Sri.annarapu Ravi Shankar

1 of 9

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROH AND EXCISE) CUM II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, on this the 28th day of November, 2025

Present: Sri Annarapu Ravi Shankar,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh and Excise) cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar.

C.C. No. 458 of 2019

Between: The State of Telangana, Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Hanwada Police Station. …Complainant. AND

A1: Achanolla Achanna, S/o A.Balaiah @ Balappa, age 36 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o Ramannapally village of Hanwada mandal.

A2: Achanolla Balaiah @ Balappa, S/o A.Achappa, age 68 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o Ramannapally village of Hanwada mandal. ...A-1 and A-2 *****

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the complainant and Sri N.P.Venkatesh, Advocate, counsel for accused persons and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Hanwada P.S. laid charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No. 11/2019 of PS Hanwada for the offences punishable U/Secs. 353, 332, 341,323,504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as to “IPC” for brevity).

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

On 19.02.2019 at 09:00 hours, Pw-1 lodged a report stated that

Spl. JFCM (P&E) 2 of 9 today on 19.02.2019 at 07:00 hrs, he along with conductor M. Shivaji to proceeded to Kotlabad on RTC bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 1213 from

Mahabubnagar, while on the way at Ramannapally bus stop at 07:45 hrs, he pickedup few passengers and started to move from there, meantime one

Ramannapally villager Achanolla Achenna S/o Balaiah came on Motor cycle bearing No. AP 22 2 7398 and while making to get one person inside the bus during the processes he kept quarrel and beat him with hands by abusing in filthy language, on seeing the same inmates of the bus were intervened in to the matter and separated them. After that he left to Kothalabad and started return Mahabunagar. While reaching Ramannapally village at about 08:20 hrs., above person and his father Balappa restrained the bus by using legs and dragged him down from the bus, again they beat him indiscriminately duly abusing in filthy language and caused obstruction for discharging his legitimate duties. Hence he requested to take action against the accused.

Basing on the report, LW-9 registered a case and registered FIR in Cr.

No. 11/2019 for the offence U/S 353, 332, 341, 323, 504, R/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW-9 examined and recorded the statement of LWs-1 & 2 at PS. Thereafter, LW-9 visited the scene of offence situated in the shivar of Ramnnapally village, where he examined and recorded the statements of LWs-3 to LW-6, then the LW-9 secured two mediators LWs-7 & 8, in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence. Further

LW-10 taken over the CD file from LW-9 and verified the investigation done by him and framed it on proper lines. Thereafter, LW-10 served a notice U/s 41 Cr.P.C. to the accused. After completion of investigation,Lw-10 filed charge sheet against accused for the offences U/Secs 353,332, 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Upon perusal of the material on record this court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/Secs. 353,332, 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC against A-1 and A-2. On appearance, copies of case documents were

Spl. JFCM (P&E) 3 of 9 furnished to A-1 and A-2 as required U/Sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.The A-1 and A-2 are examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. charges were framed for the offence U/Secs. 353,332, 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The evidence of Lw-5 and Lw-9 closed. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused persons examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C enabling them to explain the incriminating material appeared against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on their side.

7. Heard the learned APPO and learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 and perused the material on record. The learned APPO argued that upon the strength of evidence of Pw-1 to Pw-8 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, the prosecution has establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused. On the other hand the Learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, prayed to acquit the accused.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused to

convict him for the offences punishable U/Secs. 353, 332, 341, 323,

504 r/w 34 of IPC?

Spl. JFCM (P&E) 4 of 9

Point:

9.Pw-1 is the Complainant deposed that he is been working as RTC

Driver since 1999. He deposed that he knows LW-2, he worked along with him as a Conductor. He did not know LW3 to 6. When he was working as driver, while proceeding from Mahabubnagar to Kothlabad, there was a galata took place near Ramannapally bus stage. He deposed that he do not know what causes said galata and who caused the galata and he do not know any thing about this case. He do not lodge any report before police but police obtained his signature on some blank paper without disclosing the contents. Ex-P1 is his signature on report. Police never examined and nor recorded his statement.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-1 as per Sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w 162 Proviso Cr.P.C but nothing could be elicited regarding occurrence of incident.

10.Pw-2 to Pw-5 are eye witnesses and they do not know anything about this case. They do not witness any incident between PW-1 and accused and they do not know the facts of this case. Police never examined him nor recorded their statements.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-2 to Pw-5 as per Sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w 162 Proviso Cr.P.C but nothing could be elicited regarding occurrence of incident.

11.Pw-6 and Pw-7 are the panch for scene of offence panchanamas, they do not know anything about this case. Police obtained their signatures on some blank paper without informing the purpose. No scene of offence panchanama conducted in their presence. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are their signatures in the scene of offence panchanama.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-6 and PW-7 as per Sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w 162 Proviso Cr.P.C but nothing could be elicited regarding occurrence of incident.

Spl. JFCM (P&E) 5 of 9

12.Pw-8 is the investigation officer, testified the consecutive events of investigation in similar lines of charge sheet.

