contradicting her evidence as well as evidence of PW1.

16. Though PW3 stated in his chief examination that he filled Ex.P1 as per instructions given by accused and her husband, in his cross examination he categorically stated that signatures of borrower in Ex.P1 are 9 not signed in his presence. If really accused put signatures of alleged borrowers in Ex.P1 in the presence of P.W.3, certainly his evidence will be useful to complainant to say that accused forged signatures of borrower in

Ex.P1. Since PW3 did not depose while accused put signatures of alleged borrowers in Ex.P1, the evidence of PW3 is also not helpful and useful to the case of complainant.

17. To say any document is forged, the person whose signature is allegedly be forged must deny that alleged signature is not belongs to him or her. In this case the borrowers who’s signatures are allegedly forged by accused i.e., P.Ws. 4 and 5 must support the case of complainant in alleging that accused forged their signatures in Ex.P1. But in this present case on hand P.Ws. 4 and 5 categorically stated in their chief examination itself that they never sent accused to the house of complainant in asking her to bring amount for them and they admitted their alleged signatures in Ex.P1 are belongs to them. Once persons whose signatures are allegedly forged are denied the allegations of forgery, the rest of the contentions of complainant can simply disbelieve. Though P.Ws. 4 and 5 deposed against case of complainant nothing to discredit their testimony has been established by taking permission to declare them as hostile. Since nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimonies of P.Ws. 4 and 5, this court has no other go except to consider the evidence of PWs. 4 and 5 which waters down the entire case of complainant. As such the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 itself is sufficient to say that accused did not commit allege offence in forging signature of PW.4 and PW.5 and in cheating complainant. Regarding contention of complainant in giving amount of Rs.20,000/- to accused her 10 own witness PW.2 though stated in her chief examination that complainant gave Rs.20,000/- to accused, in her cross examination she categoricallly stated that in her presence no amount was given by complainant to accused.

Therefore, the said evidence of PW.2 itself is sufficeinet to disbelive the case of the complainant regarding offence U/s. 420 of I.P.C. Though son of complainant being PW6 stated all aspects in support of case of complainant, in his cross examination he categorically stated that he was not present when his mother allegedly gave amounts to accused. As such the evidence of

PW6 is hear say evidence and accordingly the same is of no relevance and not helpful to the case of complainant. Further the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 during their chief examination itself is somehow contradicting as shown in

Exs.D1 to D4. Therefore, in view of all above mentioned circumstances it can be categorically held that complainant failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence. Hence, certainly accused is entitled to claim benefit of doubt and acquittal and accordingly point is answered against the complainant and in favour of accused.

18. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 420 of IPC and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.p.C. accused has executed bond of Rs.5,000/- U/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. undertaking her to appear before any appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected the soft

copy in official Laptop and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-A.Krishna Prasad.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE,NIDADAVOLE

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:FOR ACCUSED: None.

P.W.1: Udayagiri Lakshmi P.W.2: Padala Jayalakshmi P.W.3: Polisetti Bapuji P.W.4: Balusu Ramalakshmi P.W.5: Balusu Venkata Padmanabham P.W.6: Udayagiri Ravi Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 is promissory note dt.26-09-2014, Ex.P2 is the receipt issued by Station House Officer, Nidadavole.

FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.D1 is relevant underlined portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 ( recorded by police and filed along with referred charge sheet)

Ex.D2 is relevant underlined portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 ( recorded by police and filed along with referred charge sheet)

Ex.D3 is relevant underlined portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 ( recorded by police and filed along with referred charge sheet)

Ex.D3 is relevant underlined portion in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.statement of P.W.3 ( recorded by police and filed along with referred charge sheet)

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil - Sd/-AKP

P.J.C.J.-Cum- J.F.C.M/NDD //True copy//

PJCJ-Cum-

JFCM,NDD

12

Form No. 72 Calendar and Judgment District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class Nidadavole

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 229 / 2018

Nature of Offence: Under Section 1420 of IPC Date of Judgment 20-04-2023 Date ofDate of Date oFDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport ofapprehensionRelease oncommencclosuresentence Complainantof accusedbailment of of trialor order trial 26-09-201407-09-201515-12-2018U/Sec.41(A) of24-10-201813-04-202320-04-2023 Cr.P.C.Notice.

