Smt. B Mary Sara Danamma

CC.No.466/2026 1 Dt. 30.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR PROH.& EXCISE OFFENCES, GUNTUR

Present: Smt. B.MARY SARADANAMMA,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Guntur

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.466/2026

Between:

The Proh & Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station,

Guntur-I....Complainant.

And

Dumpa Dasaradha Rami Reddy, S/o Pera Reddy, age 62 years, R/o 4-6-38/1, Redla Bazar, Koritapadu, Guntur, Now at 3-34, 1st line, Brundavan Gardens,

Guntur....Accused.

This case has came before me on 28.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri. K. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Proh & Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Guntur-I laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.195/2024 for the offence punishable under section 34(a)(1) (ii) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The offence took place at Brahmhananda Reddy Stadium, Ponnur

Road, Guntur Town. On 31.12.2024, as per the instructions of the Proh &

Excise Inspector, Proh & Excise station, Guntur-1, L.W5/P. Tirumaleswara

Rao, ESI, Guntur-I along with L.Ws.1 to 4 by name K. Nageswara Rao, K.

Samrajyam, B. Veeranjaneyulu and G. Ramaiah respectively reached to the scene of offence at about 8.30 p.m, L.W5 noticed one male person sitting on red color Passion Pro bearing No. AP 07 AT 5376 having possession of one white colour plastic bag on petrol tank of the vehicl and tried to escape on

CC.No.466/2026 2 Dt. 30.04.2026

seeing the officials in uniform. Then L.W5detained the said person with the help of staff, questioned the said person about the contents of the bag for which said person admitted that he is having defense liquor bottles in the bag.

Then L.W5 questioned the said about about his name and addresses for which he disclosed his identity particulars. Then L.W5 verified the bag and found 12 bottles of Seagram’s Blenders Pride whiskey each 750ml capacity and notice that heals on the caps of the bottles were torn and labels on the bottles inscribed as ‘Defense Personnel only Canteen Services’. Then L.W5 questioned the said person whether having any bills or permits for possession of liquor bottles for which he replied nothing with him. Then L.W6 questioned said person about the source of liquor bottles for which he confessed that he was the Ex-service man (Lance Naik), he purchased liquor bottles from Ex-

Service men and stored them in his present house which was located in

Brundavan Gardens for selling them in Guntur Town for higher prices for his livelihood. Then L.W5 among those bottles preserved one bottle from each brand as sample for onward transmission to the expert for analysis and remaining bottles kept in the same bag, sealed them and affixed slips containing the signatures of L.W5 and the accused person on the bag, vehicle and sample bottles. Then L.W5 prepared mediators report which was typed by L.W3 which was attested by L.Ws.1 to 5. On the spot served a copy of mediators report No.1 to the accused under acknowledgment.

Then L.W5 left and proceeded along with the accused involved in mediators report No.1, mediators, staff and material objects to the back side portion, first floor of D.No. 3-34, 1st line, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur and reached to the house and questioned the said person about the house for which he admitted that at present he was living for rent. Then L.W5 served

U/sec. 185 of BNSS search proceedings to the said person and verified the house. Then in the presence of mediators, L.W5 verified the house and found 02 white plastic bags in the corner of the bed room. Then in the presence of mediators, L.W5 verified the bag and found 16 bottles of VAT 69 blended

CC.No.466/2026 3 Dt. 30.04.2026

scotch whiskey in the first bag and Seagram’s 100 Pipers Deluxe Blended

Scotch whiskey-3, Teacher’s Highland Cream Blended Scotch whiskey 4 in the second bag in total 23 bottles each 750ml. Then L.W5 verified the bottles and noticed that HEALs were torn and labels on the bottles inscribed as’defense Personnel only Canteen Services’. Then L.W5 among those bottles preserved one bottle from each brand as sample for onward transmission to the expert for analysis and remaining bottles kept in the same bag, sealed them and affixed slips containing the singatures of L.W5 and accused person on the bags and sample bottles. Then L.W5 prepared mediators report No.2 on 31.12.2024 which was typed by L.W3 and on the spot served a copy of mediators report to the accused person under acknowledgment.

Then L.W5 left the spot along with the accused person, material objects, returned to Proh & Excise Station, Guntur-1 and registered it as case in Cr.No.195/2024 U/sec. 34(a)(1)(ii) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and submitted original FIR to the Hon’ble court and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers. During the course of investigation, L.W5 sent the accused person to judicial custody for remand and released on bail. L.W5 forwarded the sample bottles to the Regional Proh & Excise Laboratory, Guntur for analysis.

L.W6/B. Latha, P&EI received the analysis report, where the expert who analyzed the sample bottles issued analysis report vide Rc No.45/2025 dt.

08.01.2025 and opined that the sample at Sl.No.223 to 226 are Indian liquor.

On 28.02.2025, the above seized property was destroyed vide Rc

No.83/2024/B1-2, dt. 09.01.2025 of Deputy Commissioner, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Nellore in the presence of District Prohibition and Excise

Officer, Guntur and mediators under cover of mediators report and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) (1) (ii) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

CC.No.466/2026 4 Dt. 30.04.2026

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

5.Accused is examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act against the accused, its contents were explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 have been examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 are marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a)(1)(ii) of A.P Excise Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10. P.W1/K. Nageswara Rao, he has been working as VRO, RTC colony,

Guntur. He stated in his evidence that on 31.12.2024 at about 8.30 a.m, he assisted with L.W5/S.I/P. Tirumaleswara Rao, by the time of arrest of accused and seizure of 12 bottles of liquor and one motorcycle from his possession at

Brahmananda Reddy stadium, Ponnur road, Guntur under cover of medaitornama No.1/Ex.P1. On the same day at about 10.30 a.m, they proceeded to Brundavan Gardens, 1st lane, Guntur seized 23 liquor bottles based on the confession of accused under cover of mediatornama No.2/Ex.P2 and S.I of police lifted four samples.