12.1. During the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that Pw-1 never lodged any report regarding the commission of offence against accused

Nos.1 & 2 before him, he never recorded the statements of the PWs-1 to 5 and LW-5. He further denied the suggestion that he did not visited scene of offence and not conducted any scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PWs-6 and 7, the A-1 and A-2 are no way concerned with the offence and he is deposing false.

13.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 19.02.2019 at

Ramannapally village, the accused assaulted Pw-1 who is Government

Employee and obstructed him from discharging his Official duties, assaulted and threatened him, thereby committed offences punishable U/Sec 353, 332, 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. For the sake of convenience, the sections are hereunder reproduced.

To prove the offence U/Sec. 353 of IPC, the following ingredients must be satisfied.

1) The person assaulted must be a public servant;

2) The public servant was acting in the exercise of his duties;

3) That assault or criminal force used against such public servant:

i) was intended to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant, or ii) was used as a consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the said public servant in lawful exercise of his duties as such public servant.

14. To constitute offence U/Sec 332 of IPC the following ingredients has to be established: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty:

Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful

Spl. JFCM (P&E) 6 of 9 discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

15.To constitute offence U/Sec 341 of IPC the following ingredients has to be established: Punishment for wrongful restraint: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

16.To constitute offence U/Sec 323 of IPC the following ingredients has to be established: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt:

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

17.To constitute offence U/Sec 504 of IPC the following ingredients has to be established:

 There must be an intention in the mind of the accused to insult or provoke the other person.  The intention of the accused person should be of such a nature that it is likely to insult and provoke the other person thus the nature of the intention matters.  The knowledge of the result of such provocation and insult should already be there in the mind of the accused. So the knowledge and the intention of the provocation should be there in the mind of the accused which should be co-related with breaking the public peace and harmony. This is also a secondary ingredient essential for completing the commitment of an offense under section 504 IPC.

18. In support their case, Pw-1 is working as RTC Driver since 1999.

When Pw-1 was working as driver, while proceeding from Mahabubnagar to

Kothlabad there was a galata took place near Ramannapally bus stage. Ex-

P1 is Pw-1’s signature on report. At there request the learned APP sought permission to the court to the cross examination of complainant, she stated in her statement that the accused persons are created the nuisance as stated

Spl. JFCM (P&E) 7 of 9

before the police in her Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement. Pw-2 to Pw-5 are the eye

witnesses, Pw-6 and Pw-7 are the panch for scene of offence panchanama they are turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. Pw-8 is the investigating officer, he denied the suggestion that Pw-1 never lodged any report regarding the commission of offence against A-1 & A-2 before him, he never recorded the statements of the PWs-1 to 5 & LW-5, he did not visit scene of offence and not conducted any scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PWs-6 and 7. Therefore, the discharging of official duties by Pw-1 at Ramannapally village itself is doubtful.

19.Based on the chief examination and cross examination of learned APP and as well as notifying that as elicited that the accused persons deterring of public servants of the duty as contemplate as Sec 353 of IPC.

20.Pw-2 to Pw-5 who are the cited the eye witnesses and they are turned hostile and they are did not support the prosecution case. Pw-6 & Pw-7 are the panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama and surprisingly the panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama Pw-6 & Pw-7 also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Pw-8/Investigation he deposed that he denied the suggestion that he never recorded the statements of Pws 1 to 4 and 5. Apart from mere denying from the suggestions putforth by the learned counsel nothing but elicited. As the A-1 and A-2 contemplated U/Secs. 353, 332, 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

21.From the entire prosecution Pw-1 to Pw-7 corroboration that there was no independent witness to support of the prosecution. In the absence of corroboration framing that the independence it is only unsafe of to duly upon testimony who is investigation officer all these significant and the absence of corroborative evidence and on the testimony of PW-8 an tenable which narrated the prosecution.

Spl. JFCM (P&E) 8 of 9

22. Hence, the alleged act of accused persons doesn’t amount to deterring of public servant from discharging his duty as contemplated under Sec. 353 of IPC nor the prosecution could establish cogent evidence to convict the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 332, 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of

IPC.

23. The above discussion leads me to conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for offence punishable U/Secs. 353, 332, 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to acquittal. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

24.In the result, the A-1 & A-2 were not found guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 353, 332, 341, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the

A-1 & A-2 are acquitted U/Sec 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 and

A-2 if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months from this date as provided U/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher court.

There is no case property deposited, as such no order to that effect.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer-II, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 28 th day of October, 2024.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Proh and Excise), Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW-1: Sharabanda/Complainant

PW-2: Shivaji/Eye witness

Pw-3: Mohammadabad Balu/Eye witness

Pw-4: Shiva Kumar/Eye witness

Spl. JFCM (P&E) 9 of 9

Pw-5: D.Chandraiah/Eye witness

Pw-6: B.Anji @ Anjaneyulu/Panch for scene of offence panchanama

Pw-7: B.Achaiah/Panch for scene of offence panchanama

For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of Pw-1 on Report Ex.P2: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-1 Ex.P3: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-2 Ex.P4: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-3 Ex.P5: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-4 Ex.P6: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-5 Ex.P7: Signature of Pw-6 on Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P8: Signature of Pw-7 on Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9: Report Ex.P10: FIR Ex.P11: Scene of offence panchanama

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked

--Nil--

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Proh and Excise), Mahabubnagar.

