C.C.No.1115/2025
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: AT
CHODAVARAM.
Present: Smt. B.V.Vijay Laxmi Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chodavaram.
Friday, this the 22 nd Day of May, 2026
C.C.No.1115/2025
Between:- State represented by the Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Chodavaram. … COMPLAINANT And: - Vekugula Pothu Raju, S/o late Lakshmana, Aged 44 Years, Kapu by caste, R/o Gorlipallem Village, Butchayyapeta Mandal, Anakapalli District. … ACCUSED
This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Ch.Baburao, 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 Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station,
Chodavaram filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995,
Amendment Act 18 of 2020 in Cr.No.206/2022.
02.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 07- 09-2022 at about 09.30 hrs, under the Supervision of the Station House
Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chodavaram,
C.C.No.1115/2025 (Lw5)/B.V.N.Bhushana Rao, the Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement
Bureau Station, Chodavaram along with staff (Lw1 to Lw4) i.e.,
Md.R.Begum, G.Poorna Chandra Rao, G.Shiva and D.Jogamma while conducted patrolling for Proh & Excise Crimes and reached at Gollipalem
Village Road Junction located at Road from Nallayyapeta Village to
Gollipalem Village and noticed one male person having one Plastic Bottle with his right hand and coming towards their party, on seeing the uniform party the male person perturbed and tried to flee away from the scene of offence by leaving the property, later efforts made by LW5/B.V.N.Bhusana
Rao and staff restrained him and questioned about his escape and the contents of the Plastic Bottle, he stated that he is in possession of ID
Liquor. Thereafter, Lw5/B.V.N.Bhusana Rao opened the Plastic Bottle found I.D Liquor Smell, later Lw5 deputed Lw1/Md.R.Begum to secure mediators at the nearest village, after some time he came and reported that no body in the village come forwarded to act as mediator. On interrogation he (Accused) disclosed his identity and also stated that he purchased the I.D Liquor from an un-known person at the outskirts of
Gorlipallem Village and selling the ID Liquor at his village on higher price and eking lively hood. Then, Lw5/B.V.N.Bhusana Rao opened the Plastic
Bottle with the assistance of the staff found 02 (TWO) Litres of ID Liquor.
Later, Lw5 enlightened him possession, transportation and selling of I.D.
Liquor is an offence U/sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Proh Act 1995,
C.C.No.1115/2025
Amendment Act 18 of 2020, later Lw5 drew one sample bottle of ID
Liquor about 250ml from the seized property for Chemical Analysis purpose, seized the property, sample bottle, affixed identification slips both the property and sample bottle, obtained the Signature of the accused on the Occurrence Report, later arrested the accused under cover of an Occurrence Report drafted at the scene of offence, as there are no mediators available. Later, LW5, the Sub Inspector, Special
Enforcement Bureau Station, Chodavaram returned to station along with case documents property, sample and accused and registered the occurrence with a case in Cr.No.206/2022, dt.07.09.2022, U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, Amendment Act, 2020 of Proh. & Excise
Station, Chodavaram. Later, the accused produced before the Hon’ble court for remand. During the course of investigation, Lw5 sent the sample
Bottles to the Chemical Examiner, Proh. & Excise, Visakhapatnam for analysis. After due analysis, the chemical examiner opined the sample in
C.E No. 2324/2022, dt 29.12.2022 vide in S.No.21799 “is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.”
3.Further, on the proposals submitted during the course of investigation, to the Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau,
Visakhapatnam having regard to all the facts of the case had ordered to confiscation of Property to the State and issued instructions to destroy the same vide proceedings Rc. No 383/2021/A1, dt 31/3/22 of the Deputy
C.C.No.1115/2025
Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau Visakhapatnam Accordingly the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,
Chodavaram has destroyed the ID. Liquor, in the presence of the
Assistant Superintendent, Special Enforcement Bureau, Anakapalli and mediators under cover of a Panchanama Report at 29/4/2023.
4.In view of the facts submitted, it is proved that the accused is in conscious and intelligent possession & transport of ID. Liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished, U/Sec. 7(B) r/w8(B) of A.P Proh Act 1995 Amendment Act 18 of 2020. Hence the charge.
5. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 7(B) r/w8(B) of A.P Proh Act 1995 Amendment Act 18 of 2020 against the accused. After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.
6.Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the offence U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Prohibition Act 1995 Amendment Act 18 of 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.
7. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and Ex.s.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 is marked. The learned
A.P.P has given up the evidence of L.W.1/Md.R.Begum, L.W.2/G.Poorna
Chandra Rao, L.W.3/G.Shiva, LW4/D.Jogamma and L.W.6/M.Sekharam.
