Ch. Hari Priya

1 APSR100010742026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS PALAKONDA

PRESENT:- Smt. Ch. Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda.

Friday, this the 08 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.135/2026

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Proh. & Excise Station, Palakonda. …Complainant.

And

Cherukubilli Srinu, s/o late Appalaswamy, aged about 35 years, r/o Main Road, Nadukuru village, Veeraghattam Mandal. … Accused.

This case coming on 29.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.Raghu Ram, learned Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Proh. & Excise,

Palakonda filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 in

Crime No.268/2024 with the following allegations:

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 27.12.2024 at about 09.15 hours, L.W.3/L.Tirupathirao along with staff while they were conducting patrolling duty at B.C Colony,

Veeraghattam village and mandal and they found one male person was having with one urea bag with his right hand, on seeing them, the accused 2 tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused.

Then L.W.3 deputed L.W.1/Y.V.K.Naidu for securing mediators, but in vain.

On verification of the bag of the accused, they found 36 I.D. liquor sachets in it, each sachet is having 100 m.l of I.D. Liquor. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. Then they seized the contraband and drawn three I.D. liquor sachets as samples, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 268/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused before the Court for remand. During the course of investigation, he sent the sample bottles to the Government Chemical

Examiner of PROH. & EXCISE, Regional PROH. & EXCISE Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.262 of BNSS (239 Cr.P.C). Charge under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu u/sec. 263 of

BNSS (240(2) Cr.P.C). After having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to

P.4 and M.O.1 was marked. The evidence of L.W.1/Y.V.K.Naidu, Excise

Constable, L.W.2/S.Nagu, Excise Constable were given up by A.P.P.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 351 of BNSS (313 of

Code of Criminal Procedure) and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

3

8.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :-

9.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.4 and M.O1.

10.P.W1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, PROH. & EXCISE Station,

Palakonda.

11.Ex.P1 is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is the First Information report. Ex.P3 is the Letter of Advice. Ex.P4 is the Chemical Analysis report and M.O.1 is sample sachet of I.D Liquor.

12.It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.12.2024 at about 09.15 hours, L.W.3/L.Tirupathirao along with staff while they were conducting patrolling duty at B.C Colony, Veeraghattam village and mandal and they found one male person was having with one urea bag with his right hand, on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused. Then L.W.3 deputed L.W.1/Y.V.K.Naidu for securing mediators, but in vain. On verification of the bag of the accused, they found 36 I.D. liquor sachets in it, each sachet is having 100 m.l of I.D. Liquor. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. Then they seized the contraband and drawn three I.D.

liquor sachets as samples, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 268/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused before the

Court for remand and the remaining contraband after drawing samples was destroyed as per Ex P3 Letter of Advice and after receipt of Ex P4 4 analysis report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

13.It is the case of defence that accused did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose.

14.Now, to prove the offense under Section 7 -B read with 8-B of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 the prosecution must prove that P.W1 and other staff found the accused in possession of ID

Liquor, which is prohibited under the act.

15.At the outset, it is the case of prosecution that, P.W.1 and his staff conducted Patrolling and proceeded to B.C. Colony, Veeraghattam village and mandal and they found found one male person was having with one urea bag with his right hand, on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused. Then L.W.3 deputed L.W.1/Y.V.K.Naidu for securing mediators, but in vain. On verification of the bag of the accused, they found 36 I.D. liquor sachets in it, each sachet is having 100 m.l of I.D. Liquor. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. Then they seized the contraband and drawn three I.D. liquor sachets as samples, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 268/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused before the Court for remand and after completion of investigation and receipt of Ex P4 analysis report the Station House Officer filed charge sheet in this case after obtaining Ex.P.3 Letter of Advice for destruction of the seized property.

16.Now, to prove the offense under section 7 -B read with 8-B of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 against accused, the evidence of P.W.1 who is Excise Sub-Inspector is relevant. So, the Occurrence

Report which was recorded by Excise Sub-Inspector cannot be believed, to the extent of the confession said to be made by the accused, as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. So, when 5 P.W.1 is police officer, his evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him was true and made as per the procedure prescribed under law.

17.The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the Scene of Offence is a

Veeraghattam village and mandal, which shows that it is a busy locality.

But P.W.1 did not secure any mediators for arrest of accused and seizure of case property from him. Moreover, P.W.1 deposed he cannot tell the names of the persons whom L.W.1/Y.V.K.Naidu called to act as mediators and that they did not issue any written notices to any persons to act as mediators. So, it shows that P.W.1 did not secure any mediators at the scene of offence for the arrest of accused and seizure of case property from him though available near the scene of offence. So, it shows that

P.W.1 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which, the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7) shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”.

But, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he and his Sub-Inspector did not follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) while arresting the accused and seizing the contraband from him. Admittedly, the scene of offense is Veeraghattam village and mandal, but P.W.1 did not issue any written summons to any witnesses to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband from accused though it is a busy locality, So, under the above circumstances the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed to be trustworthy as he and his Inspector i.e. PW.1 failed to comply with the mandatory provisions Under sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) of code of

Criminal Procedure. So, when the procedure under section 100(4) is not 6 followed by P.W.1 and the entire seizure proceedings alleged to be conducted by P.W.1 is without jurisdiction and vitiated. The above legal position was laid down in a decision reported in 2002(1) ALT (Cri.) 251 AP,

Between Yeduru Srinivasulu Reddy Vs State of A.P, wherein it was held at paras 12 to 14 that “It is for the prosecution to bring on record that they have followed the procedure contemplated under section 55 of the

Act and section 100(4) Code of Criminal Procedure and when no person is willing to act as panch witness they should have passed a written order and in the absence of such order the evidence of the witnesses that nobody came forward to witness the panchanama cannot be believed and relied upon and therefore the entire search and seizure is vitiated and as the prosecution failed to follow the said procedure under section 100(4) and 55 of the Act , the entire search and seizure is vitiated and the conviction is not sustainable.” The same legal position was laid down in another decision reported in 2010 (1) ALT (Cri.) 32, Between S.Babu

Saheb @ Babu Vs The State of A.P, wherein it was held at para 16 that”But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of

Section 100 Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

7 [17] Of course it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators.”. The above two decisions squarely apply to the present case facts. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he was physically not present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he and his staff did not secure any mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from accused though available near the scene of offence. So, it creates a doubt over the evidence of P.W.1 who is police witness. Hence, in the above circumstances it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution whether really P.W.1 arrested the accused and seized the contraband from the accused no.1, as he is only police officer and he did not secure any independent mediators, though available near the scene of offence.