Spl. JFCM (P&E)

Page No. 1 to 9

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::MAHABUBNAGAR.

Present:

Sri Annarapu Ravi Shankar Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise, MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday on this 28th day of November, 2025

C C No. 529 of 2023

Between: The State, represented through Sub Inspector, of police, Devarkadra Police Station. … Complainant

And

Nattali Parusharam S/o Venkatanna, age 25 yrs, Occ: Private electrician, R/o Peddagoplapur village, Devarkadra mandal.

...Accused

Section of law :U.Secs. 171-E, 171-F of IPC and Sec 212 Panchayathraj act and Sec 34 (a) of AP Excise.

Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order :Accused is found not guilty for the offences U.Secs. 171-E, 171-F of IPC and Sec 212 Panchayathraj act and Sec 34 (a) of AP Excise and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after lapse of time.

This case coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri A.Narayana Goud, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 2 to 9

1.The Inspector of Police, Devarkadra police station has filed charge sheet against the accused herein in Cr.No.181/2015 for the offence punishable U.Secs. 171-E, 171-F of IPC and Sec 212 Panchayathraj act and Sec 34 (a) of AP Excise Act.

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

On 04.12.2015 at about 2030 hours, Lw-6 received credible information that some persons distributing liquor bottles to SC colony voters in view of MPTC election at Peddagoplapur H/o Gurakonda village.

On that information Lw-6 along with PC rushed to the spot. On observation one person is distributing liquor bottles kept in a bag to public. Then, the person, has been taken into custody and he disclosed his name as Nattali

Parusharam, he stated that he distributing officers choice 90 ml bottles to voters for voting the BJP party candidate in view of MPTC election 05.12.2015 at Gurakonda village, immediately, Lw-6 secure the presence of two mediators Lw-2 and Lw-3 and recorded his confession statement and seized 08 officers choice 90 ml bottles whiskey from his possession. After drafting the confession and seizure panchanama and returned to police station along with accused and seized property at 2130 hours.

Basing on the contents of above report, the Lw-6 registered a case in

Cr.No. 181/2015 for the offence U/Secs. 171-C. 171-E of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the Lw-6 examined and recorded the statement of Lw1. On 05.12.2015, Lw-7 visited the scene of offence examined the scene of offence, where secured the presence of mediators Lws 1 to 5 and recorded crime details form and issued Crime

Details by drawing its rough sketch. Thereafter, Lw-7 took up the investigation and added section of law from U.Secs. 171-E, 171-F of IPC and Sec 212 Panchayathraj act and Sec 34 (a) of AP Excise Act. On 05.12.2015 Lw-7 has issued a notice U/Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on 04.01.2016 deposited seized 1 Officer choice 90 ml whiskey

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 3 to 9 bottle in FSL Hyderabad for analyzed and 41.15% V/v of ethyl alcohol is found in it. On the basis of results obtained through analysis it is Indian made foreign liquor. After completion of investigation, Lw-9 filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences U.Secs. 171-E, 171-F of

IPC and Sec 212 Panchayathraj act and Sec 34 (a) of AP Excise Act against the accused and was numbered as C.C.No.238/17 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. Later, the case was transferred to the

court and re-numbered as C.C. 894/2022 on the file of III Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Mahabubnagar. Again, the case was transferred to the court of III

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar as numbered as CC 894/2022.

Later, the case was transferred to the court and re-numbered as C.C.

529/2023 on the file of this court.

4.After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

5. The accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offences U/Secs. 171 C, 171 E to 171 E, 171 F of IPC and Sec 212

Panchayathraj act and 34 (a) AP Excise Act against accused is framed, read over and explained to him. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P8. No material objects are marked. The prosecution could not examine LW-7 (M.Vinay Kumar

Reddy) i.e the Second Investigation officer and Lw-8 (B.Ashok Kumar) i.e.,

Investigation Officer who is the filed charge sheet. PW-1 is the eye witness,

Pw-2 & Pw-5 are the panch for confession and seizure panchanama, Pw-3

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 4 to 9 and Pw-4 are the panch for scene of offence panchanama and Pw-6 is the

Investigation officer. Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 are the signatures of Pw-2 and Pw-5 on confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 was the signatures of Pw-3 and Pw-4 on scene of panchanama, Ex.P5 is the confession and seizure panchanama, Ex.P6 is the FIR, Ex.P7 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P8 is the FSL report.

7.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution side evidence was put to him. The Accused has denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Arguments heard.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Secs. 171- C, 171 - E to 171 E, 171 F of IPC and Sec 212 Panchayathraj act and 34 (a) AP Excise Act?”

Sec. 171-E of IPC – Punishment for bribery--

Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.

171-F Punishment for undue influence or personation at an election.-

Whoever commits the offence of undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 5 to 9

Sec.212 of AP Panchayath Raj Act: Penalty for illegal hiring or

procuring of conveyance at elections_

If any person is guilty of any such corrupt practices as specified in sub-section (9) of section 211 or in connection with an election he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three months and with fine, which may extend to three thousand rupees.

