B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M.

Junior Civil Judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Ichapuram (Taluka) · Srikakulam · Andhra Pradesh

B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M., Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Ichapuram (Taluka), Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 20 court orders on record since 2011. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/37/2015 Acquitted

State represented by the sub-inspector of police vs Neelapu MuraliMohan ane Muralireddy

17 Apr 2015

[1]

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

Present: Smt B.Nirmala, Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram. Friday this the seventh (17th) day of April, Two thousand fifteen (2015) Calendar Case No. 37/2015 Between:

State represented by The Sub inspector of Police ,Kaviti police station …… Complainant. And:

Neelapu Murali Mohan@Muralireddy,s/o Danayya, age 26 years , Boya street, Mandasa village ,Mandasa Mandal… …Accused .

This case is coming on 17-4-2015 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst.public prosecutor for the complaint and of Sri S.L.Naraayana, Advocate Legal Aid Counsel for the accused having stood over till this the day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The sub-inspector of police, Town police station filed charge sheet in crime no 11/2015 under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal code against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is:

On 28-2-2015 P.W.1 went to Kaviti on his personal needs returned home at 10pm and parked the motor cycle in front of his house and went inside of his house. In the early house at 5am the motor cycle is not found. He searched in the surrounding places .But the motor cycle is not traced .Some un identified culprit committed theft of the motor cycle .The values of the motor cycle is Rs 30,000/- and red in colour. On 1-3-205 at about 18.30hours P.W.1 present a report to P.W.8 at kaviti police station. P.W.8 registered the report as FIR in crime no 11/2015 under section 379 of IPC and investigated the case. During the course of investigation P.W.8 recorded the statement of P.W.1 at police station .Observed the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.7 and 8 Tippana Venunadham prepared crime details form and recorded the statement of L.W.2 to 5 .During the course of investigation ,P.W.9 arrested the accused on 2-3-2015 at 21.30hours at Silagam junction on NH 16 road and seized the stolen pulsar motorcycle AP 30 L 7050 duly recorded the disclosure statement of the accused before P.W.7 and 8T.Venunadham under the cover of mediators report

dt 2-3-2015 at 21.00hours . In the presence of disclosure statement of the

accused ,P.W.8 seized a glamour motorcycle AP 30 AA 702 involved in crime no 26/2015 of Tekkali police station and Mahindra Chenturo motorcycle AP 30 AB 6997 involved in crime no 13/2015 of Kanchali police station in the presence of P.W.7 and L.W.8 Tippana Venunadham under the cover of separate mediators report dt 2-3- 2015 at 22.00hours .The accused was produced before the court on 3-3-2015 for [2] judicial remand .P.W.8 recorded the statement of P.W.6 .After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused .

03.This case was taken on file under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code against the caused.

04.On appearance of the accused the case copies were furnished to them as required by section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 379 or 411of Indian penal code. Before framing charge heard both prosecution and defence .upon hearing both side a charge under section 379 or 411of IPC framed and read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trail, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 8 were examined and got Exhibits P.1 to P.8 and E.D.1 to 3 were marked.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined u/s.313 and the same was denied by the accused and he further stated that he has no defence witnesses.

08.Heard both sides.

09.Now the point for consideration is 1] Whether the accused committed the offence of theft? [Or] 2] Whether the accused dishonestly receiving stolen property? 3] Whether the prosecution has been established their case beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point 1 to 3 :- In order to prove the case prosecution examined eight witnesses. Learned Asst public prosecutor submitted his side of arguments and he relied upon the following -P.W.1 lost his bike and he stationed in front of his house he gave Ex.P.1report to police. -P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and 3 visited Kanchili , sompet ,Ichapuram in search of his bike but in vain . In this regard evidence of P.W.1 corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2 and 3. - P.W.4 is a direct witness found the accused while the accused was in possession of crime vehicle. - P.W.5 is also direct witness found that the accused is in possession of stolen property. -P.W.7 is mediators present at the time of confession of the accused said that he along with mediators and police stating that he committed the offence not only in this crime but also crimes of Kanchili and Tekkali police. -Investigation officer examined as P.W.8 [3] -Prosecution with a evidence of direct witnesses along with confession statement of accused prosecution established the case and hence learned APP requested to convict the accused. Learned defense counsel submitted his side of arguments and relied upon the following -P.W.1 gave report to police on 1-3-2015 where as the offence took place in the night of 28-2-2015 .There was delay in lodging the FIR the evidence of P.W.1. -It is mentioned in prosecution case that he gave report on1-3-2015at about 12.00noon. -The evidence of P.W.1 is not in support of prosecution of case with regarding to lodging FIR is concerned. -P.W.2 and 3 present while P.W.1 in search of bike but Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 clearly shows that those facts were not stated by P.W.2 and 3 before police .They are contradictory statements - No case property was produced by the prosecution. -No crime details form was produced by the prosecution. -Ex.p.4 mediators does not contains anything with regard to the crime vehicle bearing no Ap 30 L 7050 . Hence the learned counsel for the accused requested to acquit the accused as prosecution failed to bay all reasonable doubt. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant deposed that deposed that on 28-2-2015 at about 9pm he came to his house after attending a meeting at Kaviti .He park his bike in front of his house .On the next morning he wake up at about 5am and found his bike was missing .He tried to search his vehicle along with two neighbors by name P.Krishna rao P.W.2 and K.Sundararao P.W.3.His vehicle bearing no Ap 30 L 7050 was found missing .They tried to search the vehicle and visited sompeta , Kanchili and some other areas but in vain . At about 5.30 am P.W.4 informed to him that she found some unknown person taking his bike towards Ichapuram. She further informed to him that unknown person asked her that he lost bike and he went to approach any mechanic. Unknown person also approached mechanic but mechanic refused to repair the bike. At about 12nnon he gave report to police. P.W.2 deposed that he have been running a shop fancy at Jadupurdi Rs name and style Jyothi ladies corner. He is native of Tungana puttuga village. At present he is residing at Jadupurdi RS. On 1-3-2015 at about 6am in the morning while he went to clean his shop at that time P.W.1 came to him and informed to him that he lost his bike and ask him to join with him to search the bike . Himself, P.W.1 and one Sundara rao went in search the bike visited Sompet,Kanchili and Ichapuram but in vain . On 2-3-2015 police came to his shop and examined him.

P.W.3 deposed that he is resident of Jadupuri RS Kaviti Mandal he is running a shop mee seva kendaram. On 1-3-2015 at about 5.30 am P.W.1 came to his house informed to him that he lost his bike. The vehicle bearing no AP 30 L 7050 belongs to P.W.1. He, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went in search the vehicle. They visited Sompeta, Kanchili and Ichapuram but in vain. He was examined by police on 2-3-2015.

[4]

P.W.4 deposed that she is resident of Jhadupudi RS she is running a pan shop. One day she lit a lamp and performed pooja in her house and came out of her house. Witness identified the accused who was standing in the court hall . She found the accused proceeding with a bike and asked her that he lost his bike key and asked her to show any bike mechanic. The colour of the bike is red in colour. She took her to a mechanic house but mechanic refused to repair the bike then accused went along with his bike. At 6am P.W.1 informed to that he lost his bike then she infirmed the above said event happened in early of the morning. They went to search the bike.

P.W.5 deposed that he is resident of Jadupurdi RS. He is a bike mechanic. On 1-3- 2015 P.W.4 came to his house at 4.30 am along with accused and bike and asked to repair the bike. Witness identified the accused. He refused to repair the bike and instructed them to come to his house in the morning but not at that time. They went away. He was examined by police on 2-3-2015.