C.C.No.1115/2025
8.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.
9.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. 7(B) r/w8(B) of A.P
Proh Act 1995 Amendment Act 18 of 2020 beyond
reasonable doubt or not ?
11.Point:-
It is the case of prosecution, that on 07-09-2022 at about 09.30 hrs, under the Supervision of the Station House Officer, Special
Enforcement Bureau Station, Chodavaram, (Lw5)/B.V.N.Bhushana Rao, the Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chodavaram along with staff (Lw1 to Lw4) i.e., Md.R.Begum, G.Poorna Chandra Rao,
G.Shiva and D.Jogamma while conducted patrolling for Proh & Excise
Crimes and reached at Gollipalem Village Road Junction located at Road from Nallayyapeta Village to Gollipalem Village and noticed one male person having one Plastic Bottle with his right hand and coming towards their party, on seeing the uniform party the male person perturbed and
C.C.No.1115/2025 tried to flee away from the scene of offence by leaving the property, later efforts made by LW5/B.V.N.Bhusana Rao and staff restrained him and questioned about his escape and the contents of the Plastic Bottle, he stated that he is in possession of ID Liquor. Thereafter,
Lw5/B.V.N.Bhusana Rao opened the Plastic Bottle found I.D Liquor
Smell, later Lw5 deputed Lw1/Md.R.Begum to secure mediators at the nearest village, after some time he came and reported that no body in the village come forwarded to act as mediator. On interrogation he (Accused) disclosed his identity and also stated that he purchased the I.D Liquor from an un-known person at the outskirts of Gorlipallem Village and selling the ID Liquor at his village on higher price and eking lively hood.
Then, Lw5/B.V.N.Bhusana Rao opened the Plastic Bottle with the assistance of the staff found 02 (TWO) Litres of ID Liquor. Later, Lw5 enlightened him possession, transportation and selling of I.D. Liquor is an offence U/sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P Proh Act 1995, Amendment Act 18 of 2020, later Lw5 drew one sample bottle of ID Liquor about 250ml from the seized property for Chemical Analysis purpose, seized the property, sample bottle, affixed identification slips both the property and sample bottle, obtained the Signature of the accused on the Occurrence Report, later arrested the accused under cover of an Occurrence Report drafted at the scene of offence, as there are no mediators available. Later, LW5, the Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chodavaram
C.C.No.1115/2025 returned to station along with case documents property, sample and accused and registered the occurrence with a case in Cr.No.206/2022, dt.07.09.2022, U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995,
Amendment Act, 2020 of Proh. & Excise Station, Chodavaram.
12.To prove its case, the prosecution examined
P.W.1/B.V.N.Bhushana Rao. The PW1 in his chief examination stated that on 07.09.2022, at about 09.30 hrs, he received credible information about illegal possession of ID arrack. Immediately, himself along with LW1 to LW4 proceeded towards Gorlipallem Village road Junction from Neelayyapeta
Village to Gorlipallem Village and they found you the accused along with one plastic bottle containing 02 liters of ID liquor, on seeing them, the accused tried to escaped from them. Then, PW1 questioned the accused and accused revealed his name and identity and they found containing 02 liters of ID liquor from the accused and further confessed that the accused purchased the ID liquor from unknown person to sell the ID liquor for higher price in his village as his lively-hood. PW1 deputed LW1 to secure mediators but in vain, he drafted occurrence report, Ex.P1 is the Occurrence Report. He has drawn 250 ml one sample bottle from the seized property. MO1 is the Sample bottle. Witness identified his signatures on Ex.P1 and MO1. Witness can identify you the accused, but absent on petition.
13.Basing on occurrence report, PW1 registered FIR in Cr.No.206/2022,
U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Excise Amendment Act, he sent you the
C.C.No.1115/2025 accused to judicial custody, Ex.P2 is the FIR, he sent the sample to RFSL for chemical examination along with letter of advice, dt.07.09.2022, Ex.P3 is the
Letter of Advice, he received report, dt.04.01.2023, Ex.P4 is the Chemical
Analysis Report, after completion of investigation, LW6/M.Sekharam filed charge sheet.
14.In this case, PW1 stated in his chief examination that he tried to secure the mediators but in vain but in this case the PW1 in his cross examination stated that the scene of offence is situated in busy locality and consists of 1200 to 1500 residential houses and it’a a major panchayath. It is true that they have to cross MDO office to reach the scene of offence from their police station, they have not secured any mediators, no written notice was issued to the villagers to act as mediators, VRO, ward members are also available, but they did not secured them to act as mediators shows that the
Excise officials did not follow Section.100 of the Cr.P.C. The evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any of the excise officials and by the independent witnesses. The learned APP givenup the evidence of all the remaining witnesses.
