Sri.CH.Kishore Kumar

1

C.C.No.107 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GUDIVADA

Present:- Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Monday, this the 26th day of July, 2021

C.C.No.107 of 2019

State Represented by Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector of Police, Gudivada ….Complainant

Vs.

Muddineni Ashok Kumar, S/o Prasada Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o Pamarru village and Mandal

..... Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri P.

V.Raju, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Gudivada filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.144/2018 for the offence punishable under sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a) On 27.11.2018 at about 9.00 A.M., L.W.1/Sri A.V.Mohana Rao, P &

E.I., LW.2/Sri K.Sai Ram, P & E.H.C. along with staff while patrolling for detection of Proh. & Excise offences in Pamarru Mandal, when they reached at

Pala sekarana kendram front road margin at Pamarru, found one person holding one black colour carry bag. On seeing them, he perturbed. On suspicion, LW.1 caught hold him and on questioning, he confessed that the bag contained liquor bottles. Then LW.1 sent LW.2 to secure mediators, after some

2

C.C.No.107 of 2019 time, LW.2 returned and informed that none come forward to act as mediators.

Then LW.1 got opened the bag and found 08 IML 999 Power Star fine Whisky 180 ml and same were as Duty Paid liquor. The accused stated that he purchased the liquour bottles from unknown person to sell the same for higher price and also stated that he has no license, bill or permit. LW.1 seized the 08

Nips, drawn one sample for chemical analysis, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by LWs.1 and 2 under the cover of special report. L.W.1 issued notice to the accused under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Later LW.3/Smt.G.V.Lakshmi, P &

E. Sub Inspector took up further investigation, registered the special report as

FIR in Crime No.144 of 2018 under Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

During the course of investigation, L.W.3 sent the samples along with letter of advice for chemical analysis. She received proceedings of Deputy

Commissioner, Proh. & Excise, Vijayawada with a direction to confiscation of contraband. After completion of investigation L.W.3 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this court for the offence U/sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and accused was examined U/Sec.239

Cr.P.C. for the allegations levelled against him from the charge sheet contents, for which he denied. Charge framed for the offence under Section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 were got marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW.2/K.Sai Ram, P & E.H.C. Consequently prosecution side evidence is closed.

3

C.C.No.107 of 2019

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

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to him. He has denied the entire evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for determination is __

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond

all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act?

9.POINT:- To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.W.1.

P.W.1 is the Investigating Officer in this case, he reiterated the charge sheet contents in his chief examination. P.W1 further deposed that when he caught hold the accused at the crime scene, he tried to secure mediators, but the persons who gathered at that place were refused to act as mediators. P.W1 further deposed that he sent L.W.2/K.Sai Ram to secure mediators, but in vain.

P.W1 verified the cover and found the contraband and seized and drawn one nip for chemical analysis, and prepared a Special Report/Ex.P1. P.W1 released the accused after obtaining sufficient sureties. Thereafter, he handed over the case file to L.W.3/S.I of Excise and Proh. for further investigation.

10.P.W.2 deposed that she conducted further investigation in this case and received case record along with material object from P.W.1 and she registered a case as in Ex.P2/FIR. P.W.2 sent sample bottle along with letter of

Advice/Ex.P3 to Chemical Laboratory. Ex.P4 is the Chemical analysis report.

P.W.2 received the proceedings from Dy. Commissioner with a direction to confiscation the seized property, she destroyed the contraband. M.O.1 is the sample bottle. After completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet .

4

C.C.No.107 of 2019

11.P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the scene of offence is a busy locality having public movement. P.W1 further admitted that 999

Powerstar fine whisky is available in the open market for sale. P.W2 admitted in her cross-examination that the seized contraband will be available in open market and in this case no independent witness examined. PW.2 further admitted that she did not participate in the raids. Here, simple statement made by the P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. It is expected from the P.W.1 that he should put forth reasonable grounds and the attempts made by him to secure mediators. If anybody refuses to act as mediators, the officials can initiate proceedings against those persons under

Sec.187 of IPC, as contemplated under Sec.100(8) of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, P.W.1 did not take action against any person. Coming to the evidence of PW2, it is formal one, she conducted further investigation in this case, and it is admitted fact that she did not participate in the raid.