P.W.6 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

P.W.7 is the mediators present at the time of scene observation and at the time of arrest deposed that on 2-3-2015 at about 7pm Kaviti police called him. He along with SI of police and Head constable and another constable went to Siligam Junction High way in a police jeep. Police conducted vehicle checking on the high way. At about 8.30 pm one person proceeding from Kanchili to Ichapuram on a bike bearing no AP 30 L 7050. Police stopped the bike. Person present in the court hall is the person proceeding along with a bike bearing number AP 30 L 7050. Then along with accused, police and he went to the place of occurrence. Police observe the scene of offence and drafted scene observation report. Mediators report drafted at Pooja hotel present buy the side of High way. Mediator’s report dt 2-3-2015 is marked as Ex.p.3. Mediator’s report dt 2-3-2015 which was drafted near railway station is marked as Ex.p.4 .Ex.p.3 was drafted at about 9 or 9.30pm. After one and half house of drafting Ex.p.3, Ex.p.4 was drafted. Accused confessed that he also committed theft of another two bikes

Investigating officer examined as P.W.8 he said that on 1-3-2015 Sunday P.W.1 came to police station at about 6.30pm and lodged a report. Basing on the report of P.W.1 he registered a case in crime no 11/2015 under section 379 of IPC and send the original Fir to the court and copies to the concerned. He examined P.W.1 and recorded his detail statement. On the next day 2-3-2015 he went to the scene of offence along with mediators P.W.7 and L.W.8 T.Venunadham observed the scene of offence prepared crime details form prepared rough sketch. He examined P.W.2 to 5 and recorded their detail statement. On the same day basing reliable information he received conduct vehicle check up at Siligam road junction on the right way at 9.45pm along with two mediators P.W.7, L.W.8, T.Venudaham , HC 1480,HC562 , PC 1554 .At about 9.30pm police stopped one vehicle proceeding from Kanchil to Ichapuram when he asked to stop he has not stopped the vehicle with the help of his staff they stop the vehicle and enquired the identity particulars of the accused . The person disclosed his name as Neelapu Murali Mohan @Mohan reddy r/o [5]

Mandasa village. The accused confessed his offence that he committed theft of vehicle and he proceeding to Berhampur to sell the vehicle. Accused further confessed the offence that he also stolen two bike and he kept the same at Pooja Dhaba, cases pending against him at Milyaputtu which is gold theft and another crime of Kasibugga. Accused confession the offence in the presence of mediators report. He drafted the confession statement of the accused. Basing on the confession the also proceed to pooja dhaba and receive the bikes at 10pm and gave information to Tekkali PS and Kanchili PS. He confirmed the crime basing on the information given by Sub inspectors of Tekkli PS and Kanchili PS. He has given arrest intimation to his mother. On 3-3-2015 he sends the accused for judicial remand. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet on 16-3-2015. He examined P.W.6 on 4-3-2015 and recorded his detail statement.

In support of case of prosecution P.W.1 said that he lost his bike he gave report to police .Later Police find out the bike as per P.W.1 he came to know that he lost his bike at about 5am in the morning hours where as in his evidence he said that at about 12.00noon he report to police . As per Ex.p.1 first information report was lodged report at about 18.30 hours but not at 12.00noon. As per P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and 3 he went in search of lost of bike visited so many places. Whereas the prosecution examined P.W.2 he said that he had not deposed as mentioned as in Ex.D.2. As per P.W.2 he denied that he came to know about the incident thought one Neelaveni i.e P.W.4. P.W. 2 in Ex.D.1 said that he did not stated before police that P.W.1 gave report at about 6.30 pm .The said facts are not corroborated into the evidence of P.W.1 .P.W.3 also denied that he came to know about the stolen property through P.W.4. Except with regarding to the search of bike no other aspect of P.W.3 and 2 are not corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. As per prosecution case P.W.4 and 5 found while the accused was in possession of bike .Thought they are direct witnesses P.W.4 he clearly identified the accused is the person to whom she found him on the day of incident along with one red colour bike . P.W.5 is also bike mechanic found the accused enquired and he approached him but he refused to repair the bike .As per prosecution P.W.4 and 5 witnesses identified the accused. But prosecution failed to produce the case property which is said to have stole n by the accused. No test identification parade was conducted by the police to identify the accused . The offence charged against the accused is theft. But not case property was produced by the prosecution. Unless producing case property whether the property which was said to have stolen by the accused is red or any other color cannot be concluded .It is the duty of the prosecution to produce the case property which was said to have been recovered from the accused .No peace of paper was produced by the prosecution to show that P.W.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle. In the evidence of P.W.1 he said that he handed over the keys and case documents to police at the time of lodging report to police. Prosecution failed to produce case [6] property along with keys and vehicle documents produced by the prosecution in order to establish the case of prosecution. P.W.6 did not state anything in support of prosecution case. Another aspect prosecution replied upon are Ex.p.3 and Ex.p.4 mediators report .As per P.W.7 mediator present at the time of scene observation and at the time of arrest of accused found this accused while he was in possession of case property Accused confessed the offence that not only in this case but also some other crime. P.W.8 is the investigating officer after lodging report from P.W.1 started investigation and went to the scene of offence along with mediator’s report P.W.7 L.W.8 P.Venunadham observed the scene of offence and prepared crime details form and rough sketch. Rough sketch is marked as Ex.p.7 but no crime details form produced by the prosecution to establish that this investigation offender observed the scene of offence in the presence of both the mediators .No scene of offence was established by the prosecution and it is fails to produced crime details form. In the Ex.p.6 FIR the reason for lodging delay this defacto complainant consulted their relatives before lodging the FIR where as in the evidence of P.W.1 he said that he went along with P.W.2 and 3 to search his bike with the information given by P.W.4 S.Neelaveni .The said facts were not corroborated with each other . Ex.p.4 which was drafted near line hotel Jadupudi does not contain this vehicle number and it bearing no Ap 30 L 7050 .Ex.p.3 report in the confession statement drafted by police but not mediators. The said fact was supported with the evidence of investigating officer. P.W.8 said that he drafted the report when the accused confessed before mediators . Confession before police not admissible in evidence. As per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. No confession made to Police officer shall be proved as against a person for any offence. The confession made to police cannot be proved as against the person. In the present case police officer drafted confession report .Hence it cannot be proved against that accused.

No case property was produced. No crime details from was produced by the prosecution to establish the scene of offence. No other documents produced by the prosecution to show that the P.W.1 is the owner of crime vehicle and he was in possession of the crime vehicle .

In view of the decision Chandanmal Vs State of Rajasthan reported in 1982 Raj CrC 32 Honourable court held that ‘Serious infirmities and lacunae in the prosecution case not explained by the prosecution. Benefit of doubt must go to the accused’.

In the present case in hand there are serious infirmities in the prosecution case. But they are not properly explained by the prosecution .It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the offence against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case prosecution failed to establish the case. Hence accused entitled for benefit of doubt .

In the result accused found not guilty for the offence under section 379 or 411 IPC and acquitted him under section 248(1) Cr.P.C . Accused shall set at liberty if he is not require any offence.

[7]

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17th day of April, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

P.W.1/dt 1-4-2015:Budda Manichandra Prakesh

P.W.2/dt1-4-2015: Ponduru Krishna rao

P.W.3/dt1-4-2015: Konchada Sundararao

P.W.4/dt 1-4-2015: Sodi Neelaveni

P.W.5/dt 1-4-2015: Voona Jogga

P.W.6/dt 6-4-2015: Sunil Singh

P.W.7/dt 6-4-2015: Vajji Giribabu

P.W.8/dt 8-4-2015: Y.Madhusudhanarao

For Defence: NONE

Documents Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.p.1 is the report dt 28-2-105 Ex.p.2 is the 161 cr.p.c statement of P.W.6 Ex.p.3 is the mediators report Ex.p.4 is the mediators report Ex.p.5 is page no 2 line 11 to 28 of mediator report Ex.p.6 is the First information report Ex.p.7 is the rough sketch Ex.p.8 is two photos along with compact disk For Defence:- Ex.D.1 is the 17th to 19th line of 1`61cr.p.c statement of P.W.2 Ex.D.2 is the line 10th of 161cr.p.c statement of P.W.2 Ex.D.3 is the line 8th of 161cr.p.c statement of P.W.3.

Material Objects For Prosecution:-Nill-

For Defence:-Nill-Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

[8]

Hearing the Sentence:-

When the accused A.1and A.2 are asked whether they got anything to say about sentence the accused submitted as follows:-

Accused:

On considering the above plea of the accused on quantum of sentence and on perusing the entire material available on record, considering the manner in which the accused committed the offence, I am of opinion that this is not a fit case to apply the probation of Offenders Act.

I am satisfied to sentence the accused for the offence under section 411 IPC. Hence the accused A.1and A.2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

The remand period if any shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The remand period for accused A.1, A.2 from 19-8-2013 to 3-9-2013 shall set off.

[9]

The accused is also informed about the right of appeal of this judgment and also informed about the right of legal aid as per section 304 cr.p.c .

Dictated to the personal Assistant, typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 30th day of December, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

[10] [11] [12]

CC/29/2015 Acquitted

State represented by The Excise inspector vs Vanjarana Krishna rao

31 Mar 2015

[1]

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

Present: Smt B.Nirmala, Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram. Tuesday , this the 31st day of March, 2015 Calendar Case No. 29/2015 Between:

State represented by The Sub inspector of Police Prohibition and Excise Ichapuram……Complainant.

