Smt. B.V.Vijay Laxmi

1 C.C.No.88/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS:: AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present: Smt. B.V. Vijay Laxmi. XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

Thursday, this the 23rd (Twenty Third) Day of April, 2026

C.C.No.88/2024

(Cr.No.27/2020)

Between:- State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Anakapalle. … COMPLAINANT And: - Gandiboyina Nookaraju, S/o Apparao, aged 30 years, Settibalija by caste, R/o Chittiboinapalem Village, Atchuthapuram Mandal. … ACCUSED

This case is coming on 23-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri I.Avinash, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Anakapalle filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act in

Cr.No.27/2020.

02.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 28-02-2020 at 19.50 hrs., LW3/G.Babu Rao, P&E S.I along with his staff

XII A.JMFC. AKP

2 C.C.No.88/2024

L.W.1/Apparao, Police Constable and L.W.2/U.Sivaji, Police Constable while conducting patrolling at Gouthu Lachanna Junction, Parawada

Village, Parawada Mandal, apprehended the accused and found the accused in possession of 24 bottles in that 02 nip bottles of Green Choice

Superior Whisky each 180 ml, 03 nip bottles of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP

Brandy each 180ml, 02 nip bottles of Siri’s Sentiny Special Deluxe Grain

Whisky each 180ml, 02 nip bottles of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky, 03 nip bottles of Activator Orange Vodka, 09 nip bottles of Royal Street

Deluxe Grain Whisky, 03 nip bottles of Officers Choice Blue Original

Whisky each 180ml, arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.

03.On the basis of occurrence report, LW5/K.Raja Rao,

Enforcement Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.27/2020 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act against accused and issued Sec.41-B Cr.P.C to the accused. Later, he forwarded the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise

Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis and Chemical Examiner opined in C.E No.672/2020, Dt.16-03-2020 that samples at S.No.4150 to 4156 are Indian Liquor. L.W.6/K.Manmadha Rao, Enforcement Inspector send confiscation proposals on 16-08-2022 to Dy. Commissioner, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Visakhapatnam and received the Confiscation and destruction orders vide RC No.509/2021/A1, Dt.02-09-2022 and got the property destroyed on 13-09-2022 in the presence of Enforcement

Superintendent, (FAC), Special Enforcement Bureau, Visakhapatnam along with mediators. After completion of investigation, L.W.7/K.Indira

XII A.JMFC. AKP

3 C.C.No.88/2024

Devi, Enforcement Inspector filed charge sheet against the accused.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Amendment Act against the accused.

05.After appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P..C.

06.Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and Exs.P.1 and P.2 and M.O.1 to

M.O.7are marked. TheevidenceofL.W.2/U.Sivaji,

L.W.4/M.Simhachalam Naidu, L.W.7/K.Indira Devi, Enforcement Inspector was given up by learned APP in view of evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4.

08.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same once again and pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

09.Heard the APP for the State and the counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point which stood for determination is :

XII A.JMFC. AKP

4 C.C.No.88/2024

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

11. Point:-

It is the case of prosecution, that on 28-02-2020 at 18.50 hrs., LW3/G.Babu Rao, P&E S.I along with his staff L.W.1/Apparao, Police

Constable and L.W.2/U.Sivaji, Police Constable while conducting patrolling at Gouthu Lachanna Junction, Parawada Village, Parawada

Mandal, apprehended the accused and found the accused in possession of 24 bottles in that 02 nip bottles of Green Choice Superior Whisky each 180 ml, 03 nip bottles of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP Brandy each 180ml, 02 nip bottles of Siri’s Sentiny Special Deluxe Grain Whisky each 180ml, 02 nip bottles of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky, 03 nip bottles of

Activator Orange Vodka, 09 nip bottles of Royal Street Deluxe Grain

Whisky, 03 nip bottles of Officers Choice Blue Original Whisky each 180ml, arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.

12. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1

K.Rajarao, Inspector of Police, P.W.2 V.Apparao, Constable, P.W.3

K.Manmadharao, Inspector of Police and P.W.4 G.Baburao, S.I of Police.

The P.W.2 and P.W.4 stated in their respective chief examination that on 28.02.2020 at about 19.50 hrs, they along with LW2/U.Sivaji while conducting patrolling at Gouthu Lachanna Junction, Parawada village limits of Parawada mandal, they found the accused was in possession of one white plastic gunny bag. On seeing them, the accused tried to

XII A.JMFC. AKP

5 C.C.No.88/2024 escape and on suspicion when they checked the accused, he is in possession of 24 bottles in that 02 nip bottles of Green Choice Superior

Whisky each 180 ml, 03 nip bottles of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP Brandy each 180ml, 02 nip bottles of Siri’s Sentiny Special Deluxe Grain Whisky each 180ml, 02 nip bottles of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky, 03 nip bottles of Activator Orange Vodka, 09 nip bottles of Royal Street Deluxe

Grain Whisky, 03 nip bottles of Officers Choice Blue Original Whisky each 180ml in that bag without having any license or bills. On interrogation, the accused revealed about his identity and confessed that the accused is carrying the liquor bottles for sale which the accused purchased from various Government wine shops and selling the same for higher price.

They tried for mediators but in vain. Later, they collected the sample as per the procedure and seized the contraband and arrested the accused and reduced proceedings under the cover of occurrence report scribed by LW2 on the dictation of L.W.3. P.W.2 signed on the occurrence report/Ex.P.1. They can identify the sample bottle basing on the identity slips affixed on the sample bottles. M.O.1 to M.O.7 are sample bottles.

Later, they brought the accused, seized property and the occurrence report/Ex.P1 to the police station.

13.P.W.1 stated in his chief examination that on 28.02.2020 at about 22.30 hrs, their Sentry constable received the occurrence report, seized property and the accused from LW4/M.Simhachalam Naidu. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report. On the basis of occurrence report, he registered a case in Cr.No.27/2020 U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and submitted original FIR to the court and sent the copies to the official concerned.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

6 C.C.No.88/2024

Ex.P2 is the original F.I.R. He received case property i.e., 24 bottles in that 02 nip bottles of Green Choice Superior Whisky each 180 ml, 03 nip bottles of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP Brandy each 180ml, 02 nip bottles of

Siri’s Sentiny Special Deluxe Grain Whisky each 180ml, 02 nip bottles of

Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky, 03 nip bottles of Activator Orange

Vodka, 09 nip bottles of Royal Street Deluxe Grain Whisky, 03 nip bottles of Officers Choice Blue Original Whisky each 180ml in a bag without having any license or bills. He can identify the sample bottles basing on the identity slips affixed on the sample bottle. MO1 is the unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Green Choice Superior Whisky. MO2 is the unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP

Brandy. MO3 is the unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Siri’s

Sentiny Special Deluxe Grain Whisky. MO4 is the unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky. MO5 is the unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Activator Orange Vodka. MO6 is the unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Royal Street Deluxe

Grain Whisky. MO7 is the unexpended portion of the sample bottle of

Officers Choice Blue Original Whisky. Later, he issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. Later, he forwarded the sample for chemical examination.

The expert opined that the samples are Indian liquor. Later, he handed over the case file to LW6/K.Manmadha Rao.

