Sri Bathala Ravikumar

1 CC.NO. 587 OF 2018.

IN THE COURT OF PRL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

WANAPARTHY

Wednesday the 23rd day of April, 2025 Present: Sri Bathala Ravi Kumar, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

CC. No. 587 of 2018.

Between: State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Pebbair.

...Complainant

And

Kurva Srinivasulu S/o Pedda Ranganna age: 21 yrs., Caste: Kurva Occ: Ertiga Car driver bearing No. AP21BZ-3658 R/o H.No. 2/259 Dibbanakallu village of Adhoni mandal of Kurnool district.

...Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P for the State and of Sri.B.Chandra Sekhar Rao 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:-

JUDG MENT

This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pebbair against the accused under section 304-A IPC in Cr.No.140 of 2018.

The brief facts of the case are that:

1. On 05.08.2018 at 19:00 hrs.. the complainant Smt. Pallemoni

Maheswari w/o Balaiah age: 32 yrs., Caste: Telugu, Occ: Coolie, R/o

Kanchirappally village of Pebbair mandal came to PS and lodged a telugu written complaint, in which she stated that her husband name is Pallemoni

Balaiah S/o Ramulu age: 39 yrs., Caste: Telugu, Occ: Coolie & Fisherman and those are have one male and one female offspring, they were eking 2 CC.NO. 587 OF 2018.

their livelihood by doing coolie work. In order to that today 05.08.2018 morning the complainant's husband went to attending coolie work at

Thomalapally village. Then evening at about 06:00 hrs.. while she was at home, her brother Parusharamudu phoned to the complainant and disclosed that after completion of work his brother in law while returning to his village Kanchiraopally on his motor cycle bearing no TS06EC7346 through NH-44, when he reached to Thomalapally village and while taking

U turn evening at about 05:45 PM, meanwhile on car bearing no.

AP21BZ3658 which is proceeding to Hyderabad from Kurnool of driver drove his car in rash and negligence manner with high speed and dashed to his brother in law bike from back side. Due to which he felt on the road from bike and died on the spot by sustained bleeding injuries on his head.

Basing on that the complainant rushed to the spot and noticed her husband

Balaiah was died with bleeding injuries on head. Hence the complainant has requested to take legal action against the car driver as per law. On receipt of the above complaint, the LW-12 registered a case in Cr.No.

140/2018 U/S 304-(A) IPC and submitted FIRs to this Hon'ble court and all the officers concerned. During the course of preliminary investigation, the

LW-12 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 U/S 161(3) Cr.P.C at

PS Pebbair, Subsequently the LW-12 visit to the scene of offence towards west side at distance of 4 KM from the PS which is situated on the NH.44 road in the limits of Thomalapally village of Pebbair Mandal, Where the

LW-12 found dead body of the dead body of deceased by name Pallemoni

Balaiah s/0 Ramulu age: 39 yrs, Caste: Telugu, Occ: Coollie & Fisherman.

r/o Kanchirappally village of Pebbair Mandal was found dead on the N.H.44 road BT road towards Kothakota in supine position and he was received severs blood Injuries on his head, Where the LW-12 got photo snaps of the dead body of the deceased in different angles and he secured the two mediators i.e., LW6 and LW7 and where he conducted scene of offence and 3 CC.NO. 587 OF 2018.

drafted rough sketch in crime detailed form in the presence of mediators.

Later the dead body of deceased shifted to Govt. Dist Hospital. Wanparthy and kept mortuary room, Further during the course of investigation the

LW-12 proceeded to mortuary room at Govt Dist Hospital Wanaparthy, where the LW-12 examined and recorded the statements of LW-2 to 4 of

LW-1 U/s 161(3) Cr.P.C. In part-II CDs, who are eye-witness and blood relatives deceased. Later the LW-12 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW-8 and 9 and the deceased subject the

MPE with requisition to the Medical officer at Govt Dist Hospital

Wanaparthy through escort PC 1933. The Medical Officer LW-10 held

Autopsy over the dead body of deceased. After PME the corpse handed over to blood relatives for final rites. While during the course of on 06.08.2018 the LW-5 came to PS along with crime vehicle and accused

before the LW-12. Then the LW12 interrogated him, and then the accused

disclosed his name as Kurva Srinivasulu s/o Pedda ranganna, age: 21 Yrs,

Caste: Kurva, Occp: Ertiga Car driver bearing No. AP21BZ-3658, r/o

H.No.2/259 Dibbanakallu village of Adhoni Mandal of Kurnool Dist and he submitted Ertiga Bering No. AP21BZ-3658 of original documents and his