10.Pw-1(police personnel) is the Eye witness cum assisted Pw-6 he deposed that on 04.12.2015 at about 07:00 PM on reliable information to their ASI about distribution of liquor in view of MPTC election at Pedda

Gopulapur village, immediately, he accompanied with ASI and went to

Pedda Gopulapur village and searched some places in village and when they are reached SC Colony and they were noticed that one person was moving in suspicious manner by holding one plastic cover and they were stopped him, on searching of the bag they found 8 bottles of Officers Choice whiskey of 90 ml each. On enquiry, he revealed his particulars as accused herein. Later, their ASI/LW-6 secured panchas and recorded the confession of accused and seized the liquor bottles, during his confession the accused stated that he was distributing liquor on behalf of one BJP Candidate.

After conducting panchanama they seized liquor bottles and accused brought to police station for further action. Police examined and recorded his statement. The person who is standing dock of the court is the accused.

During the cross examination, he deposed that they are reached the scene of offence at about 08:00 AM. He did not know the who gave the information regarding scene of offence. He admitted that he did not file any document to show that he was assigned by the their higher officials regarding duty. He did not have previous acquaintance with the accused.

He did not witness as how many members accused distributed the liquor while they are conducting duty. He admitted that seized contraband is easily available in open market. He denied the suggestion that accused did

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 6 to 9 not distributed the liquor to the public and accused is no way concerned with the offence.

11.PW-2/K.Shantaiah and Pw-5/Venkanna for confession cum seizure panchanama, they are deposed that they did not know anything about this case. Police obtained their signatures on some blank paper without informing the purpose. No confession cum seizure panchanama conducted in their presence. Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 are the signatures in the confession cum seizure panchanamas.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to and

PW-2 and Pw-5 as per sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec 162 Proviso

Cr.P.C, but nothing could be elicited from him regarding offence.

12.PW-3/K.Narayan Reddy and Pw-4/Y.Mahesh for scene of offence panchanama, they are deposed that they did not know anything about this case. Police obtained their signatures on some blank paper without informing the purpose. No confession cum seizure panchanama conducted in their presence. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the signatures in the scene of offence panchanama.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to and

PW-3 and Pw-4 as per sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec 162 Proviso

Cr.P.C, but nothing could be elicited from him regarding offence.

13.Pw-6/investigation officer, who deposed the chronological events of investigation in similar lines of allegations made in charge sheet.

During the cross examination, he deposed that he had received the information regarding the incident through phone call from their higher officials. He admitted that he had not mentioned about the information which he received from the his higher officials in FIR. He has not collected the data regarding the seized bottles to whom they were distributed. He did

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 7 to 9 not know whether seized bottles is available in open market. He had not filed any photograph and videograph of the scene of offence. He along with

LW-1 went to the scene of offence on 05.12.2015 at about 0900 hours. He had not collected any identity proof as accused is member of BJP political party. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of his higher officials he is foisted false case against accused and accused is no way concerned with the offence.

14. Pw-6’s evidence is that, on 04.12.2015 at about 20:30 hours, on reliable information about distributing the liquor bottles to the voters in view of MPTC Election at Peddagoplapur village, they noticed that one person distributing the liquor bottles which is kept in plastic bag and they apprehended him and he secured the LWs-2 & 3 and recorded confession and seized liquor bottles under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama.Ex.P5 is confession and seizure panchanama. Basing on report he registered a case Cr.No. 181/2015 for the offence U/Sec. 171-C, 171-E of IPC and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P6. On 05.12.2015, he visited scene of offence, their he secured LWs-4 & 5, in their presence he conducted scene of offence panchanama i.e., Ex.P7 and also drawn rough sketch.Later, he handed over the CD filed to LW-7, in-turn he filed section addition memo by adding sections 212 of Panchayath Raj Act and 34(a) of AP Excise act and Sec. 171-F of IPC. On 05.12.2015, LW-7 issued Sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C notice to accused. During the course of investigation, LW-8 collected FSL report i.e., Ex.P8 and on completion of investigation Lw-8 filed charge sheet against accused. He can identify the signature of LWs-7 & 8 as they worked together for considerable period.

15.On appreciation of entire evidence available on record it is noticed that all the prosecution witnesses turned antagonistic to the case of prosecution Pw1 at whose instance prosecution had been lodged had not

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 8 to 9 supported the case of prosecution. He did not know the who gave the information regarding scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that accused did not distributed the liquor to the public. Pw2 to Pw4 who were cited as scene of offence and confession cum seizure panchanama to the incident and they had not supported to case of prosecution. Though the learned APP sought permission to put those questions which are in the nature of cross examination by virtue of sec. 154 of Indian evidence Act r/w

Sec.162 proviso of CRPC she could not elicit anything besides getting ExP1 to P8 marked. In the light of discussion supra I hold that prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for offence U/Secs. 171 C, 171

E to 171 E, 171 F of IPC and Sec 212 Panchayathraj act and 34 (a) AP

Excise Act.

16.In the result , the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Secs. 171 C, 171 E to 171 E, 171 F of IPC and Sec 212 Panchayathraj act and 34 (a) AP Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

No case property is deposited in this case.