18.Hence, it is held that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as P.W.1 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, when the evidence of P.W.1 is held to be not trustworthy, and when the alleged seizure of contraband from accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients for the offence punishable Under

Section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is extended the benefit of doubt and entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition

Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The M.O.1 is the sample sachet of

ID Liquor shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months as per section 437-A of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to the dictation, typed by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. CH. Haripriya

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : L.Tirupathirao, Sub Inspector ---None---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Occurrence report. Ex.P2:Original First Information Report Ex.P3:Letter of Advice Ex.P4:Analysis report

DEFENCE : ---Nil--- 9

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION :

MO.1 is sample sachet of I.D. Liquor.

DEFENCE :

---Nil---

Sd/- Smt. CH. Haripriya

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

// True copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKONDA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.135/2026

Date of offence:27.12.2024 Date of Complaint or report: 27.12.2024 Date of apprehension of accused:27.12.2024 Date of commencement of trial:28.04.2026 Date of close of trial:28.04.2026 Date of sentence or order:08.05.2026 Explanation of delay:The date of appearance of accused in this court is 04.04.2026. The date of disposal of this case is 08.05.2026. Hence, no delay. Name of the complaint:The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of PROH. & EXCISE, Palakonda (Cr.No.268/2024)

Name of the Accused Father's Age Occupa- Village & Man-

Name tion dal

Cherukubilli Srinu, s/o late Appalaswamy, aged about 35 years, r/o Main Road, Nadukuru village, Veeraghattam Mandal

Offence: U/Sec.7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 Finding: The accused is found not guilty. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The M.O.1 is the sample sachet of ID Liquor shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months as per section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sd/- Smt. CH. Haripriya

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal.

// True copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda.

1 APSR100010752026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS PALAKONDA

PRESENT:- Smt. Ch. Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda.

Friday, this the 08 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.136/2026

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Proh. & Excise Station, Palakonda. …Complainant.

And

Vandana Prasdarao, s/o Sundararao, aged about 45 years, r/o Lovidi Lakshmipuram village, Palakonda Mandal. … Accused.

This case coming on 29.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Muni Swamy, learned Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Proh. & Excise,

Palakonda filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 in

Crime No.264/2024 with the following allegations:

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 21.12.2024 at about 10.30 hours, L.W.3/L.Tirupathirao along with staff while they were conducting patrolling duty at Lovidi Lakshmipuram village, Palakonda mandal and they found one male person was having with one black plastic can with his right hand, on seeing them, the accused 2 tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused.

Then L.W.3 deputed L.W.1/V.S.S.Naidu for securing mediators, but in vain.

On verification of the can of the accused, they found 10 liters of I.D. Liquor.

On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars.

Then they seized the contraband and drawn 250 m.l of I.D. liquor from the can into a separate bottle as sample, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 264/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused

before the Court for remand. During the course of investigation, he sent

the sample bottles to the Government Chemical Examiner of PROH. &

EXCISE, Regional PROH. & EXCISE Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.262 of BNSS (239 Cr.P.C). Charge under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu u/sec. 263 of

BNSS (240(2) Cr.P.C). After having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to

P.4 and M.O.1 was marked. The evidence of L.W.1/V.S.S.Naidu, Excise

Constable, L.W.2/K.Kondalarao, Excise Constable were given up by A.P.P.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 351 of BNSS (313 of

Code of Criminal Procedure) and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

3

8.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :-

9.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.4 and M.O1.

10.P.W1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, PROH. & EXCISE Station,

Palakonda.

11.Ex.P1 is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is the First Information report. Ex.P3 is the Letter of Advice. Ex.P4 is the Chemical Analysis report and M.O.1 is sample bottle of I.D Liquor.

12.It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.12.2024 at about 10.30 hours, L.W.3/L.Tirupathirao along with staff while they were conducting patrolling duty at Lovidi Lakshmipuram village, Palakonda mandal and they found one male person was having with one black plastic can with his right hand, on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused. Then L.W.3 deputed

L.W.1/V.S.S.Naidu for securing mediators, but in vain. On verification of the can of the accused, they found 10 liters of I.D. Liquor. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. Then they seized the contraband and drawn 250 m.l of I.D. liquor from the can into a separate bottle as sample, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 264/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P

Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused before the Court for remand and the remaining contraband after drawing samples was destroyed as per Ex P3 Letter of Advice and after receipt of Ex P4 analysis 4 report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

13.It is the case of defence that accused did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose.

14.Now, to prove the offense under Section 7 -B read with 8-B of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 the prosecution must prove that P.W1 and other staff found the accused in possession of ID

Liquor, which is prohibited under the act.