13.P.W.3 stated in his chief examination that on 15.06.2021, he received the case file, seized property from LW3. He submitted proposal for the destruction of the case property and the Dy. Commissioner Special

Enforcement Visakhapatnam ordered for the destruction of the

XII A.JMFC. AKP

7 C.C.No.88/2024 contraband in this crime vide R.C.No.509/2021/A1 dated.02.09.2022 and the same was destroyed in the presence of AES on 13.09.2022. Later, he handed over the case file to LW7/K.Indira Devi. LW7/K.Indira Devi after completion of investigation, she filed the charge sheet.

14.The P.W.3 in his cross examination stated that he has not filed the destruction proceedings before the court. He has not drafted the panchayanama at the time of destruction of the liquor bottles in this case.The P.W.2 and P.W.4 stated in their chief examination that they tried for mediators but in vain but in the cross examination, they stated that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality and also admitted that they have not issued any written notice to anyone to act as mediator in this case, so the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 shows that even though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality but the Excise Police did not secure any independent mediators of the locality to act as mediators in this case and the admission of P.W.2 and P.W.4 that they have not issued any written notice to act as mediator in this case also shows they have not put their efforts to secure the mediators.

15.The P.W.4 stated that it is true as per the occurrence report on 28-02-2020 at about 7.50 p.m, they visited to the scene of offence. He sent the P.W.2 to secure the mediators in this case but after 15 minutes the P.W.2 returned to the place of offence and informed that he has not secured any mediators in this case. It is true that the occurrence report shows that the occurrence report was drafted at about 7.50 p.m. The learned counsel for the defence at the time of arguments submitted that if the P.W.4 sent the P.W.2 to secure the mediators and after 15 minutes he

XII A.JMFC. AKP

8 C.C.No.88/2024 returned to the place of offence, then how the occurrence report shows that the occurrence report was drafted at about 7.50 p.m. On perusal of

Ex.P.1 occurrence report, it is seen that the drafting of the occurrence report was started at 7.50 p.m and the contention of the P.W.4 that he sent the P.W.2 to secure the mediators and after 15 minutes, the P.W.2 returned back to the place of incident and informed that he has not secured any mediator in this case shows that the occurrence report drafting time is not corroborated with the evidence adduced by the P.W.4.

The P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that the Sentry of their police station handed over the seized property along with the identity slips affixed on the seized property. After receiving the case file and seized property, he gave Crime number to it. Once the sample bottle was placed

before him there will be no tampering of writing on the identity slips

affixed on the seized bottle. It is true that the identity slips affixed on M.o.1 to M.O.7 contains the crime number. Witness adds that at the time of sending the sample bottles of the chemical analysis laboratory, they used to mention the crime number on the identity slips affixed on the sample bottle. It is true that some of the sample bottles contain the brand name and some does not contain the brand name. Witness volunteers that as it was seized long back and it was sent to the Chemical Analysis

Laboratory, as such the brand names slips was torned.

16.In the nutshell, in this case, the P.W.2 and P.W.4 stated that they tried to secure the mediators but in vain but in this case, the P.W.2 and P.W.4 admitted that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality.

But the P.W.2 and P.W.4 did not secured any independent witnesses in

XII A.JMFC. AKP

9 C.C.No.88/2024 this case. The P.W.2 and P.W.4 also admitted that they have not issued any written notice to anyone to act as mediator in this case, as the P.W.4 admitted that the occurrence report shows that it was drafted at 7.50 p.m whereas the P.W.4 in his cross examination admitted that he sent the

P.W.2 to secure the mediators but after 15 minutes he returned and stated that there are no mediators whereas the occurrence report shows that the occurrence report was drafted at 7.50 p.m, which shows that the

Excise Officials did not made sincere efforts to secure the mediators in this case. The P.W.3 who destructed the contraband admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed the destruction proceedings before the court and also not drafted panchanama at the time of destruction of the liquor bottles in this case. Under these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

17.A Perusal of Ex.P.1 occurrence report shows that it is in the nature of confession statement and no independent witness is secured at the time of alleged detection of offence. At this point I would like to rely on the decision of Hon’ble H.C. of A.P. between Mudavath Mothia Vs State of A.P. reported in 2002 (1) ALT (Cri) 437, wherein the Hon’ble H.C. held that “the confession recorded by police is inadmissible and non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution version and such Panchanama is hit by Sec. 25 and Sec. 27 of Indian evidence act and hence the same cannot be considered and thereby the seizure proceedings also cannot be considered in view of the said bar and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.” In view of supra decision of

Hon’ble H.C. Ex.P.1 occurrence report cannot be considered and relied

XII A.JMFC. AKP

10 C.C.No.88/2024 upon as the said confession is hit by Sec.25 and Sec. 27 of Indian evidence act and the seizure also cannot be considered and thereby the non examination of any independent witnesses has become fatal to the case of prosecution. In the present case, the police have not collected mediators while seizing the alleged contraband as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused.The prosecution has not given sufficient explanation for not securing the mediators at the time of seizure and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.In a Judgment reported in Babu Saheb @ Babu, S. v. State of A.P.2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32 (A.P). It was decided that it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediators. The ratio in this Judgment is that the investigation officer has to secure independent respectable local mediators. In this case the P.W.2 and P.W.4 who are the Police

Constables did not made any efforts to secure local mediators.

18.Therefore, in view of the above material procedural irregularities and lacunae in the investigation and moreover the alleged seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused not being cogently established, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of

P.W.1 to P.W.4, while sustaining conviction. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act. He is acquitted U/s.248(1) of

XII A.JMFC. AKP

11 C.C.No.88/2024

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The properties i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.7 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. Typed to dictation to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W.1 : K.Raja Rao, Inspector of Police Nil P.W.2 : V.Apparao, Police Constable P.W.3 : K.Manmadha Rao, Inspector of Police P.W.4 : G.Babu Rao, Police Constable

EXHIBITS MARKED:-

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- Ex.P1 : Occurrence Report -NIL- Ex.P2 : Original F.I.R

M.Os Marked:-

For Prosecution: MO1 : Unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Green Choice Superior Whisky. MO2 : Unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP Brandy. MO3 : Unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Siri’s Sentiny Special Deluxe Grain Whisky. MO4 : Unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky. MO5 : Unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Activator Orange Vodka. MO6 : Unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Royal Street Deluxe Grain Whisky. MO7 : Unexpended portion of the sample bottle of Officers Choice Blue

XII A.JMFC. AKP

12 C.C.No.88/2024

Original Whisky For Defence: -NIL -

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE::

AT ANAKAPALLE.

CALENDER CASE No.88/2024

Date of offence:28-02-2020

Date of complaint:28-02-2020

Date of taken on file:17-01-2024

Date of apprehension of accused:28-02-2020

Date of commencement of trial:19-03-2025

Date of close of trial: 23-04-2026

Date of sentence of order:23-04-2026

Complainant:State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Anakapalle. Particulars of the accused:

Gandiboyina Nookaraju, S/o Apparao, aged 30 years, Settibalija by caste, R/o Chittiboinapalem Village, Atchuthapuram Mandal.

