Smt.B.Mary Sara Danamma

1

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present:­ Smt. B. Mary Sara Danamma.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur. 

Friday, this the 08th day of April, 2022.

C.C.No.24 of 2022

State: Represented by the Enforcement Sub­Inspector SEB Station, Proddatur in Cr.No.100/2020. ….Complainant.

Vs. 

A. Venkateswar Reddy S/o A. Ramanjaneya Reddy, R/oUllavapalli(V),Paddamudiyam(M), Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District.

...Accused.

This case coming on 29.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and of G. Rajesh Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Sub­Inspector, Proddatur has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.100/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, against the accused.

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

That on 04.07.2020 at about 09.00 PM, as per the instructions of Asst. Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Enft., (SEB),

2

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

Kadapa., during the raids conducted by the SEB Sub­Inspector,

Proddatur/L.W.1/S.A. Ali Beig, Proddatur along with staff reached and raided near YSR circle on Proddatur to Jammalamadugu road

Proddatur (M), Y S R District, found accused is in possession of white plastic bag in his right hand. Tried for mediators in the locality but in vain. Then sent L.W.1 deputed L.W.2/A.M. Rama Manohar

Reddy., Enforcement Head Constable, Kadapa to secure mediators but in vain. L.W.1 verified the plastic bag, the bag containing 11 bottles of Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey (750 ML). On verification of the bottles HEALs are torned. On interrogation accused did not produce any license. During the further course of investigation

L.W.4/E. Mohan Reddy., Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station,

Proddatur filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) 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 him.

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

3

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the

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

8. Heard the arguments of both parties.

9.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

10. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of Accused are clearly established with the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Therefore, the Accused is liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued that the Accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that no independent witness was examined before this court and the evidence of police people is not believable and the Accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. 

12.Perused the record. Out of 04 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 03 list of witnesses. PW.1 is Sub­

Inspector. P.W.2 is Constable. P.W.3 is Inspector. Ex.P1 is Special

Report. Ex.P2 is Original FIR. Ex.P3 is Letter of Advise. Ex.P4 is

4

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

Confiscation Proceedings dt.28.05.2021. Ex.P.5 is FSL Report. M.O.1 is sample bottle.

13. As this is the case U/Sec.34(a) 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 from the possession of Accused under the cover of Panchanama.

14.P.W.1/S.A. Ali Beig., Inspector., deposed that on 04.07.2020 at about 9 A.M, himself along with Enforce team, Kadapa and other staff proceeded to YSR circle on Proddatur to

Jammalamadugu road where they found accused, found in possession of one white plastic bag, on seeing them accused tried to skulk away, apprehended and detained him, on interrogation accused revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about the offence. He sent L.W.2/Rama Mohan Reddy/PC to Chowtupalle for securing mediators, after some time he came back and informed that nobody came forward to act as mediators. He verified the said plastic bag found 11 bottles of Original Choice Deluxe whiskey, he lifted one sample bottle for analysis purpose, affixed slips, sealed and labeled arrested the accused and seized entire property under cover of Special report, marked as Ex.P.1. They returned to P.S along with accused and seized property. M.O.1 is the sample bottle. On the on the basis of Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.100/2020, for the offence U/Sec.34­A of A.P Excise Act. Issued FIRs to all concerned

5

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

officers. Ex.P.2 is the original FIR. After completion of due formalities he released accused on station bail in view of COVID pandemic situation. He sent sample bottle to FSL with letter of advice to the

RFSL through Court for analysis. Ex.P.3 is the letter of advice and he sent proposals to Superintendent of Police, Kadapa for confiscation of remaining contraband. Then he received the confiscation proceedings,fromKadapadated28.05.2021in

R.C.No.52/Confiscation/DCRB/SEB/Kdp­2021, marked as Ex.P.4.

Further investigation took up by L.W.4/Inspector Mohan Reddy.

15. PW.2/A.M. Rama Manohar Reddy/Constable., deposed that he was also present by the time of arrest of accused at seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused by P.W.1 at near YSR circle on Proddatur – Jammalamadugu road on 04.07.2020 at about 9 A.M, he was sent to Chowtupalle for securing mediators, but nobody came forward to act as mediators, he inform the same to

P.W.1. The S.I/P.W.1 verified the said bag and found 11 Original

Choice whiskey bottles, lifted one bottle for sample, sealed and labeled, arrested the accused and seized entire property under cover of Ex.P.1/Special Report in which he put his signature. They returned to P.S along with accused and seized property.

16.P.W.3/E. Mohan Reddy., Enforcement Inspector., deposed that he verified the investigation done by P.W.1 found it on correct lines, after receipt of analysis report and after completion of

6

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

investigation he filed charge sheet against accused. Ex.P.6 is the FSL report. 

17.As per the version of prosecution, the P.W.1 seized 11 bottles of Original Choice Deluxe whiskey from the possession of the accused on 04.07.2020. He drawn 180 ML ID liquor for sample affixed slips sealed and labeled arrested the accused and seized the entire property under the cover of Ex.P.1. On the basis of the same

P.W.1 registered a case in Cr.No.100/2020 U/Sec.34­(a) of A.P.P Act, 2019. Ex.P.4 is the Confiscation Proceedings. He released the accused on station bail, after completion of due formalities. He produced the sample bottles to the FSL with the letter of advise through the Hon’ble Court. Ex.P.5 is the FSL Report. He send the requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa for destruction of remaining contraband and destruction panchanama under Ex.P.3 and then P.W.2 filed charge sheet and after completion of investigation.

18.P.W.2 who is SI who conducted arrest and seizure categorically stated that there are so many houses, shops were situated nearer to the place of arrest and the place of arrest is situated in busy locality. But the investigating officer failed to secure immediate inhabitance near to the place of arrest since there are so many houses and shops were situated. There is a chance for availability of so many persons nearer to the place of arrest i.e, in the

7

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

said houses and in the shops. But they did try in and around the place of arrest for mediators. So the investigating officer failed to comply the same reasons best known to him as to why he did not secure mediators there itself.

19.Admittedly they started at PS at about 09.00 AM, since then they were conducted raids on some other places, as to why the

Excise officials failed to secure the VRO, VRA and panchayath secretary to act as mediators, since they are very much available around the clock at their office. But no explanation has been given by the Excise officials, reasons best known to him.