15.At the outset, it is the case of prosecution that, P.W.1 and his staff conducted Patrolling and proceeded to Lovidi Lakshmipuram village,

Palakonda mandal and they found one male person was having with one black plastic can with his right hand, on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused. Then

L.W.3 deputed L.W.1/V.S.S.Naidu for securing mediators, but in vain. On verification of the can of the accused, they found 10 liters of I.D. Liquor. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. Then they seized the contraband and drawn 250 m.l of I.D. liquor from the can into a separate bottle as sample, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 264/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused

before the Court for remand and after completion of investigation and

receipt of Ex P4 analysis report the Station House Officer filed charge sheet in this case after obtaining Ex.P.3 Letter of Advice for destruction of the seized property.

16.Now, to prove the offense under section 7 -B read with 8-B of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 against accused, the evidence of P.W.1 who is Excise Sub-Inspector is relevant. So, the Occurrence

Report which was recorded by Excise Sub-Inspector cannot be believed, to the extent of the confession said to be made by the accused, as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. So, when 5 P.W.1 is police officer, his evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him was true and made as per the procedure prescribed under law.

17.The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the Scene of Offence is a Lovidi

Lakshmipuram village, Palakonda mandal, which shows that it is a busy locality. But P.W.1 did not secure any mediators for arrest of accused and seizure of case property from him. Moreover, P.W.1 deposed he cannot tell the names of the persons whom L.W.1/V.S.S.Naidu called to act as mediators and that they did not issue any written notices to any persons to act as mediators. So, it shows that P.W.1 did not secure any mediators at the scene of offence for the arrest of accused and seizure of case property from him though available near the scene of offence. So, it shows that

P.W.1 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which, the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7) shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”.

But, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he and his Sub-Inspector did not follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) while arresting the accused and seizing the contraband from him. Admittedly, the scene of offense is Lovidi Lakshmipuram village, Palakonda mandal, but

P.W.1 did not issue any written summons to any witnesses to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband from accused though it is a busy locality, So, under the above circumstances the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed to be trustworthy as he and his Inspector i.e. PW.1 failed to comply with the mandatory provisions Under sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) of code of Criminal Procedure. So, when the procedure under section 6 100(4) is not followed by P.W.1 and the entire seizure proceedings alleged to be conducted by P.W.1 is without jurisdiction and vitiated. The above legal position was laid down in a decision reported in 2002(1) ALT (Cri.) 251 AP, Between Yeduru Srinivasulu Reddy Vs State of A.P, wherein it was held at paras 12 to 14 that “It is for the prosecution to bring on record that they have followed the procedure contemplated under section 55 of the Act and section 100(4) Code of Criminal Procedure and when no person is willing to act as panch witness they should have passed a written order and in the absence of such order the evidence of the witnesses that nobody came forward to witness the panchanama cannot be believed and relied upon and therefore the entire search and seizure is vitiated and as the prosecution failed to follow the said procedure under section 100(4) and 55 of the Act , the entire search and seizure is vitiated and the conviction is not sustainable.” The same legal position was laid down in another decision reported in 2010 (1) ALT (Cri.) 32, Between

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs The State of A.P, wherein it was held at para 16 that”But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of

Section 100 Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

7 [17] Of course it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators.”. The above two decisions squarely apply to the present case facts. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he was physically not present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he and his staff did not secure any mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from accused though available near the scene of offence. So, it creates a doubt over the evidence of P.W.1 who is police witness. Hence, in the above circumstances it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution whether really P.W.1 arrested the accused and seized the contraband from the accused no.1, as he is only police officer and he did not secure any independent mediators, though available near the scene of offence.

18.Hence, it is held that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as P.W.1 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, when the evidence of P.W.1 is held to be not trustworthy, and when the alleged seizure of contraband from accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients for the offence punishable Under

Section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is extended the benefit of doubt and entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition

Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The M.O.1 is the sample bottle of

ID Liquor shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months as per section 437-A of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to the dictation, typed by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. CH. Haripriya

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : L.Tirupathirao, Sub Inspector ---None---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Occurrence report. Ex.P2:Original First Information Report Ex.P3:Letter of Advice Ex.P4:Analysis report

DEFENCE : ---Nil--- 9

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION :

MO.1 is sample bottle of I.D. Liquor.

DEFENCE :

---Nil---

Sd/- Smt. CH. Haripriya

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

// True copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAKONDA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.136/2026

Date of offence:21.12.2024 Date of Complaint or report: 21.12.2024 Date of apprehension of accused:21.12.2024 Date of commencement of trial:28.04.2026 Date of close of trial:28.04.2026 Date of sentence or order:08.05.2026 Explanation of delay:The date of appearance of accused in this court is 04.04.2026. The date of disposal of this case is 08.05.2026. Hence, no delay. Name of the complaint:The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of PROH. & EXCISE, Palakonda (Cr.No.261/2024)

Name of the Accused Father's Age Occupa- Village & Man-

Name tion dal

Vandana Prasdarao, s/o Sundararao, aged about 45 years, r/o Lovidi Lakshmipuram village, Palakonda Mandal.

Offence: U/Sec.7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 Finding: The accused is found not guilty. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The M.O.1 is the sample bottle of ID Liquor shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months as per section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Sd/- Smt. CH. Haripriya

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal.

// True copy //

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda.

1 APSR100010732026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS PALAKONDA

PRESENT:- Smt. Ch. Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palakonda.

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.134/2026

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Proh. & Excise Station, Palakonda. …Complainant.

And

Kandula Gowri Sankar, s/o Kuber Swamya, aged about 39 years, r/o Seethampeta village, Seethampeta Mandal. … Accused.

This case coming on 29.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Sateeshu, learned Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Proh. & Excise,

Palakonda filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 in

Crime No.269/2024 with the following allegations:

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that:

On 27.12.2024 at about 11.00 hours, L.W.3/L.Tirupathirao along with staff while they were conducting patrolling duty at Malludora shandy,

Sethampeta village and mandal and they found one male person was having with two plastic cans with his right hand, on seeing them, the 2 accused tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused. Then L.W.3 deputed L.W.1/S.Nagu for securing mediators, but in vain. On verification of the cans of the accused, they found 20 liters of I.D.