12.Admittedly crime scene is a busy area, if P.W.1 really tried to secure mediators, definitely he may succeed. This court find it difficult to believe that in a rural residential locality, the police were unable to find a single independent witness. No name of any person has been mentioned who may have declined to be a witness.

In a case between Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in S.Babu Sahed @ Babu vs. The State of A.P. 2009 LawSuit(AP) 258 held that

[16] xxx 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 mediato Rs. 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

5

C.C.No.107 of 2019

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.

13. In another case reported between A. Rambabu @ Ramu vs. State of

A.P. 2014 LawSuit(AP) 69 held that

Whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of a police

official, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of

that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available

and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police official is

almost removed, that the Court can rest its conclusions on the

evidence of the police officials.

Based on the above discussion and observation made by Hon’ble High

Court, it can be said that if the Investigating Officer failed to secure mediators though there was a chance to secure mediators, in this Court view that prosecution failed to prove its case. In this case, P.W.2 sent the sample/M.O.1 to the Laboratory and received Ex.P4/Chemical analysis report, it reveals that the samples were Indian Made Liquour. Therefore, it can be said that except proving the seizure bottles as a liquor, nothing proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that such contraband was seized from the possession of this accused. Therefore, prosecution is failed.

6

C.C.No.107 of 2019

In the result, this Court find the Accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 Vide C.P.R No.23/2019 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of July, 2021.

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Gudivada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW.1: Sri A.V.Mohan Rao - None –

PW.2: Smt. G.V.Lakshmi

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Special Report

Ex.P.2: FIR

Ex.P.3: Letter of Advice.

Ex.P.4: Chemial Analysis report.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

A.J.F.C.M

Gdv

7

C.C.No.107 of 2019

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE; GUDIVADA

C.C.No.107 OF 2019

Date of

OffenceComplaintNotice served toCommencemClose ofSentence or the accused u/sent of trialtrialorder 41(A) Cr.P.C. 27.11.1827.11.201827.11.201802.03.202016.12.202026.07.2021

Between:

State Represented by Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector of Police, Gudivada ….Complainant

Vs.

Muddineni Ashok Kumar, S/o Prasada Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o Pamarru village and Mandal

..... Accused

Offence: Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding:“FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE In the result, this Court find the Accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 Vide C.P.R No.23/2019 shall be de- stroyed after appeal time is over.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 08.03.2019. On 27.03.2019 appearance of accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 23.01.2020 Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed against accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 02.03.2020 on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 is examined and Exs.P1 is marked. On 16.02.2020 LW.3 was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.P2 to P4, M.O.1 are marked. Prosecution evidence is completed. On 08.03.2021 Accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. On 23.07.2021 Heard arguments on both the sides. On 26.07.2021 Judgment pronounced in open Court. Hence, the delay.

Copy submitted to: Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Gudivada.

Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1 OS No.70 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM 

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: GUDIVADA 

Present : SRI.Ch.KISHORE KUMAR Prl. Junior Civil Judge­Cum­Judl. First Class Magistrate

Dated: WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

Original Suit No.70/2021

Between:

Polagani Lakshmi, W/o Veera Naga Raju, Hindu, aged about 40 Years, Properties, R/o Chandrala Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Gudivada. … Plaintiff

Vs.