CC.No.466/2026 5 Dt. 30.04.2026

11. P.W2/P. Tirumaleswara Rao, he has been working as S.I of police,

P&E, Guntur-1 P.S stated in his evidence that on 31.12.2024 at about 8.30 a.m, he along with his staff proceeded to Brahmananda Reddy stadium,

Ponnur road, Guntur, there they noticed the accused, on seeing them, he tried to skulk away, apprehended and detained him and on interrogation, he revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about the offence and on verification of said bag, they found 12 liquor bottles of various brands and one motor cycle. He lifted four bottles from each brand for sample, affixed slips sealed and labeled and seized the entire property under cover of

Ex.P1/Mediatornama. Based on the confession statement of accused, they proceeded to 1st lane, Brundavan garden, Guntur, then they seized 23 liquor bottles from the accused under cover of medaitornama No.2 and they returned to police station along with accused and property. Based on Ex.P2, he registered it as a case in Cr.No. 195/2024 U/sec. 34(a)(1) of A.P Excise Act and submitted Ex.P3/FIR to all concerned officers. He sent the accused for remand to judicial custody and he forward the sample with letter of advice to

FSL and after receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation,

L.W6/C.I/B. Latha, filed charge sheet against the accused.

12.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused is clearly established with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P5, beside M.O.1. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

13.The learned defense counsel argued that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that independent witnesses who were examined before this court did not elicit the case facts i.e., company name of the liquor bottles, quantity of liquor etc., not supported with the version of prosecution and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

CC.No.466/2026 6 Dt. 30.04.2026

14.Perused the record. Out of 6 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined two list of witnesses. PW1 is VRO/Mediator, P.W2 is Sub-Inspector of police, Ex.P1 is mediatornama No.1, Ex.P2 is mediatornama No.2, Ex.P3 is

FIR, Ex.P4 is letter of advice, Ex.P5 is FSL Report and M.O.1 is four sample bottles.

15.As this is the case U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any valid license and PW2 seized liquor bottles from the possession of accused under the cover of mediatornamas.

16.As per the version of prosecution, the P.W2 seized liquor bottles from the possession of the accused at Brahmananda Reddy stadium, Ponnur road,

Guntur. He has drawn four bottles for sample, affixed slips, sealed and labeled arrested the accused and seized the entire property under the cover of

Mediatornamas. On the basis of the same P.W.2 registered a case in

Cr.No.195/2024 U/sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act. Ex.P3 is FIR.

17.Admittedly there are so many persons and vehicles plying nearer to the place of arrest. PW1 also admitted that the scene of offence is situated in busy locality. Admissions need not be proved. Whenever so many persons were available and the place of arrest is situated in busy locality, as to why the investigating officer did not secure the mediators in and around the place of arrest as the mediators who were examined before this court did not elicit the case facts such as company name of liquor bottles, quantity of liquor seized etc., and they were not secured from the place of arrest and not supported with the version of prosecution. The investigating officer failed to follow the procedure laid down U/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C when the inhabitance were very much available, it is burden and duty to secure the said persons for mediators.

But the investigating officer failed to do so.

CC.No.466/2026 7 Dt. 30.04.2026

18.Admittedly, the Sub-Inspector did not issue any summons to the mediators through the Constable, who refused to act as mediators and at least it is the duty of Sub-Inspector to issue the written summons to the mediators who refused to act as mediators and to file the same before the

Hon’ble Court. Admittedly, the place of arrest is situated in busy locality, there

is a chance to secure mediators easily, but the police stated nobody came forward to act as mediators and they failed to secure the same in a routine manner.

19.In a case our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1)

ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

20.In another case the Hon'ble High Court 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) Page.32

A.P. Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. In another case our Hon'ble High Court in Adapa

Ramababu@Ramu Vs. State of A.P 2014 (1)ALD(Crl)966(A.P) In para

NO.13 held that, whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of

Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that.

It is only in Extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

It is held that by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh In 2002 (1)

A.L.T (Cr.l) 437 of A.P Between Moodavath Mothia V/s State of A.P in Para

No.5. “The offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act and Section 34(e) of A.P.

CC.No.466/2026 8 Dt. 30.04.2026

Excise Act is officials are entrusted with the investigation cognizable offence, they become police officials and the Excise officials never said they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the mediatornama is in admissible. More over, the mediatornama was hit by Sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the mediatornama was hit by the Sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and Sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses from the place of arrest are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the contraband from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of the independent mediators from the place of arrest as fatal to the prosecution case. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bare U/sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C”.

21.In this case, it can be seen from the record that during the raids participated by PW1 and the staff, independent witnesses have been secured did not elicit the case facts and more over they are not secured from the place of arrest or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators from the place of arrest were not reflected anywhere in the record to believe their version. As per the evidence the scene of offence is situated in busy locality and no witnesses were summoned to act as mediators from the place of arrest and no proof of such act was brought on record and the mediators who were examined before this court, turned hostile not supported with the version of prosecution. Furthermore, the investigating officer is the person who participated in the raids and who drafted the special report and basing on the police proceedings/Ex.P1 the crime was registered by him only and he investigated the total case, which cannot be justifiable to make the accused liable for the said offence basing on the investigation of the same person who

CC.No.466/2026 9 Dt. 30.04.2026

initiated the case and with regard to the seizure of contraband it was not proved by any independent witnesses that it was seized from the accused.

The confession before the police i.e., before P.W2/Sub-Inspector, is hit by

Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act as such the seizure was also not proved in accordance with law. Here, all the witnesses are police officials only who generally have the interest in the prosecution case hence cannot be reliable to fasten the accused to the guilt.

