Smt.Bandari Srilatha

1OS No. 307 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT:

WANAPARTHY

Friday this the 27th day of June, 2025

Present: Smt. Bandari. Srilatha, I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

O.S. No. 307 of 2024

Between:- Jakkula Srikrishna S/o. Eshwaraiah, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District. …Plaintiff

AND

1. Jakkula Laxmanna S/o. Ramakrishna, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

2. Jakkula Thikkanna S/o. Ramakrishna, Age: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

3. Jakkula Thikkanna S/o. Jakkula Narsimha, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

4. Jakkula Laxmi S/o. J. Thikkanna, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District. …Defendants

CLAIM:- This suit is filed for granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close B-C- D water outlet in the path way out of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 286 extent Ac. 1-24 gts and 286 extent Ac. 4-33 gts situated in the limits of Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District

***

2OS No. 307 of 2024

This suit is coming up before me for the disposal on this day in the presence of Sri. J. C. Kurumaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants were set exparte and stood over for the consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

-:: JUDGEMENT ::-

1. This petition is filed U/s. 26 r/w. Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close B-C-D water outlet in the path way out of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 286 extent

Ac. 1-24 gts and 286 extent Ac. 4-33 gts situated in the limits of

Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

B-C-D water outlet in the path way out of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 286 extent Ac. 1-24 gts and 286 extent Ac. 4-33 gts situated in the limits of

Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District as shown in the sketch map in red colour annexed with the plaint. The boundaries are here under:

East : Pattu Kaluva and there after the lands of Reddy people West :Land of plaintiff, there after CC road North: Land of plaintiff, pattu kaluva and there after land of Jalli Madhu South:Land in Sy. No. 285 of Reddy people

2. The brief facts of the case:

The plaintiff is the owner and the possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 286/A1 to an extent of Ac. 1.24 gts situated in the limits 3OS No. 307 of 2024 of Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

Similarly, defendants No. 1 and 2 are the owners and possessors of the land in Sy. No. 286 to an extent of Ac. 1.24 gts and the defendants No. 3 and 4 are the owners and possessors of the land in Sy. No. 286 to an extent of Ac. 4.33 gts situated in the limits of Peddamarur Village,

Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District. On the eastern side of the plaintiff, the land of defendants is located. On the western side of the plaintiff, there is CC road. After the land of defendant No. 3 and 4 there is a pattu kaluva, passing from Jurala canal and after the said pattu kaluva, the lands of reddy caste people are located. After the lands of reddy people, there is Jurala canal and the above said pattu kaluva is connected with the said Jurala canal which is clearly shown in the sky blue colour in the sketch map annexed with the plaint.

3.The above said pattu kaluva is in the open land on the northern side of the parties to the present suit and they are using the said lands as way to go to their respective lands and also taking the water from the said pattu kaluva to their respective lands. The said pattu kaluva is starting from the Jurala canal and it is connected to the lands of the parties to the suit and ending after the CC road. There is no dispute between the parties to the suit while using the said land and pattu kaluva. On the northern side of the lands of the parties to the suit, on the southern side of the lands of the parties to the suit, there is a path 4OS No. 307 of 2024 way starting from A-B-C-D to go the lands of parties to the suit which is clearly shown in red colour in the sketch map annexed with the plaint.

The said path way is not the permanent one, but it is meant to use at the time of raising the crops and harvesting the same and to take the crops through bullock carts etc. The path way is the subject matter of the suit which is clearly shown in the sketch map. The plaintiff and defendants are in the peaceful possession and the enjoyment of their respective lands and get the yeilds.

4.The suit path way i.e., A-B-C-D is meant for the usage while raising the crops and harvesting the same. But taking the advantage pattu kaluva located on the eastern side of the land of defendants No. 3 and 4, the defendants No. 1 and 2 colluded with each other and illegally damaged the path way to an extent of land from B-C-D and opened water outlet.

5.Infact, the defendants and the plaintiff can take the water from the pattu kaluva which is located on the northern side of their lands.

However, the plaintiff has no objection for taking water from B-C-D suit lands by the defendants. The defendants with ill motive on or about 15- 09-2024 came over the A-B-C-D suit land and tried to damage the path way at B portion of the suit land and to open the water outlet with an intention to cause flow of the water into the land of the plaintiff. The 5OS No. 307 of 2024 defendants have no right to do so. If the defendants open the water outlet at B portion of the suit land, the water from the main pattu kaluva will freely flow heavily into the lands of the plaintiff and the in the said circumstances the maize crop which is existing in the plaintiff land and ready for harvesting after a month will be completely damaged due to the excess water. In the circumstances, the plaintiff will be put to grave and irreparable loss and the standing maize crop will be damaged.