20.On the other hand, as to why the Investigating officer did not issue any written summons to the persons who refused to act as mediators. They simply stated that they tried for mediators but nobody came forward to act as mediators. At least they have to say the names of persons who refused to act as mediators. P.W.2 who tried for mediators categorically stated that they did not issue any written summons to the persons who refused to act as mediators.

So which clearly established that they did not try for mediators, and the version of excise officials is not believable.

21.Admittedly there are so many houses, shops were situated nearer to the place of arrest. P.W.2 categorically admitted the place of arrest is busy locality. Admissions need not be proved.

Whenever so many persons were available and the place of arrest is

8

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

situated in busy locality, as to why the investigating officer did not secure the mediators in and around the place of arrest. 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.

22.Admittedly, the inspector did not issue any summons to the mediators through the Head Constable, SEB P.S, who refused to act as mediators and at least it is the duty of 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.

23.In a case our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul 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.

24.And 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

9

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

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 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.34(a) 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 proceedings is in admissible.

More over, the panchanama 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 panchanama was hit by the Sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence

Act, and Sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing

10

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

the contraband from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of the independent mediators 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”.

25. In this case, it can be seen from the record that during the raids participated by PW1 and his staff, no independent witnesses have been secured or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators were not reflected anywhere in the record to believe their version. As per the evidence the scene of offence is situated in the busy locality and no witnesses were summoned to act as mediators and no proof of such act was brought on record.

Furthermore, the investigating officer is the person who participated in the raids and who drafted the Special report and basing on the

Special Report/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.W.1/Sub­Inspector/S.A. Ali beig, 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

11

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

generally have the interest in the prosecution case hence cannot be reliable to fasten the accused to the guilt.

26.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 are entitled for acquittal.

27.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34­(a) A.P. Excise Act, 2019 and accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in C.P.R.No.154/2020 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. 

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 08th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by

MARYSARA

MARYSARADANAMMA

BILLA

DANAMMA

BILLA Date: 2022.04.08 15:27:45 +0000

II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

12

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined:­

For Prosecution:­

PW.1: S.A. Ali Beig.

PW.2: A.M. Rama Manohar Reddy.

PW.3: E. Mohan Reddy

For Defence: ­ None ­

Exhibits marked:­

For Prosecution:­

Ex.P1: Special Report.

Ex.P2: Original FIR.

Ex.P3: Letter of Advise.

Ex.P4: Confiscation Proceedings dt.28.05.2021.

Ex.P5: FSL Report.

For Defence:  ­ NIL –

Material Objects Mark: 

M.O.1: Sample bottle.

Digitally signed by

MARYSARA

MARYSARADANAMMA

DANAMMABILLA

BILLADate: 2022.04.08 15:27:28 +0000

II A.J.F.C.M/PDTR.

13

C.C.No.24 of 2022II AJFCM Court, Proddatur, Dt.08.04.2022.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.No.24 of 2022

Date of offence: 04.07.2020 Date of complaint: 04.07.2020 Date of commencement of trial: 07.03.2022 Date of close of trial : 10.03.2022 Date of Judgment : 08.04.2022

State: Represented by the Enforcement Sub­Inspector SEB Station, Proddatur in Cr.No.100/2020. ….Complainant.

Vs.

A. Venkateswar Reddy S/o A. Ramanjaneya Reddy, R/oUllavapalli(V),Paddamudiyam(M), Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District.

...Accused.

Offence: U/Sec.34­(a) A.P. Excise Act.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34­(a) A.P. Excise Act, 2019 and accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 in C.P.R.No.154/2020 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. 

Digitally signed by MARYSARA

MARYSARADANAMMA

BILLA

DANAMMA

Date:

BILLA

2022.04.08 15:27:09 +0000

II Additional Judicial Magistrate, of I Class, Proddatur.

1

THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present:­ Smt. B. Mary Sara Danamma.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur. 

Friday, this the 08th day of April, 2022

C.C.No.615 of 2021

State: Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station in Cr.No.116/2021. ….Complainant.

Vs.

M. Chandra Obula Reddy S/o Bali Reddy, age 34 years, Mittamadi, Rameswaram, Proddatur Mandal, Driver cum Owner of the Tractor along with trailer bearing Reg.No.AP­04­ H­1050/AP04­H­1051.

...Accused.

This case coming on 29.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and of Sri G. Rajesh Reddy Advocate for the Accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

 J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.116/2021 for the offence punishable U/sec.379 of IPC and Rule.16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rules of 1966 against the accused.

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

That on 02.04.2021 morning at about 11.30 AM, received credible information about the transportation of sand illegally from the Penna river, near Rendu Kulayilu, Proddatur Mandal while

LW5/C. Lakshmi Narayana., Sub­Inspector of Police., Proddatur

2

Rural P.S left the PS along with staff i.e., LWs.1 to 4/R. Sai Prasad,

HC.1004, Y. Ramesh, PC.2891, G. Chenna Kesava, PC.1057,

D. Lakshmi Narayana, PC.1454 reached said above place found one tractor which coming from Penna river with sand load. On that

L.W.5 apprehended the accused with assistance of L.W.1 to L.W.4 and enquired about his identity. The accused revealed his identity.

Then L.W.5 interrogated the accused as to why transporting the sand. On interrogation accused noticed that there was huge demand to the sand now a days, he decided to transport the sand illegally and took his tractor and went to Penna River and loaded the sand and sell the same with higher rates. Then L.W.5 asked him whether having any permission or authentication but the accused illegally transporting the sand for his easy gain. Basing on the Police Proceedings., L.W.5/C. Lakshmi Narayana/Sub­

Inspector of Police., Proddatur Rural P.S registered a case

U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16 (e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966.

3.This case was taken on file by this Court for the offence punishable U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC

Rule 1966, against the accused. 

4. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, copies of documents upon which, prosecution is proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. 

5. The Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and they denied the accusation. Charges for the offences U/sec.379 of

IPC and Sec.16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966, were framed,

3

read over and explained to him in Telugu Language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.In order to prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and M.O.1 were marked.

7.After closure of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu language, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16 (e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966, against Accused, beyond all reasonable doubts "? 

10.The learned APP argued before this court that from

Exs.P.1 and Ex.P2, the acts of the accused proved. Hence, the accused is liable for conviction.