U/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act. Nature of offence

Found not guilty Finding of the court

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Amendment Act. He is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds

XII A.JMFC. AKP

13 C.C.No.88/2024 on record shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The properties i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.7 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Anakapalle.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

1 C.C.No.2121/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS:: AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present: Smt. B.V. Vijay Laxmi. XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

Thursday, this the 23rd (Twenty Third) Day of April, 2026

C.C.No.2121/2022

(Cr.No.85/2019)

Between:- State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Anakapalle. … COMPLAINANT And: - Saragadam Durgi Naidu, S/o Apparao, Aged 43 years, Gavara by caste, R/o Chinayathapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. … ACCUSED

This case is coming on 22-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.L.H.P, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Anakapalle filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act in

Cr.No.85/2019.

02.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on

XII A.JMFC. AKP

2 C.C.No.2121/2022 09-04-2019 at 5.30 p.m., LW3/K.Srinivasa Rao, Asst. Sub Inspector of

Police along with his staff L.W.1/Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Police Constable and

L.W.2/B.Srinivas, Police Constable while conducting patrolling at

Chinayathapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, apprehended the accused and found the accused in possession of 1) 02 Quart bottles of

Imperial Blue Finest Grain whiskey each 750 ml, 2) One bottle of

Blenders Pride Select Premium whiskey 750 ml, 3) 02 bottles of

Budweiser King of beer each containing 650 ml, 4) one nip bottle of

Imperial Blue Finest grain whiskey each 180 ml (Total 6 bottles) (Total worth of Rs.2500/-), arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.

03.On the basis of occurrence report, LW3/K.Srinivasa Rao,

Asst. Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.202/2019 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act against accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. Later, he forwarded the case file along with case property to L.W.4.

L.W.4/R.Syamala, S.I of Police received the case file and case property and re-registered a case in Cr.No.85/2019 for offence u/sec.34(a) of AP

Excise Amendment Act. During the course of investigation, L.W.4 sent the sample to the Govt. Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh. & Excise

Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis. After due analysis, the Chemical

Examiner has opined that the sample sent in Cr.No.85/2019 vide CE

No.1203/2019, Dt. 06-06-2019 and the sample at S.No.10001 to 10003 are Indian Liquor and S.No.10004 is beer. During further investigation, the property destruction proposals has submitted to the Dy.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

3 C.C.No.2121/2022

Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Visakhapatnam. On the basis of analysis report, L.W.5/L.Anuradha Devi, Enforcement Inspector filed charge sheet against the accused.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Amendment Act against the accused.

05.After appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P..C.

06.Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 to

M.O.4 are marked. The evidence of L.W.1/Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Police

Constable, L.W.2/B.Srinivas, Police Constable and L.W.5/L.Anuradha

Devi, Enforcement Inspector was given up by learned APP in view of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

08.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same once again and pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

4 C.C.No.2121/2022

09.Heard the APP for the State and the counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point which stood for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

11. Point:-

It is the case of prosecution, that on 09-04-2019 at 5.30 p.m.,

LW3/K.Srinivasa Rao, Asst. Sub Inspector of Police along with his staff

L.W.1/Ch.Srinivasa Rao, Police Constable and L.W.2/B.Srinivas, Police

Constable while conducting patrolling at Chinayathapalem Village,

Sabbavaram Mandal, apprehended the accused and found the accused in possession of 1) 02 Quart bottles of Imperial Blue Finest Grain whiskey each 750 ml, 2) One bottle of Blenders Pride Select Premium whiskey 750 ml, 3) 02 bottles of Budweiser King of beer each containing 650 ml,

4) one nip bottle of Imperial Blue Finest grain whiskey each 180 ml (Total 6 bottles) (Total worth of Rs.2500/-), arrested the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.

12. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1

K.Srinivasa Rao, S.I of Police and P.W.2 R.Syamala, Excise Sub

Inspector of Police. The P.W.1 deposed that on 09-04-2019 on receipt of reliable information at about 5.30 p.m., while he along with LW1 and

L.W.2 were conducting patrolling at Chinayathapalem Village,

Sabbavaram Mandal, they found the accused in possession of plastic bag. On seeing them, the accused tried to escape and on suspicion when

XII A.JMFC. AKP

5 C.C.No.2121/2022 they checked him, he is in possession of 1) 02 Quart bottles of Imperial

Blue Finest Grain whiskey each 750 ml, 2) One bottle of Blenders Pride

Select Premium whiskey, 750 ml, 3) 02 bottles of Budweiser King of beer each containing 650 ml, 4) one nip bottle of Imperial Blue Finest Grain whiskey 180 ml (Total 06 bottles) (Total worth of Rs.2500/-) in that bag without having any license or bills. On interrogation, the accused revealed about his identity and confessed that he is carrying the liquor bottles for sale which he purchased from various Government wine shops and selling the same for higher price. They tried for mediators but in vain.

Later, they collected the sample as per the procedure and seized the contraband and arrested the accused and reduced proceedings under the cover of occurrence report scribed by him. Ex.P1 is the occurrence report.

On the basis of occurrence report, he registered a case in

Cr.No.202/2019 U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Amendment Act and submitted original FIR to the court and sent the copies to the official concerned.

Ex.P2 is the original F.I.R. He arrested the accused and issued Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He can identify the sample bottle basing on the identity slips affixed on the sample bottles. M.O.1 is the unexpended portion of sample bottle of Quart bottles of Imperial Blue Finest Grain whiskey each 750 ml, M.O.2 is the unexpended portion of sample bottle of Blenders Pride Select Premium whiskey, 750 ml, M.O.3 is the unexpended portion of sample bottle of Budweiser King of beer each containing 650 ml, M.O.4 is the unexpended portion of sample bottle of

Imperial Blue Finest Grain whiskey 180 ml. Later, he forwarded the case file, seized property and accused to L.W.4 for further investigation.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

6 C.C.No.2121/2022

13.The evidence of P.W.1 that he went for conducting patrolling at Chinayathapalem Village, Sabbavaram mandal and that he caught hold the accused along with nip bottles of 1) 02 Quart bottles of Imperial Blue

Finest Grain whiskey each 750 ml, 2) One bottle of Blenders Pride Select

Premium whiskey, 750 ml, 3) 02 bottles of Budweiser King of beer each containing 650 ml, 4) one nip bottle of Imperial Blue Finest Grain whiskey 180 ml without having any license or bills was not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses and the L.W.1 and L.W.2 who went along with the

P.W.1 to the raid was given up by the learned APP. The P.W.2 only stated about her re-registration of case and about her receiving of case file and seized property and the accused from P.W.1. The P.W.2 stated in her chief examination that on 30-04-2019, she received seized property, occurrence report/Ex.P.1, FIR/Ex.P.2 from PW.1. On the basis of occurrence report/Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2, she re-registered a case in

Cr.No.85/2019 U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and submitted original FIR to the Hon’ble court and sent the copies to the official concerned. Ex.P3 is the original F.I.R. She can identify the sample bottle basing on the identity slips affixed on the sample bottle. MO1 to M.O.4 are the said sample bottles. Later, she forwarded the sample for chemical examination. The expert opined that the samples are Indian made liquor. Ex.P4 is the expert opinion. Later, she handed over the case file to LW5/L.Anuradha

Devi. After completion of investigation, LW5 filed the charge sheet against the accused. The P.W.1 who went for the raid submitted that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality and they have not secured any local inhabitant to act as mediator in this case, as such, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that they have not followed the provision laid down under Sec.100

XII A.JMFC. AKP

7 C.C.No.2121/2022 of Cr.P.C for search and seizure and the P.W.1 further stated that they have not seen the accused selling the liquor bottles and he has not verified from which shop, the accused purchased the liquor bottle. The

P.W.1 who stated in his chief examination that he collected the sample as per the procedure whereas in his cross examination stated that he has not collected the sample in this case, which creates doubt in the prosecution case and the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses regarding the conducting of raid. The P.W.2 only stated about her re-registration of FIR and sending of the samples to the chemical analysis examination and secured Ex.P.3 expert opinion.

