Smt. B. Jyotsna

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

VIJAYAWADA:

Present: Smt. B. Jyotsna, I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Thursday this the 27 th day of April’ 2023

C.C.No.611 of 2020

Between

Putla Dany Ajay Kumar, S/o.P.D.Prasanna Rao,... Complainant

Hindu, aged about 41 years, Properties, Resident of D.No.29-27-41, Suryanarayana Steet, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

AND Suryadevara KrishnaDev, S/o.Madhusudhanarao, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Employee, C/o.Clerk in Damarla Ramakantha Rao Viewers Colony High School, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.… Accused

This case came up on 21.04.2023 for final hearing before me in presence of Sri.A.Yugandhar, Advocate for Complainant and Sri.B.Bhuvana Chandra Reddy, Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused under sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to punish the accused under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(herein after called as NI Act) and to grant compensation to the complainant under section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after called as Cr.P.C) and such other reliefs in the circumstances of the case.

02.The contents of complaint in brief are as follows :-

(a) The complainant submitted that the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) from him on 06.07.2018 for his family expenses and on the same day the accused executed promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to him or his order on demand.

(b) The complainant submitted that on repeated demands being made by him and on his behalf, the accused had issued cheque bearing No.000016 for

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) dated 03.12.2019 drawn on Andhra

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 2

Bank, Ramalingeswarapet, Devichowk, Tenali Branch, towards part payment of the above said legally enforceable debt due to him. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection in his bank, Andhra Bank, Prabodha

Book center branch, Suryaraopet Vijayawada and the same was returned dishonored as unpaid as per return memo dated 11.12.2019 with an endorsement of "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT".

(c) The complainant submitted that he issued a statutory legal notice to the accused on 08.01.2020 demanding him to repay the above said cheque amount through Registered Post. The complainant submitted that the postal authorities intimated about the notice but the accused unclaimed the said notice. The complainant averred that without having funds in his account, the accused issued the cheque thus he committed an offence under section 138 of NI Act. Hence this complaint.

03. This Court took cognizance of the file under section 138 read with section 142 of NI Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offence under section 138 read with section 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu

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

04. During trial, the Complainant- Sri.P.Dani Ajay Kumar examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6. One of the attestor of the promissory note Sri.B.Rajaji examined as P.W.2. After closure of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material on record was read over and explained to him to

Telugu language, for which he denied and reported for his evidence. The accused himself Sri.Suryadevara Krishnadev was examined as R.W.1 and no documents marked.

05.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the complainant has proved that the accused had issued cheque

bearing No.000016 in his favour towards discharge of legally enforceable

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 3

debt under promissory note and the same was unpaid due to “ FUNDS

INSUFFICIENT ”?

06.The case of complainant that on 06.07.2018, the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) for an interest @ 24% per annum for his family expenses from the complainant. On repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused issued cheque bearing No.000016, for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), dated 03.12.2019 drawn on Andhra Bank, Ramalingeswarapet, Devichowk, Tenali

Branch, in favour of the complainant towards part payment of the said promissory note amount. The complainant presented the cheque for collection in his bank, Andhra Bank, Prabodha Book center Branch

Vijayawada and same was dishonoured as "Funds Insufficient" on 11.12.2019. Thereafter, the complainant served statutory demand legal notice dated 08.01.2020 to the accused, demanding him to repay the above said cheque amount. The said notice was returned as unclaimed by the postal authorities, the complainant averred that the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the accusation.

07.The complainant to prove his case, he himself Sri.P.Dani Ajay Kumar, examined as P.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as per the averments of his complaint. He relied on documents Ex.P1 to P6. Ex.P1-Original promissory note executed by the accused in favour of complainant for consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 06.07.2018. Ex.P2-Original cheque bearing No.000016 drawn on Andhra

Bank, Tenali branch, Tenali, for Rs.3,00,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, dated 03.12.2019. Ex.P3-Cheque returned memo issued by the Andhra Bank, Prabodha Book, Center branch,

Suryaraopeta, Vijayawada, dated 11.12.2019. Ex.P4-Office copy of the legal notice issued by complainant to the accused, dated 08.01.2020.

Ex.P5-Postal receipt, dated 09.01.2020. Ex.P6-Returned RP cover from accused as unclaimed, dated 18.01.2020. To support the case of complainant, attestor of the promissory note Sri.B.Rajaji was examined as

P.W.2, no documents are marked. As per the chief examination of P.W.2 seen, he support the case of complainant that the accused in his presence

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 4 executed promissory note on 06.07.2018 and received consideration.

P.W.2 deposed about his presence and transaction of Ex.P1 promissory note.

08.To disprove the case of complainant per contra the accused himself

Sri.Suryadevara Krishnadev examined himself as R.W.1 and no documents marked on his behalf. The accused denied the complaint contents in his chief examination as to amount due and execution of document promissory note. His case is that there is no privity of contract with the complainant at any point of time and he does not have acquaintance with the complainant and he is an utter stranger. R.W.1 deposed that the signature on the alleged suit promissory note and cheque does not belong to him and those documents i.e. promissory note and cheque are rank forgery.

09. R.W.1 deposed that he did not receive the legal notice issued by the complainant on 08.01.2020 and that the complaint is premature and that complaint is not maintainable in law. He alleged that the complainant has no financial capacity to lend such huge amount of Rs.3,00,00/-. R.W.1 further deposed that in view of the disputes in between him and one of the attestor by name Bejjam Rajaji/P.W.2, the complainant created Ex.P1 and P2 with forged signatures with the connivance of other attestor and scribe, who are also utter strangers to him. R.W.1 deposed that when he enquired about the complainant he learnt that the complainant is the henchman of the

Sri.Bejjam Rajaji, as there are some disputes in between him and Sri.Bejjam

Rajaji regarding the monetary transaction as such the complainant filed this false and frivolous case by forging his signature on Ex.P1 and P2. Thus basing on the contents of his chief examination, the accused denied the accusation against him.

10.After closure of trial, heard oral arguments of both learned counsels

for the complainant and the accused. The learned counsel for complainant

argued that the accused had issued cheque Ex.P2 towards part payment in discharge of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) due under promissory note marked as Ex.P1 which is a legally enforceable

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 5 debt and the same was dishonored. He argued that accused took two stands that one accused never borrowed any amount under Ex.P1 and other that complainant is stranger to him and complainant his henchmen of P.W.2/Rajaji which is not proved by accused. Thus he argued that the complainant had complied all the required documents as laid down in section 138 of NI Act, so accused shall be liable for punishment under section 138 of NI Act as the presumption under section 118 and 139 of NI

Act lies in favour of the complainant.