22.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a)(1)(ii) of A.P Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused and the sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property ie., M.O.1 (four sample bottles), shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B. Mary Saradanamma,

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: K. Nageswara Rao, VRO.Nil. P.W.2: P. Tirumaleswararao, I.O.

CC.No.466/2026 10 Dt. 30.04.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Mediatornama.- NIL - Ex.P2: Mediatornama. Ex.P3: FIR. Ex.P4: Letter of advice. Ex.P5: FSL Report.

Material Objects Marked M.O.1 i.e., Four sample bottles.

Sd/- B. Mary Saradanamma,

SPL.J.F.C.M FOR P& E, GNT

CC.No.466/2026 11 Dt. 30.04.2026

Copy subCalendar and Judgment in C.C.No.466/2026 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Guntur 1Date of Offence: 31.12.2024 2Date of Report: 31.12.2024 3Date of arrest of Accused: 31.12.2024 4Date of release of Accused: 04.01.2025 5Date of commencement of trial: 27.04.2026 6Date of close of trial: 28.04.2026 7Date of Judgment: 30.04.2026 8Complainant: The Proh & Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Guntur-I. 9Accused: Dumpa Dasaradha Rami Reddy, S/o Pera Reddy, age 62 years, R/o 4-6-38/1, Redla Bazar, Koritapadu, Guntur, Now at 3-34, 1st line, Brundavan Gardens, Guntur.

10Explanation for DelayDue to non production of witnesses on time.

11. Offence : U/sec. 34 (a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act, 1968

12. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.

13. Finding of Court : Found not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a)(1)(ii) of A.P Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused and the sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property ie., M.O.1 (four sample bottles), shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- B. Mary Saradanamma,

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE, GUNTUR.

CC.No.2303/2025 1 Dt. 30.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR PROH.& EXCISE OFFENCES, GUNTUR

Present: Smt. B.MARY SARADANAMMA,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Guntur

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.2303/2025

Between:

The Proh & Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station,

Guntur-I....Complainant.

And

Kommu Mahesh Kumar, s/o Benjiman, age 34 years, R/o D.No.4-636, 1st line, Ambedkar Nagar, Pedakakani village and Mandal.

...Accused.

This case has came before me on 29.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Proh & Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Guntur-I laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.130/2024 for the offence punishable under section 34(a)(1) (i) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The offence took place at beside St. Josephs High School, NH-5,

Pedakakani village and Mandal. On 07.05.2024, as per the instructions of the

Enforcement Inspector, SEB station, Guntur-1, L.W3/T. Tulasi, ESI, Guntur-I along with L.Ws.1 and 2 by name K. Venkateswarlu and M. Lakshma respectively reached to the scene of offence at about 8.45 a.m, L.W3 noticed one male person having possession of one yellow colour plastic bag in his right hand and tried to escape on seeing the officials in uniform. Then L.W3 detained the said person with the help of staff, questioned the said person about the contents of the bag for which said person admitted that he is having

CC.No.2303/2025 2 Dt. 30.04.2026

liquor bottles in the bag. Then L.W3 sent L.W1 to Pedakakani village to secure mediators and after some time L.W1 returned to the spot and informed that government officers are not available at that time. Then L.W3 decided prepared special report questioned the said person about his identity particulars for which he disclosed the same. Then L.W3 verified the bag and found 51 bottles of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy each 180ml capacity (i.e. 9.18 lts), MRP 150/- verified the bottles noticed that heals on the caps of the bottles were torn and labels on the bottles inscribed as ‘for sale in Andhra Pradesh only’. Then L.W3 questioned the said person whether having any bills or permits for possession of liquor bottles for which he replied nothing with him.

Then L.W3 questioned said person about the source of liquor bottles for which he confessed that he purchased three liquor bottles wise from various government liquor shops in Pedakakani Mandal for selling them for higher prices for his livelihood. Then L.W3 among those bottles preserved one bottle from each brand as sample for onward transmission to the expert for analysis and remaining bottles kept in the same bag, sealed them and affixed slips containing the signatures of L.W3 and the accused person on the bag and sample bottles. L.W3 served Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released on bail. Then L.W3 prepared special report which was attested by

L.Ws.1 to 3. Then L.W3 left the spot along with the material objects, proceeded to Proh & Excise Station, Guntur-1.

Based on the special report, L.W3/T. Tulasi, P&E S.I registered it as a case in Cr.No.130/2024 U/sec. 34 (a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act and submitted original FIR to the Hon’ble court and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers. During the course of investigation, L.W3 forwarded the sample bottle to the Regional Proh & Excise Laboratory, Guntur for analysis. L.W3 received the analysis report, where the expert who analyzed the sample bottle issued analysis report vide Rc No.2504/2024 dt. 28.05.2024 and opined that the sample at Sl.No.20442 is Indian Liquor.

CC.No.2303/2025 3 Dt. 30.04.2026

On 21.06.2024, the above seized property was destroyed vide Rc

No.83/2024/A1, dt. 07.06.2024 of Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Nellore in the presence of Enforcement Superintendent, SEB, Guntur and mediators under cover of mediators report and after completion of investigation, L.W4/B. Latha/P&EI filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) (1) (i) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

5.Accused is examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act against the accused, its contents were explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 have been examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1 are marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10. P.W1/M. Lakshma, previously, he worked as head constable, SEB,

CC.No.2303/2025 4 Dt. 30.04.2026

Guntur-1 P.Sstated in his evidence that on 07.05.2024 at about 8.45 a.m, he assisted with L.W3/S.I/T. Tulasi by the time of arrest of accused and seizure of 51 liquor bottles from his possession at besides St. Joseph High School,

NH-5, Pedakakani village under cover of Special Report/Ex.P1 and S.I of police lifted one bottle for sample.