DL and the LW-12 verified found correct. On interrogation the accused persons admitted the offence, and served a notice to U/s 41-A (3) Cr.P.C and informed the accused to attend before the Hon'ble court, whenever his presence is required. Later the LW-12 examined and recorded the statements of LW-5 who is owners of the crime vehicle. On the same day the LW-12 given a requisition to the MVI Pebbair to inspect the crime vehicle bearing No. AP21BZ-3658. The LW-10 Dr.Mahammed Ejjas Kahn

CAS, Govt. Dist. Hospital, Wanaparthy had conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased and furnished his final opinion in which he stated that "Hypo genic shock due to Head Injury by RTA”. The LW-11, who is

Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector of Pebbair had inspected the crime vehicle 4 CC.NO. 587 OF 2018.

and furnished the his opinion in which he stated that " in my opinion the accident occurred not due to any mechanical detects of the vehicle. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

2. This Court has took cognizance for the offence under Section 304-(A)

IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused copies were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3. Accused examined under section 251 crpc for the offenses under section 304-(A) IPC the substance of accusation leveled against him in the charge sheet is explained to him in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be Tried.

4. In order to prove its case the prosecution could examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 and P3. The evidence of LW1 and LW3 has been closed as they were not produced before the court in spite of giving several opportunities.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused examined U/S.313

Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied their evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Now the Point for consideration is....

whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offences under Section 304-(A) IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

7. According to the evidence of PW1, who is the wife of deceased, about 7 years ago the deceased Balaiah went out to thomalapally village in selling of the fishes. Later she came to know through her brother-in-law that while her husband Balaiah was returning from thomalapally village on a bike and upon reaching pebbair and taking u turn, one car dashed him, as a result the said

Balaiah was succumbed to head injuries.

5 CC.NO. 587 OF 2018.

8. As per the testimony of PW2, who is the brother of PW2 and brother-in- law of deceased Balaiah on 05-08-2018 while he was at his house LW4 made a phone call to him at about 5:30-6:00 PM and informed that his brother –in-law

Balaiah died in an accident following hitting by a car which was proceeding from Kurnool to Hyderabad while he was taking U turn at thomalapally village on national high way. Immediately he rushed to the spot where the deceased

Balaiah was already died he has no idea about the registration of the car number and even he did not enquire as to the driver of the said car.

9. PW3/Avinash, who is the son of the deceased and PW4/Manyam who was cited as eye witness to the incident had turned hostile and not supporting to the case of the prosecution.

10. Having perusal of the evidence available on record there is no evidence to speak that the crime vehicle which is said to have been involved in the present case and because of the said vehicle the accused was died in an accident and further there is no any material to speak that the accused person, who is said to be driver of the said crime vehicle caused for the accident of the deceased. In such circumstances the court cannot come to a conclusion that the crime vehicle and the accused was involved in the present case in absence of the concrete evidence as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore the accused is deserved to be acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under 11.

section 304-(A) IPC and is acquitted under sec 255 (1) crpc. The bail bond executed by the accused person shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

6 CC.NO. 587 OF 2018.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW1 P.Maheswari None PW2 Y.Parasuramudu PW3 P.Avinash PW4 Manyam

::Exhibits marked for:

Prosecution: Defence:Nil Ex.P1. Complaint Ex.P2. 161 of Statement of PW3. Ex.P3. 161 of Statement of PW4. ::Material objects marked for :: NIL

Sd/-

Prl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

//True Copy//

Prl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

1

OS No.367 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

WANAPARTHY.

Monday the 29th day of January, 2024.

Present: Sri Bathala Ravi Kumar, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

O.S.No.367 of 2023

Between:-

Smt. Baleeshwaramma W/o Satyann Goud, age: 55yrs, Occ: Agrl., R/o Chelimilla Vg. of Pebbair mandal.