11.The learned counsel for the accused are argued before this court that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence and none of the prosecution material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. Perused the record. Out of 05 list of witnesses, the prosecution has examined 02 list of witnesses. The evidence of

4

L.W.2 to L.W.4 (Y. Ramesh, PC.2891, G. Chenna Kesava, PC.2891 and D. Lakshmi Narayana, PC.1454 of Proddatur Rural PS) were given up by learned Sr.APP. Ex.P1 is Police proceedings. Ex.P.2 is

FIR.

13.P.W.1/R. Sai Prasad., Head Constable., deposed that on 02.04.2021 at about 11.45 A.M, on information they proceeded to Jammalamadugu­Yerraguntla road at Rendukulayulu, they noticed one tractor with load of sand along with accused, on seeing them the accused tried to skulk away, apprehended and detained him, on interrogation accused revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about the offence. L.W.3/P.C/Chennakesava went to

Dorasanipalle village for securing mediators, he came and informed that nobody came forward to act as mediators. S.I arrested the accused and seized the tractor with load of sand under cover of police proceedings. He did not put his signature on police proceedings. They returned to P.S along with accused and seized property.

14.P.W.2/C. Lakshminarayana., S.I Police., deposed that on 02.04.2021 at about 11.30 A.M, while he was present at P.S, he received credible information about the illegal transportation of sand, immediately himself with his staff, proceeded to

Rendukulayulu, Proddatur­Jammalamadugu road, they noticed one tractor bearing No.AP­04­H­1050/AP­04­H­1051, loaded with sand, drove by the accused, on seeing them accused tried to skulk away apprehended and detained him, on interrogation accused

5

revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about the offence that accused has no permit for transporting the said sand.

He sent L.W.3/Chenna Kesava P.C to Proddatur town for securing mediators, after some time he came and informed that nobody came forward to act as mediators. He arrested the accused, seized tractor with sand under cover of police proceedings, marked as

Ex.P.1. They returned to P.S along with the accused and seized property. On the on the basis of Ex.P.1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.116/2021, for the offence U/Sec.379 of I.P.C and Sec.16­e of

Rule 9­B of A.P.M.M.C rules 1966. He issued FIRs to all concerned officials. Ex.P.2 is the original FIR. After completion of due formalities he issued 41­A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released him. He submitted the seized empty tractor before the

Hon'ble Court, thereafter the same was returned to respective

owner for interim custody. M.O.1 is tractor. He kept the seized sand at police station campus. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. 

15.P.W.2 who is SI who accompanied along with P.W.1 categorically admitted that it is true the place of arrest is situated in busy locality and they did not issue any written summons to the persons who refused to act as mediators. But they simply stated that they tried for mediators at nearer places. But no efforts were made in writing, they simply orally stated the same version in each and every case. At least they could not able to elicit the names of persons who refused to act as mediators. 

6

16.It is the duty of investigating officer/P.W.2 that have to visit the place from where the sand was lifted, and they could not able to seize the spades and baskets and other articles which were used for lifting of sand, no explanation offered by the prosecution in that aspect. Further the crucial material object in this case is sand, but the investigating officer failed to produce seized sand

before the Court they simply stated that they kept the sand at

police station. The failed to produce the seized sand either to revenue officials, or other suitable department as well as before the

Hon’ble court. They simply stated that they kept the seized sand at

police station, as to why they did not take any steps for production of seized sand. Reasons best known to them, they could not able to explain the reasons regarding seizure sand. 

17.P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the place of arrest on that day and arrested the accused and seized the load of sand and the same was not also weighted. At least it is the duty of police people to elicit the number of auto and failed to do so. Further admitted by the prosecution witnesses that they did not visit the place from where the accused lifted the sand and further admitted that they did not seize the spades and baskets which are crucial material objects for marking purpose. 

 18.It is pertinent to note that, P.W.2 categorically admitted that when they reached to the spot some labour workers loading the sand into the bullock carts from Penna river. It is the crucial point to that effect as to why the prosecution did not examine the

7

labour workers who loaded the sand into the bullock carts and auto by that time whenever they reached to the place of arrest, as to why they did not examine them reasons best known to them.

Whenever the persons were available in and around the place of arrest he must have secure the mediators among that persons in and around the place of arrest. It is the duty of investigating officer to follow the procedure laid down U/sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, but the investigating officer simply stated that nobody came forward, he thrown the simple oral words but he did not made any efforts for securing mediators in and around the place of arrest. So the prosecution failed in that aspect.

19. As it can be seen from the record that, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the police persons deposed against the accused regarding the commission of theft of sand by the accused.

20.To prove the commission of theft there is no direct witness or circumstantial evidence except the ocular evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2. As per P.W.1 and P.W.2, the accused have confessed before them that they have stolen the sand from the

Kundu River and transporting the sand illegally. Except confession there is no evidence or record to show that the accused had stolen sand. As confession before the police is not admissible, it cannot be relied upon to fasten the accused to the guilt for the offence of theft

U/sec.379 of I.P.C.

21.Coming to the factum of transporting the sand without permission, the prosecution has to prove that they have seized the

8

sand from the accused and the accused did not possess any license or permission to transport the sand. Here, to prove the factum of seizure, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the police persons who generally have interest in the prosecution and they did not secure the presence of any independent mediators at the time of alleged seizure of sand.

Even the efforts made by the P.W.2/Sub­Inspector and others to secure the independent mediators are not reflected in the record. In the absence of independent mediators, the alleged seizure of sand, mere by police cannot be taken into consideration which is not according to law. In the absence of any independent witnesses, the sole evidence of police persons cannot be taken into consideration to prove the factum of seizure of sand from the possession of the accused. Hence, the factum of seizure of sand from the accused is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. When the factum of seizure of sand from the possession of accused is not proved, the question of examining for the license or permission to transport sand cannot be raised.

22. In view of above discussion, on close scrutiny of entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence and the material on record is in­ sufficient to fasten liability of the Accused to the guilt for the alleged offences. Therefore it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of U/sec.379 of IPC and

Sec.16(e) Rule­9­B of APMMC Rules, 1966against accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the Accused is liable to be acquitted for the said offences.

23. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC

9

Rule 1966, And accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused be in force for a period of six months.