6.The defendants have no right to create water outlet in the suit land of A-B-C-D portion. However, the plaintiff with difficulty resisted the defendants from opening water outlet at B Portion of suit land. The defendants went away stating that they will open the water outlet at B portion of the suit land at any point of time and damage the standing maize crop in the land of the plaintiff. As such the plaintiff is entitled to seek relief of the mandatory injunction to close the water outlet from B-

C-D portion of suit land.

7.As such, the plaintiff is seeking for madatory injunction directing the defendants to close the B-C-D water outlet in the path way land of bearing Sy. No. 286 extent Ac. 1-24 gts and 286 extent Ac. 4-33 gts situated in the limits of Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal,

Wanaparthy District.

6OS No. 307 of 2024

8.Summons duly served to defendants No. 1 to 4. The defendants

No. 1, 2 and 4 failed to appear before this Court and hence, they were set exparte. The defendant No. 3 refused summons. The defendants No. 4 called absent, treated the summons has served to defendant No. 4. This

Court set defendant No. 4 exparte.

9.The plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit in lieu of examination injunction by reteirating the contents of plaint, and got examined as

PW1. The Ex. A1 to A5 are marked. Ex. A1 is the specimen copy of new pattadar cum title deed pass book, dt: 24-06-2018, Ex. A2 is the specimen copy of form No. 1-B of ROR, dt: 09-09-2018, Ex. A3 is the dharani copy, Ex. A4 is the 4 photos along with pen drive, Ex. A5 is the dharani copies of defendants. As the defendants No. 1 to 4 were set exparte, the cross examination of PW1 is treated as nil.

10.Heard and peruse the material available on the record.

11. Point for consideration:

I.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for for granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close B-C-D water outlet in the path way out of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 286 extent

Ac. 1-24 gts and 286 extent Ac. 4-33 gts situated in the limits of Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy

District as prayed for?

7OS No. 307 of 2024

II.To what relief?

12. POINT-I:

This suit is filed for granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close B-C-D water outlet in the path way out of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 286 extent Ac. 1-24 gts and 286 extent Ac. 4-33 gts situated in the limits of Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal,

Wanaparthy District as prayed for?

13.The PW1 in his chief examination affidavit deposed that the plaintiff is having agriculture land in Sy. No. 286/A1 to an extent of Ac.

1.24 gts and the defendants No. 1 and 2 is having land in Sy. No. 286 to an extent Ac. 1.24 gts and the defendants No. 3 and 4 is having land in

Sy. No. 286 to an extent of Ac. 4.33 gts situated in the limits of

Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

14.On the eastern side of land of the plaintiff, the defendants lands are located. On the western side of land of the plaintiff, there is CC road.

After the lands of the defendants No. 3 and 4, there is pattu kaluva passing from Jurala canal. On the southern side of the lands of the parties, there is path way starting from A-B-C-D to go to the lands of the parties to the suit. But, the A-B-C-D pathway is not a permanent one, but it is meant to use while raising the crops and while harvesting crops.

8OS No. 307 of 2024

15.The plaintiff is raising maize crop in his land and the defendants are raising chilly crops. In this regard, A-B-C-D path way is meant for using while raising the crops and harvesting the same. The defendants

No. 1 to 4 have colluded with each other and illegally damaged the path way in B-C-D land due to the which agriculture land of the plaintiff will be damaged due to the excess flow of water. On 15-09-2024, the defendants came over A-B-C-D suit land and tried to damaged the path way at B portion of the suit land and to open water outlet. But, the plaintiff resisted the acts of the defendants. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff has filed Ex. A1, is the pattadar passbook specimen copy of the plaintiff through Dharani records which shows that plaintiff is having land in Sy. No. 286/A1 to an extent of Ac. 1.24 gts. Ex. A2 is the specimen copy of Dharani record 1-B ROR namoona also shows that plaintiff is also having land in Sy. No. 286/A1 to an extent of Ac. 1.24 gts. Ex. A3 is the Pahani which shows that the plaintiff is the pattadar for the land in Sy. No. 286/A1 to an extent of Ac. 1.24 gts. Ex. A5 is the

Pahani of the defendants No. 1 to 3 showing that the defendants are having land in Sy. No. 286/A2, Sy. No. 286/A3 and Sy. No. 286/A1.

16. From the above said Ex. A1 to Ex. A3 shows that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of land in Sy. No. 286/A1 to an extent of Ac.