... Plaintiff

AND 1). Smt. Bala Narasamma W/o Thimannagari Ramulu, age: 45yrs, Occ: Agrl., R/o Chelimilla Vg. of Pebbair mandal.

2). Kuruva Balaswamy S/o Beeraiah, age: 65yrs Occ: Agrl., R/o Chelimilla Vg. of Pebbair mandal.

3). Sri Ramulu S/o Kuruva Balaswamy, age: 40yrs, Occ: Agrl., R/o Chelimilla Vg. of Pebbair mandal.

4). Thimmannagari Shiva S/o late Thimmannagari ramulu, age: 28yrs, Occ: Agrl., R/o Chelimilla Vg. of Pebbair mandal.

5). Smt. Nagalaxmi D/o Thimmarınagari Ramulu, age: 34yrs, Occ: Home Maker R / o Chelimilla Vg. of Pebbair mandal.

6). Talari Anjaneyulu S / o Talari Kurumanna, age: 33yrs, Occ: Agrl., R/o Chelimilla Vg. of Pebbair mandal.

7). Pagudala Lachamma W/o Pagudala Ramudu, age: 45yrs, Occ: Home maker R/o Shagapur (Y), Pebbair mandal.

... Defendants

*** 2

OS No.367 of 2023

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Shashibushan, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants and their men and any other persons on behalf of them to interfere in to the possession of Plaintiffs lands situated at Chelimilla village of

Pebbair mandal.

The brief averments of the Plaintiff are :

That the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.314/A to an extent of Ac.2-37 Gts., situated in

Chelimilla village of Pebbair mandal. Originally Golla Ramaiah of Chelimilla village of Pebbair owner and pattedar for the land in Sy.No.314/A situated in the limits of Chelimilla Vg of Pebbair mandal. He sold his land to different persons along with

Aluvula Balaswamy and Telugu Ranganna. Telugu Ranganna and Aluvala Balaswamy jointly purchased land in Sy.No. 314 to an extent of Ac 5:35 Gts from Golla Ramaiah through simple sale deed on dated 21.06.1978. After purchase said 3

OS No.367 of 2023

Telugu Ranganna and Aluvala Balaswamy were in possession and enjoyment each to an extent of Ac 2:37 Gts. Aluvula

Balaswamy is father of plaintiffs husband. After death

A.Balaswamy simple sale deed was regularized by the

TahasildarPebbairthroughproceedingsNo.

SB/MB/PP/PR/2016/51908 dated 25/2/2017 and issued 13B certificate in favour of the plaintiff and the Revenue authorities implemented her name as pattadhar for the suit schedule property. Recently the plaintiff came to know that after Dharani implementation might be with mistakenly or fraudulently her name was recorded as Pattadhar for the land in Sy.No.314/A to an extent of Ac 1:19 Gts instead of Ac 2:37

Gts and remained land to an extent of Ac:1:18 Gts was implemented in the names of defendants No.1 to 3 and late

Thimmannagari Ramulu, hereinafter referred it as suit schedule property. Suit schedule property is part and parcel of the land of plaintiff in Sy. No. 314/A to an extent of

AC:2:37gts. On her further enquiry she came to know that said record was falsely implemented in the name of defendants

No.1 to 3 and late Thimmannagari Ramulu. Immediate after the knowledge of the plaintiff had demanded the revenue authorities and made application for the correction of the mistaken entries but as there is no option in Dharani portal to 4

OS No.367 of 2023

correct the mistaken or false entries they advised plaintiff to approach the defendants for their cooperation or to civil court to get implement her name for total suit schedule property.

2). It is to submit that as the plaintiff approached the defendants No.1 to 3 and late Thimmannagari Ramulu for their cooperation to get implement her name for the suit schedule property which is missed extent. After several demands of the plaintiff, the defendants No.1 to 3 and late

Thimmarmagari Ramulu postponed the matter on one or other pretext and finally the defendants No 1 to 3 and late

Thimmannagari Ramulu denied to cooperate to the plaintiff to get implement her name as pattadhar for the suit schedule property. Finally on 03.01.2023 plaintiff got issued legal notices to the defendants No. 1 to 3 and Late Thimannagari

Ramulu demanding them to cooperate to get her name as pattdhar for the suit schedule property.