11. On the other hand the learned counsel for accused in his oral arguments reiterated cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 contents. He argued that the accused examined as R.W.1, deposed that R.W.1 never borrowed amount from the complainant and complainant is stranger to him. He argued that there is no legally enforceable debt between complainant and accused under the alleged transaction Ex.P1 and alleged that P.W.1 is henchmen of P.W.2 who got filed this false case due to the monetary disputes between P.W.2 and accused. The accused denied the signatures on Ex.P1 and P2 and alleged there are forged. Further the learned counsel argued that in Ex.P1 promissory note the number one had been altered as three so there is material alteration. Further that the

Ex.P2 columns are filled by accused false and that the complainant did not file civil suit basing on Ex.P1, basing on the cross-examination of P.W.1 and evidence of R.W.1, the accused argued that he successfully rebutted the case of complainant, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12. POINT : As seen from the complainant evidence, the complainant by

P.W.1 and P.W.2 had orally and by documentary evidence Ex.P1 to P6 had putforth his case. The complainant had complied all the ingredients of section 138 of NI Act for the alleged offence. Thus as per the statutory law in respect of NI Act cases, when the complainant fulfills the ingredients in section 138 of NI Act, the presumptions available under sections 118 and 139 of NI Act lie in favour of the complainant, unless the contrary is proved by the accused. The said presumption is rebuttable presumption, thus, the burden lies on the accused to prove his denial for the accusation.

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 6

13. Now to see whether the accused rebutted the presumption, the version of the accused can be seen from R.W.1 evidence and cross- examination of the witness P.W.1 and P.W.2 for appreciation of the case.

As relied by the accused on the P.W.1 cross examination that there is material alteration as to “ the number one had been altered as three” in

Ex.P1 and that P.W.1 did not file civil suit basing on Ex.P1. Further that due to monetary transaction and disputes between P.W.2 and the accused, this false case was filed by P.W.1 who is unknown to him. The accused denied signatures on Ex.P1 and P2. In his evidence accused as

R.W.1 as pleaded in his chief examination are consistent in his cross examination that he denied execution of Ex.P1 and denied the signature on Ex.P1 and P2. R.W.1 deposed that he came to know P.W.1 through

P.W.2.

14. As per the evidence on record, to disprove the case of complainant it is well settled in law that the standard required for the accused to prove his defence is preponderance of probabilities Thus, to appreciate the case to the facts in hand and evidence, though number of judgments rendered the prepositions as to raise ofpreponderance of probabilities by the accused and that accused shall be silent and that basing on the material on record he can discharge his burden. To the present case, upon consideration of the entire evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with R.W.1, the accused strongly contended there is no legal enforceable debt under

Ex.P1 and alleged that signatures on Ex.P1 promissory and also on disputed cheque Ex.P2 are forged. To decide that whether there is legally enforceable debt between the parties, the burden of proof is on complainant. For consideration on perusal of complainant evidence, the complainant by examining himself as P.W.1 orally deposed his case and by producing Ex.P1 to P6. When compared revealed that under promissory note the accused borrowed amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and that Ex.P1 was produced and Ex.P2 was issued and thereafter the requisites of section 138 of NI Act had followed from Ex.P3 to P6. P.W.1 supportted his case with P.W.2, who deposed about his presence on the date of transaction of promissory note and execution of promissory note by the accused in favour of complainant. Therefore, the complainant proved legal

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 7 enforceable debt between P.W.1 and R.W.1 under promissory note Ex.P1.

To see whether accused rebut the proof of Ex.P1, except oral evidence that denial of execution of promissory note there is no other evidence.

The accused took a plea that he did not execute promissory note and the signature does not belong to him, for this the accused did not take steps as per law to prove that the signatures on Ex.P1 and P2 are forgery to his version.

15. On observation by this court from relevant P.W.1 cross examination and accused evidence as R.W.1 revealed that the learned counsel for the accused gave suggestion that due to financial disputes between P.W.2 and accused, the P.W.1 filed this false case, where there is no proof of it by the accused except ocular evidence. R.W.1 did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary that there is financial transaction or financial disputes between P.W..2 and him. The other part of accused version is on material alteration, except as suggestion in P.W.1 and P.W.2 that in Ex.P1 promissory note “the number one has been altered three”, the accused did not prove the same with cogent evidence. This Court when observed said Ex.P1 promissory note as to allegations of material alteration, though there is over writing at the column as number three “3” but in figures it was written as “three”, this court did not find a material alteration as alleged by the accused to attract section 87 of NI Act. Further in order to believe that complainant is stranger to accused, the accused did not prove whereas P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that P.W.1 came to know the accused through P.W.2 and that P.W.2 also deposed that he knows the accused.

There is no reasonable ground to disbelieve the evidence of complainant as he made consistent statement to support his case along with P.W.2.

Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the defence set up by the accused is neither definitive nor consistent to the case of complainant.

16.To the present set of facts, to the evidence of complainant, the accused had failed to impeach the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the execution of promissory note Ex.P1 for which Ex.P2 was issued. When the documents of P.W.1 are consider, the version of accused was not

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 8 proved to the documents Ex.P1 or P2. Hence this Court hold that the accused had issued Ex.P2 cheque for discharge of legally enforceable debt recoverable by the complainant from the accused under promissory note Ex.P1 where said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and the same was intimated to the accused by virtue of legal notice.

17.From the above discussion, it is the burden on the accused to bring positive evidence, in the wake of denying the liability by bringing evidence showing that the accused has no liability towards Ex.P1 to issuance Ex.P2.

It is well settled in law that the standard required from the accused to prove his defence is preponderance of probabilities and accused need not prove his defence beyond reasonable doubts as per the judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC

1898. Wherein it was held that “ The presumption mandated by Sec.139 of

N.I. Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The presumption is in the nature of rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence, wherein the existence of legally enforceable debt and liability can be contested. However there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant.

Sec.139 of N.I. Act is an example of reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of Negotiable Instruments. While Sec.138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of the cheques the rebuttable presumption U/S.139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. It was further held that it is settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption U/S.139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore if the accused is able to raise the probable defence which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail.”

From this judgment, to the evidence on record, it is clear that the accused neither taken probable defence nor prove his defence to be safeguard.

Hence, the evidence of accused orally did not prove his version so as to rebut the presumptions under section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, 1881 which lies in favour of the complainant. Thus in light of above discussions this Court holds that the complainant had proved his

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 9 case with cogent evidence for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

18. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as such he is convicted under section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure code.

Partly typed on my dictation by stenographer and partly typed on my

laptop by me, prints taken by stenographer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of April’ 2023.