15.In the nut shell, it is seen that in this case no independent mediators were examined and the evidence of the PW1 shows that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality and they have not secured any local inhabitant to act as mediator in this case, as such, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that they have not followed the provision laid down under

Sec.100 of Cr.P.C for search and seizure and the P.W.1 further stated that they have not seen the accused selling the liquor bottles and he has not verified from which shop, the accused purchased the liquor bottle. The

P.W.1 who stated in his chief examination that he collected the sample as per the procedure and seized the contraband and arrested the accused whereas in his cross examination stated that he has not collected the sample in this case, which creates doubt in the prosecution case and the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses regarding the conducting of raid. The P.W.2 only stated about her re- registration of FIR and sending of the samples to the chemical analysis

XII A.JMFC. AKP

8 C.C.No.2121/2022 examination and secured Ex.P.3 expert opinion.

16.A Perusal of Ex.P.1 occurrence report shows that it is in the nature of confession statement and no independent witness is secured at the time of alleged detection of offence. At this point I would like to rely on the decision of Hon’ble H.C. of A.P. between Mudavath Mothia Vs State of A.P. reported in 2002 (1) ALT (Cri) 437, wherein the Hon’ble H.C. held that “the confession recorded by police is inadmissible and non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution version and such Panchanama is hit by Sec. 25 and Sec. 27 of Indian evidence act and hence the same cannot be considered and thereby the seizure proceedings also cannot be considered in view of the said bar and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.” In view of supra decision of

Hon’ble H.C. Ex.P.1 occurrence report cannot be considered and relied

upon as the said confession is hit by Sec.25 and Sec. 27 of Indian evidence act and the seizure also cannot be considered and thereby the non examination of any independent witnesses has become fatal to the case of prosecution. In the present case, the police have not collected mediators while seizing the alleged contraband as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused.The prosecution has not given sufficient explanation for not securing the mediators at the time of seizure and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.In a Judgment reported in Babu Saheb @ Babu, S. v. State of A.P.2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32 (A.P). It was decided that it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediators. The ratio in this Judgment

XII A.JMFC. AKP

9 C.C.No.2121/2022 is that the investigation officer has to secure independent respectable local mediators. In this case the P.W.1 who is the A.S.I of Police did not made any efforts to secure local mediators.

18.Further the police also did not follow the procedure contemplated U/Sec.46 of the A.P.Excise Act as to confiscation of the seized property before the Dy. Commissioner of P&E. None of the witnesses stated about submitting proposals for the confiscation and destruction of case property before the DC, P&E nor any document is filed. Thus it can be said that the case property was not properly accounted as per Sec.46 of the Act. Not sending proposals of confiscation of the seized property itself creates doubts whether any contraband was actually seized from the possession of accused or not. Moreover no documents were filed before this court nor any witnesses whispered a word about the same. Further it is pertinent to note that there is no mention of the batch numbers of the seized contraband in the occurrence report.

19. Admittedly, expert opinion undoubtedly establishes that the samples correspond to IML, which fact is not disputed. But it is the specific contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession. This being so it is imperative upon the prosecution to substantiate the guilt of the accused in light of cogent and reliable evidence. Though P.W.1 reiterated the contents as in occurrence report but it is evident that there are many discrepancies in the investigation as discussed above and moreover his testimony was not corroborated by

XII A.JMFC. AKP

10 C.C.No.2121/2022 any independent witness. As discussed above the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused remained not cogently established.

20. Therefore, in view of the above material procedural irregularities and lacunae in the investigation and moreover the alleged seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused not being cogently established, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of

P.W.1 and P.W.2, while sustaining conviction. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act. He is acquitted U/s.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The properties i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. Typed to dictation to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

11 C.C.No.2121/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W.1 : K.Srinivasa Rao, S.I of Police Nil P.W.2 : R.Syamala, Excise S.I of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED:-

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- Ex.P1 : Occurrence Report -NIL- Ex.P2 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.3 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.4 : Expert Opinion

M.Os Marked:-

For Prosecution: M.O.1 : Unexpended portion of sample bottle of Quart bottles of Imperial Blue Finest Grain whiskey each 750 ml, M.O.2 : Unexpended portion of sample bottle of Blenders Pride Select Premium whiskey, 750 ml, M.O.3 : Unexpended portion of sample bottle of Budweiser King of beer each containing 650 ml, M.O.4 : Unexpended portion of sample bottle of Imperial Blue Finest Grain whiskey 180 ml

For Defence: -NIL -

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

12 C.C.No.2121/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE::

AT ANAKAPALLE.

CALENDER CASE NO.2121/2022

Date of offence:09-04-2019

Date of complaint:09-04-2019

Date of taken on file:25-11-2022

Date of apprehension of accused:09-04-2019

Date of commencement of trial:22-04-2026

Date of close of trial: 22-04-2026

Date of sentence of order:23-04-2026

Complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram P.S Particulars of the accused:

Saragadam Durgi Naidu, S/o Apparao, Aged 43 years, Gavara by caste, R/o Chinayathapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

U/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act. Nature of offence

Found not guilty Finding of the court

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Amendment Act. He is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds on record shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The

XII A.JMFC. AKP

13 C.C.No.2121/2022 properties i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

1 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: ANAKAPALLI

Present: M. Siva Kiran,

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

(FAC) XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate

Anakapalli.

Wednesday, this the 17 th day of January, 2024

C.C.No. 461/2021

Between:

State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station… Complainant VS

1. Ariga Bhavani Prasanthi, S/o Apparao, 19 years, H. No. 2-2-130, Kothuru AccusedNarasingaraopeta village, H/o Rajupalem, Anakapalli Mandal

2. Veereswarapu Mohan Kumar, S/o Ram Prasad, 21 years, R/o Kothuru, Anakapalli … Accused

This case came before me on 11.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Ld.A.P.P for Complainant-State and Sri K. Varun, Ld. Counsel for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case emerges out of the police report filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station, against the accused 1 and 2 in Cr.