The M.O.1 i.e., tractor already returned to concerned respective owner. The concerned police is directed to deposit the sale proceeds amount of sand to the government through bank and to file receipt immediately.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by

MARYSARA

MARYSARADANAMMA

DANAMMABILLA

BILLADate: 2022.04.08 15:23:04 +0000

II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for prosecution: for Defence:Nil PW.1: R. Si Prasad/Head Constable PW.2: C. Lakshmi Narayana/S.I of Police Exhibits marked for prosecution: for Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Police proceedings. Ex.P2: F.I.R. Material Objects Marked: M.O.1: Tractor.

Digitally signed by

MARYSARA

MARYSARADANAMMA

DANAMMABILLA

BILLADate: 2022.04.08 15:23:25 +0000

II A.J.F.C.M/PDTR.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:: PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.N0.615 of 2021

Date of offence: 02.04.2021 Date of complaint: 02.04.2021 Date of commencement of trial : 07.03.2022 Date of close of trial : 15.03.2022 Date of Judgment : 08.04.2022

State: Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station in Cr.No.116/2021. ….Complainant.

Vs.

M. Chandra Obula Reddy S/o Bali Reddy, age 34 years, Mittamadi, Rameswaram, Proddatur Mandal, Driver cum Owner of the Tractor along with trailer bearing Reg.No.AP­04­ H­1050/AP04­H­1051.

...Accused.

Offence: U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966, And accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused be in force for a period of six months. The M.O.1 i.e., tractor already returned to concerned respective owner. The concerned police is directed to deposit the sale proceeds amount of sand to the government through bank and to file receipt immediately.

Digitally signed by MARYSARA

MARYSARA

DANAMMA

DANAMMABILLA

BILLADate:

2022.04.08 15:22:43 +0000

II Additional Judicial Magistrate, of I Class, Proddatur. 

1

THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present:­ Smt. B. Mary Sara Danamma.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur. 

Friday, this the 08th day of April, 2022

C.C.No.735 of 2021

State: Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Rajupalem Police Station in Cr.No.71/2021. ….Complainant.

Vs.

Pakkapoti Gangaraju S/o Kondaiah, age 21 years, Occ: Driver, D.No.1/51­A, Chowduru Village, Proddatur Mandal, Driver cum owner of tractor bearing Reg.No.AP­39­TK­4441, trailer bearing Reg.No.AP­39­TJ­8779.

...Accused.

This case coming on 30.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and of Sri A. Sudarsana Advocate for the Accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

 J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Rajupalem Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.71/2021 for the offence punishable U/sec.379 of IPC and Rule.16, 16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rules of 1966 against the accused.

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

That as per the instructions of Superintendent of Police,

Kadapa L.W.3/H. Krishnamraju Naik., Sub­Inspector of Police.,

Rajupalem P.S conducting vehicle checking along with staff i.e.,

L.W.1 and L.W.2/K. Subramanyam., PC.2875 and K. Guru Sankar,

2

PC.3323 of Rajupalem P.S near the cross road at Chinnasettipalli village from 10.00 AM on 30.04.2021 at about 10.45 AM accused came there from Proddatur side by driving the tractor. On seeing the said tractor, L.W.3 got intercepted the tractor with the able assistance of L.W.1 and L.W.2, L.W.3 verified the tractor and found it was fully loaded with sand. Then L.W.3 asked the accused to produce the bill or receipt for transporting the sand for which the accused failed to do so and expressed his inability. Further on interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars, himself voluntarily confessed before L.W.3 that the accused owner cum driver of crime tractor and trailer. He got loaded the tractor with sand at Penna River nearby Proddatur illegally and stealthily and proceeding towards Rajupalem Village to sell the same on higher price to the sand deprived persons. Basing on the Police

Proceedings., L.W.3/H. Krishnamraju Naik., Sub­Inspector of

Police., Rajupalem P.S registered a case U/sec.379 of IPC and

Sec.16, 16 (e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966 and U/sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act.

3.This case was taken on file by this Court for the offence punishable U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16, 16(e) of Rule 9­B of

APMMC Rule 1966 and U/sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act, against the accused. 

4. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, copies of documents upon which, prosecution is proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. 

3

5. The Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and they denied the accusation. Charges for the offences U/sec.379 of

IPC and Sec.16, 16 (e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966 and

U/sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu Language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.In order to prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 and M.O.1 were marked.

7.After closure of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu language, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16, 16 (e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966 and U/sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act, against Accused, beyond all reasonable doubts "? 

10.The learned APP argued before this court that from

Exs.P.1 and Ex.P2, the acts of the accused proved. Hence, the accused is liable for conviction.

11.The learned counsel for the accused are argued before this court that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence and none of the prosecution material witnesses

4

supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. Perused the record. Out of 03 list of witnesses, the prosecution has examined 02 list of witnesses. The evidence of

L.W.1 (K. Subramanyam, PC.2875 of Rajupalem PS) were given up by learned Sr.APP. Ex.P1 is Police proceedings. Ex.P.2 is FIR.

13.P.W.1/K. Guru Sekhar., Police Constable., deposed that on 30.04.2021 at about 10.45 AM he accompanied along with

S.I/L.W.3 by the time of seizure of tractor with the load of sand at

Chinnasettipalli village, and SI also arrested the accused as accused have no license and permission for transporting the sand.

The SI prepared police proceedings marked as Ex.P.1 in which he put his signature

14.P.W.2/H. Krishnamraju Naik., S.I Police., deposed that on 30.04.2021 at about 10.45 A.M, himself and staff went to

Chinnasettipalle village cross roads where they noticed one tractor with driver, coming from Proddatur side with load of sand, on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away, apprehended and detained the accused, on interrogation accused revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about the offence. Further accused confessed that he has no permission to transport the said sand. He arrested the accused and seized the tractor with sand under cover of Police proceedings already marked as Ex.P.1. They returned to P.S along with accused and seized property. On the basis of Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.71/2021, U.Sec.379

5

of I.P.C and Rule 16 and 16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Act, Issued

FIRs to all concerned officers, Ex.P.2 is the FIR. After completion of due formalities he send accused for remand for judicial custody. He produced the seized tractor before the Honourable Court and the same was returned to the respective owner for interim custody. The seized sand kept at police station. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. M.O.1 is the tractor.