I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: P.Dani Ajay KumarR.W.1: Suryadevara Krishnadev P.W.2: B.Rajaji

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P106.07.2018Original promissory note executed by the accused in favour of complainant for consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Ex.P203.12.2019Original cheque bearing No.000016 drawn on Andhra Bank, Tenali for Rs.3,00,000/- issued by the accused in favour of the complainant.

Ex.P311.12.2019Cheque returned memo issued by the Andhra Bank, Prabodha Book Center branch, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

Ex.P408.01.2020Office copy of the legal notice issued by complainant to the accused.

Ex.P509.01.2020Postal receipt.

ExP618.01.2020Returned RP Cover from accused as unclaimed.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS: -NIL-

I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

FAIR COPY

C.C.No.611 of 2020 10

Quantum of sentence:

Heard the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence. The accused submitted that he is government employee and he is sole bread winner of his family.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the submissions of the accused, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and he is also liable to pay a compensation to the extent of the cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees

Three Lakh only) under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The compensation amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of judgment in default the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. As there is no remand period, the question of set off under section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not arise. The accused is appraised of his right to appeal against the judgment of this court. The accused is furnished a free copy of the judgment as contemplated under section 363(1) of Cr.P.C.

Typed on my dictation by stenographer, prints taken by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of April’

2023.

I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

//True copy//

(((

I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada

1

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1580 of 2020

Calendar and Judgment L Calendar Case No.1580/2020 on the file of IIl ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE-CUM- || ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA

TUESDAY, this the 12" day of April, 2022

CTenCe Report of Apprehen Released Commenc Closure of Sentence complain Sion of on bail trial ement of or order ant accused trial 2 3 5 6 7 l4.08 20 14.08.20 14.08.20 14.08.20 12.11.21 06.04.22 12.04.22

Expianation for delay and remarks (8):

Originally, this case was taken on file U/Sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Fcise Act, 1968. against the accused by the ll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Iiyawada and urmbered as C.C.1580/2020. On 10.11.21, copies of all GOL nents furnished to the accused. On 10.11.21 the accused was examined c239 of Cr.P.C, During the course of trial P.W1 and 2 was examined and m.d Exs.P.l to P.4 on behalf of the conplainant. On 22.03.2022 the ariused was examined U/ Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. Arguments heard on 08.04.2022 Jlgment pronounced on 12.04.2022. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C.No. 1580/2 020

ietween: state represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, byanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada city. .Complainant A N D A Khan, S/o.Jhonny, A/40 years, C/Muslim, Oi. . Peta, Vijayawada

...Accused

Offerce : U/Sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

Finding : Found not guilty

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Pesult pLnishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Acco dingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for i above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled at,: apse of six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code. The case propert M.0.1 is Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI-19 bottles, M,0.2 is nperal Blue Whisky 180 ML 22 bottie S, M.0.3 is the Mansion House brandy

369 ML- 37 bottles, M.04 is the Hyderabad Blue Whisky 180 ML -6 bottles,

0.5 is the Green Choice Whisky 180 ML - 3 bottles MO1-0ld Admiral special 1OP Br andy 180 ML bottle sampie bottle shall be destroyed after the lapse of ppeal tine.

I ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC:II| ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ViIJAYAWADA.

1

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1580 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE IIIADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAVWADA

Present: Smt. B. Jyotsna, I Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC: I| Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Tuesday this the 12th day of April' 2022

C.C. NO. 1580 of 2020 Between:

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram P.S, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

... Complainant

And: Abid Khan, S/o.Jhonny, A/40 years, C/Muslim, Old RR Peta, Vijayawada.

... Accused

This case is coming up on 08.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.P.P. for State and Sri.Shaik Bademiya Sonu, Advocate for accUsed. Upon hearing both sides and basing on the material on record, this court delivered the following

JUDG MENT

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram, P.S, Vijayawada filed charge sheet in crime number 404/2020 against the sole accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

Brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 14.08.2020 at about 02. LW.3/Smt.N.Vimala, Sub-lnspector of Police conducting 21.20 hours patrolling duty in SN Puram Police Station limits along with her stafF LW.1/Ch.Srikantha HC 674 and L.W.2/S.N.V.Ramana PC.2650, when they reached Seethannapeta gate, Vijayawada. They found the accused in possession of Old Admiral Special sOP Brandy 180 MI-19 bottles, Imperial Blue Whiskey 180 ML 22 bottles, Mansion House brandy 180 ML- 37 bottles, Hyderabad Blue Whiskey 180 ML - 6 bottles, Green Choice Whiskey 180 ML -3 bottles and One Auto bearing No.AP16 TS 1096. On enquiry the accused revealed his name and details and he confessed that the liquor bottles are

B

FAIR COPY

CCNo 1580 of 2020

brought to sale the same for higher prices. On that LW3 typed the

occurrence report on her laptop. Under the Occurrence report total 87

bottles were seized and took one bottle each as sample. LW.3 seryed section 41 A Criminal Procedure Code notice to dccused. Basing on the Occurrence report, LW.3 registered a ase as crime number 404/2020 under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. LW.3 on her letter of advice sent the samples for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis report with an opinion that the samples are "Indian made Liquor". After completion of investigation L.W.3/N.Vimala, Sub Inspect of of Police, Satyanarayanapuram PS filed charge sheet. Hence, the case.

03. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the accused. After appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents are furnished to hm as per section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

04. Accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code and framed charge under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,1968. The contents of charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To prove the case, LW.1 examined as PW.1, L.W.3 examined as PW.2. Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 to MO.5 are marked. The evidence of LW.2/S.N.V.Ramana PC 2650 was qiven up by L.A.PP.

06. After closure of the proserution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The incriminating material on record was read over and explained to him in Telugu. After understood the same, he denied and did not chooce to let either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

Now the point for determination is:

07.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reeasonable doubt?