No. 1749/2020, of his police station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, the de-facto complainant/L.W.1/B. Lakshmana Rao is working as Sachivalaya Panchayat

Secretary, Sampathipuram Panchayat and On 20.06.2020 at about 6.30 P.M, after completion of his duty, he purchased plumbing material at

Thummapala by parking his two wheeler on the road margin and kept the said plumbing items in the two wheeler and at that time, two persons i.e., the accused 1 and 2 herein came there and tried to take away the vehicle keys,for which, L.W.1 laxmana Rao resisted the accused persons and the accused persons threatened L.W.1/B. Lakshmana Rao that if he dont give the keys to them, they will beat him with stones. Due to fear,

L.W.1/Laxmana Rao gave the keys to the accused and in the mean time, the police constables of Anakapalli Town P.S i.e., L.W.2/J. Venkata Ramacnahdra

Raju, Head Constable and L.W.3/B. Bhaskara Rao, Police Constable came there and asked L.W.1/B.Laxmana Rao what had happened. On that the accused who were in drunken state, quarreled with L.Ws.2 and 3 and later the accused further quarreled with L.W.4/G. Chitti Babu who was present nearby the scene of offence. Then, the de-facto complainant/L.W.1/B.

Laxmana Rao gave a report to the police.

2. (a)Basing on the report of LW1/B. Lakshmana Rao, LW.7/L.

Bhaskara Rao, Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 1749/20, under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR and entrusted the matter to L.W.8/V.Chakradhar, S.I of Police to investigate the matter. During course of investigation,

L.W.8/V.Chakradhar examined the witnesses and recorded their statements 3 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

and served Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C., notice to accused persons and after completion of investigation, L.W.9/R. Dhanunjay, S.I. of Police, Anakapalli

Town P.S., filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused persons by my learned predecessor in my office.

4.On appearance of accused persons, copies were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused persons were examined

U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of

IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in telugu, for which, they denied the contents of charges framed, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 9 witnesses, out of which, they could able to examine eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.9-R. Dhanunjay, S.I. of Police, Anakapalli

Town P.S.,

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is putforth to them, for which, they stated as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

Perused the material available on record.

4 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

8. Now, the point that arises for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

9.The case of the prosecution in brief, is that, on 20.06.2020 at about 6.30 P.M, P.W.1 purchased the plumbing material on his two wheeler at Tummapala and at that time, the accused 1 and 2 came there in a drunken condition and tried to take the vehicle keys of P.W.1, for which,

P.W.1 resisted the same and accused persons threatened them to beat him with stones and due to fear, P.W.1 gave keys to accused and at that time,

P.W.3 and P.W.4 came there and the accused persons quarreled with them and with P.W.5 and thus, the accused persons obstructed the duties of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and thereby committed the offence punishable under sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

10.To prove the case of prosecution, the de-facto complainant/L.W.1-B. Lakshmana Rao is examined as P.W.1 and through him, the report given by him is marked as Ex.P.1 and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.2. The direct witness L.W.6/G. Ramu is examined as P.W.2 and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.3, the Police personnel i.e.,

L.Ws.2 to 5 viz., J. Venkata Ramachandra Raju, B. Bhaskara Rao, G. Chitti

Babu and S. Narayanarao were examined as P.W.3 to P.W.6 respectively.

L.W.7/L. Bhaskara Rao, Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town P.S., is examined 5 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

as P.W.7 and through him, FIR is marked as Ex.P.4 and L.W.8/V. Chakradhar,

S.I. of Police, Anakapalli Town P.S., is examined as P.W.8.

11.PW1 deposed that he know the accused persons and in the month of June, 2020 after purchasing plumbing articles, while he was going to house, an altercation was going at that place and some persons try to take his motorcycle key and At that time, the police came there and on seeing the police, the persons who are making galata fled away and he came to know about the names of the persons who made the galata through the persons who were present there and he gave report to the police, which is marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.1 did not identify that the accused persons are the persons who had committed the said offence and also did not state anything about altercation with P.W.3 to P.W.5. Since P.W.1 did not state that the accused persons are the persons who committed the alleged offence, the

Ld.APP declared him as hostile and obtained permission and cross-examined him, but, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1, except marking of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P.2. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, P.W.1 deposed that the accused

persons are not the persons who committed the offence against

him.

12.PW2 had completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution and he deposed that he do not know the accused persons and he do not know anything about the case facts. In view of hostility of PW2, the learned

APP obtained permission and cross examined him, but nothing was elicited 6 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

in support of the case of prosecution,except marking of his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement as ExP3. PW2 disowned his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement i.e., ExP.3, when confronted.

13.P.W.3 Head Constable deposed that he along with P.W.4 were engaged in their duty on blue colts motorcycle and on receipt of information that at Thummapala two persons are creating nuisance and then they went there and by that time P.W.1 who was present there informed that his cell phone was forcibly taken by the two accused persons and then, they apprehended the accused persons. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, P.W.3 deposed that the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality and he did not examine any person at the scene of offence as

P.W.1 was present at the scene of offence.

14.P.W.4 the then Constable deposed on the same lines as deposed by P.W.3.

15.P.W.5 the then Head Constable deposed that about three years back on one day while he was present at Thummapala, traffic was jammed and then he enquired the persons who were present there, for which they stated that some galata took place and except that he do not know anything about this case. During cross-examination, P.W.5 deposed that the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality.

16.P.W.6 who is police Constable deposed that on 20.06.2020 at afternoon hours this incident happened at Thummapala center and that on receipt of information from his station that some persons are creating 7 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

nuisance by consuming liquor, he went there along with breathe analyzer machine and he handed over the machine to P.Ws.3 and 4 who were present there.

17.P.W.7 is Inspector of Police who deposed that basing on the

Ex.P-1 report given by P.W.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.1749/2020 under

Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR, which is marked as

Ex.P.4 and his evidence shows that he entrusted the investigation of P.W.8

18.P.W.8 the Investigating Officer and he deposed that during the course of his investigation, he examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements, went to the scene of offence, examined and served 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused persons and after completion of his investigation, his successor filed charge sheet in this case. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not prepare any rough sketch and denied the suggestions that the accused persons did not commit any offence and a false case was foisted against them.

19.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to P.W.6, it is evident that

P.W.1 candidly stated that he do not know the names of the accused persons and he did not see the accused persons prior to the date of his giving evidence in the court i.e., on 17.08.2023. P.W.1 who is the main witness had deposed that the accused persons are not the persons who committed the offence against him. P.W.2 who is the direct witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.3 to 5 who are the Police

Personnel did not depose anything against the accused that they were assaulted and deterred by the accused persons while they were discharging 8 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

their lawful duties as public servants except stating that on receipt of information that the accused persons were creating nuisance at

Thummapala area in drunken state, they went there and there P.W.1 informed that the accused persons were forcibly taken away his cell phone.

But, the police failed to seize the cell phone from the possession of the accused nor there is any whisper in the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 that

P.W.6 came there and handed over breath analyzer machine to them and that they tested the accused persons. No document was filed by the prosecution to show that they conducted breath analyzer test to the accused persons. As such, the evidence of P.W.6 that he went to the alleged scene of offence and handed over the breath analyzer machine to P.W.3 and

P.W.4 will not gain any advantage.

20.P.Ws.3 to 6 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality, but no independent witness was examined by P.W.8. P.W.3 to 6 all are police personnel. When P.W.5 went to the scene of offence, the persons who made the galata had left the place. P.W.6 did not state that the accused persons were present at the place of offence and that they committed any acts as alleged by the prosecution. When P.W.1 candidly admitted that the accused persons are not the persons who had committed the offence against him, the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4 that they brought the accsued persons to the police station will not gain any advantage. As per the case of prosecution and the testimony of P.W.1, the accused persons had taken the two wheeler keys of P.W.1 forcibly. But, P.W.3 and P.W.4 stated that P.W.1 informed them that they had taken cell phone. Thus, there is inconsistency 9 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

in the evidence of P.W.1 with that of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 whether it is the bike keys or cell phone which were alleged to have been forcbily taken from P.W.1.