3). It is submitted that after issuing notices defendant No.1 late Thimmannagari Ramulu filed false suit for perpetual injunction vide in OS No.28/2023 and with an advantage of false entries they claimed title and possession of land in

Sy.No.314 to an extent of Ac:1:37 Gts, Originally one Sathuri

Bhasker Goud succeeded land in Sy.No.314 to an extent of

AC:1:19 Gts situated in the limits of Chelimilla Vg, of Pebbair 5

OS No.367 of 2023

mandal towards his share, late Thimmannagari Ramulu's father purchased said land Le. land in Sy.No.314 to an extent of AC:1:19gts through regd. sale deed doc. No. 102/1987. Out of said extent he sold to an extent of AC:0:06gts to Kanche

Anjaneyulu through registered sale deed and AC:0:05gts was acquired by Government for canal. Thimmannagari Ramulu and his wife Le. defendant No.1 remained AC:1:08gts but he claimed falsely for to an extent of AC:1:37gts. After filing the suit they transferred land in Sy. No. 314 to an extent of

AC:0:10gts each to defendants No. 6 & 7. Defendants No. 4 & 5 are L.R.S of late Thimannagari Ramulu.

4). It is submitted that Defendants No. 1 to 7 falsely claiming title with an advantage of false revenue entries without having any right and possession over the suit schedule property. Defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties to create multiple litigation's. As such having no option plaintiff has approached the Hon'ble Court to protect rights, possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of title and for the relief of consequential injunction over suit schedule property. Hence the suit.

5).Summons served on defendants, but they remained absent, thus they set-expate.

6

OS No.367 of 2023

6).In order to prove their claim the Plaintiffs got examined

Plaintiff No.1 as PW1 and got marked with Ex.A1 to A7. Heard the counsel for Plaintiff and perused the material on record.

Now the point for consideration is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

7).The suit is filed for declaration filed for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants and their men and any other persons on behalf of them to interfere in to the possession of Plaintiffs lands situated at Chelimilla village of Pebbair mandal.

8).The case of the Plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.314/A to an extent of Ac.2- 37 Gts., situated in Chelimilla village of Pebbair mandal and for issue of permanent injunction against the defendants. The

Plaintiff in support of his contention, examined the plaintiff as

PW1 and got marked exhibits A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the CC of

ROR, Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 1970-71

Dt:20.09.2023, Ex.,A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1992-93

Dt:26.10.2019, Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11

Dt:26.10.2018, Ex.A5 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed

Document No.102/1987, Dt:09.01.1987, Ex.A6 is the CC of

Registered Sale Deed Deed, Ex.A7 is the CC of Registered Sale 7

OS No.367 of 2023

Deed. Of the said documents Ex. A1 is the CC of ROR which reveals the name of plaintiff over suit schedule property i.e.,

Sy. No.314/A extent Ac.2.37 gts.,. Further Ex. A4 shows the name of plaintiff against Sy. No.316/A to an extent of Ac.1.04 gts., here Ex. A1 and A4 are showing different extents and Sy.

Nos. that leads to arise some sort of suspicion regarding the genuinity of petitioners claim further Ex. A7 is the pattadar passbook of the plaintiff stood in the name plaintiff after all perusal of the documents the court considered that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. Moreover the defendants did not the content the suit as such adverse inference has drawn against defendants.

In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property and consequently granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 29th day of January, 2024.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC : I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY.

8

OS No.367 of 2023

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plantiff:For Defendant:

P.W.1: Smt.Baleeshwaramma None

Exhibits marked

For Plantiff

Ex.A1 is the CC of ROR, Ex.A2 is the CC of pahani for the year 1970-71 Dt:20.09.2023, Ex.,A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1992-93 Dt:26.10.2019, Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 Dt:26.10.2018, Ex.A5 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed Document No.102/1987, Dt:09.01.1987, Ex.A6 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed Deed, Ex.A7 is the CC of Registered Sale Deed

For Defendants:-NIL

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WANAPARTHY.

1 CC.NO. 603 OF 2018.

IN THE COURT OF PRL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

WANAPARTHY

Thursday the 24th day of April, 2025 Present: Sri Bathala Ravi Kumar, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

CC. No. 603 of 2018.

Between:

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Pebbair.