R CO 3

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1580 of 2020

08. As seen from the record. the case of prosecution is that 14.08.2020 at about 21.20 hours LW.3/Smt N Vimala. Sub-Inspector of Police while conducting patrolling duty in the SN Puram Police Station limits along with her staff LW.1/Ch. Srikantha HC 674 and L.W.2/S.N.V.Rarmana PC.2650, reached Seethannapeta gate, Viavawada. They found the accUsed in possession of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI-19 bottles, Imperial Blue Whiskey 180 ML 22 bottles. Mansion House brandy 180 ML- 37 bottles, Hyderabad Blue Whiskey 180 ML -6 bottles, Green Choice Whiskey 180 ML - 3 bottles and One Auto bearing No.AP16 TS 1096. On enquiry the accused revealed his name and details and he confessed that the liquor bottles are brought to sale the same for higher prices. On that LW.3 typed the Occurrence report on her laptop. Under the Occurrence report total 87 bottles were seized and took one bottle each as sample. LW.3 served section 41 A Criminal Procedure Code notice to accused. Basing on the Occurrence report, LW.3 registered a case as crime number 404/2020 under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. LW.3 on her letter of advice sent the samples for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis report with an opinion that the samples are "Indian made Liquor". After completion of investigation L.W.3/N.Vimala, Sub Inspect of of Police, Satyanarayanapuram

PS filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

In this case prosecution cited three witnesses. L.W.1 was examined 09. as PW.1. LW.3 was examined as PW.2, PW.2 is Investigation Officer. Other witnesses LW.2 was qiven by learned A.PP. Ex.P1 is Occurrence report dated 14.08.2020, Ex.P2 is First Information Report, dated 14.08.2020, Ex. P3 is Advise, dated 21.08.2020 and Ex.P4 is Chemical analysis, dated Letter of 05.09.2020. M.O.1 is sample bottle of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 ML, M.O.2 is sample bottle Imperal BlJe Whisky 180 ML, M.O.3 is sample bot tle Mansion House brandy 180 ML, M.O.4 is sample bottle Hyderabad Blue Whisky 180 ML, M.0.5 is sample bottle Green Choice Whisky 180 ML.

10. The evidence on record shows that P.w.1 and P.W.2 visited the place of offence, from the evidence of Pw.1 and PW.2 it is clear that the accused was found in possession of total 87 bottles of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI-19 bottles, Imperial Blue Whiskey 180 ML 22 bottles, Mansion

B.

4

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1580 of 2020

House brandy 180 ML- 37 bottles, Hyderabad Blue Whiskey 180 ML - 6 bot

tles, Green Choice Whiskey 180 ML -3 botles. PW.1 deposed about his pres

ence along with PW.2. It is the combine evidence that accused revealed his

name and details and also confessed that he is selling the liquor bottles. On

that P.W.2 tyoed the occurrence report and registered a case crime number 404/2020 under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, basing on the occurrence report. The accused was served section 41 A Criminal Proce

dure Code notice. During investigation, PW.2 sent the samples for analysis

on her letter of advice. On completion of investigation PW.2 filed charge

sheet.

Considering the above evidence on record, the findings in cross 11. examination of the witnesses PW.1 and P.W.2 are that the place of offence is a busy locality. They did not secure any independent mediator at the place of offence. Other part of cross examination are denials for suggestions put to the witnesses by learned counsel for accused.

12. Heard the arguments of learned A.P.P. and learned defense counsel. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act is clearly proved by the prosecution witnesses and so the accused shall be punished for the same. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that Ex.P1 & Ex.P4 have material contradictions proves no case in favour of the prosecution, He araued that no confession statement filed by the prosecution as alleged by them moreover this case is based on OCCurrence report prepared by the L0 who is the complainant in this case. Thus, owing to several material contractions and omissions, the case of the prosecution stands not proved So accused cannot be convicted in this case. Thus he argued to let off the accuced by extending benefit of doubt.

13. Thus, from the entire evidanre it revealed that P.W.2 registered this case against the aCcUsed on basic of ccurrence report. The recitals of Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 only show the investigation and cause of filing the case. The recitals of Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are inconsistent with oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 in cross exanination. Further, the Prosecution did not cite the Chemical exam- iner in this case to corroborate with the documentary evidence e Ex.P4.

FAIR COPY

Furthermore, the po point of selling liquor bottles by the accused was C.C.No. 1580 of 2020 14. not shown by the prOsecution at any point of time. Thus, it is not safe to rely only on official witnesses PW.1 and P.W.2, as there are some inherent lapses in the case of prosecution. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused for the offence punishable

Under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore. this court intend to extent benefit of doubt to the accused.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accUsed shall stand canceled after lapse of six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code. The case property i.e. M.0.1 is sample bottle of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI, M.O.2 is sample bottle Imperal Blue Whisky 180 ML, M.0.3 is sample bottle Mansion House brandy 180 ML, M.O.4 is sample bottle Hyderabad Blue Whisky 180 ML, M.O.5 is sample bottle Green Choice Whisky 180 ML shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed on my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 12h day of April' 2022.

IAddl Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC: II AddL.Mettopolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence PW.1:Ch.Srikantha, HC 674 of Satyanarayanapuram P.S. - NONE P.W.2: Smt.N.Vimala, Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada.

Documents marked For Prosecution: Ex,P1: Occurrence report dated 14.08.2020 Ex.P2: First Information Report, dated 14.08.2020 Ex.P3: Letter of Advise, dated 21.08.2020 Ex.P4. Chemical Analysis report, dated 05.09,2020

For Defence: -Nil

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1580 of 2020

Material object:

For Prosecution: M.O.1:Sample bottle of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI M.0.2: Sa mple bottle imperial Blue Whiskey 180 ML M.0.3: Sample bottle Mansion House brandy 180 MI M.0.4: Sample bottle Hyderabad Blue Whiskey 180 MI M.O.5: Sample bottle Green Choice Whiskey 180 ML

For Defence: -Nil

I Addi Metfopolitan Magistrate,

FAC:I1 Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada

FAIR COP: C.C.No. 1220 of 202.1

Calendar and Judgment

1 Calendar Case No.1220/2020 on the file of IlL ADDITIONAL JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- Ill ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA

TUESDAY, this the 19" day of April, 2022

Offence Report of Apprehen Released Commenc Closure Sentenc complain Sion of on bail ement of of trial or orde ant -accused trial 2 7 1 5 6 25.07.2020 25.07.20 25.07.20 25.07.20 30.3.2022 13.4.22 19.4.2022

Explanation for delay and remarks (8): Originally, this case was taken on file U/Sec.34(a) of Andhra Prades EXcise Act, 1968 against the acCUsed by the IlI Addl. Metropclita Mag strate, Vijayawada and numbered as C.C.1220/2020.On 15.03.202 copies of all documents furnished to the accused. On 21.03.2022 th accused wwas examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.PC, During the course of trial P.W1 t 3 were examined and marked Exs.P.1 t:) P4 on behalf of the complainant. O 18.04.2022 the acCUsed was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.PC. Arguments hear on 13.04.2022 and Judgment pronounced on 19.04.2022. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in CsNo.1220/2020 Between: State represented by the Sub-lnspectcr of Police, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada city.