Explanation for the delay : the delay is due to non production of witnesses. On the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Nidadavole. Complainant: Smt. Udayagiri Lakshmi

Name ofFather name Age ReligionCalling Residence Mandal. accused Smt.Damodhara25 years HinduHousewifeKandukuri Vari Nidadavole MukkapatiRao Street, Nidadavole Lakshmi Prasanna

Pleaded : Not Guilty Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 420 of IPC and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.p.C. accused has executed bond of Rs.5,000/- U/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. undertaking her to appear

before any appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.

Sd/-A.Krishna Prasad.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nidadavole

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District. Eluru. //True copy//

PJCJ-Cum-

JFCM,NDD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: NIDADAVOLU.

PRESENT: Sri A.Krishna Prasad,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial 1 of I Class, Nidadavolu. Wednesday, the 19th day of April,2023.

CALENDAR CASE No. 168 / 2023

Between:

State: The State Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Station, Kovvur. … Complainant.

And

Midde Anantha Lakshmi, W/o Suryarao, Age 45 years,

R/o Thimmarajupalem village, Nidadavole Mandal. …..Accused

This case is coming on 19-04-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri Md.Mahaboob, Advocate for

Accused and upon hearing the Arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, SEB Station, Kovvur filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr. No.134/2021, for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP. Prohibition Act (Amendment Act 2020).

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

2.1) On 18-03-22021 at about 9-00 A.M., on receipt of credible information about ID arrack LW.1 G.Basanthi, L.W.2-HC of SEB,

A.Anand, L.W.3 WEC ofSEB Smt. Y.Nagalakshmi went to

Thimmarajupalem village near road margin opposite to Anjaneya Swamy

Temple. When they reached there one female person on seeing them trying to escape. On that they caught hold said person and inquired whey she is trying to escape. On inquiry she informed her identity 2 particualrs and confessed about the commission of offence in this case.

On search of said place they found accused was in possession of ID arrack in one polythene cover containing 5 liters of ID arrack and seized said ID arrack and arrested the accused after collecting sample under

Special Report. She brought the accused and seized property to SEB

Statioin and handed over to L.W.4-A.Srinivas. Then L.W.4-A.Srinivas received case filed from L.W.1-G.Basanthi and verified it and found it on correct lines. Based on Special report, he registered a case in

Cr.No.134/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B)R/w 8(B) of AP.

Prohibition Act ( Amendment Act 2020) and produced the accused before this court for judicial remand. He issued FIR to the court and examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws. 2 and 3-A.Anand, Smt.Y.Naga

Lakshmi at SEB station. Thereafter he sent sample for chemical analysis under letter of advise. L.W.8-P.Sudheer, Enforcement Inspector of SEB V.T.V.V.Satyanarayana received Chemical analysis report from

RFSL, Kakinada and thereafter L.W.8 sent requisition to DC SEB

Vijayawada for destruction of seized property and on that DC of SEB

Vijayawada issued proceedings for destruction of seized property. Based on said proceedings, L.W.8 destroyed seized property in this case under mediators report. After completion of investigation, L.W.6-P.Sudheer filed charge sheet in this case.

3. This court took the cognizance under section U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act (Amendment Act 2020). On appearance of

Accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3 4 Accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., she denied the offence. Hence the charge under U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment Act 2020) is framed, read over and explained to her in

Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence,

Accused has been tried for the said charge.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P7 documents and M.O.1 material object got marked. The evidence of L.Ws.2,3,5 and 6-A.Anand, Smt.Y.