...Complainant

And

A-1). Chinnapaga Beesanna s/o Yellanna, age: 38 yrs, caste: SC Madiga, Occu: Tractor Driver r/o Ramammapeta Village of Pebbair mandal, Wanaparthy Dist. Cell: 8340099742.

A-2). Adem Balaiah s/o Shanthanna, age: 40 yrs, caste: Golla, Occu:

Tractor owner, r/o Raspur Village of Pebbair mandal, Wanaparthy

Dist. Cell: 9948367567. (Died)

...Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P for the State and of Sri.B.Chandra Sekhar Rao 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:-

JUDG MENT

This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pebbair against the accused under section 379 IPC in Cr.No.159 of 2018.

The brief facts of the case are that:

1. On 06.09.2018 at 13:30 hours the complainant Sri. S.Srinivasulu S/o

Balaswamy, age: 34 Yrs, Caste: telugu, Occp: Police Constable PC 920 of PS

Pebbair came to PS and lodged a telugu written complainant in which he 2 CC.NO. 603 OF 2018.

stated that on. 06.09.2018 at 10.00 hrs as per the orders of SIP, the complainant along with Srinivasulu HG 649 were left from PS on day beat duty. When they were performing day beat duty at Essar Petrol-bupk area in Pebbair village at about 13:00 hours one sand tractor came from Rampur to Pebbair side and they were stopped the tractor and asked to show the permit for transporting of sand. The tractor drivers replied no permission for transporting of sand and they were transporting the sand illegally from

Ukachettu vagu in the limits of Krishna River to Pebbair without having any permission. On enquiry the tractor driver revealed his name 1.Chinnapaga

Bhisanna S/o Yellaiah, age:38 Yrs, Caste: Sc Madiga, Occp: Tractor Driver of the vide bearing No.TS06EC2413 and its trolley No. TS06EC2412 r/o

Ramammapeta and its owner of the tractor name is Balaiah S/o Shanthaiah, age: 40 Yrs, Caste: Golla, r/o Rampur village. Hence the complainant brought the sand loaded tractor along with driver to PS and he requested for necessary legal action as per law. Basing on the strength of above complaint the Lw-5 has registered a case in Cr.No. 159/2018 U/s 379 IPC, sec 21 (1) Mines & minerals Development regulation act 1957 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation the Lw-5 has examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 & 2 at PS u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C. detailed in case diary part-II. Further the Lw-5 has secured the presence of mediators Lw-3 & 4 and in their presence conducted confession and seizure Panchanama. In the confession panachanama the A1 & A-2 were confessed that they were wrongful gain money by selling the sand illegally to their own expenses. After completion of confession panchanama of A1, I have got seized the sand tractor under cover of panachanama. Then the accused A-1 disclosed his owners name A-2).Adem Balaiah s/o Shanthanna, age: 40 yrs, caste: Golla, Occu: Tractor owner, r/o Rampur Village of

Pebbair mandal, Wanaparthy Dist. who was send the accused A-1 to

Ukachettu stream near at Krishna River for lift the sand illegally for gain 3 CC.NO. 603 OF 2018.

more money illegally by transporting and sell the same in Pebbair village.

Later issued notice to A1 & A-2 U/s 41(A) with instructions to attend

before Hon'ble court after receipt of summons. Further on 07.09.2018 the

Lw-5 has sent the sand tractor bearing No.TS06EC2413 its trolley

No.TS06EC2412 to Assistant Director of Mines & geology at Wanaparthy for penalty through escort. The Assistant Director perused and imposed the penalty Rs 20,000/- vide challan No's.008613 vide LR No 17/WNP/2016,

DL.07.09.2018 for illegal transportation of sand for the first time Offence and return the tractors to Police Station. Further on 11.09.2018 the Lw-5 has obtained Affidavit from tractor owner A-2 with instructions to produce the said tractor before the police or court whenever asked and hand over the sand tractor bearing No.TS06EC2413 and its trolley No.TS06EC2412 to them with sand load and obtained acknowledgement from him. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

2. This Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 379 IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused copies were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3. Accused are examined under section 239 crpc Charge framed under section 379 IPC the contents of charge read over and explained to them in telugu, For which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be Tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution could examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The evidence of LW3 and LW5 has been closed as they were not produced before the court in spite of giving several opportunities.