11. P.W2/T. Tulasi, previously, she worked as Circle-Inspector of Police,

Guntur-1 P.S stated in her evidence that on 07.05.2024 at about 8.45 a.m, she along with her staff proceeded to beside St. Joseph High School, NH-5,

Pedakakani village, there they noticed the accused, on seeing them, he tried to skulk away, apprehended and detained him and on interrogation, he revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about the offence and on verification of said bag, they found 51 liquor bottles of various brands. She lifted one bottle for sample, affixed slips sealed and labeled and seized the entire property under cover of Ex.P1/speical report and they returned to police station along with accused and property. Based on Ex.P1, she registered it as a case in Cr.No.130/2024 U/sec. 34 (a)(1) (i) of A.P Excise Act and submitted

FIRs to all concerned officers and she had issued Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and she forwarded the sample with letter of advice to FSL and after receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation, L.W4/C.I/B.

Latha filed charge sheet against the accused.

12.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused is clearly established with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P4, beside M.O.1. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

13.The learned defense counsel argued that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that independent witnesses who were examined before this court did not elicit the case facts i.e., company name of the liquor bottles, quantity of liquor etc., not supported

CC.No.2303/2025 5 Dt. 30.04.2026

with the version of prosecution and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

14.Perused the record. Out of 4 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined two list of witnesses. PW1 is head constable, P.W2 is Sub-

Inspector of police, Ex.P1 is special report, Ex.P2 is FIR, Ex.P3 is letter of advice, Ex.P4 is FSL Report and M.O.1 is one sample bottle.

15.As this is the case U/Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any valid license and PW2 seized liquor bottles from the possession of accused under the cover of special report.

16.As per the version of prosecution, the P.W2 seized liquor bottles from the possession of the accused at beside St. Joseph High School, NH-5,

Pedakakani village. She has drawn one bottle for sample, affixed slips, sealed and labeled arrested the accused and seized the entire property under the cover of Special Report. On the basis of the same P.W.2 registered a case in Cr.No.130/2024 U/sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act. Ex.P2 is FIR.

17.Admittedly there are so many persons and vehicles plying nearer to the place of arrest. PW1 also admitted that the scene of offence is situated in busy locality. Admissions need not be proved. Whenever so many persons were available and the place of arrest is situated in busy locality, as to why the investigating officer did not secure the mediators in and around the place of arrest as the mediators who were examined before this court did not elicit the case facts such as company name of liquor bottles, quantity of liquor seized etc., and they were not secured from the place of arrest and not supported with the version of prosecution. The investigating officer failed to follow the procedure laid down U/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C when the inhabitance were very much available, it is burden and duty to secure the said persons for mediators.

CC.No.2303/2025 6 Dt. 30.04.2026

But the investigating officer failed to do so.

18.Admittedly, the Sub-Inspector did not issue any summons to the mediators through the Constable, who refused to act as mediators and at least it is the duty of Sub-Inspector to issue the written summons to the mediators who refused to act as mediators and to file the same before the

Hon’ble Court. Admittedly, the place of arrest is situated in busy locality, there

is a chance to secure mediators easily, but the police stated nobody came forward to act as mediators and they failed to secure the same in a routine manner.

19.In a case our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1)

ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

20.In another case the Hon'ble High Court 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) Page.32

A.P. Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. In another case our Hon'ble High Court in Adapa

Ramababu@Ramu Vs. State of A.P 2014 (1)ALD(Crl)966(A.P) In para

NO.13 held that, whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of

Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that.

It is only in Extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

It is held that by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh In 2002 (1)

CC.No.2303/2025 7 Dt. 30.04.2026

A.L.T (Cr.l) 437 of A.P Between Moodavath Mothia V/s State of A.P in Para

No.5. “The offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act and Section 34(e) of A.P.

Excise Act is officials are entrusted with the investigation cognizable offence, they become police officials and the Excise officials never said they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the mediatornama is in admissible. More over, the mediatornama was hit by Sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the mediatornama was hit by the Sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and Sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses from the place of arrest are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the contraband from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of the independent mediators from the place of arrest as fatal to the prosecution case. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bare U/sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C”.

21.In this case, it can be seen from the record that during the raids participated by PW1 and the staff, independent witnesses have been secured did not elicit the case facts and more over they are not secured from the place of arrest or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators from the place of arrest were not reflected anywhere in the record to believe their version. As per the evidence the scene of offence is situated in busy locality and no witnesses were summoned to act as mediators from the place of arrest and no proof of such act was brought on record and the mediators who were examined before this court, turned hostile not supported with the version of prosecution. Furthermore, the investigating officer is the person who participated in the raids and who drafted the special report and basing on the police proceedings/Ex.P1 the crime was registered by him only and he

CC.No.2303/2025 8 Dt. 30.04.2026

investigated the total case, which cannot be justifiable to make the accused liable for the said offence basing on the investigation of the same person who initiated the case and with regard to the seizure of contraband it was not proved by any independent witnesses that it was seized from the accused.

The confession before the police i.e., before P.W2/Sub-Inspector, is hit by

Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act as such the seizure was also not proved in accordance with law. Here, all the witnesses are police officials only who generally have the interest in the prosecution case hence cannot be reliable to fasten the accused to the guilt.

22.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused and the sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property ie., M.O.1 (one sample bottle), shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B. Mary Saradanamma,

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: M. Lakshma, head constable.Nil. P.W.2: T. Tulasi, I.O.

CC.No.2303/2025 9 Dt. 30.04.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Special Report. - NIL - Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Letter of Advice. Ex.P4: FSL Report.

Material Objects Marked M.O.1 i.e., One sample bottle.