Liquor in it. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. Then they seized the contraband and drawn 250 m.l of I.D.

Liquor from each can into a separate bottle as samples, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 269/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused before the Court for remand. During the course of investigation, he sent the sample bottles to the Government Chemical

Examiner of PROH. & EXCISE, Regional PROH. & EXCISE Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.262 of BNSS (239 Cr.P.C). Charge under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 framed against the accused read over and explained to her in Telugu u/sec. 263 of

BNSS (240(2) Cr.P.C). After having understood the same, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to

P.4 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked. The evidence of L.W.1/S.Nagu,

Excise Constable, L.W.2/Y.V.K.Naidu, Excise Constable were given up by

A.P.P.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 351 of BNSS (313 of 3 Code of Criminal Procedure) and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

7.Heard both sides.

Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :-

8.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.4 and M.O1 and M.O.2.

9.P.W1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, PROH. & EXCISE Station,

Palakonda.

10.Ex.P1 is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is the First Information report. Ex.P3 is the Letter of Advice. Ex.P4 is the Chemical Analysis report and M.O.1 and M.O.2 are sample bottles of I.D Liquor.

11.It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.12.2024 at about 11.00 hours, L.W.3/L.Tirupathirao along with staff while they were conducting patrolling duty at Malludora shandy, Sethampeta village and mandal and they found one male person was having with two plastic cans with his right hand, on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused. Then L.W.3 deputed

L.W.1/S.Nagu for securing mediators, but in vain. On verification of the cans of the accused, they found 20 liters of I.D. Liquor in it. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. Then they seized the contraband and drawn 250 m.l of I.D. Liquor from each can into a separate bottle as samples, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 269/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused 4

before the Court for remand and the remaining contraband after drawing

samples was destroyed as per Ex P3 Letter of Advice and after receipt of

Ex P4 analysis report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

12.It is the case of defence that accused did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose.

13.Now, to prove the offense under Section 7 -B read with 8-B of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 the prosecution must prove that P.W1 and other staff found the accused in possession of ID

Liquor, which is prohibited under the act.

14.At the outset, it is the case of prosecution that, P.W.1 and his staff conducted Patrolling and proceeded to Malludora shandy, Sethampeta village and mandal and they found one male person was having with two plastic cans with his right hand, on seeing them, the accused tried to ran away at the scene of offence, then they detained the accused. Then L.W.3 deputed L.W.1/S.Nagu for securing mediators, but in vain. On verification of the cans of the accused, they found 20 liters of I.D. Liquor in it. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. Then they seized the contraband and drawn 250 m.l of I.D. Liquor from each can into a separate bottle as samples, arrested the accused, seized the contraband under cover of occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Crime Number 269/2024 under section 7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020 and produced the accused

before the Court for remand and after completion of investigation and

receipt of Ex P4 analysis report the Station House Officer filed charge sheet in this case after obtaining Ex.P.3 Letter of Advice for destruction of the seized property.

15.Now, to prove the offense under section 7 -B read with 8-B of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 against accused, the evidence of P.W.1 who is Excise Sub-Inspector is relevant. So, the Occurrence

Report which was recorded by Excise Sub-Inspector cannot be believed, 5 to the extent of the confession said to be made by the accused, as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. So, when

P.W.1 is police officer, his evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him was true and made as per the procedure prescribed under law.

16.The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the Scene of Offence is a

Malludora shandy, Sethampeta village and mandal, which shows that it is a busy locality. But P.W.1 did not secure any mediators for arrest of accused and seizure of case property from her. Moreover, P.W.1 deposed he cannot tell the names of the persons whom L.W.1/S.Nagu called to act as mediators and that they did not issue any written notices to any persons to act as mediators. So, it shows that P.W.1 did not secure any mediators at the scene of offence for the arrest of accused and seizure of case property from him though available near the scene of offence. So, it shows that P.W.1 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which, the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7) shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. But, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he and his Sub-

Inspector did not follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) while arresting the accused and seizing the contraband from him. Admittedly, the scene of offense is Malludora shandy, Sethampeta village and mandal, but P.W.1 did not issue any written summons to any witnesses to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband from accused though it is a busy locality, So, under the above circumstances the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed to be trustworthy as he and his 6 Inspector i.e PW.1 failed to comply with the mandatory provisions Under sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) of code of Criminal Procedure. So, when the procedure under section 100(4) is not followed by P.W.1 and the entire seizure proceedings alleged to be conducted by P.W.1 is without jurisdiction and vitiated. The above legal position was laid down in a decision reported in 2002(1) ALT (Cri.) 251 AP, Between Yeduru

Srinivasulu Reddy Vs State of A.P, wherein it was held at paras 12 to 14 that “It is for the prosecution to bring on record that they have followed the procedure contemplated under section 55 of the Act and section 100(4) Code of Criminal Procedure and when no person is willing to act as panch witness they should have passed a written order and in the absence of such order the evidence of the witnesses that nobody came forward to witness the panchanama cannot be believed and relied upon and therefore the entire search and seizure is vitiated and as the prosecution failed to follow the said procedure under section 100(4) and 55 of the Act , the entire search and seizure is vitiated and the conviction is not sustainable.” The same legal position was laid down in another decision reported in 2010 (1) ALT (Cri.) 32, Between S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs

The State of A.P, wherein it was held at para 16 that”But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of

Section 100 Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and 7 the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

[17] Of course it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators.”. The above two decisions squarely apply to the present case facts. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he was physically not present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he and his staff did not secure any mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from accused though available near the scene of offence. So, it creates a doubt over the evidence of P.W.1 who is police witness. Hence, in the above circumstances it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution whether really P.W.1 arrested the accused and seized the contraband from the accused no.1, as he is only police officer and he did not secure any independent mediators, though available near the scene of offence.