During the course of trial accused no.2 died, DC filed. Hence the case is abated against A2.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused no.1 on record examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appeared 4 CC.NO. 603 OF 2018.

against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied their evidence and reported no defence evidence.

6. Now the Point for consideration is....

whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offences under Section 379 IPC against accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

7. According to the evidence of PW1/ Home guard and PW2/Constable, on 06-09-2018 both PW1 and PW2 at the instructions of LW5/Vijay kumar proceeded to perform day beat duties in and around pebbair. While they are duty at Essar Petrol bunk one tractor came from the Ramapur village towards

Pebbair, they stopped the tractor bearing No. TS32EC2413 and found sand in the trolley bearing No. TS32EC2412. On enquiry the driver/ Accused no.1 revealed his name as Beesanna and the owner of the tractor is

Balaiah/A2(Died). On further enquiry the accused no.1 would not show any document pertaining to the transporting of sand, further the accused no.1 stated he was transporting the sand from Krishna river to Ramapuram. Upon having perusal of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are the official witnesses and there is no any independent witness in corroborating to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 to strengthen the prosecution evidence. Further the PW3 who is the punch for confession seizer turned hostile and not at all supporting to the case of the prosecution version. Moreover the evidence of LW3/G.Ramaswamy punch for confession and seizer and LW5/G.Vijay kumar investigating officer have been closed as they were not produced before the court. In such circumstances the court cannot come to a conclusion, only on the basis of testimony of PW1 and PW2 who are the official witnesses, in the absence of any independent witness to establish that the accused person has illegally transporting the sand without any valid documents. Therefore, accused no.1 on record is entitled to be acquittal. The case is already abated against A2 as he was died.

5 CC.NO. 603 OF 2018.

8. In the result, the accused no.1 on record found not guilty for the offence under section 379 IPC and is acquitted under sec 248 (1) crpc. The bail bond executed by the accused person shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW1 G.Srinivasulu None PW2 S.Srinivasulu PW3 V.Narsimha

::Exhibits marked for:

Prosecution: Defence:Nil Ex.P1. Complaint Ex.P2. signature in panchanama. ::Material objects marked for :: NIL

Sd/-

Prl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

//True Copy//

Prl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

6 CC.NO. 603 OF 2018.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

WANAPARTHY

Wednesday, the 13th day of November, 2024

Present: Sri.B.Ravi Kumar Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy. FAC.I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

WANAPARTHY.

C.C.No.1086 of 2024

Between: State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Wanaparthy, PCOR.No.224/2024 U/S.7(A) r/w.8(e) of T.S..Prohibition Act 1995.

..Complainant

And

Nanavath Danamma W/o N.Shiva Nayak, Age: 31 Years, Occ: Agricultural ,R/o Srinivasapur village, Wanaparthy mandal.

..Accused.

Offence: :: U/s 7(A) r/w/s 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act 1995 Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty

Finding :: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order ::Accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) r/w/s 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act and accordingly she is acquitted of the same u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. M.O.1shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 13.11.2024 in the presence of A.P.P for the State and of Sri

K.Mohan Goud, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- -:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by the

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Wanaparthy against the accused under section 7(A) r/w/s 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act 1995 in PCR No.224/2024.

2. In a nutshell the prosecution case is to the effect that:

On 07.06.2024 at about 08.00 A.M Pw3 Prohibition and

Excise Sub-inspector, Excise station, Wanaparthy on reliable information regarding illegal possession and sales of Illicit distilled liquor at Srinivasapuram village after securing the presence of

P.W1 and P.W2 , went to suspected place at house of the accused,

Srinivasapuram village found a person. On Suspicious, the officials stopped the said person and the officer came to know name and address of the said person. Issued search memo to the above said person and entered into her house. During the checking, found one white plastic cane capacity of (05) liters containing total (05)liters, then Pw3 seized the contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators, besides drawing samples. On enquiry Pw3 came to know that the person was the accused. Then Pw3 returned to Excise Station and registered the original panchanama as a case in PCOR.No.224/2024 for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act 1995. She forwarded the sample to the Chemical Examiner for issuance of analysis report and placed the remaining contraband before the

Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Wanaparthy. After receipt of the C.E. report, she filed charge-sheet against the accused.