Nagalakshmi, B.Srinivasa Rao, P.Sudheer respectively is given up by the prosecution.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances, appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, she denied them as false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether Accused is i n illegal possession of 5 liters of ID liquor without authorized license and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment Act 2020)?

POINT:

8. It is the case of prosecution is that on 18-03-22021 at about 9- 00 A.M., on receipt of credible information about ID arrack LW.1

G.Basanthi, L.W.2-HC of SEB, A.Anand, L.W.3 WEC ofSEB Smt.

Y.Nagalakshmi went to Thimmarajupalem village near road margin opposite to Anjaneya Swamy Temple. When they reached there one 4 female person on seeing them trying to escape. On that they caught hold said person and inquired whey she is trying to escape. On inquiry she informed her identity particualrs and confessed about the commission of offence in this case. On search of said place they found accused was in possession of ID arrack in one polythene cover containing 5 liters of ID arrack and seized said ID arrack and arrested the accused after collecting M.O.1 sample under Ex.P1 Special Report. She brought the accused and seized property to SEB Statioin and handed over to L.W.4-

A.Srinivas. Then L.W.4-A.Srinivas received case filed from L.W.1-

G.Basanthi and verified it and found it on correct lines. Based on Special report, he registered a case in Cr.No.134/2021 for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 7(B)R/w 8(B) of AP. Prohibition Act ( Amendment Act 2020) and produced the accused before this court for judicial remand. He issued

Ex.P2 FIR to the court and examined and recorded the statements of

L.Ws. 2 and 3-A.Anand, Smt.Y.Naga Lakshmi at SEB station. Thereafter he sent sample for chemical analysis under Ex.P3 letter of advise.

L.W.8-P.Sudheer, Enforcement Inspector of SEB V.T.V.V.Satyanarayana received Ex.P4 Chemical analysis report from RFSL, Kakinada and thereafter L.W.8 sent Ex.P5 requisition to DC SEB Vijayawada for destruction of seized property and on that DC of SEB Vijayawada issued

Ex.P6 proceedings for destruction of seized property. Based on said proceedings, L.W.8 destroyed seized property in this case under Ex.P7 mediators report. After completion of investigation, L.W.6-P.Sudheer filed charge sheet in this case.

9. To discuss about the commission of the offence in this case and to rope the accusedwith the alleged offence it is necessary to discuss about 5

Section 7-B R/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition ( Amendment 2020 Act)

which reads as follows:

“7-B-Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing, transporting, selling, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.” “8-B-Penalty for sale, export, import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely:-Whoever in contravention of Section 7-B of this Act indulges in sale, export, import or transport of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor shall on conviction be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extent up to eight years and with fine which sale 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.”

10. In order to bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment Act 2020), it is primary duty of the prosecution to prove that Accused is in possession of ID liquor without having license or permit.

11. To prove the said aspect, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P7 documents and apart from got marked M.O.1 material objects. M.O.1 is sample bottle, Ex.P1 is Special report, Ex.P2 is FIR, Ex.P3 is letter of advise, Ex.P4 is RFSL report,

Ex.P5 is requistion for destruction of property, Ex.P6 is permission proceedings issued by DC of SEB, Ex.P7 is mediators report, ( destruction proceedings).

12. In the above P.Ws. 1 and 2 witnesses, P.W.1 is SI of police, and P.W.2 are present at the time of conducting raid. The only evidence available on behalf of prosecution is PWs.1 and 2. PW.1 SI of Police , 6

P.W.2 is SI of policee. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 have to be examined with care and caution.

13. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that on 18-03-22021 at about 9-00 A.M., on receipt of credible information about ID arrack

LW.1 G.Basanthi, L.W.2-HC of SEB, A.Anand, L.W.3 WEC ofSEB Smt.