1.24 gts. From the Ex. A5, it is evident that the defendants are also having land in Sy. No. 286/A1, Sy. No. 286/A2 and Sy. No. 286/A3. In 9OS No. 307 of 2024 this regard, Ex. A4 is are the photographs along with pendrive filed by the plaintiff shows that B-C-D water outlet passing through land in Sy.

No. 286. In this regard, plaintiff has filed Sec. 65B certificates for marking Ex. A4. The facts of the plaintiff remained unchallenged and uncorroborated. If the B-C-D outlet is not closed which will cause irreparable loss and damage to the plaintiffs agriculture land due to the excess flow of water. In this regard, the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close B-C-D water outlet in the path way out of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 286 extent Ac. 1-24 gts and 286 extent Ac. 4-33 gts situated in the limits of Peddamarur Village,

Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

17. POINT: II

In the result, this suit is decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No. 1 to 4 by granting mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close the B-C-D water outlet in the path way out of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 286 extent Ac. 1-24 gts and 286 extent Ac. 4-33 gts situated in the limits of Peddamarur Village, Chinnambavi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

Dictated to the stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY.

10OS No. 307 of 2024

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1. Jakkula Srikrishna None

Exhibits marked for::

For Plaintiff:

i.Ex. A1 is the specimen copy of new pattadar cum title deed pass book, dt: 24-06-2018 ii.Ex. A2 is the specimen copy of form No. 1-B of ROR, dt: 09-09- 2018 iii.Ex. A3 is the dharani copy iv.Ex. A4 is the 4 photos along with pen drive v.Ex. A5 is the dharani copies of defendants

For Defendants:

--Nil--

Sd/-

I-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

WANAPARTHY

1CC No. 147 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: WANAPARTHY

Friday the 27th day of June, 2025

Present: Smt.Bandari Srilatha, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

CC No. 147 of 2023

Between: State through Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Police, Wanaparthy.

...Complainant

AND

Mudavath Chittamma W/o Thirupathi, Age: 42 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Goplapur Thanda, Pangal mandal.

...Accused

Offence:: U/s. 7(a) r/w. 8 (e) of AP Excise Act, 1995, (Adoption of TS order, 2015).

Plea of accused:: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court :: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

*** This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and Ld. Defense Counsel Shri K. Chander Naik, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- 2CC No. 147 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Wanaparthy has filed charge sheet in PCOR No. 144/2022 against the accused for the offence punishableU/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TSProhibition Act, 1995

2. The brief facts of the case are that: -

On 30-08-2022, at about 08:15 AM, the LW3 along with staff proceeded to Goplapur Thanda and there secured the presence of two mediators by stating that they got reliable information about the illegal sale and possession of ID liquor and in the house of accused person in the above said Thanda and requested to act as mediators, i.e., LW1 and LW2. Thereafter, reached Goplapur Thanda, found the suspected place i.e., the house of the accused and found one person is suspiciously tried to escape from the suspected house, then Excise officials stopped her. On enquiry, the accused revealed her name as

Mudavath Chittemma, thereafter, Excise officer stated her about the raid and issued a search memo. After issuing a search memo and upon searching the suspected house, found two plastic bottles, each bottle containing 02 liters, totally 04 liters of ID liquor, which was possessed by the accused illegally. Upon enquiry, she failed to produce any valid license or permit to sell the ID liquor. On further enquiry about the ID liquor, the accused confessed that she illegally possessed ID liquor for sale purpose. Then LW3 drawn two samples into two bottles from the said bottle, and each sample containing 350ml of ID liquor seized property as per the procedure and registered PCOR. No. 144/2022, U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition

Act, 1995 in the presence of panchas. Then LW4 issued Sec. 41A

Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and the submitted the case papers 3CC No. 147 of 2023

before this Hon’ble Court. The chemical examiner, vide his report No.

6548/2022/9, dated: 08-09-2022, opined that “the sample is

illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and

injurious to health”. After completing the investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence U/s. 7(A) R/w.

8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused. On appearance of accused copies were furnished to accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the accusations leveled in the charge sheet, for which the accused denied the same. Accordingly, charges framed U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of

TS Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P5.

6.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining him the incriminating material evidence against them. Accused denied the same but did not choose to adduce any evidence in his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material available on record.

4CC No. 147 of 2023

8. The point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the charge against the accused U/s.

7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.This is a case of illegal possession and sale of ID liquor, wherein

PW3 received credible information about the sale of ID liquor at

Goplapur Thanda, then PW3 found one suspected house and found one lady is sitting in her house in suspicious condition and found two plastic bottles in one corner of the bedroom of suspected house. The plastic bottles containing each about (02) liters of ID liquor totaling (04) liters of ID liquor. In the presence of PW1 and PW2, conducted

Scene of offence panchanama and seized four (04) liter of ID liquor from accused and drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama. One of the said sample was sent to FSL for chemical analysis, Chemical Examiner issued report and opinioned that “the

sample is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human

consumption and injurious to health”.