17.Hence, it is held that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as P.W.1 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for arrest of accused and seizure of contraband from him. So, when the evidence of P.W.1 is held to be not trustworthy, and when the alleged seizure of contraband from accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients for the offence punishable Under

Section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is 8 extended the benefit of doubt and entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B read with 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition

Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The M.O.1 and M.O.2 are the sample bottle of ID Liquor shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months as per section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to the dictation, typed by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : L.Tirupathirao, Sub Inspector ---None---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Occurrence report. Ex.P2:Original First Information Report Ex.P3:Letter of Advice Ex.P4:Analysis report

DEFENCE : ---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

PROSECUTION :

MO.1 and M.O.2 are sample bottles of I.D. Liquor.

DEFENCE :

---Nil--- 9

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAKONDA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.134/2026

Date of offence:27.12.2024 Date of Complaint or report: 27.12.2024 Date of apprehension of accused:27.12.2024 Date of commencement of trial:28.04.2026 Date of close of trial:28.04.2026 Date of sentence or order:12.05.2026 Explanation of delay:The date of appearance of accused in this court is 04.04.2023. The date of disposal of this case is 12.05.2026. Hence, no delay. Name of the complaint:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of PROH. & EX- CISE,Palakonda (Cr.No.269/2024)

Name of the Ac- Father's Age Occupa- Village & Man-

cused Name tion dal

Kandula Gowri Sankar, s/o Kuber Swamya, aged about 39 years, r/o Seethampeta village, Seethampeta Mandal

Offence: U/Sec.7-B read with 8-B of A.P.P Amendment Act, 2020

Finding: The accused is found not guilty. Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and she is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam for perusal.

10

-1-

APSR0D0001922024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS :: PALASA.

Present :: Smt.Ch.Hari Priya,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NARASANNAPETA,

(FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALASA.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No.106/2024

Between :

The SEB Inspector, SEB Station, Palasa.

....Complainant.

And :

A1)Savara Naresh, S/o.Late Sriramulu, Aged 23 years, Hindu, Occu: Coolie, Baleru village, Karajada Post, Meliayaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District.

A2)Savara Jaggayya, S/o.Dombadu, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Occu: Coolie, Bharanikota Colony, Karajada Post, Meliayaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Accused/A1 & A2.

This case is coming on 25-03-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and of Sri B.Kameswara Rao Patnaik, Learned Counsel for the accused/A1 & A2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The SEB Inspector, SEB Station, Palasa, filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 & A2 in Cr.No.178/2020, for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The averments of the charge-sheet is as follows:-

On 30-09-2020, at about 10.30 hours, during the route watch conducted,

LW.5/Smt.J.Sandhya Rani, S.E.B, Sub-Inspector, S.E.B, Station, Palasa, alongwith her staff, LW.1 to LW.4/SEB Constables, (LW.1/Ch.DharmaRao, LW.2/T.Dasaradhi,

LW.3/Y.Esswara Rao & LW.4/R.Somanadham), near Bus shelter of Tekkalipatnam -2-

Village limits, Palasa Mandal, the accused/A1 & A2 were found in possession of 15

Litres of I.D.Liquor in a bag. On seeing the raid staff, the accused/A1 & A2 tried to skulk away. On suspicion LW.5/SEB S.I and her staff detained the accused. On interrogation, the accused/A1 & A2 confessed that he bought the I.D.Liquor from an unknown person at Odisha state for the purpose of selling at higher prices to get profit illegally for his livelihood. Then, LW.5/SEB S.I and her staff arrested the accused/A1 & A2 and seized the case property and tried to secure mediators, but in vain. Then, LW.5/SEB Sub-Inspector drew One I.D.Liquor sample bottle of 250 ml and packed separately for chemical analysis purpose and then affixed identity slips and seized the case property, under cover of Occurrence Report drafted at the scene of offence. Then, he brought the Accused, case property alongwith the report to the Station and immediately LW.5/SEB Sub-Inspector registered the

Occurrence Report as a case in Cr.No.178/2020, dt.30-09-2020, for the offence punishable 7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused/A1 & A2 were remanded to judicial custody on 30-09-2020.

During the Course of investigation, on 19-10-2020, LW.5 sent the samples to the Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam, for chemical analysis purpose and sample was examined and a report was issued vide

C.E.No.2641/2020, dt.26-11-2020, Sl.No.21649 is Illicitly Distilled Liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The accused/A1 & A2 were released as per the Bail Orders in Crl.MP.No.1153/2020, dt.07-10-2020. The remaining property, except the samples, was destroyed as per the Destruction

Orders. On completion of investigation, LW.6/K.Krishna Rao, SEB Inspector, SEB

Station, Palasa, filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 & A2 for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020.

3.The charge-sheet was taken-on-file against the accused/A1 & A2 under 7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge-sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused/A1 & A2 were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the said -3- offence, against him, read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, LW.5/Smt.J.Sandhya Rani, S.E.B, Sub-

Inspector, S.E.B, Station, Palasa, was examined as PW.1, Ex's.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 were marked through her. The evidence of LW’s.1 to 4 & 6 was given-up by the

Learned APP, in view of the evidence of PW.1.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 & A2 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating material available on record. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard on both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused/A1

& A2 for the offence under Section 7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a)

of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all

reasonable doubt? POINT :

9.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined

LW.5/Smt.J.Sandhya Rani, S.E.B. Sub-Inspector as PW.1 and got marked

Occurrence Report as Ex.P.1, Original F.I.R as Ex.P.2, Letter of Advice as Ex.P.3 and Chemical Analysis Report as Ex.P.4 and M.O.1 is One sample bottle of

I.D.Liquor, were marked through PW.1, on behalf of the Prosecution.