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW.1: A.Nagaraju Goud/Eye witness

PW.2: K.Santhaiah/Panch for seizure panchanama

PW.3: K.Narayan Reddy/Panch for Scene of offence panchanama

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 9 to 9

PW.4: Y.Mallesh/Panch for scene of offence panchanama

PW.5: Venkanna/Confession cum seizure panchanama

PW.6: Akram Nawaz Khan/Investigation officer

DEFENCE: --None—

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw-2 on Seizure panchanama

Ex.P2: Signature of Pw-3 on Seizure cum confession panchanama

Ex.P3: Signature of Pw-4 on Seizure panchanama

Ex.P4: Signature of Pw-3 on Seizure cum confession panchanama

Ex.P5: Confession and seizure panchanama

Ex.P6: FIR

Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P8: FSL report

DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, On this the 28th day of November, 2025.

PRESENT

SRI ANNARAPU RAVI SHANKAR,

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PROH & EXCISE, MAHABUBNAGAR.

C.C. No.601 of 2021

Between: State: Represented by Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar. …Complainant AND A1: Kkatravath Surender Naik, S/o Nanya Naik, age 26 yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o Peddapalugu thanda, H/o Ram Naik thanda, Hanwada mandal.

A2: Jarpula Santhosh, S/o Shanker, age 24 yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o Thuvvagada thanda, h/o Munimoksham (V), Hanwada mandal.

A3: Ghanshyam Karwa, S/o Harikishan Karwas, Occ: Kirana shop, R/o Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. (Splitup case in CC 445 of 2025)

A4: Mudavath Bheemamma, W/o Badru Naik, age 30 yrs, Occ: Agril, r/o Ram Naik thanda, Hanwada mandal. …...A-1 to A-4 ***** This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the complainant and Sri B.Rajashekar Reddy Advocate Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Proh and Excise station, Mahabubnagar filed this case against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 34 (e) of

Telangana Excise Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995.

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 2 of 7

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26-05-2020 at 04.15 PM the Proh.& Excise official (LW3), along with staff proceeded Kakarlapad gate,

Nawabpet (M), for conducting route watch and there secured the presence of

LWs 1 and 2 stating that they got reliable information about the illegal transportation of Jaggery & Alum and requested to act as mediators and to watch their proceedings, to which they agreed and followed with the officials.

All of them reached to the suspected place Kakarlapad gate, Nawabpet (M) and searching the suspected vehicles after some time found one white color car coming towards us, then the officer stopped the car and found two persons in the car. On enquiry the car driver revealed his name and address as Katravath

Surender Naik S/o Nanya Naik and another person revealed his name and address as Jarpula Santhosh S/o Shanker. Then the officer during the search of the Car found R/o:Thuvvagadda (4) plastic bags at back side seat of the car containing (50)kgs of Jaggery in each bag and on opening the dickey of the car found (4) cartons each carton containing (20)kgs, thus comes to total (280)kgs of Jaggery and also found one bag containing (10)kgs of Alum which was possessed by accused persons illegally. On further enquiry from where he is bought and transporting Jaggery and Alum then the accused persons replied that they bought the above Jaggery and Alum from Mr. Ghanshyam Karwa

S/o Harikishan Karwa, owner of the shop M/s. Laxminarayana Karwa, Begum

Bazar, Hyderabad, @Rs.50/- per Kg and transporting the same for sale @Rs.70/- per Kg to the I.D. manufacturer Mudavath Bheemamma W/o Badru

Naik for his livelihood. Basing on the confession by the accused persons, the officer (LW4) and staff proceeded to the house of Mudavath Bheemamma, at

Ram Naik Thanda, Hanwada (M), and found her in the house. Then the officer issued a search memo and served her, during the search found one plastic can contains (5) Itrs of ID liquor, which was possessed by accused person illegally.

The officer informed the panchas that possession and transportation of

Jaggery and Alum is an offence U/Sec 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act 1968

GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995,

Clause III), and possession, manufacture and sale of I.D. liquor is an offence

U/Sec 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 3 of 7 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 and hence seized the above said property and vehicle and arrested the (3) accused persons. Then the officer drawn two sample packets of Jaggery and Alum each packet (100)grams and two sample bottles of 1.D liquor each (350) ml sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and pasted the signed chits on the samples. Returned to the station along with property and vehicle samples and accused persons. LW-4 has registered PCOR No.141/2020 for the offence U/Sec 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 and issued crime and occurrence report against the accused persons and issued a notice to the accused persons Under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. Further. officer deposited the samples in the Hon'ble Court vide C.P.R.No.267/2022 bith a request to sent one sealed sample for chemical analysis and report and deposited the remaining property in the office of Dy. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise,

Mahabubnagar for confiscation purpose as per rules. The Chemical Examiner after analysis, issued his report vide C.E.No.2636/2020, Dt. 12-06-2020, opined that "the sample contains reducing sugars as shown in the column, it is jaggery unfit for human consumption, but can be used as raw material in the manufacturing of Illicitly Distilled Liquor the other sample is Alum, another sample is Illicitly Distilled Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Basing on the above material and evidence, Lw-3 filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec 34 (e) of Telangana Excise

Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh

Act 1995.