Y.Nagalakshmi went to Thimmarajupalem village near road margin opposite to Anjaneya Swamy Temple. When they reached there one female person on seeing them trying to escape. On that they caught hold said person and inquired whey she is trying to escape. On inquiry she informed her identity particualrs and confessed about the commission of offence in this case. On search of said place they found accused was in possession of ID arrack in one polythene cover containing 5 liters of ID arrack and seized said ID arrack and arrested the accused after collecting M.O.1 sample under Ex.P1 Special Report. She brought the accused and seized property to SEB Statioin and handed over to L.W.4-

A.Srinivas. Then L.W.4-A.Srinivas received case filed from L.W.1-

G.Basanthi and verified it and found it on correct lines. Based on

Special report, he registered a case in Cr.No.134/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B)R/w 8(B) of AP. Prohibition Act ( Amendment Act 2020) and produced the accused before this court for judicial remand.

He issued Ex.P2 FIR to the court and examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws. 2 and 3-A.Anand, Smt.Y.Naga Lakshmi at SEB station. Thereafter he sent sample for chemical analysis under Ex.P3 letter of advise. L.W.8-P.Sudheer, Enforcement Inspector of SEB

V.T.V.V.Satyanarayana received Ex.P4 Chemical analysis report from 7

RFSL, Kakinada and thereafter L.W.8 sent Ex.P5 requisition to DC SEB

Vijayawada for destruction of seized property and on that DC of SEB

Vijayawada issued Ex.P6 proceedings for destruction of seized property.

Based on said proceedings, L.W.8 destroyed seized property in this case under Ex.P7 mediators report. After completion of investigation, L.W.6-

P.Sudheer filed charge sheet in this case.

14. During cross examination of both P.Ws. 1 and 2 they admitted that they did not examine any independent mediator for arrest of accusedand seizure of 5 liters of ID arrack and is sample bottle from the possession of accusedin this case. Though P.W.1 SI of police in her cross examination stated that she did not put her signature in Ex.P1 police proceedings. Non putting of signature in Ex.P1 special report by

PW.1 SI of police raises doubt whether she was actual persons in arresting P.W.1. Hence, for the above said reasons her evidence can not be believed. It is also not evidence of PW1 SI of police, she issued summons to any independent inhabitant of that locality or village officials requesting them to act as mediator for arrest of accused and seizure of ID arrack. That itself shows that P.W.1 SI of police did not make any effort to secure independent mediator or village officials for arrest of the accused and seizure of ID arrack and M.O.1 sample bottle in this case.

15. According to the case of prosecution, accused wasfound in unlawful possession of ID liquor without having any license or permit for the purpose of preparing and selling the same for higher price. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the evidence of P.W.1 SI of police 8 is trustworthy and the evidence left with prosecution is only PW.1 investigating officer. Hence it is to see whether PW.1 investigating officer is followed procedure contemplated U/Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C. with reads as follows: In this regard the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in a case between Gajamker Narayana Vs State of AP reported in wherein it was held that:

“U/Sec. 100(4)of Cr.P.C. before making a search the Officer or the other person about to make it sell call upon 2 or more independent respectful inhabitant of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality, if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is relevant to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an Order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

It is further held that:

In the absence of specific evidence in that regard Court bound to come to conclusion that provisions of Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the excise contraband and thereafter, seizure made in such case is illegal.”

But in this particular case P.W.1 SI of police did not follow such procedure in arrest of accused and seizure of ID arrack in this case.

16. In the present case on hand, P.W. 1 deposed in her cross examination that they did not make any efforts to secure independent mediators for arrest of accused and seizure of ID arrack and M.O.1. There are a chances of securing some other independent witness at the time of commission of offence. Non taking any such efforts in securing independent mediators by Investigating Officer is certainly fatal to the case of prosecution and the alleged seizure in this case is said to be illegal as held by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in the above discussed 9 decision. When P.W.1 admitted that she has not issued any requisition to independent witness to act as mediators, it creates a suspicion about the case of prosecution which entitles the accused to claim benefit of doubt and that the prosecution cannot stand on its legs solely on the evidence of P.W.1 SI of police is having interest in out come of this case. Hence, the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the absence of evidence of independent mediators it can be doubted regarding the genuineness of Ex.P7

Mediators report and also in view of above mentioned circumstances.