3. This Court taken cognizance of the offence under section 7 (A) r/w.s 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act 1995 against the accused.

4. On issuance of summons the accused was present and copies of documents were furnished in compliance under section 230 BNS

Act.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the accusations leveled in the charge sheet, for which she has denied the same. Accordingly a charge under section 7(A) r/w/s 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act 1995, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, the accused pleaded not guilty and she opted to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case the prosecution could examined

P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. P.W.1 and Pw2 are panch witnesses. P.W.3 is Investigating officer. Exs.P.1 is the signature of Pw1 on panchanama, Ex.P2 is search memo, Ex.P3 is

Confession cum seizer panchanama, Ex.P4 is PCOR, Ex.P5 is Letter of Advice, Ex.P6 is laboratory analysis report.

7. On conclusion of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining her the entire incriminating material evidence on record against her. The accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto, but she has not chosen to adduce any evidence on her behalf.

8. Now the sole point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the charge against the accused under section 7(A) r/w/s 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9 P.W1 and Pw2 are the panch witness. But Pw1 and Pw2 did not support the prosecution version and they were declared as hostile by the learned APP and nothing could be elicited from their cross examination by the learned APP, except marking the signatures of Pw1 and Pw2 on panchanama as Ex.P1 and Ex.P3.

10. In this case PW.2 is the investigating officer. PW2 deposed that on 07.06.2024 at 08.00 AM up on reliable information about illegal sale of illicit distilled liquor at outskirts of Srinivasapuram village, he along with his staff visited the said village he secured

Pw1 the and Lw2 and then went to the house of accused and found one white plastic can of 5 liters volume at the corner of the hall.

The can contains 5 liters of colour less liquid. I conducted the panchanamma in the presence of PW1 and LW2. Then we drawn 2 samples each sample containing 350 ml of ID liquor as per procedure. Then the accused and seized ID liquor and samples shifted to the prohibition and excise station at Wanaparthy.Pw2 also admitted in his cross examination collected any document to show that the accused was the ownership certificate of the alleged house as on the date of the alleged incident. Pw2 also admitted in his cross examination did not mentioned boundary particulars of the said house of the accused in the panchanama. So also the panch witnesses examined by the prosecution as Pw1 and Pw2 did not support the prosecution case. As here in above stated that, independent mediators have not supported the prosecution's case, in view of these omissions it can be said that, the testimony of

P.W.2 alone is of no help to the prosecution case.

11. In this case PW.3 is the investigating officer. Pw3 deposed that on 07.06.2024 I received CD file from AC enforcement team.

Based on CD file I registered a case in PCOR No. 224/2024 U/sec.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act 1995. I issued 41 A Cr.P.C notie to the accused person. On 18.07.2024 I sent requisition to the court to forward the drawn sample to the FSI. On 22.07.2024 I received laboratory analysis report from the FSI. Which opined that illicit distilled liquor comfit for humann consumption and injurious to health. Pw3 also admitted in her cross examination that she did not make any further investigation.

12 For the foregoing reasons this court is of the considered view that prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused.

13 In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) r/w/s 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act 1995 and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. M.O.1shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 13th day of November, 2024.

Sd/-

Prl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

WANAPARTHY.

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

WANAPARTHY.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None

P.W.1: Narsimha Naik ,panch witness P.W.2: M.Srujan Kumar, Prohibition and Excise S.I, SHO Wanaparthy. P.W.3:. G.Sandhyarani, Prohibition and Excise S.I, SHO Wanaparthy.

::Exhibits marked for:

Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P.1 is signature of Pw1 on panchanama

Ex.P2 is Search memo

Ex.P3 is Confession cum seizer panchanama

Ex.P4 is PCOR

Ex.P5 is Letter of Advise.

Ex.P6 is Laboratory Analysis report

::Material objects marked for::

M.O.1 sample bottle

Sd/-

Prl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

WANAPARTHY.

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

WANAPARTHY.

1

CC No.1088 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: WANAPARTHY

Wednesday the 13th day of November, 2024

Present: Sri.B. Ravi Kumar, Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, FAC I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

CC No.1088 of 2024

Between: State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of

Police, Wanaparthy. ...Complainant

AND

Patlavath Manyam S/o PatlavathJannu, Age: 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H. No. 1-13, Nagavaram Thanda H/o Nagavaram(vi), Wanaparthy.