10.PW1 and PW2, who are panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama stated that they do not know anything about this case. PW1 and PW2 stated that they affixed their signatures on some papers while they were walking on the main road of their village.

11.In this case, PW1 and PW2 turned hostile, nothing could elucidate by the prosecution during the cross examination of PW1 and PW2.

5CC No. 147 of 2023

12.Upon perusal of oral evidence of PW3, during his cross examination, he stated he did not made any further investigation in this case, registered PCOR, based on confession and seizure panchanama conducted by LW3. The LW3 was died, the remaining

PW1 and PW2 stated that they do not know anything about this case and turned hostile. In this case, there is no corroborating evidence to prove that theaccused was found in possession of 4 liters of ID liquor, based upon the sole testimony of PW3, this court cannot convict the accused without proving that the accused was in possession of ID liquor and she was selling the same. Hence, the guilt of the accuse is not proved for the offence U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of

TS Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s.

7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

WANAPARTHY.

6CC No. 147 of 2023

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None PW.1 Ravi Nayak PW.2 Mohan Nayak PW.3 K. Kiran Kumar

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence: Nil Ex.P1. is the signature of PW1 on Confession and Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P2. is the signature of PW2 on Confession and Seizure Panchanama,

Ex.P3. is the Confession and Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P4. is the PCOR Ex.P4. CE report

Material objects marked

NIL

Sd/-

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

1 CC No. 337 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: WANAPARTHY

Friday the 27th day of June, 2025

Present: Smt.Bandari Srilatha, I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

CC No. 337 of 2023

Between: State through Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Police, Wanaparthy.

...Complainant

AND

Mudavath Marponi W/o Mudavath Lachiram, Age: 51 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Goplapur Thanda, Wanaparthy mandal.

...Accused

Offence:: U/s. 7(a) rw. 8 (e) of AP Excise Act, 1995, (Adoption of TS order, 2015).

Plea of accused:: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court :: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order :: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

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

APPO for the State and Ld. Defense Counsel Shri K. Chander Naik,

Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- 2 CC No. 337 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Wanaparthy has filed charge sheet in PCOR No. 174/2022 against the accused for the offence punishableU/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TSProhibition Act, 1995

2. The brief facts of the case are that: -

On 27-10-2022, at about 08:30 AM, the LW3 along with staff proceeded to Goplapur Thanda and there secured the presence of two mediators by stating that they got reliable information about the illegal sale and possession of ID liquor and in the house of accused person in the above said Thanda and requested to act as mediators, i.e., LW1 and LW2. Thereafter, reached Goplapur Thanda, found the suspected place i.e., the house of the accused and found one lady person is suspiciously coming out of the suspected house, then

Excise officials stopped her and took the bag she carrying and by searching in it found two plastic bottles filled with some liquor. On enquiry, the accused revealed her name as Mudavath Marponi, thereafter, Excise officer stated her about the raid and issued a search memo. After issuing a search memo and upon searching the suspected house, found two plastic bottles of about 04 liters of ID liquor, which was possessed by the accused illegally. Upon enquiry, she failed to produce any valid license or permit to sell the ID liquor.

On further enquiry about the ID liquor, the accused confessed that she illegally possessed ID liquor for sale purpose. Then LW3 drawn two samples into two bottles from the said bottle, and each sample containing 350ml of ID liquor seized property as per the procedure and registered PCOR. No. 174/2022, U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS

Prohibition Act, 1995 in the presence of panchas. Then LW4 issued 3 CC No. 337 of 2023

Sec. 41A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and the submitted the case papers before this Hon’ble Court. The chemical examiner, vide his report No. 9042/2022/2, dated: 08-12-2022, opined that “the

sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption

and injurious to health”. After completing the investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.This court has taken cognizance for the offence U/s. 7(A) R/w.

8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused. On appearance of accused copies were furnished to accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the accusations leveled in the charge sheet, for which the accused denied the same. Accordingly, charges framed U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of

TS Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and

PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

6.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining him the incriminating material evidence against them. Accused denied the same but did not choose to adduce any evidence in his behalf.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

4 CC No. 337 of 2023

8. The point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the charge against the accused

U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.This is a case of illegal possession and sale of ID liquor, wherein

PW3 received credible information about the sale of ID liquor at

Goplapur Thanda, then PW3 the house of the accused and found one lady person is suspiciously coming out of the suspected house, then

Excise officials stopped her and took the bag she carrying and by searching in it found two plastic bottles filled with some liquor. The two plastic bottles containing of about 04 liters of ID liquor. In the presence of PW1 and PW2, conducted Scene of offence panchanama and seized four (04) liters of ID liquor from accused and drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama. One of the said sample was sent to FSL for chemical analysis, Chemical Examiner issued report and opinioned that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”.