Sd/- B. Mary Saradanamma,

SPL.J.F.C.M FOR P& E, GNT

CC.No.2303/2025 10 Dt. 30.04.2026

Copy suCC.No.2303/2025 10 Dt. 30.04.2026 bCalendar and Judgment in C.C.No.2303/2025 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Guntur 1Date of Offence: 07.05.2024 2Date of Report: 07.05.2024 3Date of arrest of Accused: --- 4Date of release of Accused: --- 5Date of commencement of trial: 02.03.2026 6Date of close of trial: 29.04.2026 7Date of Judgment: 30.04.2026 8Complainant: The Proh & Excise Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Guntur-I. 9Accused: Kommu Mahesh Kumar, s/o Benjiman, age 34 years, R/o D.No.4-636, 1st line, Ambedkar Nagar, Pedakakani village and Mandal.

10Explanation for DelayDue to non production of witnesses on time.

11. Offence : U/sec. 34 (a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act, 1968

12. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.

13. Finding of Court : Found not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a)(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused and the sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property ie., M.O.1 (one sample bottle), shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- B. Mary Saradanamma,

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE, GUNTUR.

C.C No. 5286/2025 1 Dt. 30.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR PROH.& EXCISE OFFENCES, GUNTUR

Present: Smt. B.MARY SARADANAMMA,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Guntur

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026

Calendar Case No.5286/2025

Between:

The State: Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station,

Guntur-II....Complainant.

And

Shaik Masthan Vali, S/o Khasim Saheb, aged 50 years, R/o D.No.25-24-95, 1st lane, Vikalangula colony, Kondavenkatappaiah colony,

Guntur Town....Accused.

This case has came before me on 29.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Guntur-II laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.140/2024 for the offence punishable under section 34(a) (i) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The offence took place near at Raitu Bazar located at Chuttugunta center, Guntur Town. On 05.05.2024, the Enforcement Sub-Inspector,

Guntur-II along with staff, Guntur conducting raids at 2.30 p.m noticed one male accused person and carrying one white colour plastic bag in his right hand. On suspicious L.W3/Sd.H. Rahiman, SEB, ESI was stopped the above person with the help of staff, on seeing the excise officials in uniform the accused person got perturbed. Having observed the same, staff surrounded the accused and detained him. On enquiry by L.W3, the accused admitted

C.C No. 5286/2025 2 Dt. 30.04.2026 that the above said cover containing liquor bottles. L.W3 sent L.W1/D.

Koteswara Rao to secure mediators. After some time, L.W1 returned from nearest area and reported that VRO and VRA are not available in the village at that time, asking villagers none were came forward to act as medaitors.

Then L.W3 decided to proceed under special report and on enquiry, the accused furnished his name and other identity particulars. On verification of the said cover, found it is containing 06 Nips of Classic Blue Finest whiskey, 04 Nips of Daaru House XO Brandy, 05 Beer bottles of King Fisher Ultra

Super Premium Lager Beer, 04 beer bottles of King Fisher Strong Beer and 03 beer bottles of Boom Superior Strong Bira Beer each 650ml without bills and permit HEALs tearing out and printed on the bottles as ‘For sale in Andhra

Pradesh only’ and also accused confessed that the said liquor bottles were purchased from liquor shops each time three bottles and sold higher rates for his livelihood. On enquiry by L.W2, the accused replied that he is not possessed either bill or permit pertaining to the said liquor bottles. L.W3 took five sample bottles from above said liquor bottles from the white colour plastic bag for the purpose of chemical analysis, kept the remaining liquor bottles in the same bag, tied the same, sealed and affixed identity slips to the five sample bottles, seized the same and prepared special report which was scribed by L.W3 and was attested by L.Ws.1 to 3. Then L.W3 had issued

Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused..

Based on Special report, L.W3/Sd.H. Rahiman, P&E SI registered it as a case in Cr.No.140/2024 U/sec. 34 (a)(i) of A.P Excise Act and submitted original FIR and all necessary documents to the Hon’ble court and also to the concerned officers. Later, L.W3 sent the sample bottles to the analysis to the

Govt., Chemical Examiner and after examination opined that the samples in

SL.No.23504 and 23505 are Indian liquor and issued the analysis report vide

RC No.2885/2024 dt. 22.06.2024.

The Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Nellore was addressed for issuing confiscation orders, with regard to the remaining case

C.C No. 5286/2025 3 Dt. 30.04.2026 property. The Deputy Commissioner issued destruction orders for the remaining property and the same was destroyed under cover of Mediators report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a)

(i) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

5.Accused is examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge was framed for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a)(i) of A.P Excise Act against the accused, its contents were explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 have been examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1 are marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a)(i) of A.P Excise Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10. P.W1/D. Koteswara Rao, previously, he worked as constable, SEB,

Guntur-2 P.S stated in his evidence that on 05.05.2024 at about 2.30 p.m, he

C.C No. 5286/2025 4 Dt. 30.04.2026 assisted with L.W3/S.I/Sd.H.Rehman by the time of arrest of accused and seizure of 22 liquor bottles from his possession at near Raithu bazar,

Chuttugunta, Guntur under cover of special report/Ex.P1 and S.I of police lifted six bottles for sample.

11. P.W2/Sd.H.Rahiman, S.I of police, previously, he worked as S.I of police, Guntur-2 P.S, stated in his evidence that on 05.05.2024 at about 2.30 p.m, he along with his staff proceeded to raithu Bazaar, Chuttugunta, Guntur, there they noticed the accused, on seeing them, he tried to skulk away, apprehended and detained him and on interrogation, he revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about the offence and on verification of said bag, they found 22 liquor bottles of various brands. He lifted six bottles for sample, affixed slips sealed and labeled and seized the entire property under cover of Ex.P1/Special report and they returned to police station along with accused and property. Based on Ex.P1, he registered it as a case in

Cr.No.140/2024 U/sec. 34 (a) (i) of A.P Excise Act and submitted FIRs to all concerned officers and she had issued Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and she forwarded the sample with letter of advice to FSL and after receipt of

FSL report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

12.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused is clearly established with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P4, beside M.O.1. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

13.The learned defense counsel argued that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that independent witnesses who were examined before this court did not elicit the case facts i.e., company name of the liquor bottles, quantity of liquor etc., not supported with the version of prosecution and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

C.C No. 5286/2025 5 Dt. 30.04.2026

14.Perused the record. Out of 4 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined two list of witnesses. PW1 is constable, P.W2 is Sub-Inspector of police, Ex.P1 is Special Report, Ex.P2 is FIR, Ex.P3 is letter of advice, Ex.P4 is FSL Report and M.O.1 is six sample bottles.