And:

Vanjarana Krishan rao ,s/o late Papayya ,ag e60 years ,Yadava by caste, r/o Kaviti village ,Srikakulam District … …Accused

This case is coming on 31-3-2015 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst.public prosecutor for the complaint and of Sri G.Seetayyareddy , Advocate counsel for the accused having stood over till this the day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The sub-inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise Ichapuram filed a charge sheet in P.R.No 148/2014-15 under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is:

On 19-9-2014 at about 8.30 am during conducting of belt shop cross checking by the Ichapuram Proh & Excise Sub inspector along with staff in the limits of Kaviti village of Kaviti mandal arrested the accused for having with 2MC dowell no 1 whisky 180ml bottles 2 bottles 180IMLroyal stage Blended whisky 180ml ,3 bottles Imperial Bly whisky 180ml ,Green Lable premium whisky 180ml 1 bottle Aristocrat premium whisky 1 bottles 180ml officers choice reserve whisky 180ml 1 bottle king fisher strong premium beer 330ml 3 bottles knock out High punch strong beer 650ml four bottles and 2 bottles 180 ml 2 bottles of Mansion House XO Brandy each 180ml liquor then he admitted that he has no bills or records for possession of IML .Then seized the contraband ,draw samples from one each from each brand for analysis ,affixed identity slips ,sealed them and arrested the accused under cover of an slips ,sealed them and arrested the accused under cover of an occurrence report drafted there to that effect since no mediators .On return to the station P.W.2 registered a case in crime no 148/14-15 under section 34(a) of A.P. Exicse Act 1968 and submitted the FIR along with remand report . Samples are sent to the chemical examiner for analysis and the chemical examiner after due analysis opined that S.No Mansion House Brandy 180ml containing 25.3UP S.No 925,M.C Dowell no 1 whhisky 180ml containing 24.9 UP S.no 926,Imperial blue whisky 180ml containing 24.5UP S.No 928,Royal stage whisky 180ml containing 24.5 UP S.No 927, Green lable whisky 180ml containing 24.9 UP S.No 929, Aristocrat premium whisky 180ml 24.9 UP S.No 930, OC Whisky 180ml containing 25.3 UP S.No 931 ,King Firsher [2] strong beer 330ml containg in beer 12.4PS ,CENO 42/2015 Konck out high punch premium beer 650 ml contain 12.4 IS are beer vide CENO 42/15 dt 21-1-2015 . .After completion of investigation P.W.3 filed charge sheet against the accused.

03.This case was taken on file under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 against the caused.

04.On appearance of the accused the case copies were furnished to them as required by section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 before framing of charge heard counsel for the prosecution and defense later charge framed for the said offence read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trail, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 3 were examined and got Exhibits P.1 to P3, material objects M.O.1to 9 were marked.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined u/s.313 and the same was denied by the accused and he further stated that he has no defence witnesses.

08.Heard both sides.

09.Now the point for consideration is

1. Whether the prosecution has been established their case beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the evidence available on record established the Ingredients of Section 34(a)A.P Excise Act?

10. Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968?

Section 34(a) Who ever in contravention of this act or any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under or of any licence or permit granted or issued under the Act

(a)Importing ,exports, transports ,manufactures ,collets or possesses sells any intoxicant

Learned Asst public prosecutor submitted his argument and submits that

i) Accused committed the offence and liquor was seized from the possession of the accused ii) Occurrence report was also drafted; samples were drawn from the property iii) Analyst report also marked as Ex.p.3. Hence prosecution proved the guilt against the accused.

i) Learned counsel for Defence also submits his side of arguments and submits that ii) No mediators present at the time of seizure of property.

[3] iii) Prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to show that accused in possession of the liquor bottles. iv) there is not corroboration in between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.w.2 with regarding to the property is and its brands are concerned . Accused no way concerned with the offence Hence requested to acquit the accused

In order to prove its case of prosecution examine three witnesses. As per the evidence of P.W.1 on 19-9-2014 at about 8.30 am Domkuru village Kaviti mandal while they conducting route watch along with Sub inspector of police they detected this case. At about 8.30am they found a person hold one cover in his possession. On seeing police he tried to escape from us on suspicion they stopped him and asked him for that he informed to us that he was in possession of 5 gold Rabin bottles each 180ml bottles. Our sub inspector of police sends him for securing mediators. He went to village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. He informed the same to sub inspector of police .On inquiry the person disclosed his name as Vanjarapu Krishna rao . Si of police verified the liquor bottles present in the cover. There are 5 bottles present in the bag .He do not know who drafted occurrence report and draw samples

P.W.2 is the Sub Inspector of police , Proh& Excise, Ichapuram in whose presence the raid was conducted corroborated with the version of P.W.1.But as per P.W.1 they found 5 gold Rabin bottles each 180ml bottles present in possession of accused .Where as in the evidence of Sub inspector of police they have seized 2 Manson house Brady bottles each 180 ml ,batch no 78 dt 31-7-2014,2 MacDowell no 1 classic blended whisky each 180ml batch no 51dt 15-7-2014,1 Royal stage whisky 180ml batch no 39 dt 26-8-2014,3 Imperial blue whisky each 180ml batch no 72 dt 19-8-2014,1 green label whisky 180ml batch no 002 dt 13-6-2014,1 Aristocrat premium whisky 180ml batch no 51 dt 18-8-2014,1 Officers choice whisky batch no 213 dt 30-8-2014 ,3 king fisher strong beer each 330ml,4 Knock high punch strong beer each 650ml batch no 217 dt 19-7-2014.The said aspect was not corroborated with each other .P.W.2 registered the case .

Inspector of police Proh & Excise , Ichapuram examined as P.W.3 sends the sample bottled to chemical examiner Vishakhapatnam for chemical analysis .After receiving the chemical analysis report from Vishakhapatnam he conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. He also submitted a report to Deputy Commissioner Srikakulam Excise for distraction orders and order has not been received till today.

In order to bring home the guilt the prosecution must prove conscious possession or actual possession of liquor. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused is in possession and transporting liquor. The burden of proof of these ingredients is on the prosecution. The movement the prosecution has discharged the burden it shifts to the accused to show under what circumstances he was in possession of said liquor. P.W.1 also produced the M.O.1 to 9 along with Ex.p.3 Chemical analysis report clearly shows that the property seized by the police is liquor but prosecution not [4] produced any independent witness to show that the said property was seized for the accused by name Vanjara Krishna rao s/o late Papayya by that time he was in possession of 2 Manson house Brady bottles each 180 ml ,batch no 78 dt 31-7- 2014,2 MacDowell no 1 classic blended whisky each 180ml batch no 51dt 15-7- 2014,1 Royal stage whisky 180ml batch no 39 dt 26-8-2014,3 Imperial blue whisky each 180ml batch no 72 dt 19-8-2014,1 green label whisky 180ml batch no 002 dt 13-6-2014,1 Aristocrat premium whisky 180ml batch no 51 dt 18-8-2014,1 Officers choice whisky batch no 213 dt 30-8-2014 ,3 king fisher strong beer each 330ml,4 Knock high punch strong beer each 650ml batch no 217 dt 19-7-2014 .All the witness examined in this are the police witnesses.

In view of the decision Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and others V state of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 SC 1930 Honourable court held that ,the same must be subjected to strict scrutiny .However ,the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belonged to the police force ,and are either interested in the investigating or the prosecution agency .However ,as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought .

In the present case in hand except the police witnesses no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution present at the time of occurrence. The evidence P.W.1 to 3 cannot be discarded but their evidence must be corroborated with other independent witnesses. As per the evidence of P.w.1 the place of occurrence is near bridge near Kaviti villages even though they failed to secure the mediators .P.W.1 and 2 admits that it is a busy locality and there are residential house near the place of occurrence .Even though no mediator were not secured by P.W.1 and P.W.2.As per P.W.1 they found 5 gold Rabin bottles from the possession of accused ,where as Sub inspector of police they found the accused was in possession of 2 Manson house Brady bottles each 180 ml ,batch no 78 dt 31-7-2014,2 MacDowell no 1 classic blended whisky each 180ml batch no 51dt 15-7-2014,1 Royal stage whisky 180ml batch no 39 dt 26-8-2014,3 Imperial blue whisky each 180ml batch no 72 dt 19-8- 2014,1 green label whisky 180ml batch no 002 dt 13-6-2014,1 Aristocrat premium whisky 180ml batch no 51 dt 18-8-2014,1 Officers choice whisky batch no 213 dt 30-8-2014 ,3 king fisher strong beer each 330ml,4 Knock high punch strong beer each 650ml batch no 217 dt 19-7-2014. As per P.W.1 they found the accused at Domkuru village. As per the prosecution case raid was conducted at Kaviti village. The said aspect was not corroborated with the evidence P.W.2 with P.W.1.