21.It is the testimony of P.W.1 that when Police persons came there, the persons who committed the galata had fled away from the scene of offence. It is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, that they did not state any incriminating evidence against the accused that the accused persons are the persons who had committed extortion by intentionally putting P.W.1 in fear and forcibly taken away his bike keys and also threatened him with dire consequences. No witness identified the accused persons that they were committed the offence. In the absence of any positive evidence from PW1, the testimony of other witnesses including the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 do not assume any much importance to prove the guilt of accused. Absolutely there is no material to prove that the accused are the persons who had committed the alleged offences against

P.W.1 and therefore, this court is of considered view that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, the accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

22. In the result, the A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons, if any, shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal 10 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

time as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Superintendent (discharging duties as Stenographer), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 17th day of January, 2024.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1 :B. Lakshmana Rao -None- PW2:G. Ramu PW3:J.V. Ramachandra Raju PW4:B. Bhaskara Rao PW5:G. Chittibabu PW6:S. Narayana Rao PW7:L. Bhaskara Rao PW8:V. Chakradhar

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 :Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2 :161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4:FIR

For Accused :-Nil-

Material Objects marked :

- Nil -

XIII AMM/AKP (FAC) XI AMM, Akp.

11 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: AT

ANAKAPALLE

DISTRICT: VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.No. 461/2021

Date of Offence::20.06.2020 Date of complaint/report::20.06.2020 Date of release on bail::Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C. Date of taken on file::01.09.2021 Date of commencement of trial::17.08.2023 Date of closure of trial::11.01.2024 Date of sentence or order::17.01.2024 Reason for delay::Police failed to produce witnesses on time. Name of the Complainant::State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalli Town Police Station

Particulars of the accused:

Accused 1. Ariga Bhavani Prasanthi, S/o Apparao, 19 years, H. No. 2-2-130, Kothuru Narasingaraopeta village, H/o Rajupalem, Anakapalli Mandal

2. Veereswarapu Mohan Kumar, S/o Ram Prasad, 21 years, R/o Kothuru, Anakapalli Under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 Nature of offence of IPC

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order : In the result, the A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and 12 C.C.461/21

XI AMM, AKP

accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons, if any, shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

XIII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, (FAC) XI Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli.

1 C.C.No.582/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present: Smt. B.V. Vijay Laxmi. XII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle.

Thursday, this the 9 th Day of April, 2026

C.C.No.582/2024

(Cr.No.56/2024)

Between:- State represented by the Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram P.S … COMPLAINANT And: - Balireddi Ramesh, S/o Late Ramana, Aged 31 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Batajangalapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District … ACCUSED

This case is coming on 08-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri A.Sanyasi Rao, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram P.S filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act (Rule No. 17 of Amendment Act – 2020) in Cr.No.56/2024.

02.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 25-02-2024 at 19.00 hrs., L.W.1/S.V.Sai Santhosh, Police Constable and

L.W.2/P.Satyanarayana, Head Constable of Police while doing visible policing at Batajangalapalem Village, Sabbavaram mandal and found the

XII A.M.M. ANKP

2 C.C.No.582/2024 accused in possession of 09 bottles of Ocean Blue Premium whiskey each 180 ml without having license or bills and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.

03.On the basis of occurrence report, L.W.4/T.Ravi Kumar, Asst.

Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.56/2024 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act (Rule No. 17 of

Amendment Act – 2020) against accused. Later, he served the notice u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and sent the samples for analysis. After receipt of C.E report and on completion of investigation and on satisfaction that it revealed the guilt of the accused, L.W.5/P.Ramana, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Amendment Act 2020 against the accused.

05.After appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

06.Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and a charge was framed for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act 2020 against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

XII A.M.M. ANKP

3 C.C.No.582/2024 prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of L.W.1/S.V.Sai Santhosh, Police Constable,

L.W.3/A.Muneswari, Chemical Examiner and L.W.5/P.Ramana, Inspector of Police was given up by learned APP in view of evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2.

08.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same once again and pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

09.Heard the APP for the State and the counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point which stood for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

the accused for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act 2020 beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

11. Point:-

It is the case of prosecution, that on 25-02-2024 at 19.00 hrs., L.W.1/S.V.Sai Santhosh, Police Constable and

L.W.2/P.Satyanarayana, Head Constable of Police while doing visible policing at Batajangalapalem Village, Sabbavaram mandal and found the accused in possession of 09 bottles of Ocean Blue Premium whiskey each 180 ml without having any license or bills and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.

XII A.M.M. ANKP

4 C.C.No.582/2024

12. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 S.V.Sai

Santhosh, Police Constable and P.W.2 T.Ravi Kumar, Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that on 25-02-2024 at about 7.00 p.m while himself and L.W.1 were doing visible policing at

Batajangapalame village, when they reached near panshop, they found the accused in possession of 09 bottles of Ocean Blue Premium whiskey each 180 ml. On interrogation, the accused revealed about his identity and confessed that he is in possession of the said liquor bottles and stated that he purchased the said liquor bottles from Government shop for selling the same for gain. He also stated that he has no bills or license for the said liquor bottles. Later, they collected the sample as per the procedure and reduced proceedings under the cover of occurrence report scribed by him. He signed on the occurrence report. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report. Later, they brought the accused along with occurrence report and seized property to the police station. He can identify the seized property basing on the identity slips affixed on the sample bottle. MO.1 is the one unexpended portion of sample bottle of Ocean Blue Premium whiskey 180 ml.

13.The evidence of P.W.1 that he went for visible policing at

Batajangalapalem Village and that he caught hold the accused along with nip bottles of Ocean Blue Premium whiskey each 180 ml without having any license or bills was not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses and the L.W.1 who went along with the P.W.1 to the raid was given up by the learned APP. The P.W.2 only stated about his registration

XII A.M.M. ANKP

5 C.C.No.582/2024 of FIR and about his receiving of case file and seized property and the accused from P.W.1. Basing on the occurrence report/Ex.P.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.56/2024 for the offence u/sec 34 (a) of AP

Excise Act and submitted original FIR to the Hon’ble court and sent the copies to the official concerned. Ex.P.2 is the original FIR. He served

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He can identify the sample bottle basing on the identity slips affixed on the sample bottle. M.O.1 is the said sample bottle. Later, he forwarded the sample for chemical examination.

The expert opined that the samples are Indian made liquor. Ex.P.3 is the expert opinion. Later, he handed over the case file to L.W.5/Ramana.

After completion of investigation, L.W.5 filed the charge sheet against the accused. He can identify the signature of the L.W.5 as he worked with him for about one year. The charge sheet contains the signature of L.W.5.

The P.W.1 stated in his cross examination that the scene of offence is situated adjacent to the National High way. They have not secured any independent witnesses in this case and they have not issued any written notice to anyone to act as mediator in this case. So the evidence of P.W.1 shows that they have not followed the provision laid down under Sec.100

Cr.P.C for search and seizure.