3.Upon perusal of the chargesheet and material available on record, on

This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 against the accused. On appearance of accused persons, copies of documents are furnished to their as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused were examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. charge is framed for the

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 4 of 7 offence U/Sec 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 read over and explained to their in Telugu, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined Lws-1 to 3 as

Pws-1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked through Pw-1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are marked through Pw-2 and Ex.P5 to

Ex.P10 are marked through Pw-3. The Hon’ble court was closed the evidence of LW-4. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appeared against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on their side.

7.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the accused persons.

8.The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused

persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec 34 (e) of

Telangana Excise Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and

7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995?

Point:

9.Pw-1is the panch witness he deposed that at about 3 yrs, Excise police obtained his signature on some blank paper without informing the purpose.

No seizure panchanama conducted in his presence and in the presence of Pw-

2. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the signature of Pw-1 on seizure panchanama.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-1 as per sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec 162 Proviso Cr.P.C, but nothing could be elicited from him regarding occurrence of seizure panchanama.

10.Pw-2is the panch witness he deposed that at about 3 yrs, Excise police

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 5 of 7 obtained his signature on some blank paper without informing the purpose.

No seizure panchanama conducted in his presence and in the presence of

Pw-1. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the signature of Pw-2 on seizure panchanama.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-1 as per sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec 162 Proviso Cr.P.C, but nothing could be elicited from him regarding seizure panchanama.

11.Pw-3 who is the investigation officer, who deposed the chronological events of investigation in similar lines of allegations made in charge sheet.

11.1. During the cross examination, he had not received any complaint regarding the illegal transportation of Black Jaggery and ID liquor. He admitted that the mediators in this case does not belongs to near by scene of offence, he have not drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence. He admitted that he had not furnished any document to show that the vehicle belongs to whom. He further admitted that the sale of Black Jaggery is not prohibited by the Govt. of Telangana. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of offence nor conducted panchanamas (1 & 2) and the accused 1,2 and 4 does not committed any offence as alleged by him. He denied the suggestion that he registered false case against accused and filed false charge sheet for statistical purpose, he further denied the suggestion that he had not followed the procedure while seizing the samples of ID liquor. He took nearly 40 minutes to complete the formalities at the scene of offence. He further denied the suggestion that false charge sheet filed for statistical purposes and accused is no way concerned with alleged offence.

12.On perusal of record, it can be seen that Pw-1 & Pw-2 are the panch witness for seizure panchanama and he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Thus the seizure of ID liquor from accused is not proved.

Pw-3 is investigation officer, who deposed about the facts of the case in the lines of charge sheet. Except the investigation officer, there are no other evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the contraband.

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 6 of 7

Moreover, admittedly, Pw-3 has not collected any document to show that the said crime vehicle number belongs to accused persons. As such in the absence of independent evidence to corroborate the version of Pw-3, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of Pw-3, who are the excise official interested in the outcome of prosecution. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused persons for the offence U/Sec 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons were entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused persons were found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act 1968 GUR regulation of use order 1968 (III) and 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh Act 1995 and accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged after appeal time is over. The bail bonds taken from the accused U/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C shall be in force for 6 months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2025 .

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Proh & Excise), Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW-1: K.Ramesh/Panch witness Pw-2: C.Anjilaiah/Panch witness Pw-3: D.Manohar/P&ESI,Mahabubnagar

For Defence: --Nil--

Spl. JFCM

Page No. 7 of 7

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the Signatures of Pw-1 on panchanama Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the Signatures of Pw-2 on panchanama Ex.P5: Search memo Ex.P6: 1st Seizure panchanama Ex.P7: 2nd Seizure panchanama Ex.P8: PCOR Ex.P9: Letter of advice Ex.P9: FSL report

For Defence --Nil--

Material Objects Marked --Nil--

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Proh & Excise), Mahabubnagar.

Spl. JFCM

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026

Present: Sri Annarapu Ravi Shankar, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

C.C. No. 359 of 2025

Between:

State: The State Proh and Excise, Sub Inspector of police, Mahabubnagar. …Complainant AND

A1: Lambadi Anjala Naik @ Kethavath Anjala Naik, S/o Obya Naik, age 40 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o Undyala thanda, H/o Undyala (V), CC Kunta (M).

A2: Kethavath Ramulamma, W/o K.Anjala Naik, age 34 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o Undyala thanda, H/o Undyala (V), CC Kunta (M). ...A-1 and A-2 *****

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Sri G.Gopal Learned Counsel for accused persons and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Proh and Excise P.S.Mahabubnagar, filed this case against the accused persons for the offence punishable U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh Act 1995 (Adoption of Telangana State Orders 2015).