Viewed from any angle, the prosecution thoroughly failed in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P. Prohibition (Amendment Act 2020) beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, in the above mentioned circumstances it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of P.W. 1 2 who is only Police Official witness who is having every interest in the outcome of the case as it was allegedly detected by her.

17. In these circumstances basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are Police Official witnesses and having interest in the result of accused it is not at all safe to convict accused for the alleged. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused against the prosecution.

18. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition ( Amendment Act 10 2020) and is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused has executed bond of Rs.5,000-00 each U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. undertaking him to appear

before any Appellate Court, if any appeal is referred against this

Judgment.. M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after laps of appeal time.

Type to dictated to Stenographer, directly in my official Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19h day of April, 2023.

Sd/-A.Krishna Prasad.

Principal Junior Civil Judge- Cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nidadavole

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1: G.Basanthi,SI of police. P.W.2: A.Srinivas For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1 is Special report, Ex.P2 is FIR, Ex.P3 is letter of advise, Ex.P4 is RFSL report, Ex.P5 is requistion for destruction of property, Ex.P6 is permission proceedings issued by DC of SEB, Ex.P7 is mediators report, ( destruction proceedings) FOR DEFENCE: Nil

M. Os. MARKED M.O.1 is sample bottle, Sd/-AKP P.J.C.J.-Cum-

J.M.F.C.NDD

//True copy//

PJCJ-Cum-

JMFC,NDD

11

Form No. 72

Calendar and Judgment District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 168 / 2023

Nature of Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition(Amendment Act 2020) Date of Judgment 19-04-2023

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offenceReportapprehensionRelease oncommenceclosure of sentence or of accusedbailment of rialorder trial 18-03-202118-03-202118-03-202120-03-202113-04-202319-04-202319-04-2023

Explanation for the delay : the delay is due to non production of witnesses. Complainant:The State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,SEB Station, Kovvur P.S.

Name of accused FatherAge ReligionCalling Residence Mandal. name

Midde Anantha Surya Rao45HinduCoolieThimmaraju Nidadavole Lakshmi years palem viullage

Pleaded : Not Guilty Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition ( Amendment Act 2020) and is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accused has executed bond of Rs.5,000-00 each U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. undertaking him to appear

before any Appellate Court, if any appeal is referred against this

Judgment. M.O.1 sample bottles shall be destroyed after laps of appeal time.

Sd/-A.Krishna Prasad.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nidadavolu. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru. //True copy//

PJCJ-Cum-

JMFC,NDD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: NIDADAVOLU.

PRESENT: Sri A.Krishna Prasad, Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavolu.

Wednesday, the 19thday of April, 2023.

CALENDAR CASE No. 124 / 2023

Between:

State Represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Samisragudem Police Station, … Complainant.

And

Jalli David Raju, S/o Chittiyya, Age 43 years, Auto Driver, Bobbarlanka village, Atreyapuram Mandal, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP 05 TX 9509 … Accused

This case has come up before me on 19-04-2022 for final hearing

before me in the presence APP and Sri V.Satish Kumar, Advocate for

accused that the same is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub Inspector of Police, Samisragudem P.S., filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr. No.171/20212, for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 337, 338 of IPC.

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

2.1. on 22-07-2022 at about 7-00 P.M., L.W.2-Barre Premajyothi boarded in accused Auto bearing No.AP 05 TX 9509 at Purushothapalli to proceed towards Brahmanagudem for visit of her relatives house for sake of meet her relatives to condolence to them as death was occurred in their house. In that Auto, already boarded in her villagers i.e. L.Ws. 3 to 8-Barre Kumari, Tadepalli Chinnalamma, Bandela Nagamani, Yadla swarnalatha, Vadlamudi Baby Kumar, Vadlamudi Kamala Rajeswari.