15.P.W.2 who is SI who accompanied along with P.W.1 categorically admitted that it is true the place of arrest is situated in busy locality and they did not issue any written summons to the persons who refused to act as mediators. But they simply stated that they tried for mediators at nearer places. But no efforts were made in writing, they simply orally stated the same version in each and every case. At least they could not able to elicit the names of persons who refused to act as mediators. 

16.It is the duty of investigating officer/P.W.2 that have to visit the place from where the sand was lifted, and they could not able to seize the spades and baskets and other articles which were used for lifting of sand, no explanation offered by the prosecution in that aspect. Further the crucial material object in this case is sand, but the investigating officer failed to produce seized sand

before the Court they simply stated that they kept the sand at

police station. The failed to produce the seized sand either to revenue officials, or other suitable department as well as before the

Hon’ble court. They simply stated that they kept the seized sand at

6

police station, as to why they did not take any steps for production of seized sand. Reasons best known to them, they could not able to explain the reasons regarding seizure sand. 

17.P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the place of arrest on that day and arrested the accused and seized the load of sand and the same was not also weighted. At least it is the duty of police people to elicit the number of auto and failed to do so. Further admitted by the prosecution witnesses that they did not visit the place from where the accused lifted the sand and further admitted that they did not seize the spades and baskets which are crucial material objects for marking purpose. 

 18.It is pertinent to note that, P.W.2 categorically admitted that when they reached to the spot some labour workers loading the sand into the bullock carts from Penna river. It is the crucial point to that effect as to why the prosecution did not examine the labour workers who loaded the sand into the bullock carts and auto by that time whenever they reached to the place of arrest, as to why they did not examine them reasons best known to them.

Whenever the persons were available in and around the place of arrest he must have secure the mediators among that persons in and around the place of arrest. It is the duty of investigating officer to follow the procedure laid down U/sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, but the investigating officer simply stated that nobody came forward, he thrown the simple oral words but he did not made any efforts for

7

securing mediators in and around the place of arrest. So the prosecution failed in that aspect.

19. As it can be seen from the record that, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the police persons deposed against the accused regarding the commission of theft of sand by the accused.

20.To prove the commission of theft there is no direct witness or circumstantial evidence except the ocular evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2. As per P.W.1 and P.W.2, the accused have confessed before them that they have stolen the sand from the

Kundu River and transporting the sand illegally. Except confession there is no evidence or record to show that the accused had stolen sand. As confession before the police is not admissible, it cannot be relied upon to fasten the accused to the guilt for the offence of theft

U/sec.379 of I.P.C.

21.Coming to the factum of transporting the sand without permission, the prosecution has to prove that they have seized the sand from the accused and the accused did not possess any license or permission to transport the sand. Here, to prove the factum of seizure, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the police persons who generally have interest in the prosecution and they did not secure the presence of any independent mediators at the time of alleged seizure of sand.

Even the efforts made by the P.W.2/Sub­Inspector and others to secure the independent mediators are not reflected in the record. In the absence of independent mediators, the alleged seizure of sand, mere by police cannot be taken into consideration which is not

8

according to law. In the absence of any independent witnesses, the sole evidence of police persons cannot be taken into consideration to prove the factum of seizure of sand from the possession of the accused. Hence, the factum of seizure of sand from the accused is not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. When the factum of seizure of sand from the possession of accused is not proved, the question of examining for the license or permission to transport sand cannot be raised.

22. In view of above discussion, on close scrutiny of entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence and the material on record is in­ sufficient to fasten liability of the Accused to the guilt for the alleged offences. Therefore it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of U/sec.379 of IPC and

Sec.16, 16(e) Rule­9­B of APMMC Rules, 1966 against accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence the Accused is liable to be acquitted for the said offences.

23. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16, 16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC

Rule 1966 and U/sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act, And accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused be in force for a period of six months. The M.O.1 i.e., tractor already returned to concerned respective owner. The concerned police is

9

directed to deposit the sale proceeds amount of sand to the government through bank and to file receipt immediately.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed by

MARYSARA

MARYSARADANAMMA

DANAMMABILLA

BILLADate: 2022.04.08 15:24:33 +0000

II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for prosecution: for Defence:Nil PW.1: K. Guru Sekhar/Police Constable PW.2: H. Krishnamraju Naik/S.I of Police Exhibits marked for prosecution: for Defence: Nil Ex.P1: Police proceedings. Ex.P2: F.I.R. Material Objects Marked: M.O.1: Tractor.

Digitally signed by

MARYSARA

MARYSARADANAMMA

BILLA

DANAMMA

BILLA Date: 2022.04.08 15:24:47 +0000

II A.J.F.C.M/PDTR.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.NO.735 of 2021

Date of offence: 30.04.2021 Date of complaint: 30.04.2021 Date of commencement of trial : 10.11.2021 Date of close of trial : 26.11.2021 Date of Judgment : 08.04.2022

State: Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Rajupalem Police Station in Cr.No.71/2021. ….Complainant.

Vs.

Pakkapoti Gangaraju S/o Kondaiah, age 21 years, Occ: Driver, D.No.1/51­A, Chowduru Village, Proddatur Mandal, Driver cum owner of tractor bearing Reg.No.AP­39­TK­4441, trailer bearing Reg.No.AP­39­TJ­8779.

...Accused.

Offence: U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16, 16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966 and U/sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.16, 16(e) of Rule 9­B of APMMC Rule 1966 and U/sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act, And accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused be in force for a period of six months. The M.O.1 i.e., tractor already returned to concerned respective owner. The concerned police is directed to deposit the sale proceeds amount of sand to the government through bank and to file receipt immediately.

Digitally signed by

MARYSARA

MARYSARA

DANAMMA

DANAMMABILLA

BILLADate: 2022.04.08 15:24:13 +0000

II Additional Judicial Magistrate, of I Class, Proddatur. 

1

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

JAMMALAMADUGU

PRESENT: SMT B. MARY SARA DANAMMA,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PRODDATTUR,

FAC/ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

JAMMALAMADUGU

Thursday, this the 5th day of March, 2020.

C.C.No.715 of 2019

Between:

The state: The Sub-Inspector of Police Jammalamadugu (U) P.S. (Cr.No.405/2019) … Complainant.