10.The Learned Counsel for accused/A1 & A2 argued that the Excise Police did not follow the search procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C and failed to secure the mediators from the locality of the scene of offence, it is contrary to the procedure laid down under Sec.100(4)(a) of Cr.P.C and there is no evidence to show that the accused/A1 & A2 are having possession of ID liquor sachets except

Ex.P1/ Occurrence Report. He also argued that in Ex.P1/Occurrence Report, they did not mention the descriptive particulars and address particulars of the accused/A1 & A2 and boundaries of the scene of offence and the particulars about -4- the place at where Ex.P1/Occurrence Report was scribed and contended that the

SEB police foisted this false case for statistical purpose, by planting the alleged

M.O.1, as such, the Ex.P1/Occurrence Report cannot be relied upon, without independent corroborating evidence and prayed the Court for acquittal of the accused.

11.Now, the Court will scrutinize the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex’s.P1 to

P4. “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the Ex.P1/

Occurrence Report, the alleged scene of offence is situated at Tekkalipatnam

Village limits, Palasa Mandal, but, Ex.P1/Occurrence Report is silent with regard to the boundaries of the scene of offence and the scene of offence is a busy locality.

It is simply noted that the Tekkalipatnam Village limits, Palasa Mandal, but pin- pointedly, the place whereat the accused/A1 & A2 were arrested is not mentioned.

The prosecution did not secure any independent witnesses to act as mediators for arrest of accused/A1 & A2 and for seizure of I.D.Liquor from the possession of accused/A1 & A2 under cover of Ex.P.1. PW.1 did not mention the names of Excise

Police, who accompanied to the raid in the said report.

13).Further, PW.1 and the raid party did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., to seize the I.D

Liquor from the possession of the Accused. Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or his willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue in order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

-5- 14). The Learned Counsel for accused/A1 & A2 relied upon the following decisions.

 In between Pothabathula Abbulu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.Revision Case No.1758 of 2005, dated 06.07.2021 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, wherein it is held at para No.6 that:

“Even if local panch witnesses were not called at the time of recovery panchanama, it would not amount to non- compliance with sub-Sec.(4) or (5) of Sec.100 Cr.P.C., in view of presumption under illustration (e) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act”.

 In between Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (Andhra Pradesh), wherein it it is held para No.5 that: para-5 : Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P. Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, Ex.P.5 panchanama is hit by Section 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arise due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P.5 is hit by Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt. Both the Courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle.

-6-

The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the Court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain. I.D. Liquor and it is not proved.

15).The above decision is aptly applicable to the present case on hand, since the investigating officer has not followed procedure as laid down under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of seizure of I.D

Liquor from the possession of accused/A1 & A2 and alleged that the accused/A1 & A2 made confession about possession of I.D Liquor as per the report.

16).Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that, it is not safe to attribute the offence against the accused/A1 & A2 as alleged by the prosecution that basing on the evidence of PW.1 who is SEB Sub-

Inspector/Excise Department. Further, it is admitted fact that PW.1 is complainant and investigation officer in this case and that all witnesses are belongs to Police Department. Hence, it is unsafe to believe the evidence of PW.1 as he is complainant and investigation officer in this case. In 1995 CRIMES DELHI 661, Munni Lal Vs State, the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that “No conviction should be made solely on testimony of police officials without any corroboration from any independent source”. In the instant case, PW.1 is police person and no independent witnesses deposed about the involvement of this accused in the incident. Hence, it is unsafe to convict the accused/A1 & A2 based on the evidence of PW.1. Therefore, with due respect, the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in above said case Law is applicable to the present facts of the case.

-7-

17.It is the case of the prosecution that basing on the confession of accused, the Excise police seized the I.D.Liquor from the possession of accused. It is well settled proposition that the Excise officials also comes within the meaning of police officer, as such, any amount of confession made by the accused/A1 & A2 during the custody of the

Excise officials is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. In view of the above discussion and the observation made, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not safe to come to conclusion that the accused/A1 & A2 committed the offence publishable under section 7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 in the absence of independent, cogent and convincing evidence. When the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P1/Occurrence Report is doubtful; the benefit of doubt, would goes in favour of the accused/A1 & A2 and this Court feels that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused/A1 & A2 for the said offence, beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the accused/A1 & A2 are entitled for acquittal, under benefit of doubt.

18.In the result, the accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused/A1 & A2 are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 & A2 shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Smt Ch.Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasannapeta,

(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa.

-8-

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution :

PW.1: 21-03-2025: Smt.J.Sandhya Rani, S.E.B, Sub-Inspector, S.E.B, Station, Palasa.

For Defence : - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :-For Defence:

Ex.P.1 : Occurrence Report. - Nil -

Ex.P.2 : Original F.I.R.

Ex.P.3 : Letter of Advice.

Ex.P.4 : Chemical Analysis Report.

Material Objects

For Prosecution:-For Defence:

M.O.1 : One sample bottle of I.D.Liquor.- Nil -

Sd/- Smt Ch.Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasannapeta,

(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa.

// True Copy // Digitally signed

CHANDAKA

by CHANDAKA

HARIPRIYA

HARIPRIYA

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Narasannapeta,

(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Palasa.

-9-

FORM NO.72 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, PALASA.