In view of the decision Nripendra Namasudra V State of Assam reported in 1991 GHC 4 (NAD.)

It is not necessary for prosecution to produce all the charge sheeted witnesses to prove the allegation. Production of material and necessary witnesses must to unfold the genesis of prosecution case. Non examination of the boundary men and neighbors who were essential witnesses creating doubt as to actual affairs of disputed plot .Adverse presumption could be drawn.

[5]

In Honourable court held that Production of material and necessary witnesses must to unfold the genesis of prosecution case. In the present case in hand only two witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.1to 3 are official witnesses. None of the neighbors or nearby person were examined by the prosecution. The evidence of official witness not corroborated with any independent witness. The evidence was not corroborated with any other independent witness and prosecution field to explain the signatures of Ex.P.1 and Ex.p.2 their evidence is not believable. Mere production of liquor bottles is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused .Police failed to secure the mediators at the time of arrest of the accused and seizing of property.

When there were no mediator present at the time of arrest and seizer of contraband it is not safe to relay upon the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 unless their evidence was corroborated with any other independent witnesses. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce the material witness when it fails to do so the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. It is not just and proper to come to a conclusion about the guilt of the accused basing on the evidence placed by the prosecution. Hence prosecution failed to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt and it failed to bring home the guilt of the accused.

11.In the result the accused is not found guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A. P. Excise Act 1968 and acquitted him under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. M.O.1to 9 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of March, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: NONE. PW-1/dt 25-3-2015: B.Krishan rao P.W.2/dt 25-3-2015:D.Prabhakarao P.W.3/dt 25-3-2015:CH .Jagannadharaju

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 is Occurrence report, Ex.P.2 is First information report, [6]

Ex.P.3 is Chemical analysis report.

For Defence:-Nill- Material Objects M.O.1:-sample bottle M.O.2:- sample bottle M.O.3:- sample bottle M.O.4:- sample bottle M.O.5:- sample bottle M.O.6:- sample bottle M.O.7:- sample bottle M.O.8:- sample bottle M.O.9:- sample bottle

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

[7]

THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC29/2015

Deposition PW-3 witness for prosecution/accused.

Name:Jagannadharaju Religion: Hindu

Father’s Name: Krishnamraju Calling: Proh and Excise Inspector

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed by Smt. B.Nirmala, B.A.,LL.M., Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram in accordance with the provisions of Act.

Chief Examination by Sri APP:

[8]

Presently I am working as Inspector of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 25-9- 2012 to till today.

This is a case detected by our sub inspector and staff . Our sub inspector of police registered case in crime no 148/14-15 under section 34(a) A.P Excise Act 1968 on 19-9-2014 and send the case documents to this Honourable court on 20-9-2014. I have send the sample bottled to chemical examiner Vishakhapatnam for chemical analysis .After receiving the chemical analysis report from Vishakhapatnam I have conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused . I have submitted a report to Deputy Commissioner Srikakulam Excise for distraction orders. I have not received the distraction order.

FIR is marked as Ex,.p.2

Chemical analysis report is marked as Ex.p.3.

Cross examination by Sri ;-

THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC 29/2015

Deposition PW- 1 witness for prosecution/accused.

Name: B.Krishna rao Religion: Hindu [9]

Father’s Name: Calling: Proh and Excise Head Constable

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed before Smt B.Nirmala B.A.,LL.M.,Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram in accordance with Section 4 of oaths Act, 1989.

Chief Examination by Sri APP: Presently I am working as Head constable of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 2- 8-2014 to till today.

On 19-9-2014 at about 8.30 am Domkuru village Kaviti mandal while we are conducting route watch along with Sub inspector of police we detected this case. At about 8.30am we found a person hold one cover in his possession. On seeing us he tried to escape from us on suspicion we stopped him and asked him for that he informed to us that he was in possession of 5 gold Rabin bottles each 180ml bottles. Our sub inspector of police sends me for securing mediators. I went to village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. I informed the same to sub inspector of police .On inquiry the person disclosed his name as Vanjarapu Krishna rao . Si of police verified the liquor bottles present in the cover. There are 5 bottles present in the bag .I do not know who drafted occurrence report and draw samples.

Cross examination deferred at request call on 30-3-15 [10]

IN THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC29/2015

Deposition PW- 2 witness for prosecution/accused.

Name: D.Prabhakararao Religion: Hindu

Father’s Name: Calling: Sub Inspector Proh and Excise

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed before Smt B.Nirmala B.A.,LL.M.,Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Ichapuram in accordance with Section 4 of oaths Act, 1989.

Chief Examination by Sri APP: Presently I am working as Sub Inspector of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 4- 11-2011 to till today.

On 19-9-2014 as per the instructions given by B.L.Nehuru Proh and Excise Inspector I along with my staff conducted route watch this case was detected at about 8.30 am Kaviti village we conducted route watch .At about 8.30am pm we found a person hold one urea hand bag in his possession. On seeing us he tried to escape from us on suspicion I with the help of my staff we stopped him and asked him for that he informed to us that he was in possession of Orissa liquor bottles . I sent P.W.1 for securing mediators. P.W.1 went to nearby village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. He informed the same to me .On inquiry the person disclosed his name as Vanjara Krishna rao s/o late Papayya ,age 60 year ,Kaviti village . I verified the bag and found 2 Manson house Brady bottles each 180 ml ,batch no 78 dt 31-7-2014.

2 MacDowell no 1 classic blended whisky each 180ml batch no 51dt 15-7-2014 1 Royal stage whisky 180ml batch no 39 dt 26-8-2014 3 Imperial blue whisky each 180ml batch no 72 dt 19-8-2014 1 green label whisky 180ml batch no 002 dt 13-6-2014 1 Aristocrat premium whisky 180ml batch no 51 dt 18-8-2014 1 Officers choice whisky batch no 213 dt 30-8-2014 3 king fisher strong beer each 330ml 4 Knock high punch strong beer each 650ml batch no 217 dt 19-7-2014 . When I asked to show any permit or license to transport the same accused failed to show any permission .EL numbers on the bottles was torned .I draw one samples [11] from each brand and affixed identification slips on the bottles and obtained the signature on the accused and ours. Accused further revealed that he purchased the bottles to sell the same in his village and he purchased the same at Ichapuram from an unknown person .Our constable K.Uma pathi drafted occurrence report on my dictation . Latter accused was arrested and property was seized .I came back to police station and registered a case in PR 148/14-15 under section 34(a) A.P.Excise Act 1968 and granted station bail. Inspector of police sends the samples for chemical examination on 9-1-2015 .On 21-1-2015 received chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused. Occurrence report is marked as Ex.p.1,Samples marked as M.O.1 to 9

Cross examination deferred at request call on 30-3-15

CC/30/2015 Acquitted

State represented by The Excise inspector vs Pandava Venkatarao

31 Mar 2015

[1]

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

Present: Smt B.Nirmala, Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram. Tuesday, this the 31st day of March, 2015 Calendar Case No. 30/2015 Between:

State represented by The Sub inspector of Police Prohibition and Excise Ichapuram……Complainant.

And:

Pandava Venkata rao ,s/o late Bhagavanu, age 38 years ,Sondi by caste r/o Balliputtuga village in Kaviti Mandal ,Srikakulam District . … …Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.The sub-inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise Ichapuram filed a charge sheet in P.R.No 149/2014-15 under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is:

On 20-9-2014 ta bout 12.30 pm during the patrolling conducted by the Proh & Excise Sub inspector ,Ichapuram along with staff and Enforcement wing Srikakulam staff in the limits of Balliputtuga village in Kaviti Mandal the accused was found in possession of one urea gunny bag containing gild pace prestige whisky 180ml bottles 66, Bag piper elite whisky 180ml bottles 5 ,officers choice reserve whisky 180ml 6, Aristocrat premium reserve whisky 180ml bottles 2, gold riban elite whisky 180ml bottles 5, imperial blue classic grain whisky 180ml bottles 4, Original choice whisky 180ml bottles 4 , then verified the bonafides of the accused , tried for mediators but invain then seized the 92IML bottles contraband ,drawn samples of one from each brand for analysis purpose ,affixed identity slips sealed them and arrested the accused under the cover of occurrence report drafted there and brought the accused to the station along with property .On return to the station L.w.7 registered a case in crime no 149/14-15 under section 34(a) of A.P.ExciseAct 1968 and submitted the FIR. Samples sent to the chemical examiner for analysis and the chemical examiner after due analysis opined that they are Indian made liquor S.no 1 to 7 S.No 934,935,936,937,938,939 .940 and containing 24.9,24.5,24.5, 24.9,25.3,24.9,25.3 UP respectively and are Indian made liquor vide [2]

CE.No 42/15 dt 21.01.2015 .After completion investigation Inspector of police proh & Excise filed charge sheet against the accused .

03.This case was taken on file under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 against the caused.

04.On appearance of the accused the case copies were furnished to them as required by section 207 Cr.P.C.

06.During the course of trail, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 3 were examined and got Exhibits P.1 to P3, material objects M.O.1to 7 were marked.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined u/s.313 and the same was denied by the accused and he further stated that he has no defence witnesses.

08.Heard both sides.

09.Now the point for consideration is

1. Whether the prosecution has been established their case beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the evidence available on record established the Ingredients of Section 34(a)A.P Excise Act?

10. Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968?

Section 34(a) Who ever in contravention of this act or any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under or of any licence or permit granted or issued under the Act

(a)Importing ,exports, transports ,manufactures ,collets or possesses sells any intoxicant

Learned Asst public prosecutor submitted his argument and submits that

i) Accused committed the offence and liquor bottles were seized from the possession of the accused ii) Occurrence report was also drafted; samples were drawn from the property iii) Analyst report also marked as Ex.p.3. Hence prosecution proved the guilt against the accused.

[3]

Accused no way concerned with the offence Hence requested to acquit the accused

In order to prove the case of prosecution In this case prosecution examine three witnesses. As per the evidence of P.W.1 on 29-9-2014 at about 2.30pm at kaviti Mandal half kilo meter distance Balleputtuga village by the side of road while they are conducting route watch along with Sub inspector of police, Stf Palasa , Enforcement Srikakulam detected this case. At about 2.30pm they found a person hold one white gunny bag in his possession. On seeing police he tried to escape from them on suspicion they stopped him and asked him for that he informed to them that he was in possession of 92 nip bottles. Our sub inspector of police sends him for securing mediators. He went to village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. He informed the same to sub inspector of police .He do not remember the name of the accused. Si of police verified the liquor bottles present in the cover. There are 92 nip bottles present in the bag. Inspector of police draw seven samples from each brand and affixed identification slips on the bottles and obtained the signature on the accused and ours. Latter accused was arrested and property. Inspector of police drafted occurrence report. Latter accused was arrested and brought him to police station .

P.W.2 Sub Inspector of police , Proh& Excise ,Ichapuram in whose presence the raid was conducted corroborated with the version of P.W.1.But as per P.W.1 they have seized 92 nip bottles where as P.W. 2 deposed that they have seized 66 Gold rays prestige whisky each 180ml batch no 24 dt 6-9-2014,6 officers choice whisky each 180ml batch no 126 dt 19-8-2014,5 bottles bag piper whisky each 180ml batch no 187 dt 14-8-2014,5 gold riban whisky each 180ml batch no 010 dt 11-9-2014,4 Original choice whisky each 180ml batch no 84 dt 4-9-2014,4 Imperial blue whisky each 180 ml batch no 083 dt 4-9-2014 .The said aspect was not corroborated with each other .

Inspector of police Proh & Excise ,Ichapuram examined as P.W.3 sends the sample bottled to chemical examiner Vishakhapatnam for chemical analysis .After receiving the chemical analysis report from Vishakhapatnam he conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. He also submitted a report to Deputy Commissioner Srikakulam Excise for distraction orders and order has not been received till today.

In order to bring home the guilt the prosecution must prove conscious possession or actual possession of liquor. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the accused is in possession and transporting liquor. The burden of proof of these ingredients is on the prosecution. The movement the prosecution has discharged the burden it shifts to the accused to show under what circumstances he was in possession of said liquor. P.W.1 also produced the M.O.1 to 7 along with Ex.p.3 Chemical analysis report clearly shows that the property seized by the police is liquor but prosecution not produced any independent witness to show that the said property was seized for the accused by name Pandava Venkata rao s/o Bhagawan by that time he was in possession of 66 Gold rays prestige whisky each 180ml batch no 24 dt 6-9-2014,6 [4] officers choice whisky each 180ml batch no 126 dt 19-8-2014,5 bottles bag piper whisky each 180ml batch no 187 dt 14-8-2014,5 gold riban whisky each 180ml batch no 010 dt 11-9-2014,4 Original choice whisky each 180ml batch no 84 dt 4-9- 2014,4 Imperial blue whisky each 180 ml batch no 083 dt 4-9-2014 .All the witness examined in this are the police witnesses.

In the present case in hand except the police witnesses no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution present at the time of occurrence . The evidence P.W.1 to 3 cannot be discarded but their evidence must be corroborated with other independent witnesses. As per the evidence of P.w.1 the place of occurrence is Balleputtuga villages even though they failed to secure the mediators .P.W.1 and 2 admits that it is a busy locality and there are residential house near the place of occurrence .Even though no mediator were not secured by P.W.1 and P.W.2. As per P.W.1 they found 92 nip bottles from the possession of accused ,where as Sub inspector of police they found the accused was in possession of 66 Gold rays prestige whisky each 180ml batch no 24 dt 6-9-2014,6 officers choice whisky each 180ml batch no 126 dt 19-8-2014,5 bottles bag piper whisky each 180ml batch no 187 dt 14-8-2014,5 gold riban whisky each 180ml batch no 010 dt 11-9-2014,4 Original choice whisky each 180ml batch no 84 dt 4-9-2014,4 Imperial blue whisky each 180 ml batch no 083 dt 4-9-2014 . The said aspect was not corroborated with the evidence P.W.2 with P.W.1.

In view of the decision Nripendra Namasudra V State of Assam reported in 1991 GHC 4 (NAD.)

In Honourable court held that Production of material and necessary witnesses must to unfold the genesis of prosecution case. In the present case in hand only two witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.1to 3 are official witnesses. None of the neighbors or nearby person were examined by the prosecution. The evidence of official witness not corroborated with any independent witness. The evidence was not corroborated with any other independent witness hence their evidence is not believable. Mere production of liquor bottles is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the [5] accused .Police failed to secure the mediators at the time of arrest of the accused and seizing of property .

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of March, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: NONE. PW-1/dt 25-3-2015: S.V.Ramana P.W.2/dt 25-3-2015: D.Prabhakarao P.W.3/dt 25-3-2015: CH.Jagannadharaju Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 is Occurrence report, Ex.P.2 is First information report, Ex.P.3 is Chemical analysis report.

For Defence:-Nill-

Material Objects M.O.1:-sample bottle M.O.2:- sample bottle M.O.3:- sample bottle M.O.4:- sample bottle M.O.5:- sample bottle M.O.6:- sample bottle M.O.7:- sample bottle [6]

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

[7]

THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC30/2015

Deposition PW- 3 witness for prosecution/accused.

Name:Jagannadharaju Religion: Hindu

Father’s Name: Krishnamraju Calling: Proh and Excise Inspector

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed by Smt. B.Nirmala, B.A.,LL.M., Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram in accordance with the provisions of Act.

Chief Examination by Sri APP: Presently I am working as Inspector of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 25-9- 2012 to till today.

This is a case detected and handed over Sub inspector and staff . Our sub inspector of police registered case in crime no 149/14-15 under section 34(a) A.P Excise Act 1968 on 20-9-2014. Case records sent to the Honourable court on 22-9-2014 .Notice served to the accused .I have send the sample bottled to chemical examiner Vishakhapatnam for chemical analysis .After receiving the chemical analysis report from Vishakhapatnam I have conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused . I have submitted a report to Deputy Commissioner Srikakulam Excise for distraction orders. I have not received the distraction order.

FIR is marked as Ex,.p.2

Chemical analysis report is marked as Ex.p3.

Cross examination by Sri ;-deferred at request [8]

THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC 30/2015

Deposition PW- 1 witness for prosecution/accused.

Name: S.V.Ramana Religion: Hindu

Father’s Name: Calling: Proh and Excise Head Constable

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed before Smt B.Nirmala B.A.,LL.M.,Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram in accordance with Section 4 of oaths Act, 1989.

Chief Examination by Sri APP: Presently I am working as Head constable of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 22-6-12 to till today.

On 29-9-2014 at about 2.30pm at kaviti Mandal half kilo meter distance Balleputtuga village by the side of road while we are conducting route watch along with Sub inspector of police, Stf Palasa , Enforcement Srikakulam we detected this case. At about 2.30pm we found a person hold one white gunny bag in his possession. On seeing us he tried to escape from us on suspicion we stopped him and asked him for that he informed to us that he was in possession of 92 nip bottles. Our sub inspector of police sends me for securing mediators. I went to [9] village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. I informed the same to sub inspector of police .I do not remember the name of the accused . Si of police verified the liquor bottles present in the cover. There are 92 nip bottles present in the bag. Inspector of police draw seven samples from each brand and affixed identification slips on the bottles and obtained the signature on the accused and ours. Latter accused was arrested and property. Inspector of police drafted occurrence report. Occurrence report is marked as Ex.p.1 .Samples are marked as M.O.1 to 7.Latter accused was arrested and brought him to police station .

Cross examination deferred at request call on 30-3-15 [10]

Cross examination by Sri GS:-

I do not know the facts of case as I have detected this case . It is not true to suggest that this is a false case was foisted against the accused for our statistical purpose accused no way concerned with this offence .

[11]

IN THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC30/2015

Deposition PW- 2 witness for prosecution/accused.

Name: D.Prabhakararao Religion: Hindu

Father’s Name: Calling: Sub Inspector Proh and Excise

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed before Smt B.Nirmala B.A.,LL.M.,Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Ichapuram in accordance with Section 4 of oaths Act, 1989.

Chief Examination by Sri APP:

[12]

Presently I am working as Sub Inspector of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 4- 11-2011 to till today.

On 20-9-2014 watch as per the instructions given by B.L.Nehuru Proh and Excise Inspector I along with my staff conducted route watch at Balleputuga village of Kaviti mandal we conducted route this case was detected Along with us enforcement wing, STF palasa accompanied with us . At about 12.30 noon we found a person hold one gunny bag in his possession. On seeing us he tried to escape from us on suspicion I with the help of my staff we stopped him and asked him for that he informed to us that he was in possession of Orissa liquor bottles. I sent P.W.1 for securing mediators. P.W.1 went to nearby village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. He informed the same to me .On inquiry the person disclosed his name as Pandava Venkata rao s/o Bhagawan ,age 38 years , Sondi , Balleputtuga village Kaviti mandal. I verified the cover and found 66 Gold rays prestige whisky each 180ml batch no 24 dt 6-9-2014 6 officers choice whisky each 180ml batch no 126 dt 19-8-2014 5 bottles bag piper whisky each 180ml batch no 187 dt 14-8-2014 5 gold riban whisky each 180ml batch no 010 dt 11-9-2014 4 Original choice whisky each 180ml batch no 84 dt 4-9-2014 4 Imperial blue whisky each 180 ml batch no 083 dt 4-9-2014

When I asked to show any permit or license to transport the same accused failed to show any permission .EL numbers on the bottles was torned .I draw one samples from each brand and affixed identification slips on the bottles and obtained the signature on the accused and ours. Accused further revealed that he purchased the bottles to sell the same in his village and he purchased the same at Ichapuram from an unknown person .On my dictation our constable T.Umapathi drafted occurrence report. Latter accused was arrested and property was seized .I came back to police station and registered a case in PR 149/14-15 under section 34(a) A.P.Excise Act 1968 and granted station bail. Inspector of police sends the samples for chemical examination on 9-1-2015 .On 21-1-2015 received chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused.FIR is marked as Ex.p.2

Cross examination deferred at request call on 30-3-15 [13]

CC/28/2015 Acquitted

State represented by The Excise inspector vs Mogilipuri Pithambara sahu

31 Mar 2015

[1]

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

Present: Smt B.Nirmala, Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram. Tuesday, this the 31st day of March, 2015 Calendar Case No. 28/2015 Between:

State represented by The Sub inspector of Police Prohibition and Excise Ichapuram……Complainant.

And:

Mogalipuri Pithambara sahu , s/o late Sanyasi Sahu ,ag e58 years , Sondi aste , r/o Donkuru village ,Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District … … Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.The sub-inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise Ichapuram filed a charge sheet in P.R.No 147/2014-15 under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is:

On 18-9-2014 at about 18.00hours during the route watch conducted by the Proh & Excise sub inspector Ichapuram along with staff in the limits of Donkuru village in Ichapuram Mandalam found the accused in possession of one white urea gunny bag with 22king fisher Beer 330ml bottles ,35 officers choice whisky bottles 180ml and 42 gold Ribband elite whisky 180ml bottles then tried for mediators ,but invain ,then verified the bonafidies of the accused and also about the source of the contraband and about any record pertaining to the IML but he Has no any bills or records with him ,but it is duty paid liquor then seized the same drawn samples for each brand affixed identity slips sealed them and arrested the accused under the cover of an occurrence report drafted there to that effect and brought the accused along with report and property to the station . On return to the station ,L.W.4 CH .Jagannadharaju Proh & Excise Inspector registered a case in crime no 147/14-15 under section 34(a) Of A.P. Excise Act of 1968 and submitted the FIR . Samples set to the chemical examiner for analysis and the chemical examiner after due analysis opined that S.no 922is King fisher strong beer 330ml is Beer S.No 923 officers choice classic whisky 180ml is and gold Riband Elite Whisky S.No 924 are Indian Made liquor each containing 12.4ps,25.3,25.3UP .CENo 42/14 dt 21-10-2015 .After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused [2]

03.This case was taken on file under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 against the caused.

04.On appearance of the accused the case copies were furnished to them as required by section 207 Cr.P.C.

06.During the course of trail, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 3 were examined and got Exhibits P.1 to P3, material objects M.O.1to 3 were marked.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined u/s.313 and the same was denied by the accused and he further stated that he has no defence witnesses.

08.Heard both sides.

09.Now the point for consideration is

1. Whether the prosecution has been established their case beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the evidence available on record established the Ingredients of Section 34(a)A.P Excise Act?

10. Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968?

Section 34(a) Who ever in contravention of this act or any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed there under or of any licence or permit granted or issued under the Act

(a)Importing ,exports, transports ,manufactures ,collets or possesses sells any intoxicant

Learned Asst public prosecutor submitted his argument and submits that

i) Learned counsel for Defence also submits his side of arguments and submits that ii) No mediators present at the time of seizure of property. iii) Prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to show that accused in possession of the liquor bottles. iv) there is not corroboration in between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.w.2 with regarding to the property is and its brands are concerned . Accused no way concerned with the offence [3]

Hence requested to acquit the accused

In order to prove its case of prosecution examine three witnesses. As per the evidence of P.W.1on 18-9-2014 at about 6pm Domkuru near a bridge while they are conducting route watch along with Sub inspector of police they detected this case. At about 6pm they found a person hold one cover in his possession. On seeing us police tried to escape from them on suspicion they stopped him and asked him for that he informed to them that he was in possession of nip bottles. Our sub inspector of police sends me for securing mediators. He went to village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. He informed the same to sub inspector of police .On inquiry the person disclosed his name as Pitambara Sahu . Si of police verified the liquor bottles present in the cover. There are 40 nip bottles present in the bag. Inspector of police draw two samples from each brand and affixed identification slips on the bottles and obtained the signature on the accused and ours. Latter accused was arrested and property. Inspector of police drafted occurrence report.

P.W.2 is the Sub Inspector of police , Proh& Excise,Ich in whose presence the raid was conducted corroborated with the version of P.W.1.But as per P.W.1 they found 40 nip bottles present in possession of accused .Where as in the evidence of Sub inspector of police they have seized 180ml officer choice whisky bottles, gold riban whisky 180 ml bottled 42 it also contains, King Fisher beer 330ml 22.The said aspect was not corroborated with each other .P.W.2 registered the case .

Inspector of police Proh & Excise, Ichapuram examined as P.W.3 sends the sample bottled to chemical examiner Vishakhapatnam for chemical analysis .After receiving the chemical analysis report from Vishakhapatnam he conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. He also submitted a report to Deputy Commissioner Srikakulam Excise for distraction orders and order has not been received till today.

In view of the decision Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and others V state of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 SC 1930 Honourable court held that, the same must be subjected to strict scrutiny .However, the evidence of police officials cannot [4] be discarded merely on the ground that they belonged to the police force ,and are either interested in the investigating or the prosecution agency .However ,as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought .

In view of the decision Nripendra Namasudra V State of Assam reported in 1991 GHC 4 (NAD.)

[5]

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of March, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: NONE. P.W.1/dt 25-3-2015: S.V.Ramana P.W.2/dt 25-3-2015: D.Prabhakara rao P.W.3/dt 25-3-2015 : Ch.Jagannadharaju. Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 is Occurrence report, Ex.P.2 is First information report, Ex.P.3 is Chemical analysis report.

For Defence:-Nill-

Material Objects M.O.1:-sample bottle M.O.2 :- sample bottle M.O.3:- sample bottle

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram. Cross examination by Sri RDR:-

Before filing charge sheet I visited the scene of o offence but I do not remember

when I received charge sheet .I have personal knowledge of chemical examination .I was not present while samples were examined in this case. The contraband seized in this case is a duty paid liquor . No rough sketch was prepared . It is not true to suggest that this false was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose in fact accused was not way concerned with the offence .

[6] [7]

THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC 28/2015

Deposition PW- witness for prosecution/accused.

Name:Jagannadharaju Religion: Hindu

Father’s Name: Krishnamraju Calling: Proh and Excise Inspector

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed by Smt. B.Nirmala, B.A.,LL.M., Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram in accordance with the provisions of Act.

Chief Examination by Sri APP: Presently I am working as Inspector of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 25-9- 2012 to till today.

This is a case detected by our sub inspector and staff . Our sub inspector of police registered case in crime no 147/14-15 under section 34(a) A.P Excise Act 1968 on 18-9-2014 and send the case documents to this Honourable court on 19-9-2014. I have send the sample bottled to chemical examiner Vishakhapatnam for chemical analysis .After receiving the chemical analysis report from Vishakhapatnam I have conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused . I have submitted a report to Deputy Commissioner Srikakulam Excise for distraction orders. I have not received the distraction order.

FIR is marked as Ex,.p.2

Chemical analysis report is marked as Ex.p.3.

Cross examination by Sri RDR:-

We started from station at about 5pm .we went to the place of occurrence in a Jeep .We went to Domkuru by touching some other villages. We reached there at [8] 6pm. I can say the contents of occurrence report. From place of occurrence we straight away came to police station . It is not true to suggest that this false was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose .

[9]

THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC 28/2015

Deposition PW- 1 witness for prosecution/accused.

Name: S.V.Ramana Religion: Hindu

Father’s Name: Calling: Proh and Excise Constable

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed before Smt B.Nirmala B.A.,LL.M.,Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram in accordance with Section 4 of oaths Act, 1989.

Chief Examination by Sri APP: Presently I am working as constable of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 22-6-12 to till today.

On 18-9-2014 at about 6pm Domkuru near a bridge while we are conducting route watch along with Sub inspector of police we detected this case. At about 6pm we found a person hold one cover in his possession. On seeing us he tried to escape from us on suspicion we stopped him and asked him for that he informed to us that he was in possession of nip bottles. Our sub inspector of police sends me for securing mediators. I went to village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. I informed the same to sub inspector of police .On inquiry the person disclosed his name as Pitambara Sahu . Si of police verified the liquor bottles present in the cover. There are 40 nip bottles present in the bag. Inspector of police draw two samples from each brand and affixed identification slips on the bottles and obtained the signature on the accused and ours. Latter accused was arrested and property. Inspector of police drafted occurrence report. Occurrence report is marked as Ex.p.1.

Cross examination deferred at request call on 30-3-15 [10]

THE COURT OF JUDUCIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, ICHAPURAM.

CC28/2015

Deposition PW- 2 witness for prosecution/accused.

Name: D.Prabhakararao Religion: Hindu

Father’s Name: Calling: Sub Inspector Proh and Excise

Village: Age: years

Mandal: Ichapuram Date: 25-3-2015

Solemnly affirmed before Smt B.Nirmala B.A.,LL.M.,Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Ichapuram in accordance with Section 4 of oaths Act, 1989.

Chief Examination by Sri APP: Presently I am working as Sub Inspector of police Proh & Excise Ichapuram from 4- 11-2011 to till today.

On 18-9-2014 at about 6 pm Ichapuram mandal Domkuru village near a bridge we conducted route watch as per the instructions given by B.L.Nehuru Proh and Excise Inspector I along with my staff conducted route watch this case was detected. At about 6pm pm we found a person hold one gunny bag in his possession. On seeing us he tried to escape from us on suspicion I with the help of my staff we stopped [11] him and asked him for that he informed to us that he was in possession of Orissa liquor bottles . I sent P.W.1 for securing mediators. P.W.1 went to Domkuru village and tried to secure the mediators .But nobody came forward to act as mediators. He informed the same to me .On inquiry the person disclosed his name as Pitambara Sahu s/o late Sanyasi sahu ,age 58 years , somdi ,Domkuru village . I verified the cover and found 180ml officer choice whisky bottles ,For sale in Andhra Pradesh ,batch no 73dt 5-7-2014 was mentioned on the bottles ,Registered trade mark owned by Allied dislaries pvt, gold riban whisky 180 ml bottled 42 it also contains, For sale in Andhra Pradesh ,batch no 009dt 9-9-2014 was mentioned on the bottles , blended and bottled by Pearl distilleries ltd Singarayakonda , King Fisher beer 330ml 22 bottles it was mentioned on the bottles that for sale in A.P Batch no 586 dt 2-9- 2014 united beverages ltd Ranastalam . When I asked to show any permit or license to transport the same accused failed to show any permission .EL numbers on the bottles was torned .I draw one samples from each brand and affixed identification slips on the bottles and obtained the signature on the accused and ours. Accused further revealed that he purchased the bottles to sell the same in his village and he purchased the same at Ichapuram from an unknown person .I drafted occurrence report. Latter accused was arrested and property was seized .I came back to police station and registered a case in PR 147/14-15 under section 34(a) A.P.Excise Act 1968 and granted station bail. Inspector of police sends the samples for chemical examination on 9-1-2015 .On 21-1-2015 received chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused. Samples marked as M.O.1 to 3

Cross examination deferred at request call on 30-3-15

CC/225/2014 Acquitted

Ichapuram Rural p.s. vs Korikana Mohana rao and one toher

31 Mar 2015

[1]

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

Present: Smt B.Nirmala, Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram.

Thursday this is the thirty first (31st ) day of March, Two thousand Fifteen (2015) Calendar Case No.225/2014 Between:

State represented by The Sub inspector of Police Rural police station ……Complainant. And:

1]Korikana Mohanarao ,s/o Balaju age 30 years , Tutudapalli village ,Kotarasingi post ,Golantra PS Ganjam district ,Odisha .Driver of lorry AP 31 W 6117 2] Mallineni Tirupathirao ,s/oMunnayya ,age 50 years , Kamma by caste , V.K Peta village ,Ichapuram .Owner of lorry AP 31 W 6117. … …Accused This case is coming on 31-3-2015 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst.public prosecutor for the complaint and of Sri G.Seethayya , Advocate for the accused having stood over till this the day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The sub-inspector of police, rural police station filed charge sheet in crime no 113/2014 under section 447,379 I.P.C against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is:

On the night of 26-11-2014 the accused A.1 and A.2 took the lorry AP 31 W 6117 to the Bahuda river bed at Pathaleswara temple,Ichapuram got excavated the sand with un known labors illegally meant for selling at Sompeta as they were aware that they trespassed in to the government land and committed theft of and and on 27- 11-14 at 12.00hours traced to P.W.4 on NH 16 road at Ampuram Junction of Kanchili Mandal . On 27-11-2014 at 12.00hours while P.W.4 along with P.W.1 conducting vehicle checking on NH 16 road at Ampuram junction of Kanchili Mandal and found the accused A.1 and A.2 are going in the sand laden lorry stopped the lorry verified their addresses arrested them at 13.00horus and seized the lorry under the cover of occurrence report .