10.PW1, who is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama stated that he do not know anything about this case.

PW1 stated that he affixed his signature on some papers when he was going to his agriculture field.

11.In this case, PW1 turned hostile, nothing could elucidate by the prosecution during the cross examination of PW1.

12.Upon perusal of oral evidence of PW2, during his cross examination, he stated he did not made any further investigation in this case, registered PCOR, based on confession and seizure panchanama conducted by LW3. The LW3 was died, the LW1 was 5 CC No. 337 of 2023 also died, the remaining PW1 stated that he do not know anything about this case. In this case, there is no corroborating evidence to prove that the accused was found in possession of 4 liters of ID liquor, based upon the sole testimony of PW2, this court cannot convict the accused without proving that the accused was in possession of ID liquor and she was selling the same. Hence, the guilt of the accuse is not proved for the offence U/s. 7(A) R/w. 8(e) of

TS Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s.

7(A) R/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

WANAPARTHY.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None PW.1 Pathlavath Bavusingh PW.2 K. Kiran Kumar 6 CC No. 337 of 2023

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence:Nil Ex.P1. is the signature of PW1 on Confession and Seizure Panchanama, dt: 27-10-2022 Ex.P2. is the Confession and Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P3. is the PCOR, Ex.P4. CE report

Material objects marked

NIL

Sd/-

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT ATMAKUR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Smt. Bandari Srilatha)

STC/1268/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): SHO Kothakota Through Police Station Officer , R/O Kothakota

ATMAKUR MAHABOOBNAGAR

SHO Kothakota VERSUS : Akula Siva Sankar Age: 22 Occupation : R/O Palem, Kothakota ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Akula Siva Sankar Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 185 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 20-06-2025)

The accused called present. Copies of documents are furnished to the Accused as required U/s 230 of BNSS. The accused is examined U/s 274 BNSS. for the offence U/Sec 185 of MV Act . The accused pleaded guilty and prayed this court to take a lenient view. Considering the nature of the offence and the plea of the accused, the plea of the accused is accepted as voluntary. Hence , the accused is convicted U/s 275(2) of BNSS for the offence punishable U/Sec 185 of M.V Act and heard him on quantum of sentence to be imposed, he pleaded the mercy of the court . Since the matter pertains to the public health and safety , this court is not inclined to extend the benefits sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused. However, considering the dependency of his family members on the Accused and his social background, this court is of the view that it is a fit case to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence of fine instead of imprisonment and the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- ( Rupees one thousand only ) for the offence punishable U/Sec 185 of M.V Act , In default of payment of fine the accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment of one month for the offence U/s 185 of M.V Act. As no property is deposited there is no order as to property

Date : 20-06-2025 (Smt. Bandari Srilatha)

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ATMAKUR MAHABOOBNAGAR

IN THE COURT OF

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT ATMAKUR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Smt. Bandari srilatha)

STC/1271/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): SHO Kothakota Through Police Station Officer , R/O Kothakota

ATMAKUR MAHABOOBNAGAR

SHO Kothakota VERSUS : Kyasani Venkatesh Age: 45 Occupation : R/O Addakal Kothakota ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Kyasani Venkatesh Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 185 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 20-06-2025)

The accused called present. Copies of documents are furnished to the Accused as required U/s 230 of BNSS. The accused is examined U/s 274 BNSS. for the offence U/Sec 185 of MV Act . The accused pleaded guilty and prayed this court to take a lenient view. Considering the nature of the offence and the plea of the accused, the plea of the accused is accepted as voluntary. Hence , the accused is convicted U/s 275(2) of BNSS for the offence punishable U/Sec 185 of M.V Act and heard him on quantum of sentence to be imposed, he pleaded the mercy of the court . Since the matter pertains to the public health and safety , this court is not inclined to extend the benefits sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused. However, considering the dependency of his family members on the Accused and his social background, this court is of the view that it is a fit case to take a lenient view in imposing the sentence of fine instead of imprisonment and the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 ( Rupees one thousand only ) for the offence punishable U/Sec 185 of M.V Act , In default of payment of fine the accused is sentenced to simple imprisonment of one month for the offence U/s 185 of M.V Act. As no property is deposited there is no order as to property

Date : 20-06-2025 (Smt. Bandari srilatha)

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ATMAKUR MAHABOOBNAGAR