..Complainant

AND

Jaggurathi Durga Rao,S/o. Nagulu, 32 years, Kapu, D.NO.21-9-205, 5th lane, Pasuputjota, kiadhuranagar, Vijayawada. ...Accuse: Offence :U/Sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

Finding :Found not guilty

Result : In the resu.t, the accued is fcUnd not guilty for the offencu punishable under section 34(Y) oi Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 Accordingly he is a cauitted under se tion 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Cod. for the above said offence. The b ;il bonds of the accused shall stand Canceled after laose of six months a: per seCtion 437-A Criminal Proceuri Code. The case property ie. M.O.1 s 1anson House 180 MI and M.O.2 i Deccan Blue 180 ML shall be destrOVed after the lapse of appeal time.

B yshn

IapDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, FAC-|ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA.

1

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1220 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE IIl ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. B. Jyotsna, I Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, FAC: Il Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Tuesday this the 19th day of April' 2022

C.C. NO. 1220 of 2020 Between:

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram P.S, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Complainant And:

Jaggurathi Durga Rao,S/o. Nagulu, 32 years, Kapu, D.No.21-9-205, 5th lane, Pasuputjota, Madhuranagar, Vijayawada.

... Accused

This case is coming up on 18.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.P.P. for State and Sri:D.Gowthami, Advocate for accused. Upon hearing both sides and basing on the material on record, this court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

01. The Sub-inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram, P.S, Vijayawada filed charge sheet in crime number 365/2020 against the sole accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

02. Brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 25.07.2020 at about 10.00 hours LW.5/Kum.Ch.Naga Durga, Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram, P.S conducting patrolling duty in the SN Puram Police

Station limits along with her staff L.W.1/PVeeranjaneyulu, PC 2144 and LW.2/B.Ramesh, PC 2269 and mediators L.W.3/P.Raghavendhra Rao and LW.4/B.Joji and reached Madhuranagar, Vijayawada. They found the accused in possession of Manson House 180 MI- 90 bottles and Deccan Blue 180 ML -96 bottles total of 186 bottles. On enquiry the accused revealed his name and details and he confessed that the liquor bottles are brought to

B.

2

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1220 of 2020 sale for higher prices. On that LW.S drafted mediators report in presence of mediators, Under the meditoisTeport 186 bottles were seized in presence of mediators and took one Dottie edch as sample. LW. 5 served section 41A Criminal Procedure Code notice to accused. Basing on the mediators report,

LW.S reaistered a case as Crlme number 365/2020 under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. LW.3 on her letter of advice sent the samples for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis report with an opinion that the samples are "Indian made Liquor". After completion of investigation L.W.5/Kum.Ch.Naga Durga, Sub Inspector of Police,

Satyanarayanapuram PS Filed charge sheet. Hence, the case.

03. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the accused. After appearance of the accUsed before this court, copies of case documents are furnished to him as per section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

04. Accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code and framed charge under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,1968. The contents of charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To prove the case, LW.2 examined as PW.1, L.W.4 examined as P.W.2, and L.W.5 examined as PW.3, Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 and M.0.2 are marked. The evidence of LW.1/B.Ramesh Babu PC 2269 and L.W.3/P.Raghavendhra

Rao are given up by L.A.PP.

Arter cloSure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined 06. under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The incriminating material on Tecord was read over and explaiped o him in Telugu. After understood the same, he denied and did not choose to let either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

07. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of. the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

FAIR COPY

C.C.No, 1220 of 2020 As seen from the record, the case of rocacution is that 25.07.2020 at 08. about 10.00 hours LW.5/Kum.Ch.Naga Durga, Sub-Inspector of Police on patrolling duty in the SN Puram Police Station limits along with her staff

LW.1/PVeeranjaneyulu, PC 2144 and Lw.2/B.Ramesh, PC 2269 and

mediators L.W.3 and L.W.4, when they reached Madhuranagar, Vijayawada.

They found the accused in possession of Manson House 180 MI- 90 bottles and DeCcan Blue 180 ML - 96 bottles total 186 bottles. On enquiry the accused revealed his name and details and he confessed that the liquor bottles are brought to sale the same for higher prices. On that LW.5 drafted mediators report. Under the mediators report 186 bottles were seized in

presence of mediators and took one bottle each as sample. LW.5 served

section 41 A Criminal Procedure Code notice to accUsed. Basing on the

mediator report, LW.5 registered a case as crime number 365/2020 under

section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. LW.3 on her letter of

advice sent the samples for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis

report with an opinion. that the samples are "Indian made Liquor", After

completion of investigation L.W.5/Kum.Ch.Naga Durga, Sub Inspector of

Police, Satyanarayanapuram PS filed charge sheet. Hence, the case.

09. In this case prosecution cited three witnesses. L.W.2 was examined as P.W.1, LW4 was examined as PW.2, and L.W.5 was examined as PW.3.

PW.3 is Investigation Officer. Other witnesses LW.1 and LW.3 are given by learned A.PP. Ex.P1 is mediators report dated 25.07.2020, Ex.P2 is First In formation Report, dated 25.07.2020, Ex.P3 is Letter of Advise, dated 03.08.2020 and Ex.P4 is Chemical analysis report, dated 20.08.2020. M.O.1 is sample bottled of Manson House 180 MI and M.0.2 is sample bottled Dec can Blue 180 ML.

10. The evidence on record shows that P.W.1 and PW.3 visited the place of offence, from the evidence of P.W.1 and PW.3 it is clear that the accused is found in possession of total 186 bottles of Manson House 180 MI- 90 bot

tles and Deccan Blue 180 ML- 96 bottles. PW.1 deposed about his presence

along with PW.3. 1t is the combine evidence that accused revealed his name

and details and also confessed that he is selling the iquor bottles. On that

PW.3 drafted the mediators report who was present PW.2. PW.2 deposed

B

4

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1220 of 2020 about his presence at that time. On that PW.3 registered a case crime num- ber 365/2020 under section 34(a) c of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,

1968, basing

on the mediators report. lne dcu was served section 41 A Criminal Pro

cedure Code notice. During investigecion, PW.3 sent the samples for analysis

nn ber let ter of advice. On completon of investigation PW.3 filed charge sheet.

Considering the above evidence on record, the findings in cross 11. examination of the witnesses PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 are that the place of offence is a busy locality. They did not secure any independent mediator at the place of offence. PW.2 made contradictory statements about his presence and mediator report i.e. Ex.P1. Other pårt of cross examination are denials for suggestions put to the witnesses by learned counsel for accused.