2

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 28.11.2024 at about 08:00 AM on receiving reliable information regarding illegal manufactruing of

ID liquor, Pw-3 along with staff proceeded to Undyala (V), CC Kunta (M) and watch their proceedings, to which they agreed and followed with the officials and there secured two mediators all of them reached the suspected place one person suspected the place. On seeing the excise officials the person was tried to ran away from the scene of offence, the officials was caught hold of him and also found one plastic bottle having some liquid, the officers opened the bottle cap based on pungent smell the liquid in the bottles of liquor 5 lts of ID liuqor, on enquiry came to know the name and address of the person as A1) Lambdi Anjala Naik @ Kethavath Anjala Naik, accused person reveals that he and his wife both are prepares ID liquor in the night time and sales it in the morning to the village peoples for their livehood. The officers said to him that they search to his house, all of them reached Undyala thanda of accused house, there they found one woman in front of house came to know the name and address of the person as A2) Kethavath Ramulamma, when the officers asked to her. Then Pw-3 seized the can and drawn two samples of ID liquor, each sample containing 350 ml. and sealed them under cover of panchanama in the presence of Pw-1 and Pw-2, and arrested accused and brought him to Excise station, Mahabubnagar along with samples and seized property. Then, Pw-3 issued PCOR No.290/2024 for offence punishable

U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act 1995 and issued U/Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and deposited samples in the court with a request to 3 send the same for chemical examination and analysis. The remaining contraband was deposited in the office of Dy. Commissioner, Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner vide in his report No. 248/2025/E, dt.21.01.2025 opined that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.” Basing on the above material and evidence, Pw-3 filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh Act 1995 (Adoption of Telangana

State Orders 2015).

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P.Proh Act 1995 (Adoption of Telangana State Orders 2015) against the accused persons. On appearance of accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused persons are examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh Act 1995 (Adoption of Telangana

State Orders 2015) for which she denied the same, hence the charge is framed for the said offence, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined Pw-1 to Pw-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appeared 4 against them in the prosecution evidence, for which they denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on their side.

6.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the accused persons.

7.The point for determination is:

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused

persons beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8

(e) of A.P.Proh Act 1995 (Adoption of Telangana State Orders 2015) ?

8.Point : Pw-1 is is panch witness for panchanama, he deposed that at about 1 yrs ago, Excise police, Mahabubnagar without informing him the purpose, obtained his signatures on white paper. Further, Pw-1 admitted signature.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-1 as per sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec 162 Proviso Cr.P.C, but nothing could be elicited from them regarding conduct of confession and seizure panchanama.

9.Pw-2 is is panch witness for panchanama, he deposed that at about 1 yrs ago, Excise police, Mahabubnagar without informing him the purpose, obtained his signatures on white paper. Further, Pw-2 admitted signature.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-2 as per sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec 162 Proviso Cr.P.C, but nothing could be elicited from them regarding conduct of confession and 5 seizure panchanama.

10.Pw-3 who is the investigation officer deposed nothing but chronological events of investigation contemplated in charge sheet.

During the cross examination, he admitted that the distance between scene of offence and police station is 68 kms. He did not drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and he idd not mention boundaries of scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he did not mention boundaries of scene of offence. Apart from these, he denied other formal adverse suggestions put by

Learned Counsel for accused persons.

11. Having perused the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, Pw-1 and Pw-2 were turned hostile and denied the conduct of seizure before him. As such, prosecution could not prove conduct of panchanama. The prosecution did not file any document to show that the said house belongs to accused persons and further neither neighbors of the said house nor any other independent witness is examined to establish the connection between the seized contraband and the accused persons.

Moreover, PW-3 is the one who detected the offence, registered case and further conducted investigation, which is fatal and illegal and the same is upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Megha Singh Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 1995 SC 2339. The relevant portion is reflected as under:

6 “The complainant should not proceed with the investigation and such practice should not be resorted to. So that, there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation”.

12.In the light of above discussion, this Court opines that there is no cogent evidence brought on record to prove the fact that the accused persons are in possession of alleged contraband. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons were beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result , accused persons were found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Proh and Excise Act 1968 (Adoption of Telangana

State Orders 2015)and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited in court vide C.P.R

No.137/2025 was given to police for interim safe custody and same shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged after appeal time is over.

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

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

Proseuction Name of Witness Description Witness No.

PW-1Kethavath Srinu NaikPanch witness

PW-2Kethavath Raju Naik Panch witness

PW-3Sushma Kasi ReddyP&ESI

For Defence: Nil

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Eshibit No. Description of the Exhibit

Ex.P1Signature of Pw-1 on panchanama

Ex.P2Signature of Pw-2 on panchanama

Ex.P3Panchanama

Ex.P4PCOR

Ex.P5Letter of advice

Ex.P6FSL report

For Defence: Nil

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proh & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, on this the 28th day of November, 2024

PRESENT

SRI ANNARAPU RAVI SHANKAR,

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PROH & EXCISE, MAHABUBNAGAR.

C.C. No. 413 of 2024

Between: State of Telangana Represented by P&E Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise P.S. Jadcherla. …Complainant AND

Bujagoini Nagaraju, S/o Ramchandraiah Goud, age 43 yrs, Occ: agril, R/o Thallagadda village of Moosapet mandal.