When they reached Harsa Hotel, Near Samisragudem village, accused drove his Auto in a rash and negligent manner on strip curve and then 2 auto overturned, as a result of which, L.W.2-Barre Premajyothi and remaining women passengers got multiple simple and grievous injuries and surounding people rushed to th spot and shifted them to

Government hospital, Nidadavole and after first aid they shifted to

Rajahmundry Government Hospital for better treatment and shifted them to Kakinada Government Hospital for better treatment on midnight at 2-00 P.M. on 23-07-2022 from that hospita they joint in GSL hospita,

Kakinada and on receiving of MLC intimation and statement of L.W.1-

Barre Vinod Babu, L.W.16 ASI of police Samisragudem P.S.registered a case in Cr.No.171/2022 U/Sec. 337, 338 of IPC.

2.2. During the course of investigation, on 24-074-2022 L.W.16

ASI of police visited GSL Hospital, Rajahmundry and examined and recorded the statement of L.Ws.1 to 6-Barre Vinod Babu, Barre

Premajyothi, Barre Kumari, Tadepalli Chinnalamma @ Mariyamma,

Bandula Nagamani, Yadla Swarnalatha respectively and visited the scene of offence kl; and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and later he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws. 7 to 9-

Vadlamudi Baby Kumari, Vadlamudi Kamala Rajeswari, Tammidi

Nageswara Rao and on 05-08-2022, he obtained wound certificate of

L.Ws. 2,5,6 separatelyfrom L.Ws. 11 to 13-Dr. Pernenkil Kalyan,

Dr.G.Ravi Surgeon, Dr.Kialyana Chakravarthi Toparala, the opined that

L.Ws.2,5,6 caused Grievous injuries and examined and recorded their statements and served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the acused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused in this case.

3

3. Upon considering the charge sheet, FIR, and other material on record, this court took cognizance for the offence U/Secs. 337, 338 of

IPC and issued summons to accused.

4) On appearance of accused , copies of case papers were furnished to him as required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5) On examination of Accused U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C, he denied the allegations leveled against him. Hence, the substance of offences punishable U/Secs. 337, 338 of IPC read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, accused has been tried for the said offence.k

6) In support of its case, the prosecution got examined as many as Two witnesses i.e., PWs 1 and 7 witness and got marked Exs. P1 to

P8 documents and no defence evidence is adduced on behalf of

Accused. The evidence of LWs. 8 to 17- Vadlamudi Kamala Rajeswari,

Tammidi Nageswara Rao, Md.Zameer, Dr.Pernenkil Kalkyan, Dr.G.Ravi,

Dr.Kalyana Chakravarthi Toparala Dr. NC.Ramesh, Dr. Narjuna,

G.R.K.Gangadhar, Sk.Subhani , respectively is given up by learned APP.

7) After closure of the prosecution evidence, there is no incriminating evidence against Accused U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with.

8) After having heard the rival contentions of learned APP for the

State and learned counsel for accused the point that germane for determination is:

4

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of

Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence punishable

U/Sec.337, 338 of IPC Act ?

POINTS.No. 1 to 3

9. In order to prove the case of prosecution, Prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 7, and got marked Exs. P1 to P8 documents and no documents are marked on behalf of Accused.

10. At the outset, it is significant to mention that P.W.1 who is defacto complaint and P.Ws.2 to 7 are injured persons are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

11. During the course of cross-examination, they denied the statement said to have made before police as in Exs.P2 to P8, including the contents of the statements, which is the basis for registering of FIR.