15.As this is the case U/Sec.34(a) (i) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any valid license and PW2 seized liquor bottles from the possession of accused under the cover of Special Report.

16.As per the version of prosecution, the P.W2 seized liquor bottles from the possession of the accused near raitu Bazaar, Chuttugunta, Guntur Town.

he has drawn six bottles for sample, affixed slips, sealed and labeled arrested the accused and seized the entire property under the cover of Special Report.

On the basis of the same P.W.2 registered a case in Cr.No.140/2024

U/sec.34(a)(i) of A.P Excise Act. Ex.P2 is FIR.

17.Admittedly there are so many persons and vehicles plying nearer to the place of arrest. PW1 also admitted that the scene of offence is situated in busy locality. Admissions need not be proved. Whenever so many persons were available and the place of arrest is situated in busy locality, as to why the investigating officer did not secure the mediators in and around the place of arrest as the mediators who were examined before this court did not elicit the case facts such as company name of liquor bottles, quantity of liquor seized etc., and they were not secured from the place of arrest and not supported with the version of prosecution. The investigating officer failed to follow the procedure laid down U/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C when the inhabitance were very much available, it is burden and duty to secure the said persons for mediators.

But the investigating officer failed to do so.

18.Admittedly, the Sub-Inspector did not issue any summons to the mediators through the Constable, who refused to act as mediators and at

C.C No. 5286/2025 6 Dt. 30.04.2026 least it is the duty of Sub-Inspector to issue the written summons to the mediators who refused to act as mediators and to file the same before the

Hon’ble Court. Admittedly, the place of arrest is situated in busy locality, there

is a chance to secure mediators easily, but the police stated nobody came forward to act as mediators and they failed to secure the same in a routine manner.

19.In a case our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1)

ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

20.In another case the Hon'ble High Court 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) Page.32

A.P. Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P. When conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise or Prohibition officials are bound to take the local respectable mediators, that is mandate U/sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. In another case our Hon'ble High Court in Adapa

Ramababu@Ramu Vs. State of A.P 2014 (1)ALD(Crl)966(A.P) In para

NO.13 held that, whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of

Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that.

It is only in Extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

It is held that by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh In 2002 (1)

A.L.T (Cr.l) 437 of A.P Between Moodavath Mothia V/s State of A.P in Para

No.5. “The offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act and Section 34(e) of A.P.

Excise Act is officials are entrusted with the investigation cognizable offence, they become police officials and the Excise officials never said they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession

C.C No. 5286/2025 7 Dt. 30.04.2026 recorded by them in the mediatornama is in admissible. More over, the mediatornama was hit by Sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the mediatornama was hit by the Sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, and Sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses from the place of arrest are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the contraband from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of the independent mediators from the place of arrest as fatal to the prosecution case. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bare U/sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C”.

21.In this case, it can be seen from the record that during the raids participated by PW1 and the staff, independent witnesses have been secured did not elicit the case facts and more over they are not secured from the place of arrest or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators from the place of arrest were not reflected anywhere in the record to believe their version. As per the evidence the scene of offence is situated in busy locality and no witnesses were summoned to act as mediators from the place of arrest and no proof of such act was brought on record and the mediators who were examined before this court, turned hostile not supported with the version of prosecution. Furthermore, the investigating officer is the person who participated in the raids and who drafted the special report and basing on the police proceedings/Ex.P1 the crime was registered by him only and he investigated the total case, which cannot be justifiable to make the accused liable for the said offence basing on the investigation of the same person who initiated the case and with regard to the seizure of contraband it was not proved by any independent witnesses that it was seized from the accused.

The confession before the police i.e., before P.W2/Sub-Inspector, is hit by

Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act as such the seizure was also not proved in

C.C No. 5286/2025 8 Dt. 30.04.2026 accordance with law. Here, all the witnesses are police officials only who generally have the interest in the prosecution case hence cannot be reliable to fasten the accused to the guilt.

22.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. As such, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a)(i) of A.P Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused and the sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property ie., M.O.1 (six sample bottles), shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: D. Koteswara Rao.Nil P.W.2: Sd.H.Rahiman, S.I.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Special Report.- NIL - Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Letter of Advice. Ex.P4: FSL Report.

Material Objects Marked M.O.1 i.e., Six sample bottles.

SPL.J.F.C.M FOR P& E, GNT

C.C No. 5286/2025 9 Dt. 30.04.2026

Copy subCalendar and Judgment in C.C.No.5286/2025 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh. & Excise, Guntur 1Date of Offence:05.05.2024 2Date of Report:05.05.2024 3Date of arrest of Accused:--- 4Date of release of Accused:--- 5Date of commencement of trial:28.04.2026 6Date of close of trial:29.04.2026 7Date of Judgment:30.04.2026 8Complainant:The State: Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Guntur-II. 9Accused:Shaik Masthan Vali, S/o Khasim Saheb, aged 50 years, R/o D.No.25- 24-95, 1st lane, Vikalangula colony, Kondavenkatappaiah colony, Guntur Town.

10Explanation for Delay:Due to non production of witnesses on time

11. Offence : U/sec. 34 (a)(i) of A.P Excise Act, 1968

12. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.

13. Finding of Court : Found not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a)(i) of A.P Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused and the sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property ie., M.O.1 (six sample bottles), shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROH. & EXCISE, GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt B.Mary Saradanamma,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh & Excise, Guntur.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

Friday, this the 1 st day of August, 2025.