15.A Perusal of Ex.P.1 occurrence report reflects that it is in the nature of confessional statement of accused but however as established a confessional statement before a police officer itself is not admissible in evidence unless it leads to discovery of any fact. Evidently in the present case, except the contention of P.W.1 that accused confessed of carrying
C.C.No.1115/2025
ID Arrack, for the purpose of selling it for gain, their statement does not lead to discovery of any fact. Undoubtedly police who are bestowed with the responsibility of maintaining Law and Order can not be doubted of depositing false or falsely implicating innocent persons. However as discussed above bare confessional statement alone is not enough to inculpate the accused of the present offence. The prosecution has to establish the nexus between the accused and contraband and that it was seized from the possession of the accused only.
16.Though P.W.1 testified about detection of the offence, but however, it is pertinent to note that the alleged seizure stood uncorroborated in light of testimony of any independent witnesses. With this regard, it cannot be ignored that as per provisions of section-100
Cr.P.C, which mandates that whenever any closed premises or residence of any person or any person is supposed to be searched then it must be done in the presence of at least one or more respectable inhabitants of that locality. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that they tried for mediators, but in vain. It is pertinent to note that the scene of offence is situated in a busy area and people were commuting at the scene of offence, there cannot be any instance for taking a plea of being unable to secure mediators, as pointed out by the learned counsel for accused. Hence their failure to secure mediators definitely casts a doubt if actually any efforts were actually put in by them to secure mediators. Undoubtedly, corroboration is
C.C.No.1115/2025 only a rule of prudence and not rule of evidence however in the present instance in circumstances leading to the seizure of contraband it becomes paramount important for conducting the alleged seizure in light of independent evidence. Seizure under the cover of occurrence report is permissible only when they are properly able to explain the reasons why they failed to secure mediators and merely by contending that they could not secure mediators they cannot seize the contraband under the cover of occurrence report.
17.It cannot be ignored that as per Sec.13 of the A.P. Prohibition
Act, which clearly enunciates that the remaining contraband has to be produced before the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise having jurisdiction over the said area for passing appropriate orders without undue delay. It is not out of place to mention here that none of the witnesses testified about submitting proposals under Sec.13 of A.P.
Prohibition Act for the confiscation and destruction of case property
before the DC, P&E. Thus it cannot be said that the case property stood
properly accounted and it cannot be ignored that it has to be further independently established that the alleged contraband was seized from the possession of the accused.
18.A perusal of Ex.P.4 expert opinion undoubtedly establishes that the samples correspond to ID arrack which fact is not disputed. But it is the specific defence of the accused that no contraband was seized
C.C.No.1115/2025 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 Ex.P.1 mediators report as discussed above the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused, remained not cogently established. Thus the identity of the accused cannot be said to have been cogently established. Thus, the entire investigation is effected by material procedural irregularities and lacunae and moreover the alleged seizure not cogently established making it highly unsafe to rely upon the testimony of P.W1 while sustaining conviction. Under these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence
U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, Amendment Act 18 of 2020. He is acquitted U/sec. 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 case properties i.e., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of May, 2026.
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chodavaram.
C.C.No.1115/2025
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:-
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:- For Defence:- P.W.1 : B.V.N.Bhusana Rao -Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED:- For Prosecution:- For Defence:- Ex.P.1 : Occurrence Report.- Nil- Ex.P.2 : Original FIR. Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Chemical Analysis Report M.Os Marked:-
For Prosecution: For Defence :
MO1 is the unexpended sample bottle of ID arrack
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chodavaram.
C.C.No.1115/2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS :: AT
CHODAVARAM.
CALENDER CASE NO.1115/2025
Date of offence:07.09.2022
Date of complaint:07.09.2022
Date of taken on file:22.09.2025
Date of commencement of trial:25.03.2026
Date of close of trial:21.05.2026
Date of sentence of order:22.05.2026
Complainant:State represented by the Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Chodavaram Particulars of the accused:
Vekugula Pothu Raju, S/o late Lakshmana, Aged 44 Years, Kapu by caste, R/o Gorlipallem Village, Butchayyapeta Mandal, Anakapalli District.
Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, Nature of offence Amendment Act 18 of 2020
Finding of the courtFound not guilty
Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, Amendment Act 18 of 2020. He is acquitted U/sec. 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 case properties i.e., M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chodavaram.