12. Heard the arguments of learned A.P.P. and learned defense counsel. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act is clearly proved by the prosecution witnesses and so the accused shall be punished for the same. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that Ex.P1 & Ex.P4 have material contradictions proves no case in favour of the prosecution, He argued that no confession statement iled by the prosecution as alleged by them moreover this case is based on mediators report prepared by the O who js the complainant in this case. Tnus, oWing to several material contractions by PW.2 and omissions, the case of the prosecution stands not proved. So, accused cannot be convicted accused by extending benefit of in this case. Thus he argued to let off the doubt.

revealed that PW.3 registered this Thus, from the entire evidence, it 13. report. The recitals of Ex.P1 to case against the accused on basis of mediator Ex.P4 only show the investigation and cause of filing the case. The recitals of evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are inconsistent with oral prosecution did not cite the Chemical ex- in cross examination. Further, the evidence Ex.P4. aminer in this case to corroborate with the d o c u m e n t a r y

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1220 of 2020

Furthermore, the point of selling linuoc-bottles by the accused was

14. not shown by the prosecution at any point of time Thus, it is not safe to rely only on official witnesses PW.1, PW.2 and pw2 as there are some inherent lapses in the case of prosecution. Hence this court holds that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968

beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court intend to extent benefit

of doubt to the accused.

15. In the result, the accused is found not quilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code. The case property i.e. M.O.1: Sample bottled of Manson House 180 MI and M.O.2 Sample bottled of Deccan Blue 180 ML shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed on my laptop by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 19th day of April' 2022.

I Addl Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC: II| AddL.Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence PW.1:B.Ramesh, HC 2269 of Satyanarayanapuram P.S. -NONE PW.2:B.Joji, To speak about Mediators report PW.3: Kum.Ch.Naga Durga, Sub-lnspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada.

Documents marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Mediators report dated 25.07.2020 Ex.P2: First Information Report, dated 25.07.2020 Ex.P3: Letter of Advise, dated 03.08.2020 Ex.P4. Chemical Analysis report, dated 20.08.2020

For Defence: -Nil 6

FAIR COPY

C.C.No, 1220 of 2020

Material object:

For Prosecution: M.0.1: Sample bottled of Manson House 180 ML M.0.2: Sample bottled of Deccan Blue 180 MI

For Defence: -Nil

I Addl Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC:IIl Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1579 of 2020

Calendar and ludgment Calendar Case No.l579/2020 on the file of |I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL IUDGE-CUM- Il| ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA WEDNESDAY, this the 13th day of April, 2022

Report of Apprehen Roleaced Commenc Closure of Sentence Offence complain ement of trial or order Sion of on bail ant accused trial 2 5 6 7 3 4 20 30.08.20 30.08.20 30.08.20 24.11.21 06.04.22 13.04.22

E)ation for delay and remarks (8):

Criginally, this case was taken on file U/Sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Acise Act, 1968. against the accused by the ll Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vavawada and numbered as C.C.1579/2020. On 20.10.21, copies of all

hicuments furnished to the accused. On 17.11.2021 the accused was

mined USec.239 of Cr.P.C, During the course of trial P.W1 and 2 was

nined and marked Exs.P.l to P4 on behalf of the complainant. On

U.2022 the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. Arguments heard

3.04.2022 and Judgment pronounced on 13.04.2022. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C.No.1579/2020

ete iepresented by the Sub-inspector of Police,

atyanarayanapuram Police Station, Vijayawada city.

...Complainant

i D

K. Seshu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 38 years, ar Nancharaiah mutton shop, David street,

Pnipeta, Vijayawada.

...Accused

:U/Sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

(ience

inding : Found not guilty

In the result, the accUsed is found not guilty for the offence Sult Tnisha ble under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Fordingly he is acauitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for I: 00VE said offence. The bail bonds or the accused shall stand canceled 2 1; lapse of six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code. The CaL property M.O.1 is sample two bottles of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 120 M shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

B.2yrina

I ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC:lI| ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA.

1

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1579 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

Present: Smt. B. Jyotsna, I IAddl. Metropolitan Magistrate, VIJAYAWADA FAC: I|| Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Wednesday this the 13th day of April' 2022

C.C. NO. 1579 of 2020 Between:

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram P.S, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

. Complainant

And: Kota Seshu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Agec 38 years, Near Nancharaiah mutton shop, David street, Pejjonipeta, Vijayawada.

... Accused

This case is coming up on 08.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst. P.P. for State and Sri. K.Dwaraka Ramesh, Advocate

for accused. Upon hearing both sides arid basing on the material on record,

this court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram, P.S, Vijayawada filed charge sheet in crime number 430/2020 against the sole accused for

the offence punishable under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,

1968.

Brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 30.08.2020 at about 02.

13.45 hours LW.3/Smt.N.Vimala, Sub lnspector of Police on patrolling duty in

the SN Puram Police Station limits along with her staff LW.1/B.Ramesh

PC2269 and L.W.2/Anjaneyulu P*, reached David Street, Pejoinipeta

Vijayawada. They found the accused in possession of Old Admiral Special

VSOP Brandy 18o MI-08 bottles. On enquiry the accused revealed his name

and details and he con fessed that the liquor bottles are brought to sale the

Same for higher prices. On that LW.3 typed the OCcurrence report on her

laptop. Under the Occurrence report 03 bottlee

were seized and took one 2

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1579 of 2020 bottles as sample. LW.3 served section 41 A Criminal Procedure Code notice to accused. Basing on the Occurrence report , LW.3 registered a case as crime number 430/2020 under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

LW.3 on her letter of advice sent the Samples for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis report with an opinion that the samples are "lndian made Liquor". After completion of investigation L.W.3/N.Vimala, Sub

Inspect of of Police, Satyanarayandpul ain PS iled charge sheet. Hence. the case.

This court took cognizance ror the offence punishable under section 03. 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise ACt, 1968 against the accused. After appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents are furnished to him as per section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

04. Accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code and framed charge under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,1968. The contents of charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To prove the case, LW.1 examined as PW.1, L.W.3 examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P4 and M.0.1 is marked. The evidence of LW.2/Anjaneyulu PC 2144 was given up by L.A.PP.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined 06. under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The incriminating material on record was read over and explained to him in Telugu. After understood the same, he denied and did not Choose to let either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

Now the point for determination

07. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34/a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasongble doubt?