C.C.No.3470/2025

Between:

State represented by Inspector of Police,

Nagarampalem PS, Gunur District ... Complainant.

AND

Melimi Anusha Rani, W/o.G.Anil Kumar, A/34 years, D.No.25-23-182, 2nd lane,KVP Colony,Guntur Town. …. Accused.

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing on 30.07.2025 in the presence of the learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri. Ch.Srinivasa rao, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem Police Station, laid charge sheet against accused in crime No.141/2025 for the offences punishable under

Secs.132, 121(1), 351(2), 79 of BNS.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet as follows :

On 25.04.2025 at about 9.20 a.n., while the PW.1 was on duty in the

Nagaramapalem PS, PW.2 has informed that she received a call from Gunnam

Hanumantha rao through 112 and a small altercation was occurred at KVP colony on property issue. Then, Pw.1 sent her staff/ PW.5, PWs.2 to 4 and Lw.6/Shaik Gafar Beig to

KVP colony and settled the issue. After she has negotiating with both parties in the PS. At about 11.15 a.m., accused who is daughter-in-law of Gunnam Hanumatha rao entered into her room picked up quarrel with Gunnam Anuradha who is mother-in-aw of accused and also tried to assault. When she tried to rescue Gunnam Anuradha, accused also picked quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language, beat her with hands on her face, deter her 2 from discharging her duties by using criminal force and threatened her with dire consequences. Then, PW.5, PWs.2 to 4 and Lw.6/Shaik Gafar Beig tried to stop the accused, accused scolded them in filthy language deterring them from discharging their duties and fisted them by using criminal force.

Basing on the report given by P.W.1, L.W.8/Sub-Inspector of police has registered the same as case in Cr.No.141/2025 for the offences under section 132,121(1), 351(2), 79

BNS. During the course of investigation, L.W.8/Sub-Inspector of police visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Later, LW.8 released the accused on serving sec.35(3) of BNSS notices to her. After completion of the investigation, LW.8 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under Secs. 132,121(1), 351(2), 79

BNS against accused persons.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Sec.230 of BNSS.

5.Accused was examined under section 262 of BNSS., and on hearing, charges framed against them under sections 132,121(1), 351(2), 79 BNS, have been framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The Learned APP given up the evidence of LWs.6 to 7 since the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 5 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

7. As there is no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 against accused, this court dispensed with the examination of accused under Sec.351 BNSS.

3

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of Accused

for the offence punishable under Secs. 132,121(1), 351(2), 79 BNS”?

10.POINT :-

a)The defacto-complainant/E.Rama devi examined as P.W.1 and stated that on 25.04.2025 at about 9.20 a.m., while she was on duty at Nagarampalem PS, she noticed two female persons quarreling with each other, she went and admonished them and tried to pacify the same. In the mean while, CI of police asked her about the galata what was occurred. She came to know that the family matter was disputed in between both parties, both are abused with each other. In the mean while, she went and pacified the same, some of one female person among the mob beat her on her face with her hands and abused her in filthy language. She further deposed that she does not know the person who beat her and who abused her and she did not identify the said person from the mob.

Then, she put her signature on some typed paper in hurry burry situation without gone through the contents of the same.

11. PWs.2 to 4 deposed that they do not know anything about the case facts and they were not present by the time of incident. PW.5 deposed that in the month of April,2025 on one day at 11.15 a.m., some of the people made nuisance near police station, she went there to pacify the same. Due to scuffle of them, she received small injury on her right wrist. Except that she do not know anything about this case facts, she do not know the person from whom she received small injury on her right wrist.

12. Due to hostility of witnesses, with the permission of the Court, the learned APP cross examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements were marked as Exs.P2 to P7. The learned APP could not elicit nothing from the cross examination evidence of

P.Ws.1 to P5 in favour of the case of prosecution.

4

13.From the above evidence, it is clear that there is no incriminating material against the accused and the ingredients necessary to be proved for the offences under Secs.

132,121(1), 351(2), 79 BNS have not been proved. Further, in view of hostility of material witnesses such as P.Ws.1 to 5, the prosecution has given up the other witnesses including the evidence of investigating officer and so Exs.P.2 to P7 i.e, section 180 of BNSS statements of P.Ws.1 to 5 could not be confronted to them. There is no evidence left on record to prove the guilt of accused under Secs. 132,121(1), 351(2), 79 BNS BNS. In such circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.

132, 121(1), 351(2), 79 of BNS and accordingly, he is acquittedunder Sec.271(1) of

BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period six months under Sec.481 of BNSS.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 1 st day of August,2025.

Sd/-B.Mary Saradanamma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

PROH & EXCISE, GUNTUR.

FAC. SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence :

PW.1:E.Rama Devi. --NONE-

PW.2:P.Sandhya Rani.

PW.3:K.Venkata Naga Lakshmi.

PW.4:J.Reeta Rani.

PW.5:S.Siva Kumari.

5

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence :

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on report. --NIL --

Ex.P2 : Contents of report.

Ex.P3: Sec.180 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P4 : Sec.180 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P5 : Sec.180 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P6 : Sec.180 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P7 : Sec.180 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5.

Material objects marked

-- NIL –

Sd/-B.Mary Saradanamma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

: IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

C.C.No.3470/2025.

01. Date of offence: 25.04.2025

02. Date of Filing: 21.07.2025

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: --

04. Release on bail: --

05. Commencement of trial: 24.07.2025

06. Closure of trial: 30.07.2025

07. Date of Judgment : 01.08.2025

08. Explanation for Delay: No delay.

09. Name of the complainant State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagarampalem PS, Gunur Urban

10. Name of the accused : Melimi Anusha Rani, W/o.G.Anil Kumar, A/34 years, D.No.25-23-182, 2nd lane,KVP Colony,Guntur Town.