...Accused

Offence :: 7(A) R/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995. Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court :: found not guilty Sentence or Order :: Theaccused is found not guilty of the offence Under Section 7(A) R/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The un marked property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

***

2

CC No.1088 of 2024

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P for the State and of Smt. M. Sridevi, Asst.

Legal Aid Defence Counsel, 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:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Wanaparthy has filed charge sheet in

PCOR No.226 of 2024against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) R/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act, 1995.

The brief facts of the case are that:

2. That on 07-06-2024 at about 10:20 AM, PW3 received reliable information about the illegal sale and possession of ID liquor. Then PW3 along with him staff proceeded to Nagavaramthanda of Wanaparthy mandal, there she secured the presence two mediators i.e., PW1 and PW2. Then they went to suspected place at house of accused and found a person. The Excise Police, stopped accused upon enquiry he disclosed his name Pathlavath

Manyam. Issued search memo to the above said person

and

3

CC No.1088 of 2024

entered into his house. During the checking found one white plastic bottle capacity of (02) ltrs containing (01) ltr total (01) ltr of illicitly distilled liquor which was possessed by accused illegally. Then they drawn two samples each about 350ml in the presence of mediators. Then PW3 registered PCOR and issued Sec. 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused on 07-06-2024. Further the said samples was deposited before this Court vide CPR No. 128/2024, dt.22- 07-2024 and sent one such sample for chemical analysis.

The chemical examiner vide his report opinioned that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completing investigation PW3 filed charge sheet.

3. This court has taken cognizance for the offence under section under sections 7(A) R/w 8(e) of T.S. 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 under section 7(A) R/w 8(e) of

T.S. 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 P6.

4

CC No.1088 of 2024

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 they have not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the charge against the accused under section 7(A) R/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. PW1 and PW2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and deposed that they do not know anything about this case. PW3 who is the Investigating

Officer, conducted panchanama deposed that upon reliable information she proceeded to suspected place then she found one person namely Patlavath Manyam in his possession he found 1ltr., ID liquor then she seized the same under the cover of panchanama. She registered

PCOR and issued Sec. 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused.

PW3 deposited one seized sample to this Court vide CPR

No. 128/2024. During the cross examination of PW3 he admitted that he did not collect any information as to the place of offence and the documents of the ownership of the house. PW3 admitted that he did not drawn rough sketch in CDF and there are no consumers at the scene of offence and she issue search memo to the accused while conducting search at the suspected house. In the panchanama and did not mention the particular of the seized contraband such as the color of the bottle. Is not 5

CC No.1088 of 2024

mentioned in the charge sheet the name of the person from whom I got the information.

9. The defence of the accused through cross examination of PW3 is that, PW3 did not conduct any panchanama in the presence of PW1 and PW2 and obtained the signatures on blank papers and no ID liquor was seized from accused and accused is innocent. This is case is filed against accused for statistical purposes only.

Accused have never committed any offence as alleged in this case.

10. Upon perusal of the evidence available on record PW3 admitted that she did not drawn rough sketch and there are no consumers at scene of offence. The defence taken by accused is that she is not concerned with this offence and filed this case for statistical purposes and he is innocent.

PW1 and PW2 also deposed that in their presence no panchanama was conducted. There are lapses in the investigation done by the PW3 such as no rough sketch drawn was also not issued to the accused. PW3 did not enquire any independent witnesses. In these circumstances it is not safe to rely upon sole testimony of

PW3 for convicting accused. The prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt hence, accused is acquitted.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence Under Section 7(A) R/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds 6

CC No.1088 of 2024

of accused shall stand cancelled. The un marked property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Dictated to the Typist and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13thday of November, 2024.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

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

WANAPARTHY.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None

PW.1 S. Venkatesh NIL PW.2 Sabavath Tharun PW.3 G. Sandhya Rani ::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1. is the signature of PW1. Ex.P2. is the signature of PW2. Ex.P3. is the search memo. Ex.P4. is the panchanama. Ex.P5. is the letter of Advice. Ex.P6. is the Laboratory Analysis Report

Material objects marked M.O.1 Sample bottle

Sd/-

7

CC No.1088 of 2024

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC.I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.