FAIR COPY

579 of 2020

ie notice 3

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1579 of 2020

08. As seen from the record, the case of prosecution is that 30.08.2020 at

about 13.45 hours LW.3/Smt.N.Vimala, Sub-Inspector of Police on patrolling

duty in the SN Puram Police Station limits along with her staff

yD.Kamesh PC2269 and I w 2 /Anianeyulu PC 2144, reached David

rejoinipeta Vijayawada, Thev found the accused in possession of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 M-O8 bottles. On enquiry the acCUsed

revealed his name and details and he confessed that the liquor bottles are

brought to sale the same for hiaher prices. On that LW.3 drafted occurrence

report. Under the Occurrence report 08 bottles were seized and took one

bottles as sample. LW.3 served section 41 A Criminal Procedure Code notice

to accUsed. Basing on the Occurrence report, LW.3 registered a case as crime number 430/2020 under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. LW.3 on her letter of advice sent the samples for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis report with an opinion that the samples are

"Indian made Liquor". After completion of investigation L.W.3/N.Vimala, Sub

Inspect of of Police, Satyanarayanapuram PS filed charge sheet. Hence, the

charge.

In this case prosecution cited three witnesses. L.W.1 was examined 09. as PW.1. LW.3 was examined as P.W.2, P.W.2 is Investigation Officer. Other witnesses LW.2 was given by learned A.PP. Ex.P1 is Occurrence report dated 30.08.2020, Ex.P2 is First Information Report, dated 30.08.2020, Ex.P3 is Letter of Advise, dated 04.09.2020 and Ex.P4 is Chemical analysis, dated 05.09.2020. M.O.1 is sample two bottles of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI.

The evidence on record shows that P.W.1 and PW.2 visited the place 10. of offence, from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 it is clear that the accused possession of total 08 bottlec of Old Admiral Special VSOP is found in Brandy 180 MI-08 bottles. PW.1 deposed about his presence along with P.W.2. It is the combine evidence rhat accused revealed his name and details and also confessed that he is sellin9 the liquor bottles. On that PW.2 drafted registered a Cdse crime number 430/2020 under the ocCurrence report and section 34() of Andhra Pradesh ExCise Act T968, basina on the occurrence section 41A Criminal Procedure Code no- served report. The accUsed was 4

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1579 of 2020 tice. During investigation, PW.2 sent the Samples for analysis on her letter of advice. On completion of investigation P.W.2 Filed charge sheet.

Considering the above evidence On record, the findings in cross 11. examination of the witnesses PW.1 and P.w.T are that the place of offence is a busy locality. From PW.1 and PW.2 they deposed different place of

offences as Poornnandapeta P.W.1 deposed as Pejjoinipeta, however

the place street was Ddavid street Stoted Dy both witnesses. They did not secure any independent mediator dt ie Place of offence. Other part of

cross examination are denials for Suggestions put to the witnesses by

learned counsel for accused.

12. Heard the arqumens of learned A.P.P. and learned defense counsel.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the section 34(a) of A.P

Excise Act is clearly proved by the prosecution witnesses and so the accused

shall be punished for the same. On the other hand, the learned defence

counsel argued that Ex.P1 & Ex.P4 and also the place of offence have

material contradictions proves no case in favour of the prosecution. He

argued that no confession statement filed by the prose cution as alleged by

them moreover this case is based on occurrence report prepared by the I.0

who is the complainant in this case. Thus, owing to several material

contractions and omissions, the case of the prosecution stands not proved.

So, accused cannot be convicted in this case. Thus he argued to let off the

accused by extending benefit of doubt.

13. Thus, from the entire evidence it revealed that PW.2 registered this

case against the acused on basis of occurrence report. The recitals of Ex.P1

to Ex.P4 only show the investigation and cause of filing the case. The recitals of Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are inconsistent with oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 in cross examination. Further, the prosecution did not cite the Chemical examiner in this case to corroborate with the documentary evidence Ex.P4.

Furthermore, the point of Selling liquor bottles by the accused was 14. not shown by the prosecution at any point of time. Thus, it is not safe to rel only on official witnesses PW.1 dnd pw2. as there are some inherent lapses 5 FAIR COPY C.C.No. 1579 of 2020 in the case of prosecution. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution had

failed to establish its case against the accused for the offence punishable

under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 beyond all

reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court intend to extent benefit of doubt to

the accuUsed.

In the result, the acCUsed is found not guilty for the offence 15.

punishable under section 34(a)

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. of

Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code

for the above said offence, The hail honds of the accused shall stand

canceled after lapse of six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure

Code. The case property i.e. M.o1 is samole two bottles of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI shall be destroved after lapse of appeal time.

Typed on my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 13th day of April' 2022.

IAddl Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC: II Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Defence

For Prosecution:

P.W.1:B.Ramesh, HC 2269 of Satyanarayanapuram P.S. NONE P.W.2:Smt.N.Vimala, Sub-Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada.

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Occurrence report dated 30.08.2020 Ex.P2: First Information Report, dated 30.08.2020 04.09.2020 Ex.P3: Letter of Advise, dated report, dated 05.09.2020 Ex.P4. Chemical Analysis

For Defence: -Nil Material object:

Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 M. For Prosecution: M.O.1: Sample two bottles of Old

For Defence: -Ni

I Addl Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC:l Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1558 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Smt. B. Jyotsna, I Add .Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC: III Add. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

Wednesday this the 20h day y of April' 2022

C.C. NO. 1558 of 2020

Between:

State

Represented by Sub Inspector of Polic: Satyanarayanapuram P.S,

Vijayawada, Krishna District.

... Complainant

And: Beijam Tirapathamma, W/o.Durga Rao Aged 33 vears, C/Mala, D.No.21-8-81, Kalavari Street, Mutyalampadu, Near Govt. Press, Vijayawada. AccUsed

This case is coming up on 19.04.2022 For final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.P.P. for Statr and Sri. B.V.Ravi Prasad, Advocate for accused. Upon hearing both sides and basing on the material on record, this court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

The Sub-inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram, P.S, Vijayawada 01. Tiled charge sheet in crime number 407/2020 against the sole accused for sectioa 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,

the offence punishable under

1968.

prosecution is that on 17.08.2020 at about Brief facts of the case of 02. Durga, Sub-inspector of Police conducting

13.30 hours LW.3/Kum.Ch.Naga

patrolling duty in the SN Puram Police Station limits along with her staff PC 2269 and when they LW.1/T.Divya, L W . 2 / B . R a m e s h WPC 3778 and

Mutyalampacu. Vijayawada. They found the accused

reached Kalavari Street,

VSOP Brandy 180 MI-22 bottles. On in possession of Old Admiral enquiry the accused revealed her nane and details and she confessed that Speciel to sal the Same for higher prices. On that

the liquor bottles are brought

a p t o p , Under the Occurrence report LW.3 typed occurrence report on he, ortle ds Sample. LW.3 served section 22 bottles were seized and took one

FAIR COPY

2 C.C.No. 1558 of 2020

Basing on the Occurrence 41 A Criminal Procedure Code notice to accused. 407/2020 under section report, LW.3 reaistered a case as crime number 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. 1968. LW.3 on her letter of advice sent analysis report with the samples for chemical analysis and received chemical ar an opinion that the samples are "Indian made Liquor". After completion of of Police, L.W.3/ Kum.Ch.Naga Sub Inspector Durga, investigation Satyanarayanapuram PS filed charge sheet. Hence, the case.