C.C. No.106/2024

REPORT OR

DATE OF OFFENCE:30-09-2020COMPLAINT:30-09-2020

APPREHENSION OF

accused :30-09-2020RELEASE ON 07-10-2020 REMAND OF accused :ACCUSED: 30-09-2020

COMMENCEMENT OF

TRIAL:21-03-2025CLOSE OF TRIAL:25-03-2025

SENTENCE OF

ORDER:26-03-2025

EXPLANATION OF

DELAY AND

REMARKS:No delay JUDGMENT IN C.C:106/2024 Cr.No.178/2020 COMPLAINANT:The SEB Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Palasa. NAME, AGE, FATHER’SA1)Savara Naresh, S/o.Late Sriramulu, Aged 23 years, NAME, RELIGION, Hindu, Occu: Coolie, Baleru village, Karajada Post,

CALLING, RESIDENCE

Meliayaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District.

AND TALUK OF THE

ACCUSED: A2)Savara Jaggayya, S/o.Dombadu, Aged 31 years, Hindu, Occu: Coolie, Bharanikota Colony, Karajada Post, Meliayaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District.

U/Sec.7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) OFFENCE: Act, 2020. FINDING:Found not guilty

In the result, the accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B r/w 8-C (a) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused/A1 & A2 are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, SENTENCE: for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 & A2 shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt Ch.Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasannapeta,

(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Copy to : The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Srikakulam. // True Copy // Digitally

CHANDAKA

signed by

HARIPRIYACHANDAKA

HARIPRIYA

-10-

Sd/- Smt Ch.Hari Priya,

Sd/- Smt Ch.Hari Priya,

-1-

APSR0D0001162025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS :: PALASA.

Present :: Smt.Ch.Hari Priya,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NARASANNAPETA,

(FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALASA.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No.85/2025

Between :

The SEB Inspector, SEB Station, Palasa.

....Complainant.

And :

Landa Lokesh, S/o.Late Chinna Rao, Aged 31 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o.Purushothapuram, Vasudevapeta village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

.... Accused.

This case is coming on 25-03-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and of Sri Vakada Ravi, Learned Counsel for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The SEB Inspector, SEB Station, Palasa, filed charge-sheet against the accused in Cr.No.29/2023, for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The averments of the charge-sheet is as follows:-

On 17-03-2023, at about 08.30 hours, during the raids conducted,

LW.6/K.Krishna Rao, S.E.B, Sub-Inspector of Police, S.E.B, Station, Palasa, alongwith Two mediators, (LW.1/Mahammad Shafi & LW.2/Malla Devaraju) and his staff, LW.3 to LW.5/SEB Constables, (LW.3/T.VeerabhadraRao, LW.4/B.V.Ramana,

LW.5/E.Ashok) near Cashew Statue, K.T.Road, Palasa limits, Palasa Mandal, the accused was found in possession of 10 I.D.Liquor packets of 250 ml each in a -2- polythene bag. On seeing the raid staff, the accused tried to skulk away. On suspicion LW.6/SEB S.I and his staff detained the accused. On interrogation, the accused confessed that he bought the I.D.Liquor from an unknown person at

Odisha state for the purpose of selling at higher prices to get profit illegally for his livelihood. Then, LW.6/SEB S.I and his staff arrested the Accused and seized the case property and drew One I.D Liquor sample packet of 250 ml and packed separately for chemical analysis purpose and then affixed identity slips and seized the case property, in the presence of mediators, under cover of Mediators Report drafted at the scene of offence. Then, he brought the Accused, case property alongwith the report to the Station and immediately LW.6/SEB Sub-Inspector registered the Mediators Report as a case in Cr.No.29/2023, dt.17-03-2023, for the offence punishable 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

During the Course of investigation, on 04-05-2023, LW.6 sent the samples to the Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam, for chemical analysis purpose and sample was examined and a report was issued vide

C.E.No.845/2023, dt.27-05-2023, Sl.No.1825 is Illicitly Distilled Liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The accused was released as per the

Bail Orders in Crl.MP.No.78/2023, dt.20-03-2023. The remaining property, except the samples, was destroyed as per the Destruction Orders. On completion of investigation, LW.7/K.Mallikarjuna Rao, Proh & Excise Inspector, Proh & Excise

Station, Palasa, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

3.The charge-sheet was taken-on-file against the Accused under 7-B r/w 8-B of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge-sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the said offence, against him, read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

-3-

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W’s.1 to 3 were examined, Ex’s.P1 to P7 and

M.O.1 were marked. The evidence of LW’s.3 to 5 & 7 was given-up by the

Learned APP, in view of the evidence of PW’s.1 to 3.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating material available on record. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard on both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for

the offence under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition

(Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

9.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined

LW.1/Mahammad Shafi-Mediator as PW.1 and got marked his signature on

Mediators Report as Ex.P.1; and also examined LW.2/Malla Devaraju-Mediator as

PW.2 and got marked his signature on Mediators Report as Ex.P.2; LW.6/K.Krishna

Rao, S.E.B. Sub-Inspector as PW.3 and got marked Mediators Report as Ex.P.3,

Original F.I.R. as Ex.P.4, Rough Sketch of the scene of offence as Ex.P.5, Letter of

Advice as Ex.P.6 and Chemical Analysis Report as Ex.P.7 and M.O.1 is One sample packet of I.D.Liquor, were marked through him, on behalf of the

Prosecution.

10.The Learned Counsel for accused argued that the Excise Officials did not follow the search procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C and failed to secure the mediators from the locality of the scene of offence, it is contrary to the procedure laid down under Sec.100(4)(a) of Cr.P.C and there is no evidence to show that the accused is having possession of ID liquor sachets except Ex.P3/

Mediators Report. He also argued that in Ex.P3/Mediators Report, they did not mention the descriptive particulars and address particulars of the accused and boundaries of the scene of offence and the particulars about the place at where

Ex.P3/Mediators Report was scribed and contended that the SEB police foisted -4- this false case for statistical purpose, by planting the alleged M.O.1, as such, the

Ex.P3/Mediators Report cannot be relied upon, without independent corroborating evidence and prayed the Court for acquittal of the accused.