And

Shaik Masthan @ Nouman @ Rajan, S/o. Nasir Ahmed, age 20 years, Caste by Muslim, R/o. D.No.15/98, Penna Nagar, Near MPP Urdu School, Proddatur town and Mandal,

... Accused

This calendar case is coming on 02.03.2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri S. Zakeer Hussain, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jammalamadugu (U) P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.405/2019 for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 379 or 411 of IPC.

2. As seen from the averments of the charge sheet are that:-

The alleged incident was occurred in between on 12.10.2019 at 10.00 p.m., to 13.10.2019 at 5.00 a.m., in front of the houses of complainants at

Yethapuvari colony, Jammalamadugu town. Wherein some un-known 2 offenders committed theft of three cell phones belongs to L.Ws.1 and 2/K.Kiran Niranjan Kumar and M.Lakshmi Reddy total worth of Rs.21,000/- from their possession and fled away from there. On the basis of complaint given by L.W.1/K.Kiran Niranjan Kumar the SI/LW.7 registered a case in

Cr.No.405/2019 U/sec. 379 IPC of Jammalamadugu (U) P.S., During course of investigation the SI examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

He also visited the scene of offence, observed the scene, prepared rough sketch, where he also examined L.ws.2 to 4/ M.Lakshmi Reddy, M.Prabhakar and D.Sekhar and recorded their statements. On 14.10.2019 about 10.00 am the SI arrested the accused at R.T.C bus stand Jammalamadugu and SI recorded the confession statement of accused and seized three cell phones from his possession under cover of panchanama in the presence of

Panchayathdars. After completion of due formalities he send him for remand to judicial custody. After completion of investigation and after production of seized property before the court the SI filed the charge sheet.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, the case was taken cognizance against the accused, U/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accusedcopies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges U/Sec. 411 of IPC was framed against him, read over and explained to him. He denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has been examined

P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P.1 to P6 and M.O’s. 1 and 2 are got marked. The evidence of L.W.5/ B. Sada Siva Sharma was given up by learned APP Hence, the same was closed.

3

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence by explaining to him the same in Telugu, for which he denied the same and further he stated that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts”?

10.POINT:

P.W.1 who is the defacto-complainant deposed that on 12-10-2019 he kept his cell phone under the Pillow of his cot during night hours. At about early morning at 5.30 a.m., he noticed that his cell phone was misplaced. Thereafter, he gave report to the Police Ex.P.1. His Cell phone costs of Rs.10,000/- belongs to MI company in Metal colour. He further deposed that he don't know the persons who committed theft of his cellphone. After one week the concerned police informed him that his cell phone recovered by them. He identified his cellphone belongs to him marked as MO.1.

11. PW.2 who is the another victim by name M.Lakshmi Reddy deposed that on 12-10-2019 during night hours he kept his cellphone underneath of the cot at terrace belongs to JIO and MI company. At about morning time he noticed that his two cellphone committed theft by some unknown persons. He informed the same to PW.1, then PW.1 gave report.

4

The concerned Police informed him his two cellphones recovered by them.

The PW.2 identified his two cellphones marked as MO.2.

12. PW.3 who is the independent witness deposed that he don't know the accused and he don't know anything about the case facts and he was not examined by the Police, turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution.

13. PW.4 who acted a Panch witness by the time of arrest and seizure stated that on 14-10-2019 in between 9.15 to 9.20 am one P.C.Eswaraiah,

Jammalamadugu came and called them act as Mediators. Immediately, he went to Police Station, himself, SI other Police staff proceeded nearer to RTC

Bus Stand, Jammalamadugu in a jeep, they noticed one person and on suspicious, the PCs catched him and produced before SI. On enquiry he reveled his identity particulars, and also confessed about the offence, that he committed theft of three cellphones. SI seized three cellphones and arrested the accused under cover of Panchanama Ex.P.3. They returned PS along with property.

14. PW.5 who is the independent witness stated that he do not know

PW2, P.W.3 and also he do not know anything about the case facts and he was not examined by the police turned hostile not supported the version of prosecution.

15. P.W.6 who is the SI categorically stated that on 13.10.2019 at about 3.00 pm while he was present at police station P.W.1 came to PS and presented Ex.P.1 report which he registered a case in

Cr.No.405/2019 for the offence U/sec.379 IPC Ex.P.5 original FIR, he examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. From there he proceeded to scene of offence which is situated infront of the house of P.W.1 Yethapuvari colony, Jammalamadugu town, he observed the scene prepared rough 5 sketch Ex.P.6, he also examined P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 recorded their statements. During the course of his investigation on 14.10.2019 at about morning time 10.00 a.m., on information he proceeded to RTC bus stand

Jammalamadugu along with panchayatdars L.W.5/B.Sada Siva Sharma and

P.W.4, there SI arrested the accused under cover of panchanama Ex.P.3 and also seized three cell phones M.Os. 1 and 2 from the possession of accused.

They returned to PS along with accused and seized property, the SI also informed the grounds of arrest the accused. After completion of due formalities the SI sent him for remand to judicial custody. The SI also submitted the seized the property before the Hon'ble Court. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

16. As per version of prosecution/P.W.1 and P.W.2 that M.Os. 1 and 2 ie., three cell phones committed theft by some un-known persons belongs to

P.W.1 and 2, during night hours, thereafter the SI seized the M.Os. 1 and 2 from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama Ex.P.3.

17. Admittedly on the basis of Ex.P.1 the P.W.6 SI registered a case in

Cr.No.405/2019 U/sec. 379 IPC during course of investigation the P.W.6 examine the witnesses recorded their statements and also visited the scene of offence situated infront of the house of P.W.1, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.6. During course of investigation on 14.10.2019 at about 10.00 am the P.W.6 arrested the accused at RTC bus stand,

Jammalamadugu town and seized M.O's.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama

Ex.P.3. After completion of due formalities the SI send the accused for remand to judicial custody.

18. On the other hand the P.W.4 who acted as panch witnesses by the time of seizure of M.O's. 1 and 2 and arrest of accused under cover of Ex.P.3 categorically admitted that it is true he is stock witness which clearly 6 establish that as usually he regularly acted as panch witness in each and every case to the concerned police station. On the basis of confession made by the accused itself the SI prepared Ex.P.3 proceedings and also seized the

M.O's.1 and 2 from the possession of the accused.