14.In the nut shell, it is seen that in this case no independent mediators were examined and the evidence of the PW1 shows that they have not secured any independent witnesses in this case and they have not issued any written notice to anyone to act as mediator in this case.

The P.W.2 only stated about his registration of FIR and sending the samples to the chemical analysis examination and secured Ex.P.3 expert

XII A.M.M. ANKP

6 C.C.No.582/2024 opinion. So the evidence of P.W.1 shows that they have not followed the provision laid down under Sec.100 Cr.P.C for search and seizure.

15.A Perusal of Ex.P.1 occurrence report shows that it is in the nature of confession statement and no independent witness is secured at the time of alleged detection of offence. At this point I would like to rely on the decision of Hon’ble H.C. of A.P. between Mudavath Mothia Vs State of A.P. reported in 2002 (1) ALT (Cri) 437, wherein the Hon’ble H.C. held that “the confession recorded by police is inadmissible and non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution version and such Panchanama is hit by Sec. 25 and Sec. 27 of Indian evidence act and hence the same cannot be considered and thereby the seizure proceedings also cannot be considered in view of the said bar and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.” In view of supra decision of

Hon’ble H.C. Ex.P.1 occurrence report cannot be considered and relied

upon as the said confession is hit by Sec.25 and Sec. 27 of Indian evidence act and the seizure also cannot be considered and thereby the non examination of any independent witnesses has become fatal to the case of prosecution. In the present case, the police have not collected mediators while seizing the alleged contraband as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused.The prosecution has not given sufficient explanation for not securing the mediators at the time of seizure and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

16.In a Judgment reported in Babu Saheb @ Babu, S. v. State of A.P.2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32 (A.P). It was decided that it is necessary to

XII A.M.M. ANKP

7 C.C.No.582/2024 take independent respectable local mediators. The ratio in this Judgment is that the investigation officer has to secure independent respectable local mediators. In this case the P.W.1 who is the Head Constable did not made any efforts to secure local mediators.

17.Further the police also did not follow the procedure contemplated U/Sec.46 of the A.P.Excise Act as to confiscation of the seized property before the Dy. Commissioner of P&E. None of the witnesses stated about submitting proposals for the confiscation and destruction of case property before the DC, P&E nor any document is filed. Thus it can be said that the case property was not properly accounted as per Sec.46 of the Act. Not sending proposals of confiscation of the seized property itself creates doubts whether any contraband was actually seized from the possession of accused or not. Moreover no documents were filed before this court nor any witnesses whispered a word about the same. Further it is pertinent to note that there is no mention of the batch numbers of the seized contraband in the occurrence report.

18. Admittedly, expert opinion undoubtedly establishes that the samples correspond to IML, which fact is not disputed. But it is the specific contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession. This being so it is imperative upon the prosecution to substantiate the guilt of the accused in light of cogent and reliable evidence. Though P.W.1 reiterated the contents as in occurrence report but it is evident that there are many discrepancies in the investigation as

XII A.M.M. ANKP

8 C.C.No.582/2024 discussed above and moreover his testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. As discussed above the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused remained not cogently established.

19. Therefore, in view of the above material procedural irregularities and lacunae in the investigation and moreover the alleged seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused not being cogently established, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of

P.W.1 and P.W.2, while sustaining conviction. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act. He is acquitted U/s 248(1) CrPC.

The bail bonds on record shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per

Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. The property i.e., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. Typed to dictation to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 9th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W.1 : P.Satyanarayana, Head Constable -NIL- P.W.2 : T.Ravi Kumar, Asst. Sub Inspector of Police

XII A.M.M. ANKP

9 C.C.No.582/2024

EXHIBITS MARKED:- For Prosecution:- For Defence:- Ex.P1 : Occurrence Report -NIL- Ex.P2 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.3 : Expert Opinion

M.Os Marked:- For Prosecution: M.O.1 : Unexpended portion of sample bottle of Ocean Blue Premium whiskey 180 ml

For Defence: -NIL -

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anakapalle

XII A.M.M. ANKP

10 C.C.No.582/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE::

AT ANAKAPALLE.

CALENDER CASE NO.582/2024

Date of offence:25-02-2024

Date of complaint:25-02-2024

Date of taken on file:01-07-2024

Date of apprehension of accused:25-02-2024

Date of commencement of trial:06-08-2025

Date of close of trial: 08-04-2026

Date of sentence of order:09-04-2026

Complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspect of Police, Sabbavaram P.S

Particulars of the accused:

Balireddi Ramesh, S/o Late Ramana, Aged 31 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Batajangalapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District

U/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act. Nature of offence

Found not guilty Finding of the court

Sentence of Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Amendment Act. He is acquitted U/s 248(1) CrPC. The bail bonds on record shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. The property i.e., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

XII A.M.M. ANKP

11 C.C.No.582/2024

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Anakapalle

XII A.M.M. ANKP

1 C.C.No.979/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS :: AT ANAKAPALLE.

Present: Smt. B.V. Vijay Laxmi. XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

Friday, this the 17 th (Seventeenth) Day of April, 2026

C.C.No.979/2024

(Cr.No.194/2024)

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station.

… COMPLAINANT And: - Salapu Apparao, S/o Simhachalam, Aged 46 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Gottiwada village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District.

… ACCUSED

This case is coming on 17-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri D.V.V.Ram Prasad, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act in Cr.No.194/2024.

02.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 13-08-2024 at 18.00 hrs., LW1/R.K.Naidu, Police Constable, LW2/

XII A.JMFC. AKP

2 C.C.No.979/2024

A.Satyanarayana, H.C while conducting vehicle checking at NTR

Junction, Sabbavaram, apprehended the accused and found the accused in possession of 08 nip bottles of 9 Sea Horse Select whiskey each 180 ml and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.

03.On the basis of occurrence report, LW4/Ch.Ganesh Padal,

Asst. Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.194/2024 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act against accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and sent the samples for analysis and received C.E report. After completion of investigation and on satisfaction that it revealed the guilt of the accused,

L.W.5/P.Ramana, Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Amendment Act against the accused.

05.After appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him under Sec.230 BNSS.

06.Accused was examined under Sec.262 of BNSS. and a charge was framed for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

XII A.JMFC. AKP

3 C.C.No.979/2024 prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of LW2/P.Satyanarayana, Head Constable,

L.W.3/A.Muneswari, Chemical Examiner, LW5/P.Ramana, Inspector of

Police was given up by learned APP in view of evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2.

08.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.351 of BNSS by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same once again and pleaded not guilty. However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

09.Heard the APP for the State and the counsel for the accused.

10. Now the point which stood for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act beyond reasonable doubt or not ?

11. Point:-

It is the case of prosecution, that on 13-08-2024 at 18.00 hrs., LW1/R.K.Naidu, Police Constable, LW2/ A.Satyanarayana, H.C while conducting vehicle checking at NTR Junction, Sabbavaram, apprehended the accused and found the accused in possession of 08 nip bottles of 9

Sea Horse Select whiskey each 180 ml and seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

4 C.C.No.979/2024

12. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1

R.K.Naidu, Police Constable and P.W.2 Ch.Ganesh Padal, A.S.I of Police.