In such a case, it is very difficult to get the truth from the prosecution witnesses. In the circumstances, the prosecution has rightly given up the evidence of other witnesses cited in the charge sheet, on the premise, no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined, as the defacto complaint and P.Ws. 2 to 7 themselves turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

12. Having regard to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 which does not incriminate accused for the offence U/Sec.337, 338 of IPC, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution could not establish the offence punishable U/Sec.337, 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

13) In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.337, 338 of IPC and is acquitted under section 24551) Cr.P.C. Accused has executed bonds for Rs.5000/- U/s. 437-A of

Cr.P.C undertaking him to appear before any appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-A.Krishna Prasad.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE,NIDADAVOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

P.W.1: Barre Vinod Babu P.W.2: Barre Prema Jyothi P.W.3: Barre Kumari P.W.4: Tadepalli Mariyamma P.W.5: Bandula Nagamani P.W.6: Yedla Swarna Latha P.W.7: Vadlamudi Baby Kumari

FOR ACCUSED:-Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1 is report of P.W.1 Ex.P2 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P5 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P6 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P7 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 Ex.P8 is Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7

FOR ACCUSED :Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil- Sd/-AKP P.J.C.J.-Cum- J.F.C.M/NDD //True copy//

PJCJ-Cum-

JFCM,NDD

6

Form No. 72

Calendar and Judgment District of West Godavari Calendar of cases tried by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 124 / 2023

Nature of Offence: Under SectionsU/Sec.337, 338of IPC Date of Judgment 19-04-2023 Date ofDate of Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offenceReport ofapprehensionReleasecommencementclosure ofsentence or Complainantof accusedon bailtrialorder of trial 22-07-202222-07-202223-07-202241(A)19-04-202319-04-202319-04-2023 Cr.P.C. Notice Explanation for the delay : the delay is due to non production of witnesses. Complainant: The State S.H.O. Samisragudem . Name of accused Father nameAge ReligionCalling Residence Mandal.

Jalli David RajuChittiyya 43ChristianAutoBobbarlanka Atreyapuram yearsDrivervilalge

Pleaded : Not Guilty Finding : Found not guilty Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.337, 338 of IPC and is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Accused has executed bonds for Rs.5000/- U/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C undertaking him to appear before any appellate court, if any appeal is preferred against this judgment.

Sd/-A.Krishna Prasad.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nidadavole. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru. //True copy//

PJCJ-Cum-

JMFC,NDD

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NIDADAVOLE

Present:- Sri Dr. A. KRISHNA PRASAD

Principal Junior Civil Judge -Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023.

O.S. No.2/2023

Between: -

1) Polireddi Radha Krishna, S/o. Seetharamaiah, Hindu, Male, Aged about 68 Years, Business, R/o. Dr. No.2-13-12, Santhi nagar,

Nidadavole Town and Mandal, E.G.Dt., ...Plaintiff

And

1) Bolla Musalaiah Goud, S/o. Venkata Swamy, Hindu, Male, Aged about 67 Years, Business, R/o. Dr. No.2-2-5/2, Vidyanagar, Nidadavole Town and Mandal, E.G.Dt.,

2) Bolla Srinivas Goud, S/o. Musalaiah, Hindu, Male, Aged about 37 Years, Business, R/o. Dr. No.2-2A-5/2, Park Road, Opp. Electrical Sub Station,

Nidadavole Town and Mandal, E.G.Dt., ...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 24.04.2023 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri P. Venkanna Babu and Sri S.V.V.

Suryanarayana, Advocates for Plaintiff and Sri G. Narasimha Rao,

Advocate for Defendants and that the same is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1) This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for an amount of Rs.7,44,800/- with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum on the principle amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of realization and cost of the suit.

2) Plaintiff is present and filed F.S. memo the same is recorded. Suit is dismissed as settled out of court.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Dr. A. Krishna Prasad

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NIDADAVOLE

No Oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Dr. A.K.P.

P.J.C.J. -CUM-

J.M.F.C., NDD

// True Copy // P.J.C.J. -Cum- J.M.F.C.