19. Admittedly as per version of P.W.1 and 2 that some unknown offenders committed theft of M.O's.1 and 2. So there is no direct evidence for the commission of the offence that accused committed theft of M.O's.1 and 2 belongs to P.Ws.1 and 2. After seizure of M.O's.1 and 2 the investigating officer produced the same before the court. It is the duty of the investigating officer to conduct identification proceedings of property through P.Ws.1 and 2 by placing another similar articles of M.O's. 1 and 2, in the presence of panchayatdars. But the investigating officer did not take any steps for conducting identification proceedings of property.

20. On the other hand on the basis of confession of accused the investigating officer come to the conclusion that accused is the author of the commission of the offence. But confession made before police is not admissible in evidence. As per P.W.4 who acted as panch witness by the time of arrest and seizure categorically stated that he is the stock witness to the said police station, so which clearly established that as usually in normal course of manner the police obtained the signature of the P.W4 on arrest and seizure Mahazarnama, so the evidence of P.W.4 has not having validity, though the P.W.4 who is the crucial witness to the effect of arrest and seizure but the evidence of PW.4 not trustworthy.

21. Admittedly the investigating officer P.W.6 arrested the accused in

R.T.C bus stand Jammalamadugu town at about 10.00 a.m., there is a very chance about the presence of so many passengers as well as so many R.T.C staff and etc., in the R.T.C bus stand, Jammalamadugu by that time. But the 7 investigating officer secured the panch witnesses from far away the place of arrest. The investigating officer failed to follow the procedure laid down u/sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C., It is the duty of investigating officer to secure the inhabitant immediate neighbouring owners of the alleged place of arrest for panch witnesses but he did not do so. In that aspect the prosecution failed to take steps.

22. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not the eye witnesses to the alleged theft of M.O’s.1 and 2. As per their version M.O’s. 1 and 2 committed theft by some unknown offenders. So there is no direct evidence for the commission of the offence that accused is the author of the commission of the offence. P.W.3 and P.W.5 who are the independent witnesses categorically stated that they do not know anything about the case facts and they were not examined by the police, completely turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution. The learned APP treated them as hostile. Ex.P.2 and P.4 are the contents of 161 Cr.P.C., statements of P.W.3 and P.W.5. So the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 is not helpful for the case of prosecution.

23. The evidence of P.W.6 who is the investigating officer is only available on record. There are so many procedure irregularities in the case of prosecution. Non conducting property identification proceedings ie.,

M.O’s. 1 and 2 through P.Ws.1 and 2 is fatal to the prosecution case and also the investigating officer did not follow the procedure laid down under

U/sec.100 (4) Cr.P.C.,

There is no cogent consist and considerable material available on record against the accused.

In view of the same benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

8

24. In such facts and circumstances, the court finds no incriminating evidence against Accused, that the accused committed offence and therefore, the court holds that the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of Accused for the charge leveled against him. Accordingly point is answered against the prosecution.

25. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.411 of

IPC and accordingly, accused is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. M.O’s.1 and 2 already returned to the concerned owners ie.,P.Ws.1 and 2 shall retained. The concerned jail authorities are directed to release the accused forthwith if not required in any case or cases.

Typed to my dictation on office computer by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this day 5th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- B.Mary Sara Dannamma,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Proddattur, FAC/ Judicial Magistrate Of I Class, Jammalamadugu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: - Kiran Niranjan Kumar - NONE - PW2:- M.Lakshmi Reddy PW3:- M.Prabhakar PW4:- T.Sreenivasulu PW5:- D.Sekhar PW6:- M.Narendra Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Report given by PW1. - NIL - Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P3: Arrest and seizure panchanama Ex.P.4: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 9

Ex.P.5: Original FIR Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: One cellphone

M.O.2: Two cellphones

Sd/- B.Mary Sara Dannamma,

PJCJ/Pdtr FAC/ J.F.C.M, JMD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS: PRODDATUR

Present:­ Smt. B. Mary Sara Danamma.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proddatur

Monday, this the 11th day of April, 2022

C.C.No.1066 of 2021

State: Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Proddatur Rural Police Station in Cr.No.303/2021. ….Complainant.

Vs.

Vaddi Obulesu S/o Obula Reddy, age 24 years, Potladurthi Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Driver of TATA Indica car bearing Reg.No.­AP­22­K­5099.

 ….Accused.

This case coming on 08.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant and accused is party in person, and having stood over for consideration till the evening, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T 

The Sub­Inspector of police, Proddatur Rural Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.303/2021 against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.304­A I.P.C and Sec.3 r/w 181, SEc.146 r/w Sec.196 and Sec.134(a) (b) r/w 187 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act, against Accused.

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

That on 13.07.2021 at about 09.25 PM, at Echo Park, on

Proddatur ­ Yerraguntla main road, Proddatur Mandal and reported

2

in the PS on 14.07.2021 at 03.00 PM where accused being the driver of the TATA Indica car bearing Reg.No.AP22­K­5099 who proceed from Yerraguntla to Proddatur main road, drove its rash and negligent manner with high speed without due care and caution and dashed to the deceased being the rider of motorcycle

Reg.No.AP04­AN­8814 who proceeded from Proddatur to

Yerraguntla side, as a result and caused the deceased fell down on the road and received injuries on his person. Further the deceased admitted in Government Hospital, Proddatur and expired on the day while undergoing treatment. Basing on the complaint of

L.W.1/M. Venkata Raghunath., L.W.16/J. Siva Sankar., S.I of

Police., Proddatur Rural P.S registered case U/sec.304­A I.P.C and

Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w Sec.196 and U/sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act. After completion of investigation L.W.16/J.

Siva Sankar., S.I of Police., Proddatur Rural P.S filed charge sheet against the accused. 

3. On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offences U/sec.304­A I.P.C and Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w

Sec.196 and U/sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act., against Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

After perusing the entire material on record, accusation U/sec.304­

3

A I.P.C and Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w Sec.196 and U/sec.134 (a)

(b) r/w 187 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act., is orally explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.W.1 to PW.7 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked.

The evidence of L.W.3 to L.W.6 and L.W.13 to L.W.16 (M. Rama

Subbaiah, T. Sreenivasulu, B. Siva Sankar, K. Bhaskar, B. Raja

Sekhar, Dr. Arshiya Arjuma, CAS, Govt. Hospital, Proddatur, M.V.