This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 03. 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. 1968 against the accused. After appearance of the accused before this court. copies of case documents are

Furnished to her as per section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

04. Accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code and framed charge under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The contents of charge was read over and explained to her in Telugu for

which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To prove the case, LW.1 examined as PW.1, L.W.3 examined as PW.2.

Exs.P1 to P4 and M.0.1 are marked. The evidence of LW.2/B.Ramesh Babu PC

2269 was given up by L.A.PP.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

06.

under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The incriminating material on

record was read over and explained to her in Telugu. After understood the

same. she denied and did not choose to let either oral or documentary

evidence on her behalf.

Now the point for determination is: 07.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 34(0) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

As seen from the record the case of prosecution is that on 17.08 2020 08.

at about 13.30 hours LW.3/Kum.Chh.Naga Durga, Sub-lnspector of Police on

patrolling duty along with her staff L.W.1/T.Divya, WPC 3778 and

FAIR COPY

C.C.No. 1558 of 2020

LW.2/B.Ramesh, PC 2269 at Kalavari Street, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada. They found the accUsed in possession Of Od Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI-22 bottles. On enquiry the accused revealed her name and details and she confessed that the liquor DOttles are brought to sale for higher On that LW.3 typed occurrence report on her laptop. Under the prices. Occurrence report 22 bottles were seized and took one bottle as sample. LW.3 served section 41 A Criminal Procedure Code notice to accused. Basing on the Occurrence report, LW.3 registered a case as crime number 407/2020 under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Exc0se Act, 1968. LW.3 on her letter of advice sent the samples for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis report with an opinion that the samples are "Indian made Liquor". After completion of investigation L.w.3/Kum.Ch.Naga Durga, Sub Inspector of Police, Satyanarayanapuram PS filed charge sheet. Hence, the case.

In this case prosecution cited three witnesses. L.W.1 was examined 09. as PW.1. LW.3 was examined as P.W.2, PW.2 is Investigation Officer. Other witness LW.2 was given by learned A.PP. Ex.P1 is Occurrence report dated 17.08.2020, Ex.P2 is First information Report, dated 17.08.2020, Ex.P3 is Let ter of Advise, dated 17.08.2020 and Ex.P4 is Chemical analysis report, dated 05.09.2020. M.O.1: Sample bottle of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180

ML.

The evidence on record shows that PW.1 and PW.2 visited the place 10. of offence, from the evidence of PW1 and PW.2 it is clear that the accused iS found in possession of total 22 bottles of Old Admiral Special VSOP Brandy 180 MI-15 bottles. PW.1 deposed about her presence along with PW.Z. It IS the combine evidence that accused revealed her name and details selling the liquor bottles. On that PW.2 and also confessed that she is drafted the occurrence report and registered a Case crime number 407/2020 under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, basing on the OccUr- rence report. The accused was served section 41 A Criminal Procedure Code notice. During investigation, PW.2 sent the samples for analysis on her letter of advice. On completion of investiga tion P.W.2 filed charge sheet.

FAIR COP

C.C.No. 1558 of 2020

Considering the above evidence

11. examination of the witnesses PW.1 and PW.2 are that the place of offence is on record, the findings in cross

a busy locality. They did not secure any independent mediator at the place

eXamination are denials for suggestions put

of offence. Other part of cross to the witnesses by learned COUnsel for accused.

Heard the arquments of learned A.P.P. and learned defense counsel.

12.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the section 34(a) of A.P

Excise Act is clearly proved by the prosecution witnesses and so the accused

shall be punished for the same. On the other hand, the learned defence

counsel argued that Ex.P1 & Ex.P4 have material Contradictions proves no

case in favour of the prosecULIo Se argued that no confession statement

filed by the prosecution as alleged by them moreover this case is based on

occurrence report prepare Dy cne l.O who is the complainant in this case.

Thus, owing to several material contractions and omissions, the case of the

prosecution stands not prOved. So, accused cannot be convicted in this case.

Thus he arqued to let off the accused by extending benefit of doubt.

13. Thus, from the entire evidence, it revealed that P.W.2 registered this

Case against the accused on basis of occurrence report. The recitals of Ex.P1

o Ex.P only show the investigation and cause of filing the case. The recitals

of Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are inconsistent

with oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 in cross

examination. Further, the prosecution did not cite the Chemical examiner in

this case to corroborate with the documentary evidence Ex.P4.

Furthermore, the point of selling liquor bottles by the accUsed was

14.

not shown by the prosecution at any point of time. Thus, it is not safe to rely

only on official witnesses P.W.1 andPW.2, as there are some inherent lapses

in the case of prosecution. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution had

failed to establish its case against the accused for the offence punishable

under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh EXcise Act, 1968 beyond all

reasonable doubt. Therefore. this

i n t e n d to extent benefit of doubt to

cOurt

the accUsed.

EAIR COPY

In the result, the accUsed is found not guilty for the offence C.C.No. 1558 of 2020 15.

punishable under section 34(a)

of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

Accordingly she is acquitted under section 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code

for the above said offence The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six monthsS as per section 437-A Criminal PrOcedure

Code. The case property i.e.

M.O.1: Sample bottle of Old Admiral Special

VSOP Brandy 180 M22 botttes shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal

time.

Typed on my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me In te

open court on this the 20" day of Apri' 2022.

B>ytthns

IAddl Metropolitan Magistrate,

FAC: II1 Add.Metropolitan Magistrate,

vijayawada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence

P.W.1:T.Divya, WPC 3778 of Satyanarayanapuram P.S.

NONE

P.W.2: Kum.Ch.Naga Durga, Sub-inspector of Police,

Satyanarayanapuram PS, Vijayawada.

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Occurrence report dated 17.08.2020 Ex.P2: First Information Report, dated 17.08.2020 Ex.P3: Letter of Advise, dated 17.08.2020 Ex.P4. Chemical Analysis report. dated 05.09.2020

For Defence: -Nil

Materialobje ct:

For Prosecution:

M.O.1: Sample bottle of Old Admiral Brandy 180 MI.

B lyto

For Defence: -Nil

I Addl Megropolitan Magistrate,

EAC:III Addl. Métropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada