B. Swetha

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GOOTY

Present: Miss B. Swetha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Friday, the 20th day of June, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.255 of 2024

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police station. … Complainant.

And

Pothuraju Manindar S/o P. Ganesh, aged 36 years, R/o D.No.48/101, Budhawarpet Street, Kurnool Town and District. (Driver of Car bearing Registration No.AP39GY2088) .… Accused

* * * * *

This case came on 19.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

APP for the State and of Sri A.V. Sainath Reddy, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.25 of 2024 for the offences punishable under sections 337, 338 and 304-

A of Indian Penal Code of Pamidi Police station against the accused.

2. The brief case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 26.02.2024 at about 5.00am, deceased Talari Sivananda, who is the resident of G. Kottala and LW6 T.

Suresh(PW4) went to Gooty to purchase vegetables on a motor cycle bearing

Registration No.AP02AS6020 and after purchase of the same, they proceeded 2 towards Neelur side on the same motor cycle rode by LW6 T. Suresh and the deceased as pillion rider and while they reached near Gajrampalli Village outskirts, on NH44 infront of Jeevananda Reddy Garments factory, the accused being the driver of car bearing Registration No.AP39GY2088, drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and dashed backside of the motor cycle of the deceased, as such the rider and pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries. Then, LW7 P. Hanumanthu Reddy and LW8 Boya Sudhakar shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Pamidi in 108

Ambulance, where the dctors examined the deceased and declared dead and LW6

T Suresh was referrred for better treatment.

3.Basing on the complaint of LW1-Boya Talari Basaiah, LW15-N.

Rajasekhar Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police station, registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2024 for the offences punishable under sections 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code of Pamidi Police station against the accused.

4.During the course of investigation, on 26.02.2024, LW15 N. Rajasekhar

Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police Station conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of blood relatives and inquest panchayatdars and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 01.03.2024, the accused being the driver of crime vehicle surrendered before him by admitting the commission of offence.

5.LW14 T. Raja Babu, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Guntakal inspected the crime vehicle and issued Motor Vehicle Inspection report opining that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects.

3

6.LW13-Dr. Mahesh, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,

Pamidi, conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued post mortem examination report by opining that the deceased died due to “Intracranial hemorrhagic due to head injury”.

7.LW12-Dr. Sharmila, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital,

Pamidi examined LW6-T. Suresh and issued Wound Certificate opining that the injuries sustained by LW6 are grievous in nature and hence the section of law altered from 337 to 338 of Indian Penal Code. Thus the accused committed offences punishable under sections 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

8.On 05.12.2024, the Court took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

9. On 31.01.2025, on appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. On 02.05.2025, the accused was examined under section 251 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences punishable under sections 338 and 304-A of Indian

Penal Code, in Telugu for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

11.On 18.06.2025, after closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

4

12. Heard on both sides and perused the material on record.

13. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 338 of Indian Penal Code

beyond the reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code

beyond the reasonable doubt?

14. POINT No.1 and 2:

Point No.1 and 2 are answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are inter linked and inter related with each other :

To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P15. Among them PW1 is defacto complainant and father of deceased. PW2 is mother of deceased. PW3 and PW5, who are kith and kin of deceased. PW4 is the injured. PW6 and PW7 are the villagers of deceased. PW8 is the hearsay witness and PW9 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on complaint. Exs.P2 to P9 are statements of PWs1 to 8 recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P10 is the police report, dt.26.02.2024. Ex.P11 is the First Information Report in Crime No.25 of 2024, dt.26.02.2024. Ex.P12 is the inquest report, dt.26.02.2024. Ex.P13 is the Rough sketch of the scene, dt.26.02.2024. Ex.P14 is the post mortem report of deceased, dt.09.03.2024. Ex.P15 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection report, dt.11.03.2024 and

Ex.P16 is the Wound Certificate of of PW4, dt.16.04.2024.

16.In order to establish the case of prosecution, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 to PW9. Among them PWs1 to 8, who are the material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, as such the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile.

5

17.Now the only evidence available on record is the evidence of PW9 who is the investigating officer and his evidence goes to show that on 26.02.2024 at about 8.45am, he registered the case in Crime No.25 of 2024 for the offences punishable under sections 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, basing on the police report (Ex.P9) and submitted First Information Report (Ex.P11) and its copies to the concerned, then he visited the Government Hospital, Pamidi and found the dead body of deceased and then he secured blood relatives and panchayatdars, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased. He further deposed that after completion of inquest, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements, he visited the scene of offence located at Gajrampalli Village outskirts and drawn rough sketch of the scene and also examined and recorded the statements of witnesses at the scene of offence. He further deposed that on 02.03.2024, the accused came to the Police Station and confessed the commission of offence and then he served notice u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and on 09.03.2024, he received post mortem report of the deceased and on 11.03.2024, he received

Motor Vehicle Inspection report and on 16.04.2024 (Ex.P14) and he received

Wound Certificate (Ex.P15) of PW4 from LW12-Dr. Sharmila, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Government Hospital, Pamidi and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

17.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the evidence of PW9 is good enough to prove the case, on the other hand the learned counsel for accused argued that as the material witnesses i.e., PWs1 to 8 who are crucial witnesses did not support the version of prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Hence, benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused.

18.In such facts and circumstances this court relied on the citation reported in 1994 (2) ALT CRL 69 AP

Boccha Raju [Accused/Petitioner]

Vs

State represented by the Inspector of Police [Respondent/Complainant]

6

Vijaya Nagaram Rural circle

In the above judgment, their lordship opined in para (2)----"but all the said witnesses have turned hostile and nothing could be elicited from them, so as to base conviction against the petitioner. The evidence of PW5, PW8 and PW9 who are all Police Officers can not be easily believable without proper corroboration by disinterested witnesses". On perusal of above citation this court hesitate to convict the accused only based on the evidence of PW9 in view of non support of material witnesses.

19.In view of non supportive evidence of material witness and on relying upon the above decision, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under and Section 338 and 304A of

Indian Penal Code and Section 146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly, these points are answered against the prosecution.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after six months from the date of this judgment.

No property is produced in this case.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 20th day of June, 2025).

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution

PW1:Boya Basaiah.

PW2:T. Nagarathnamma.

PW3:Sreenivasulu.

7

PW4:T. Suresh.

PW5:Boya Sudhakar.

PW6:B. Ramanareddy.

PW7:B. Venkataramireddy.

PW8:P. Hanumanthu

PW9:N. Rajasekhar Reddy, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police station.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1:Signature of defacto-complainant on complaint, dt.26.02.2024.

Ex.P2:Statement of PW1 recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ex.P3:Statement of PW2 recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ex.P4:Statement of PW3 recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ex.P5:Statement of PW4 recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ex.P6:Statement of PW5 recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ex.P7:Statement of PW6 recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ex.P8:Statement of PW7 recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ex.P9:Statement of PW8 recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ex.P10: Police report, dt.26.02.2024.

Ex.P11: First Information Report in Crime No.25 of 2024, dt.26.02.2024.

8

Ex.P12: Inquest report, dt.26.02.2024.

Ex.P13: Rough sketch of the scene, dt.26.02.2024.

Ex.P14: Post mortem report of deceased, dt.09.03.2024.

Ex.P15: Motor Vehicle Inspection report, dt.11.03.2024.

Ex.P16: Wound Certificate of PW4, dt.16.04.2024.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

NIL NIL

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

9

APAN0A0007472024

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GOOTY

CALENDAR CASE No.255 of 2024

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Pamidi Police station. Crime No.25 of 2024 of Pamidi Police station.

Pothuraju Manindar S/o P. Ganesh, aged 36 years, R/o D.No.48/101, Budhawarpet Street, Kurnool Town and District. (Driver of Car bearing Registration No.AP39GY2088)

Date of Report or Appearance/ Released Commence Close of trial Sentence

Offence Complaint Apprehensio on bail ment of trial Order

n of accused 26.02.202426.02.202431.01.202531.01.202510.06.202516.06.202520.06.2025 (No detention) Offence :-offences punishable under sections 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Finding :- Found not guilty. Sentence of Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after six months from the date of this judgment. No property is produced in this case.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu. DIS.No.277, dt.20.06.2025.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GOOTY

Present: Miss B. Swetha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Tuesday, the 17th day of June, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.550 of 2022

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station. … Complainant.

And

Ramavath Gopal Naik, aged 49 years S/o Yellappa Naik, Basinepalli Thanda Village, Gooty Mandal.

.… Accused

* * * * *

This case is coming on 13.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri A. Suryanarayana, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1. The sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.735 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Gooty police station against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that on 19.09.2021 near

Kothapeta bridge, Gooty Mandal, LW5-P. Murahari Babu, Sub Inspector of Police,

Gooty police station along with his team conducted raids for excise offences and found accused was transporting ID arrack of 10 litres on his motor cycle bearing

Registration No.AP39HB1498 and on seeing the police, the accused left the spot 2 by leaving the said ID arrack and also one mobile phone and then they seized same under the cover of Police proceedings. On 21.09.2021, LW5 arrested the accused near Lachanapalli cross, Gooty under the cover of police proceedings and produced him before this Court for judicial custody.

3.Basing on the said Police proceedings, LW5 registered the case in

Crime No.735 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Gooty police station against the accused. On 25.01.2022, he arrested accused and produced him before this Court for judicial custody.

4.The chemical Examiner for (Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor examined the seized sample and issued report opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human human consumption and injurious to health. Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

5.The Court took cognizance against the accused for the offencec punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

6. On 29.01.2025, on appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. On 04.03.2025, the accused was present and charge was framed against the accused and he was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The said charge was read-over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

3

8. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, LW3 and LW5 were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 besides

MO1.

9.After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10. Heard on both sides and perused the material on record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

12 POINT:

In the present case, on thorough observation of entire evidence of PW1 and

PW2, it is clearly seen that the Investigation officers have not made their best efforts in securing mediators at the time of alleged incident and they did not say any unavoidable situations which prevented them from securing the local inhabitants as mediators. At this juncture this Court inclined to rely on the judgment of Hon’ble A.P. High court in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P., wherein the Hon’ble high court held that “the object of section 100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the general public that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the confession recorded by the police officials in the proceedings become inadmissible as it is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872..“

13.In the said judgment Hon’ble A.P. High Court clearly held that the procedure laid down under section 100 Cr.P.C is mandatory procedure and police 4 officials must follow the said procedure in order to prove that it is a genuine search and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. But herein the case, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that the Investigating officers have not followed the mandatory procedure laid down under section 100 Cr.P.C and not even made efforts to follow the same and not served summons to any local inhabitants or the Government officials to act as mediators and the prosecution evidence is silent about the reason for failure to follow such procedure.

14. In Megha Seen Vs State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 2339), wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme court held that “when investigating officer happened to be the

complainant that it would be perhaps be difficult to uphold the position that the investigation was impartial”.

15.On relying upon the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court and in view of the above observation made, this Court is of the view that PW1 and

PW2 examined herein is interested witnesses who prepared Ex.P1 Police proceedings and registered First Information Report and done investigation. They can said to be witnesses interested in the result of the case projected by them.

Further their evidence is not credible and trustworthy and did not inspires confidence of this Court and there may be a chance of becoming partial in proving his case. Further it is highly doubtful whether really the liquor was seized from the possession of the accused.

16.In order to prove the guilt of accused and to base conviction, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in criminal appeal No.2363 of 2023 between Sathyan And State of Kerala. A perusal of said judgment reveals that the facts attributed in the said judgment does not applicable to the present case on hand.

17.Further the confession recorded by PW1 in Ex.P1 is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as laid by the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P. (Supra). In view of all the above 5 observations made, this Court is of the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts and hence benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution

PW1: S. Chandrasekhar, the then Police Constable, Gooty police station.

PW2: P. Murahari Babu, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1: Police proceedings, dt.19.09.2021.

Ex.P2: Confession and arrest Police proceedings, dt.21.09.2021.

Ex.P3: First Information Report in Crime No.735 of 2021 of Gooty police station.

Ex.P4: Letter of Advice, dt.25.09.2021.

Ex.P5: Attested copy of confiscation and destruction orders, dt.14.10.2021.

6

Ex.P6: Attested copy of destruction orders, dt.30.04.2022.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

MO1: 180ml ID ArrackNIL

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

7

APAN0A0009222022

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GOOTY

CALENDAR CASE No.550 of 2022

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Gooty police station. Crime No.735 of 2021 of Gooty police station Ramavath Gopal Naik, aged 49 years S/o Yellappa Naik, Basinepalli Thanda Village, Gooty Mandal.

Date of Report or Appearance/ Released Commence Close of trial Sentence

Offence Complaint Apprehension on bail ment of trial Order

of accused 19.09.202119.09.202121.09.202124.09.202121.03.202503.06.202517.06.2025

Offence :-offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Finding :- Found not guilty. Sentence of Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

DIS.No.277, dt.20.06.2025.

1

APAN0A0005552022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GOOTY

Present: Miss B. Swetha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.281 of 2022

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station. … Complainant.

And

Ramavath Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishna Naik, aged 35 years, S/o R. Setty Naik, Midde Thanda village, Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool District.

.… Accused

* * * * *

This case came on 12.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A. Suryanarayana, Advocate

for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1. The sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.921 of 2020 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Gooty police station against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that on 29.11.2020 at about 7.00am, near Central school, Pathikonda road, Gooty Town, LW4-U. Ramachandra 2

Reddy, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station along with his team went there and found accused was transporting ID arrack of 5 litres of ID arrack on his motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP21AG8429. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to ran away by leaving the said ID arrack and his motor cycle and they seized said ID arrack by drawing 180ml as sample for chemical analysis along with his motor cycle and also arrested the accused under the cover of Police proceedings.

3.Basing on the said Police proceedings, LW4-U. Ramachandra Reddy,

Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station registered the case in Crime

No.921 of 2020 for the offences punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Gooty police station against the accused and he produced the accused before this Court for judicial custody.

4.The chemical Examiner for (Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor examined the seized sample and issued chemical analysis report by opining that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human human consumption and injurious to health. Thus, the accused committed the offences punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

5.The Court took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

6. On 20.01.2025, on appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. On 12.11.2025, the accused was present and charges were framed against the accused and he was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for the offences punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The said charges were read-over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

3

8. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, LW2 and LW4 were examined as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 besides MO1. The evidence of LW5 is closed, as he died. The prosecution has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

9.After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10. Heard on both sides and perused the material on record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

12 POINT:

In the present case, on thorough observation of entire evidence of PW1 and

PW2, it is clearly seen that the PW1 and PW2 are the Investigation officers have not made their best efforts in securing mediators at the time of alleged incident and he did not say any unavoidable situations which prevented them from securing the local inhabitants as mediators. At this juncture, this Court inclined to rely on the judgment of Hon’ble A.P. High court in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P., wherein the Hon’ble high court held that “the object of section 100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the general public that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the confession recorded by the police officials in the proceedings become inadmissible as it is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872..“ 4

13.In the said judgment of Hon’ble A.P. High Court, it is clearly held that the procedure laid down under section 100 Cr.P.C is mandatory procedure and police officials must follow the said procedure in order to prove that it is a genuine search and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. But herein the case, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that the Investigating officers have not followed the mandatory procedure laid down under section 100 Cr.P.C and not even made efforts to follow the same and not served summons to any local inhabitants or the Government officials to act as mediators and the prosecution evidence is silent about the reason for failure to follow such procedure.

14. In Megha Sen Vs State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 2339), wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme court held that “when investigating officer happened to be the

complainant that it would be perhaps be difficult to uphold the position that the investigation was impartial”.

15.On relying upon the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court and in view of the above observation made, this Court is of the view that PW1 and

PW2 examined herein is interested witness who prepared Ex.P1 Police proceedings and registered First Information Report and done investigation. He can said to be witnesses interested in the result of the case projected by him. Further his evidence is not credible and trustworthy and did not inspires confidence of this

Court and there may be a chance of becoming partial in proving his case. Further it is highly doubtful whether really the ID arrack was seized from the possession of the accused.

16.In order to prove the guilt of accused and to base conviction, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in criminal appeal No.2363 of 2023 between Sathyan And State of Kerala. A perusal of said judgment reveals that the facts attributed in the said judgment does not applicable to the present case on hand.

5

17.Further the confession recorded by PW1 and PW2 in Ex.P1 is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as laid by the Hon’ble High court of

Andhra Pradesh in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P. (Supra). In view of all the above observations made, this Court is of the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond all reasonable doubts and hence benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution

PW1: G. Sreenivasulu, the then Police Constable, Gooty police station.

PW2: U. Ramachandra Reddy, the then Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1: Police proceedings, dt.29.11.2020.

Ex.P2: First Information Report in Crime No.921 of 2020 of Gooty police station.

6

Ex.P3: Letter of advice.

Ex.P4: Chemical analysis report, dt.03.12.2020.

Ex.P5: Destruction proceedings from Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu in C.No.79/SEB-ATP/2021.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

MO1: unspent returned ID arrackNIL drawn sample bottle.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

7

APAN0A0005552022

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GOOTY

CALENDAR CASE No.281 of 2022

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Gooty police station. Crime No.921 of 2020 of Gooty police station Ramavath Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishna Naik, aged 35 years, S/o R. Setty Naik, Midde Thanda village, Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool District.

Date of Report or Appearance/ Released Commence Close of trial Sentence

Offence Complaint Apprehension on bail ment of trial Order

of accused 29.11.202029.11.202029.11.202003.12.202030.01.202620.02.202613.05.2026

Offence :-offences punishable under section section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Finding :- Found not guilty. Sentence of Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

DIS.No.235, Dt.15.05.2026.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GOOTY

Present: Miss B. Swetha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Tuesday, the 17th day of June, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.499 of 2022

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station. … Complainant.

And

Vidithya Chandra Naik @ Chandra Naik, aged 35 years, W/o Ramoji Naik, Basinepalli Thanda Village, Gooty Mandal.

.… Accused

* * * * *

This case is coming on 17.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri A. Suryanarayana, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1. The sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.502 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Gooty police station against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that on 04.06.2021 at 6.45am in the fields of Basinepalli Thanda village, LW4-N. Chandra Mohan, Head constable, Gooty police station along with his team conducted raids for excise offences and found accused was preparing ID arrack and on seeing the police party, he escaped from that place and then they seized said ID Arrack of 5 litres by 2 drawing sample of 180ml in bottle for chemical analysis and destroyed the FJ Wash of 300 litres under the cover of Police proceedings.

3.Basing on the said Police proceedings, LW4 registered the case in

Crime No.502 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Gooty police station against the accused. On 26.01.2022, he arrested accused and produced him before this Court for judicial custody.

4.The chemical Examiner for (Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor examined the seized sample and issued report opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human human consumption and injurious to health. Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

5.The Court took cognizance against the accused for the offencec punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

6. On 13.04.2023, on appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. On19.07.2023, the accused was present and charge was framed against the accused and he was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The said charge was read-over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

8. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, LW1 and LW4 were examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 besides

MO1.

3

9.After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10. Heard on both sides and perused the material on record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

12 POINT:

In the present case, on thorough observation of entire evidence of PW1 and

PW2, it is clearly seen that the Investigation officers have not made their best efforts in securing mediators at the time of alleged incident and they did not say any unavoidable situations which prevented them from securing the local inhabitants as mediators. At this juncture this Court inclined to rely on the judgment of Hon’ble A.P. High court in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P., wherein the Hon’ble high court held that “the object of section 100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the general public that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the confession recorded by the police officials in the proceedings become inadmissible as it is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872..“

13.In the said judgment Hon’ble A.P. High Court clearly held that the procedure laid down under section 100 Cr.P.C is mandatory procedure and police officials must follow the said procedure in order to prove that it is a genuine search and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. But herein the case, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that the Investigating officers 4 have not followed the mandatory procedure laid down under section 100 Cr.P.C and not even made efforts to follow the same and not served summons to any local inhabitants or the Government officials to act as mediators and the prosecution evidence is silent about the reason for failure to follow such procedure.

14. In Megha Seen Vs State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 2339), wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme court held that “when investigating officer happened to be the

complainant that it would be perhaps be difficult to uphold the position that the investigation was impartial”.

15.On relying upon the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court and in view of the above observation made, this Court is of the view that PW1 and

PW2 examined herein is interested witnesses who prepared Ex.P1 Police proceedings and registered First Information Report and done investigation. They can said to be witnesses interested in the result of the case projected by them.

Further their evidence is not credible and trustworthy and did not inspires confidence of this Court and there may be a chance of becoming partial in proving his case. Further it is highly doubtful whether really the liquor was seized from the possession of the accused.

16.In order to prove the guilt of accused and to base conviction, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in criminal appeal No.2363 of 2023 between Sathyan And State of Kerala. A perusal of said judgment reveals that the facts attributed in the said judgment does not applicable to the present case on hand.

17.Further the confession recorded by PW1 in Ex.P1 is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as laid by the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P. (Supra). In view of all the above observations made, this Court is of the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read 5 with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts and hence benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution

PW1: G. Sreenisulu, Police Constable, Gooty police station.

PW2: P. Murahari Babu, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty police station.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1: Arrest and confession police proceedings, dt.20.01.2022.

Ex.P2: Police proceedings, dt.04.06.2021.

Ex.P3: First Information Report in Crime No.502 of 2021 of Gooty police station.

Ex.P4: Letter of Advice, dt.24.06.2021.

Ex.P5: Attested copy of confiscation and destruction orders, dt.31.07.2021.

Ex.P6: Attested copy of destruction proceedings.

6

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

MO1: 180ml ID ArrackNIL

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

7

APAN0A0008682022

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GOOTY

CALENDAR CASE No.499 of 2022

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Gooty police station. Crime No.502 of 2021 of Gooty police station Vidithya Chandra Naik @ Chandra Naik, aged 35 years, W/o Ramoji Naik, Basinepalli Thanda Village, Gooty Mandal.

Date of Report or Appearance/ Released Commence Close of trial Sentence

Offence Complaint Apprehension on bail ment of trial Order

of accused 04.06.202104.06.202125.01.202225.02.202219.12.202303.06.202517.06.2025

Offence :-offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Finding :- Found not guilty. Sentence of Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Gooty

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu. True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

DIS.No.277, dt.20.06..2025.

1

APAN0A0001502022

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GOOTY

Present: Miss B. Swetha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No.73 of 2022

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Gutala Ramachandra, aged 37 years, S/o Late Peddanna, R/o Ubicherla Village, Gooty Mandal.

.… Accused

* * * * *

This case came on 14.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S. Jakir Hussain, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

1. The sub Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.567 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Gooty Police Station against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that on 16.06.2021 at about 5.00pm, Ubicherla Village cross, Gooty Mandal, LW4-G. Gopaludu, Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station along with his team went there and found accused 2 was in possession of 10 litres of ID arrack. On seeing the police party, the accused tried to ran away by leaving the said ID arrack but they caught hold and then they seized said ID arrack by drawing 180ml as sample for chemical analysis and also arrested the accused under the cover of police proceedings.

3.Basing on the said Police proceedings, LW4-G. Gopaludu, Sub

Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station registered the case in Crime No.567 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 of Gooty Police Station against the accused and after completion of due formalities, he produced the accused before this Court for judicial custody.

4.The chemical Examiner for (Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor examined the seized sample and issued chemical analysis report by opining that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human human consumption and injurious to health. Later, he destructed the seized contrabad as per the orders of

Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu in C.No.1508/SEB-ATP/2021, dt.31.07.2021. Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

5.The Court took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

6. On 06.11.2023, on appearance of the accused, copies of documents furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. On 08.11.2023, the accused was present and charges were framed against the accused and he was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. The said charges were read-over and 3 explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

8. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, LW1 and LW4 were examined as PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 besides MO1. The prosecution has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

9.After closing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

10. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

12 POINT:

In the present case, on thorough observation of entire evidence of PW1 and

PW2, it is clearly seen that the PW1 and PW2 are the Investigation officers have not made their best efforts in securing mediators at the time of alleged incident and he did not say any unavoidable situations which prevented him from securing the local inhabitants as mediators. At this juncture, this Court inclined to rely on the judgment of Hon’ble A.P. High court in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P., wherein the Hon’ble high court held that “the object of section 100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the general public that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the confession recorded by the police officials in the proceedings become inadmissible as it is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872..“ 4

13.In the said judgment of Hon’ble A.P. High Court, it is clearly held that the procedure laid down under section 100 Cr.P.C is mandatory procedure and police officials must follow the said procedure in order to prove that it is a genuine search and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. But herein the case, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that the Investigating officers have not followed the mandatory procedure laid down under section 100 Cr.P.C and not even made efforts to follow the same and not served summons to any local inhabitants or the Government officials to act as mediators and the prosecution evidence is silent about the reason for failure to follow such procedure.

14. In Megha Sen Vs State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 2339), wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme court held that “when investigating officer happened to be the

complainant that it would be perhaps be difficult to uphold the position that the investigation was impartial”.

15.On relying upon the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court and in view of the above observation made, this Court is of the view that PW1 and

PW2 examined herein is interested witness who prepared Ex.P1 Police proceedings and registered First Information Report and done investigation. He can said to be witnesses interested in the result of the case projected by him. Further his evidence is not credible and trustworthy and did not inspires confidence of this

Court and there may be a chance of becoming partial in proving his case. Further it is highly doubtful whether really the ID arrack was seized from the possession of the accused.

16.In order to prove the guilt of accused and to base conviction, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in criminal appeal No.2363 of 2023 between Sathyan And State of Kerala. A perusal of said judgment reveals that the facts attributed in the said judgment does not applicable to the present case on hand.

5

17.Further the confession recorded by PW2 in Ex.P1 is hit by section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as laid by the Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of A.P. (Supra). In view of all the above observations made, this Court is of the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond all reasonable doubts and hence benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution

PW1: S. Chandrasekhar, Police Constable, Gooty Police Station.

PW2: G. Gopaludu, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Gooty Police Station.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1: Police proceedings, dt.16.06.2021.

Ex.P2: First Information Report in Crime No.567 of 2021 of Gooty Police 6

Station.

Ex.P3: Letter of advice.

Ex.P4: Chemical analysis report.

Ex.P5: Destruction proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu in C.No.1508/SEB-ATP/2021, dt.31.07.2021.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

MO1: unspent returned sample bottleNIL

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Gooty

7

APAN0A0001502022

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, GOOTY

CALENDAR CASE No.73 of 2022

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Gooty Police Station. Crime No.567 of 2021 of Gooty Police Station

Gutala Ramachandra, aged 37 years, S/o Late Peddanna, R/o Ubicherla Village, Gooty Mandal.

Date of Report or Appearance/ Released Commence Close of trial Sentence

Offence Complaint Apprehension on bail ment of trial Order

of accused 16.06.202116.06.202116.06.202121.06.202115.11.202314.05.202615.05.2026

Offence :-offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Miss B. Swetha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu. True copy

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Gooty

DIS.No.235, Dt.15.05.2026.