11.Now, the Court will scrutinize the evidence of PW’s.1 to 3 coupled with

Ex’s.P1 to P7. “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W’s.1 to 3 coupled with the Ex.P3/

Mediators Report, the alleged scene of offence is situated near Cashew Statue,

K.T.Road, Palasa limits, Palasa Mandal, but, Ex.P3/Mediators Report is silent with regard to the boundaries of the scene of offence and the scene of offence is a busy locality. It is simply noted that the near Cashew Statue, K.T.Road, Palasa limits,

Palasa Mandal, but pin-pointedly, the place whereat the accused was arrested is not mentioned. Though the prosecution examined the mediators/PW.1 & LW.2 in whose presence, the seizure of I.D.Liquor packets was made from the possession of accused under cover of Ex.P.3/Report. PW.3 did not mention the names of

Excise Officials, who accompanied to the raid. PW.1 & 2 admitted that about one year ago, Police called them to the Police station and obtained their signatures on a written paper, but they do not know its contents and they do not know anything about this case and they never visited the scene of offence and no such seizure was taken place, as such, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the

Prosecution and their signatures on Mediators Report, are marked as Ex’s.P.1 & P.2 respectively.

13.The Learned Counsel for Accused also argued that the Excise Officials has not followed the procedure laid down under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. they foisted present case with the support of their stock mediators, as per the procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C the mediators must be independent and respectable persons belonging to the vicinity, as such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and prayed for acquittal of the accused. In a case between

Gajamker Narayana v. State of A.P. reported in 2005(0) SCJ Online (AP) 1910,

wherein the Excise Officials picked-up mediators from their station and took alongwith them to the scene of offence. As per the evidence of PW.3, they did not -5- file the photographs of the scene of offence and the scene of offence is a busy locality. Hence, their Lordships held that:

“Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up punch witnesses at the police station and took alongwith them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 & 2 nor that of PW.3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P3/Report also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the polythene bag containing I.D.Liquor packets. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal”.

In a case between S.BabuSaheb @ Babu v. State of A.P, reported in 2009 (0) SCJ Online (AP) 374 wherein Lordship held in

Para No.16:- Admittedly PW.1 accompanied the Excise Officials from

Sriklahasti. The Excise Officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information, they were right in taking mediators alongwith them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators, then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise Officials must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise Officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of the Section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the -6- presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

Para No.17:- Of course it cannot be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the Excise Officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not made any effort to take such mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators.

14.In the present case, though the Excise Officials secured the presence of mediators before proceeding to the scene of offence, as it can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 & 2/Mediators, it is clearly deposed that the police obtained the signatures of Mediators on some written papers in the police station and they do not know anything about this case. Hence, it is clear that the mediators are not the independent witnesses and inhabitants of the scene of offence. From the evidence of P.W’s.1 to 3, the Court can safely confer that the Excise Officials did not follow the procedure as laid down under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

15.In view of the above discussion and the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the above said case Law, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not safe to come to conclusion that the accused committed the offence publishable under section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 in the absence of independent, cogent and convincing evidence.

16.It is the case of the prosecution that basing on the confession of accused, the

Excise Officials seized the I.D.Liquor packets from the possession of accused. It is well settled proposition that the Excise Officials also comes within the meaning of police officer, as such, any amount of confession made by the accused during the custody of the Excise Officials is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. When the evidence of PW’s.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P3/Mediators Report is doubtful; the benefit of doubt, would goes in favour of the accused. Hence, considering the above discussion, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is not -7- able to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubts. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

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

Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Smt Ch.Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasannapeta,

(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution :For Defence : P.W.1: 18-03-2025: Mahammad Shafi-Mediator. - None - P.W.2: 18-03-2025: Malla Devaraju - Mediator P.W.3: 21-03-2025 : K. Krishna Rao, S.E.B. Sub-Inspector, Palasa.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :-For Defence: Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on Mediators Report. - Nil - Ex.P.2 : Signature of PW.2 on Mediators Report. Ex.P.3 : Mediators Report. Ex.P.4 : Original F.I.R. Ex.P.5 : Rough Sketch Ex.P.6 : Letter of Advice. Ex.P.7 : Chemical Analysis Report.

Material Objects

For Prosecution:-For Defence: M.O.1 : One sample packet of I.D.Liquor. - Nil -

Sd/- Smt Ch.Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasannapeta,

(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa. // True Copy // Digitally

CHANDAKA

signed by

HARIPRIYACHANDAKA

HARIPRIYA

-8-

FORM NO.72 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, PALASA.

C.C. No.85/2025

REPORT OR

DATE OF OFFENCE:17-03-2023COMPLAINT:17-03-2023

APPREHENSION OF

ACCUSED :17-03-2023RELEASE ON 20-03-2023 REMAND OF ACCUSED: ACCUSED :17-03-2023

COMMENCEMENT OF

TRIAL:18-03-2025CLOSE OF TRIAL:25-03-2025

SENTENCE OF

ORDER:26-03-2025

EXPLANATION OF

DELAY AND

REMARKS:No delay JUDGMENT IN C.C:85/2025 Cr.No.29/2023 COMPLAINANT:The SEB Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Palasa. NAME, AGE, FATHER’SLanda Lokesh, S/o.Late Chinna Rao, Aged 31 years, Occu: NAME, RELIGION, Coolie, R/o.Purushothapuram, Vasudevapeta village,

CALLING, RESIDENCE

Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

AND TALUK OF THE

ACCUSED:

U/Sec.7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. OFFENCE:

FINDING:Found not guilty

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of SENTENCE: the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt Ch.Hari Priya,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasannapeta,

(FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palasa.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. Copy to : The Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Srikakulam.

// True Copy // Digitally

CHANDAKA

signed by

HARIPRIYACHANDAKA

HARIPRIYA