P.W.4 registered the FIR as a case in crime no 131/14 under section 447,379 of IPC on 27-11-2014 at 13.30 hour and investigated. During the course of investigation ,P.W.4 photographed the lorry with p.w.2 recorded the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 sendt the accused for judicial remand and transferred the case to Ichapuram rural police station on point of Jurisdiction . P.W.5 re –registered the FIR in crime no 113/14 under section 447,379 of IPC on 30-11-2014 at 17.00hours and investigated . During the course of investigation L.W.6 observed the scene of offence in the presence of L.W.3Peddina Duryodhana and P.W.3 and prepared rough sketch and filed charge sheet against the accused.

[2]

03.This case was taken on file under section 447,379I.P.C against the caused.

04.On appearance of the accused the case copies were furnished to them as required by section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 447,379 I.P.C. Heard before framing of charges. A charge under section 447,379 framed and read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trail, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 5 were examined and got Exhibits P.1 to P.6 marked.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined u/s.313 and the same was denied by the accused and he further stated that he has no defence witnesses.

08.Heard both sides.

09.Now the point for consideration is 1] Whether the accused committed criminal trespass? 2] Whether the accused committed theft? 3] Whether the prosecution has been established their case beyond all reasonable doubt? In order to prove the offence under section 447 of Indian Penal code The ingredients of section of 447 of Indian Penal code is The complaint must be in possession of the property The accused entered in to or upon the property to having entered into unlawfully The intention was to

a) Commit an offence

b) Intimidate

c) Insult

d) Annoy any person in possession of property.

The ingredients of section of 379 of Indian Penal code is The subject matter of theft is movable property The property is in possession of any person The accused moved it unfairly The accused did so without the consent of the person in possession They did so intending to take it out of his possession The accused did so dishonestly In order to prove its case prosecution examined five witnesses. As per the evidence of P.W.1 he along with sub inspector of police conducted vehicle check up at Ampuram junction at about 2pm they found one lorry bearing no AP 31 W 6117 proceeding from Ichapuram to Palasa and on suspicion they stopped the lorry and verified it there are two person inside the lorry cabin and on enquiry they said that [3]

A.1 is the owner and A.2 is the drive of the lorry. On verification they found sand on the lorry. When they are asked to show receipt of the load they failed to produced .Then Sub inspector of police P.W.4 tried to secure mediators but nobody came forward to act as mediators hence P.W.4 drafted mediators report and he signed on it . P.W.4 also corroborated with the version of P.W.1. P.W.2 photographer obtains photographs of the crime vehicle. P.W.3 mediator present at the time of scene observation said that on 1-12-14 at 9am while he along with one Mohan rao proceeding form Ichapuram to Loddaputti they found Sub inspector of police rural polices station near Bahuda river bridge .By that time a tractor loading sand proceeding from Bahuda river bed. Sub inspector of police rural station found the tractor seized it and drafted a report .He cannot say the place of river bed where sand was excavated. Police drafted a report and he signed on it . P.W.5 Sub inspector of police re-registered the crime, observed the scene of offence

and

The investigation officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then FIR can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime is committed. The offence charge against the accused is under section 447 and 379 of Indian penal code. As per the prosecution case the accused excavated the land from Bahuda river bed. P.W.1 and 4 are police person conducted vehicle check up and found the crime vehicle and accused while illegally transporting sand. P.W.4 Sub inspector of police Kanclili police station cross examined by the defense counsel and in his cross examination he admits that the scene of offence is a busy locality in such circumstances he ought to have secure mediators .But in the present case no mediator were present at the time of drafting occurrence report . Both of witnesses present are police officials .The evidence of them must be corroborated with any independent witnesses. In view of the decision Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar and others V state of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1995 SC 1930 Honourable court held that ,the same must be subjected to strict scrutiny .However ,the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belonged to the police force ,and are either interested in the investigating or the prosecution agency .However ,as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought .

In the present case in hand except the police witnesses no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution present at the time of occurrence P.W.3 is mediators present at the time of scene observation deposed entirely a different story and not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.3 in his evidence discussed about a tractor where as the crime vehicle which was caught hold by [4]

P.W.4 is a lorry. The evidence of P.W.3 was not in support of the case of prosecution. P.W.5 re-registered the FIR and filed charge sheet against the accused. The matter of theft is sand. The said property was not produced by the prosecution. From which place of Bahuda river bed the sand was excavated was not discussed by the prosecution witness. Prosecution not produced any witnesses who were present while the accused excavating the said from the river bed . From which place it was committed theft was not shown. No direct witnesses were examined who was present at the time of excavation of sand by the accused. P.W.3 mediator who present at the time of scene observation not discussed anything in support of case of prosecution. In view of the decision Nripendra Namasudra V State of Assam reported in 1991 GHC 4 (NAD.)

In the decision honourable court held that It is not necessary for prosecution to produce all the charge sheeted witnesses to prove the allegation. Production of material and necessary witnesses must to unfold the genesis of prosecution case. Non examination of the boundary men and neighbors who were essential witnesses creating doubt as to actual affairs of disputed plot. In the present case in hand except P.W.1 to 5 no other witness examined by the prosecution. Seizing of property was also not established. L.W.3 Peddini Duryodhana was given up by APP. Which place of river bed the accused unlawfully entered and excavated the sand in order to commit theft was not established by the prosecution. The property was seized and the vehicles were seized but none were marked on behalf of prosecution .The theft property was not produced by the prosecution. None of the witness examined by the prosecution established that accused unlawfully entered in to the river bed and with an unfair and motive committed the offence of theft. Except P.W.1 to PW5 no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove that accused commits criminal trespass and committed an offence of theft Unless the producing the property or ,examining any independent witness or examining any direct witness the offence charged against the accused cannot be proved .At this stage accused entitled for benefit of doubt .Hence prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.In the result the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 447,379 of Indian Penal code and acquitted them under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Orders passed in Crl.m.p 158/2014 dt 17-12-2014 shall holds good. Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st , March, 2015.

[5]

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

P.W.1/dt 30-3-2015:I.Vykuntarao

P.W.2/dt 30-3-2015:Vankala Duryaodhana

P.W.3/dt 30-3-2015: Kontala Devaraju

P.W.4/dt 30-3-2015:K.Venkatasuresh

P.W.5/dt 30-3-2015:B.Ramarao

For Defence: NONE

Documents Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.p.1 is the occurrence report dt 27-11-2014

Ex.p.2 is the four photos along with compact disk

Ex.p.3 is the scene observation report dt 1-12-2014

Ex.p.4 is the FIR in crime no 131/14 dt 27-11-2014

Ex.p.5 is the FIR in crime no 113/14 dt 30-11-2014

Ex.P.6 is rough sketch dt 1-12-2014.

For Defence:-Nill-

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Order Record 20 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/37/2015	State represented by the sub-inspector of police vs Neelapu MuraliMohan ane Muralireddy	17 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/28/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Mogilipuri Pithambara sahu	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/29/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Vanjarana Krishna rao	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/30/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Pandava Venkatarao	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/225/2014	Ichapuram Rural p.s. vs Korikana Mohana rao and one toher	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/26/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Narthu Narasimha murthy	30 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/27/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Keelu Jayaram	30 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/32/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Neemalipuri Poorna	30 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/33/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Rangu Venkatarao	30 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/34/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Lenka Bheemayya	30 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/35/2015	State represented by The Excise inspector vs Isuru Vasudevulu	30 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/77/2012	Ichapuram town p.s. vs Gauranga charan gouda	30 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/18/2013	Nartu Punnalamma vs Betakala Papamma	05 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/3/2009	Magupalli Tirupatamma vs Mupada Madhavarao	04 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/9/2013	SBI Sompeta vs Balleda Rajarao	30 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/113/2012	State reprented by Ichapuram town ps vs Dukka Punnamma and three others	30 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/27/2007	BendalamRangamma vs Chegodi Tulasamma	18 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/48/2008	Shirarama chits pvt ltd ichapuram branch vs DasasriRajan Reddy	11 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/79/2007	Asi Gangamma vs Pinninti Lakshmamma and another	05 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/3/2010	Ananta Panda vs Krishna panda	20 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. handled?

B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. has handled 20 court orders since 2011 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Ichapuram (Taluka).

What types of cases does B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. hear?

Based on available records, B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Ichapuram (Taluka).

Where is B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. currently posted?

B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Ichapuram (Taluka), Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

Since when is B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. serving?

B.Nirmala,B.A.,LL.M. has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Ichapuram (Taluka) since 2011.

Case Types

CC 65%

OS 35%

Posting History

May 2015 — May 2015

Junior Civil Judge
Oct 2011 — May 2015

Junior Civil Judge · 20 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Kanchi Srinivas

Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Ichapuram (Taluka)