..Accused

***** This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the complainant and Sri A.Satheesh Goud Advocate, Learned Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of police, Jadcherla filed this chargesheet against the accused in PCOR No.136/2023 for the offence punishable U/Sec 34(a) TS. Excise Act, 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.10.2023 at about 04:15P.M, Lw-3 Prohibition and Excise Sub- Inspector,SHO Jadcherla, along with staff proceeded to Thallagadda village of Moosapet mandal, there they

Spl. JFCM P&E 2 of 6 secured two mediators and they got received reliable information regarding the illegal possession and sales of toddy without license in Thallagadda village of Moosapet mandal and watch their proceedings, all of them went to the suspected houses after some time found one male person selling toddy with two pots. On enquiry he revealed his name as Bujagoini Nagaraju, S/o

Ramchandraiah Goud. Then, the excise officials issued search memo and on searching one white bag. Then, they found then Lw-3 conducted spot test of toddy, collected toddy and drawn 5 ml of toddy in a test tube and added 3 pellets of Sodium Hydroxide and 3 ml of Pyridine solution and allowed test that heat for some seconds and found no change in the Toddy. The officer informed that the toddy is not adulterated with chloral hydrate and failed to produce licence. Then, the officer informed that sale of toddy without licence is an offence and possession, transportation, preparation and sales of Toddy is an offence under sec. 34(a) of T.S Excise Act 1968. Lw-3 drawn (2) samples of toddy each sample containing (350) ml, and sealed them as per procedure under cover of panchanama in the presence of panches along with can destroyed entire contraband on the spot. Issued PCOR No 136/2022 for the offence U/Sec 34(a) of T.S Excise Act 1968 and served the notice as per U/S 41(A) Cr. P. C. deposited the samples to the Hon'ble court vide CPR No.

52/2024, dt. 09.01.2024, with a request to send one of the samples to chemical examiner, regional excise laboratories, Hyderabad for Analysis report. The chemical examiner vide in his report No. 462/2024/6, dt.

10.02.2023 and he opined that “the sample is fermented toddy free from chloral Hydrate and diazepam.” After completion of investigation Lw-3 filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 34(a) TS

Excise Act, 1968.

3.Upon perusal of the chargesheet and material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec 34(a) TS. Excise Act, 1968

Spl. JFCM P&E 3 of 6 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. charge is framed for the offence U/Sec 34(a) TS. Excise Act, 1968 read over and explained to her in

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

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined Lws-1 to 3 as

Pw-1 to Pw-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1 is marked through

Pw-1, Ex.P2 is marked through Pw-2 and Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 is marked through

Pw3. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material appeared against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side.

7.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

8.The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec 34(a) TS. Excise Act,

1968?

Point:

9.PW-1 is panch witness, he deposed that at bout 2 years back Excise police, Jadcherla obtained his signature on some written papers without informing the purpose. No seizure panchanama conducted in his presence and in the presence of Lw-2. Ex.P1 is signature on panchanama.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-1

Spl. JFCM P&E 4 of 6 as per sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec 162 Proviso Cr.P.C, but nothing could be elicited from him regarding occurrence of seizure panchanama.

10.PW-1 is panch witness, he deposed that at bout 2 years back Excise police, Jadcherla obtained his signature on some written papers without informing the purpose. No seizure panchanama conducted in his presence and in the presence of Pw-2. Ex.P2 is signature on panchanama.

With the permission of court, the learned A.P.P. put questions to Pw-2 as per sec 154 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec 162 Proviso Cr.P.C, but nothing could be elicited from him regarding occurrence of seizure panchanama.

11.Pw-3 who is the investigation officer, who deposed the chronological events of investigation in similar lines of allegations made in charge sheet.

11.1. During the cross examination, The distance between scene of offence and police station is about 30 kms. He admitted that he did not file any document to show that the said house belongs to accused. He did not draw rough sketch of scene of offence and he did not mention boundaries of scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit scene of offence and no contraband was seized and false charge sheet filed against accused for statistical purpose and accused is no way concerned with the offence.

12.On perusal of record, it can be seen that Pw-1 and Pw-2 are the panch witnesses for seizure panchanama and they are turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Thus the seizure of contraband from accused is not proved. Admittedly, Pw-3 did not examine any customers of accused and exact location of selling contraband was not mentioned in Ex.P4. Pw-3 is the investigation officer, who deposed about the facts of the case in the lines

Spl. JFCM P&E 5 of 6 of charge sheet. Except the investigation officer, there are no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the contraband. Even though the seizure panchanama is marked as Ex.P4 by Pw-3, the panchas of said Ex.P4 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. As such, in the absence of independent evidence to corroborate the version of Pw-3, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of Pw-3, who are the Excise officials interested in the outcome of prosecution. Hence, seizure of toddy from the possession of accused is not proved. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec 34(a) TS. Excise Act, 1968

Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 34(a)

TS. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period. The bail bonds taken from the accused U/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C shall be in force for 6 months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2025.

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: Pw-1: Srinivasulu Goud/Panch witness Pw-2: Thirupataiah Goud/Panch witness Pw-3: Ch.Shruthi/P&ESI, Mahabubnagar

For Defence: --Nil--

Spl. JFCM P&E 6 of 6

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of Pw-1 on Ex.P4 Ex.P2: Signature of Pw-2 on Ex.P4 Ex.P3: Search memo Ex.P4: Panchanama Ex.P5: PCOR Ex.P6: Letter of advice Ex.P7: FSL report For Defence --Nil-- Material Objects Marked --Nil--

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar.

Spl. JFCM P&E