11. Offence : U/Sec. 132, 121(1), 351(2), 79 of BNS.

12. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

13. Finding : Not guilty

14. Sentence :

Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs. 132, 121(1), 351(2), 79 of BNS and accordingly, he is acquittedunder Sec.271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period six months under Sec.481 of BNSS.

Sd/-B.Mary Saradanamma

FAC .JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

Present : Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Proh & Excise, Guntur.

FAC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 2 nd day of July,2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.250/2025

Between: Moghal Mohammad Baig, S/o.Dastagiri Baig, A/50 years,

R/o.5th lane,Netaji Nagar, S.V.N.Colony,Guntur, Guntur District and JCJC.

...Plaintiff

A n d: Tummalachervu Ravi Kumar, S/o.Chengalarayudu, A//52 years, working as Lineman in APCPDCL, D.13, Section, D.No.54-4-1406,

Ward No.15, RTC Colony,Guntur, Guntur District and JCJC.

…. Defendant.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte, and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present suit is filed for recovery of Rs.10,61,174/- being the principal and interest due under A and B marked suit promissory notes respectively executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 02.07.2021 and 03.02.2022 and for costs of the suit.

02.The averments of plaint in nutshell as follows:

That the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from plaintiff on 02.07.2021 at Guntur for his family expenses and executed A marked promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the even date undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, on 26.06.2024 the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- 2 to plaintiff towards part payment under A marked promissory note and the same was endorsed on the reverse of Ex.A1/promissory note by defendant with his own hand writing and defendant signed on it acknowledging his liability for payment of balance amount due under Ex.A1. Later, the defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 03.02.2022 from the plaintiff at Guntur for his family expenses and executed B marked promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the even date undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. But in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque bearing

No.127920 dt.20.12.2024 for Rs.6 lakhs drawn on Axis Bank Limited,Guntur towards part payment of the aforesaid pronotes debt. Believing the words of the defendant, the plaintiff presented the said cheque for collection through his banker i.e., Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank, Vidya Nagar,Guntur but the same was dishonoured due to “funds insufficient” and it was returned with a memo dt.21.01.2025 and the same was informed to the plaintiff through his banker but in vain. Subsequently, the plaintiff made several demands personally and through mediators to discharge the above referred two promissory notes amount with accrued interest therein but the defendant has been postponing the payments on one pretext and other. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to institute the present suit.

03.During the course of trial the plaintiff is examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A3 documents on his behalf. On the other hand, no witness was examined and no exhibit is marked on behalf of the defendant since the defendant is set exparte.

04.Perused material on record and heard plaintiff’s counsel.

3

05.Now the Points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

Point No.1 :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?”

06.The plaintiff is examined as PW1 and filed chief examination affidavit. PW1 testified that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs from plaintiff on 02.07.2021 at Guntur for his family expenses and executed A marked promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the even date undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, on 26.06.2024 the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to plaintiff towards part payment under A marked promissory note and the same was endorsed on the reverse of Ex.A1 by defendant with his own hand writing and defendant signed on it acknowledging his liability for payment of balance amount due under Ex.A1. Later, the defendant again borrowed an amount of

Rs.3 lakhs on 03.02.2022 from the plaintiff at Guntur for his family expenses and executed B marked promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the even date undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. But in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.127920 dt.20.12.2024 for

Rs.6 lakhs drawn on Axis Bank Limited,Guntur towards part payment of the aforesaid pronotes debt. Believing the words of the defendant, the plaintiff presented the said cheque for collection through his banker i.e., Chaitanya

Godavari Grameena Bank, Vidya Nagar,Guntur but the same was dishonoured due to “funds insufficient” and it was returned with a memo dt.21.01.2025 and the same was informed to the plaintiff through his banker but in vain. Subsequently, 4 the plaintiff made several demands personally and through mediators to discharge the above referred two promissory notes amount with accrued interest therein but the defendant has been postponing the payments on one pretext and other.

07. The defendant is set exparte and did not contest. Thus, the evidence of

PW1 remained unchallenged and it is established that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 02.07.2021 from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1/ suit promissory note. Subsequently, on 26.06.2024 the defendant paid a sum of

Rs.10,000/- to plaintiff towards part payment under Ex.A2 and the same was endorsed on the reverse of Ex.A1 by defendant with his own hand writing and defendant signed on it acknowledging his liability for payment of balance amount due under Ex.A1. Later, the defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs.3 lakhs on 03.02.2022 from plaintiff and executed Ex.A3 suit promissory note and in spite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to discharge debt under Exs.A1 and

A3 suit promissory notes.

08. In view of foregoing discussion, the plaintiff has discharged initial burden and proved the execution of Exs.A1 and A3 by the defendant in respect of passing of consideration as per Exs.A1 and A3 suit pronotes. Therefore, the presumption under Sec.118 Negotiable Instrument Act operates in favour of the plaintiff and it is not rebutted by the defendant. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with costs and future interest from the defendant. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

5 Point No.2: “To what relief?”

09.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.10,61,174/- (Rupees

Ten lakhs sixty one thousand one hundred and seventy four only/-) together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000 + Rs.3,00,000) (Rupees six lakhs only).

Directly typed by the Stenographer, on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 2nd day of July,2025.

Sd/-B.Mary Sara Danamma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

PROH & EXCISE,GUNTUR.

FAC. SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT. PW.1 – Moghal Mohammad Baig None(exparte)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: A marked Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3 lakhs, dt.02.07.2021.

Ex.A2: Part payment of the A marked promissory note for Rs.10,000/- dt.26.06.2024.

Ex.A3: B marked Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3 lakhs, dt.03.02.2022.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/-B.Mary Sara Danamma

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

PROH & EXCISE,GUNTUR.

FAC. SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, GUNTUR.

6