The P.W.1 deposed that on 13.08.2024 at about 18:30 hours, while he along with HC 907/LW2 conducting vehicle checking at the NTR Junction,

Sabbavaram, they found the accused in possession of plastic bag on seeing them, he tried to escape and on suspicion when they checked him, he was in possession of 8 liquor bottles of 09 Sea horse select whiskey each 180ml in that bag without having any license or bills. On interrogation, the accused revealed about his identity and confessed that he is carrying the liquor bottles for sale which he purchased from various

Government wine shops and for selling the same for higher price. They tried for mediators but in vain. Later, LW2 collected the sample as per the procedure and seized the contraband and arrested the accused and reduced proceedings under the cover of occurrence report scribed by

LW2. LW2 arrested the accused and brought the accused to the police station along with the seized property. He signed on the occurrence report. Ex.P1 is the occurrence report. MO.1 is one bottle of unexpended portion of sample bottle 09 Sea horse select whiskey each 180ml.

13.The evidence of P.W.1 that he went for conducting vehicle checking at NTR Junction, Sabbavaram and that he caught hold the accused along with nip bottles of 09 Sea horse select whiskey each 180 ml without having any license or bills was not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses and the L.W.2 who went along with the P.W.1 to

XII A.JMFC. AKP

5 C.C.No.979/2024 the raid was given up by the learned APP. The P.W.2 only stated about his registration about his receiving of case file and seized property and the accused from P.W.2. Basing on the occurrence report/Ex.P.1, he registered the case in Cr.No.194/2024 for the offence U/sec 34 (a) of AP

Excise and Amendment Act and submitted original FIR to the court and sent the copies to the official concerned. Ex.P2 is the original F.I.R. He arrested the accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused.

He can identify the sample bottle basing on the identity slips affixed on the sample bottle. M.O.1 is said sample bottle. Later forwarded the sample for chemical examination. The expert opined that the samples are

Indian liquor. Ex.P3 is the expert opinion. After receiving of the expert report, he handed over the case file to L.W.5. The LW.5 filed the charge sheet against the accused. He can identify the signature of L.W.5 as he worked with him one year. The charge sheet contains the signature of

L.W.5. The P.W.1 who went for the raid submitted that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality and they have not issued any written notice to any secretary or panchayatdar to act as mediator in this case, as such, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that they have not followed the provision laid down under Sec.103 and 105 of BNSS for search and seizure and the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses regarding the conducting of raid. The P.W.2 only stated about his registration of FIR and sending of the samples to the chemical analysis examination and secured Ex.P.3 expert opinion.

15.In the nut shell, it is seen that in this case no independent

XII A.JMFC. AKP

6 C.C.No.979/2024 mediators were examined and the evidence of the PW1 shows that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality and they have not issued any written notice to any secretary or panchayatdar to act as mediator in this case and they have also failed to secure any independent witnesses even though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality, which shows that they have not followed the provision laid down under Sec.103 and 105 of BNSS for search and seizure.The P.W.2 only stated about his registration of FIR and sent the samples to the chemical analysis examination and secured Ex.P.3 expert opinion.

16.A Perusal of Ex.P.1 occurrence report shows that it is in the nature of confession statement and no independent witness is secured at the time of alleged detection of offence. At this point I would like to rely on the decision of Hon’ble H.C. of A.P. between Mudavath Mothia Vs State of A.P. reported in 2002 (1) ALT (Cri) 437, wherein the Hon’ble H.C. held that “the confession recorded by police is inadmissible and non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution version and such Panchanama is hit by Sec. 25 and Sec. 27 of Indian evidence act and hence the same cannot be considered and thereby the seizure proceedings also cannot be considered in view of the said bar and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.” In view of supra decision of

Hon’ble H.C. Ex.P.1 occurrence report cannot be considered and relied

upon as the said confession is hit by Sec.25 and Sec. 27 of Indian evidence act and the seizure also cannot be considered and thereby the non examination of any independent witnesses has become fatal to the

XII A.JMFC. AKP

7 C.C.No.979/2024 case of prosecution. In the present case, the police have not collected mediators while seizing the alleged contraband as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused.The prosecution has not given sufficient explanation for not securing the mediators at the time of seizure and hence accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.In a Judgment reported in Babu Saheb @ Babu, S. v. State of A.P.2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32 (A.P). It was decided that it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediators. The ratio in this Judgment is that the investigation officer has to secure independent respectable local mediators. In this case the P.W.1 who is the Police Constable did not made any efforts to secure local mediators.

18.Further the police also did not follow the procedure contemplated U/Sec.46 of the A.P.Excise Act as to confiscation of the seized property before the Dy. Commissioner of P&E. None of the witnesses stated about submitting proposals for the confiscation and destruction of case property before the DC, P&E nor any document is filed. Thus it can be said that the case property was not properly accounted as per Sec.46 of the Act. Not sending proposals of confiscation of the seized property itself creates doubts whether any contraband was actually seized from the possession of accused or not. Moreover no documents were filed before this court nor any witnesses whispered a word about the same. Further it is pertinent to note that there is no mention of the batch numbers of the seized contraband in the occurrence

XII A.JMFC. AKP

8 C.C.No.979/2024 report.

19. Admittedly, expert opinion undoubtedly establishes that the samples correspond to IML, which fact is not disputed. But it is the specific contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession. This being so it is imperative upon the prosecution to substantiate the guilt of the accused in light of cogent and reliable evidence. Though P.W.1 reiterated the contents as in occurrence report but it is evident that there are many discrepancies in the investigation as discussed above and moreover his testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. As discussed above the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused remained not cogently established.

20. Therefore, in view of the above material procedural irregularities and lacunae in the investigation and moreover the alleged seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused not being cogently established, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of

P.W.1 and P.W.2, while sustaining conviction. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act. He is acquitted U/s.271(1) BNSS.

The bail bonds on record shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per

Sec.481 (1) of BNSS. The property i.e., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after

XII A.JMFC. AKP

9 C.C.No.979/2024 lapse of appeal period. Typed to dictation to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

P.W.1 : R.K.Naidu, Police Constable P.W.2 : Ch.Ganesh Padal, S.I of Police Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED:- For Prosecution:- For Defence:- Ex.P1 : Occurrence Report -NIL- Ex.P2 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.3 : Expert Opinion M.Os Marked:- For Prosecution: M.O.1 : Unexpended portion of sample bottle of 9 Sea Horse Select whiskey For Defence: -NIL -

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

XII A.JMFC. AKP

10 C.C.No.979/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE::

AT ANAKAPALLE.

CALENDER CASE NO.979/2024

Date of offence:13-08-2024

Date of complaint:13-08-2024

Date of taken on file:19-10-2024

Date of apprehension of accused:13-08-2024

Date of commencement of trial:21-01-2026

Date of close of trial: 17-04-2026

Date of sentence of order:17-04-2026

Complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram P.S Particulars of the accused:

Salapu Apparao, S/o Simhachalam, Aged 46 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Gottiwada village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District.

U/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act. Nature of offence

Found not guilty Finding of the court

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Amendment Act. He is acquitted U/s.271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds on record shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.481 (1) of BNSS.

The property i.e., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Sd/- B.V.Vijay Laxmi

XII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anakapalle.

XII A.JMFC. AKP