Sudhakar Reddy, Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector and J. Siva

Sankar., S.I of Police., Proddatur Rural PS) are given up learned

Senior APP. L.W.3 to L.W.6 and L.W.13 to L.W.16 are given up as

P.W.1 to P.W.7 turned hostile.

7. After closure of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu language, he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of both parties. 

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.304­A I.P.C and Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w Sec.196 and U/sec.134

(a) (b) r/w 187 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act, beyond all reasonable doubts ?” 

 10. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor argued before this court that the acts of Accused is clearly established with the

4

evidence of PW1 to PW7 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

11. The learned defense counsel argued before this court that the Accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that no material witness has deposed against the accused before this court and the accused is entitled for acquittal clearly. 

12.P.W.1/M.V. Raghunath., deposed in his chief­ examination that the deceased Venkata Subbaiah is his father who died in the road accident at Eco Park at about 9.30 P.M on 13.07.2021, by that time he was at his house, his father himself telephoned him and informed about the alleged accident, immediately he went to the spot, he noticed that his father received injuries, he also noticed one car bearing No.AP­22­K­5099. The driver of said car was not present there. He shifted his father in

TATA Ace vehicle to Government hospital, Proddatur admitted him while undergoing treatment he succumbed with injuries. He do not know the person who is responsible for the alleged accident. He do not know the person who drove the crime vehicle by the time of alleged accident. Police obtained his signature on some written paper, he do not know the contents of the same what was written.

Ex.P.1 is his signature. He do not know anything about the case facts. He was not examined by the police.

5

13.P.W.2/M. Kalavathi., deposed in her chief­examination that the deceased Venkata Subbaiah is her husband who died in the road accident at Eco Park at about 9.30 P.M on 13.07.2021, by that time she was at her house, her husband himself telephoned to

P.W.1 and informed about the alleged accident, immediately they went to the spot, she noticed that her husband received injuries,

She also noticed one car bearing No.AP­22­K­5099. The driver of said car was not present there. They shifted her husband in TATA

Ace vehicle to Government hospital, Proddatur admitted him while undergoing treatment he succumbed with injuries. She do not know the person who is responsible for the alleged accident. She do not know the person who drove the crime vehicle by the time of alleged accident. She do not know anything about the case facts.

She was not examined by the police. 

14.P.W.3/P. Babu., deposed in his chief­examination that the deceased Venkata Subbaiah is his junior paternal uncle. On 14.07.2021 at about 7.00 A.M, inquest was held over the dead body of deceased Venkata Subbaiah at Government hospital, Proddatur by the police by that time he was also present and the police prepared inquest report in which he put my signature. Ex.P.5 is inquest report. After observing the dead body of deceased, they come to the conclusion that the deceased died in the road accident.

15.P.W.4/K. Srinivasulu, P.W.5/N. Suresh, P.W.6/K.

Pavan Kumar., deposed in thier chief­examinations that they do not know the accused. The do not know the deceased Venkata

6

Subbaiah who died in the road accdent at about 9 months back on one day. They did not witness the alleged accident. Police did not examine them.

16.P.W.7/B. Anjaneyulu.,deposed in his chief­ examination that he know the deceased Venkata Subbaiah who died in the road accident at about 9 months back on one day. He did not witness the alleged accident. Police did not examine him.

17. It is observed that P.W.1 to P.W.7 denied the suggestions put by learned APP in their cross­examination that they stated to police as in Ex.P3 to Ex.P9 which are their 161, Cr.P.C. statements respectively. Hence, this court did not believe the contents of Ex.P3 to Ex.P9. P.W.1 to P.W.9 turned hostile. Hence, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

18. As it can be seen from the record, no witness deposed regarding the involvement of accused and driving of of the crime vehicle by the accused at the time of incident. Hence, the offence is not established, as no material witness supported the case of prosecution and the Learned Senior APP has rightly given up the remaining witnesses as the material witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution and examining the other witnesses would not serve any purpose.

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

7

20.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.304­A I.P.C and Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w Sec.196 and

U/sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act. Accordingly is acquitted u/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C. No property is produced.

Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 11th day of April, 2022.

Digitally signed

by MARYSARA

DANAMMA

MARYSARA

BILLA

DANAMMA

Date:

BILLA

2022.04.11

13:28:41

+0000

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Proddatur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined:­

For Prosecution:­ For Defence: ­ NONE ­

PW1: M.V. Raghunath.

PW2: M. Kalavathi.

PW3: P. Babu.

PW4: K. Srinivasulu.

PW5: N. Suresh.

PW6: K. Pavan Kumar.

PW7: B. Anjaneyulu.

Exhibits marked:­

For Prosecution:­

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report.

Ex.P.2: Contents of report of P.W.1.

8

Ex.P.3: Contents of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.4: Contents of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P.5: Contents of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.6: Contents of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.7: Contents of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.

Ex.P.8: Contents of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6.

Ex.P.9: Contents of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7.

For Defence:­ Nil

Material Objects Marked ­ NIL ­

MARYSARA

DANAMMA

BILLA

Digitally signed by

MARYSARA

DANAMMA BILLA

Date: 2022.04.11

13:28:24 +0000

II A.J.M.F.C/PDTR.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:: PRODDATUR

CALENDAR CASE IN C.C.No.1066 of 2021

Date of offence: 13.07.2021 Date of complaint : 13.07.2021 Date of commencement of trial : 07.04.2022 Date of close of trial : 08.04.2022 Date of Judgment : 11.04.2022

State: Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Rajupalem Police Station in Cr.No.303/2021. ….Complainant.

Vs.

Vaddi Obulesu S/o Obula Reddy, age 24 years, Potladurthi Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Driver of TATA Indica car bearing Reg.No.­AP­22­K­5099.  ….Accused.

Offence: U/sec.304­A I.P.C and Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w Sec.196 and U/sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.304­A I.P.C and Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w Sec.196 and U/sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 and Sec.184 of M.V.Act. Accordingly is acquitted u/s. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C. No property is produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Digitally

signed by

MARYSARA

DANAMMA

MARYSARA

BILLA

DANAMMA

BILLA

Date:

2022.04.11

13:28:00

+0000

 II Additional Judicial Magistrate, of I Class, Proddatur.