Rajulapati Srinivasa Rao, S/o Tata Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 Years, Properties, R/o Chinayerikapadu Village, Gudivada Rural Mandal, Gudivada … Defendant

This suit coming before me on 27.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of the Sri M.Rajesh, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri R.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit for recovery of Rs.51,266/­ ( Rs.17,133/­ + 34,133/­) being the

principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 03.01.2018 & 13.01.2018

executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.30,000/­ (Rs.10,000/­ + 20,000/­) with interest at 24% per annum and for the costs of the suit with future interest.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that on 03.01.2018 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/­ from the plaintiff for his business expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% P.A. Again on 13.01.2018, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the plaintiff for his business expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% P.A. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant 2 OS No.70 of 2021 did not repay the amount. On 15.12.2020, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding to pay the promissory note debt amount, after receipt of the same by the defendant, he did not pay any amount. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments, inter alia submitted that he borrowed Rs.10,000/­ from the plaintiff in the year­2015. At that time, the defendant obtained the signatures of defendant on two blank promissory notes as security. Subsequently he paid the said amount with interest in the year­2018 and he requested the plaintiff to return the said blank promissory notes. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay an excess amount of Rs.5,000/­, but the defendant expressed his inability, the plaintiff did not return the said promissory notes. Later, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, after receipt of the same, the defendant approached the plaintiff and asked her intention. Then the plaintiff challenged the defendant that she will extract money from the defendant at any cost. The defendant further submits that he has no need to pay any amount under the alleged promissory notes. He further submitted that he has no acquaintance with the attestors and scribe of alleged two promissory notes. He further submitted that on the alleged 2nd promissory note dated 13.01.2018 an amount of Rs.5,000/­ was added to the amount of Rs.20,000/­ as

Rs.20,000/­ + 5,000/­. The plaintiff did not mention about the said Rs.5,000/­ either in the registered notice or in the plaint. He further submitted that the plaintiff fabricated the alleged promissory notes with the help of attestors and scribe and filed this false suit against him to gain wrongfully. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit. 

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for ?

3. To what relief?

3 OS No.70 of 2021

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. Ex.A.1 is promissory note dated 03.01.2018, Ex.A.2 is promissory note dated 13.01.2018, Ex.A.3 is Office Copy of Registered Notice dated 15.12.2020, Ex.A.4 is Postal Acknowledgment dated 16.12.2020. One of the Attestor of Exs.A.1 and A.2 is examined as P.W.2. But at the time of cross examination, the counsel for the plaintiff eschewed his evidence. On behalf of defendant, he himself examined as D.W.1, no documents are marked on his behalf. 

6.Heard. Perused the material on record.

ISSUE No.1 and 2:­

7.It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she has lent a sum of Rs.10,000/­ to the defendant on 03.01.2018 by obtaining one demand promissory note. Again on 13.01.2018, the defendant obtained loan amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed another promissory note. In spite of the time, the defendant failed to repay the loan. 

8.The defendant defence is mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the defendant borrowed only Rs.10,000/­ in the year 2015 by executing 2 blank promissory notes which were obtained by plaintiff towards security. Secondly, in the year 2018 the defendant paid Rs.10,000/­ with interest, but at that time the plaintiff did not return the promissory notes by stating that the defendant has to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/­ excess. The defendant contention is that by misusing those promissory notes filed this false suit. 

9.To prove her case, the plaintiff examined as PW.1. In her cross examination by the defendant, She stated that the date column and amount column was filled up by the defendant in two promissory notes and rest of the contents filled up by one Phani

Kumar. She stated that since the defendant does not know about filing up the 4 OS No.70 of 2021 promissory note, so that the defendant brought the scribe. She denied the suggestion that she obtained blank promissory notes from the defendant. She stated that after execution of two promissory notes, she also gave Rs.5,000/­ to the defendant at his request, but there was no separate promissory note was executed. She stated that the defendant asked her for Rs.5,000/­ as hand loan and stated to her he will give within two days, for her remembrance only she mention Rs.5,000/­ in Ex.A.2 adjacent to

Rs.20,000/­. She says that she is not claiming Rs.5,000/­ in this suit. She stated that she did not mention in Ex.A.3 about borrowal of Rs.5,000/­. 

10.It is settled principle of law that in a suit for recovery of money on the strength of a promissory note, initial burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant had executed such a promissory note. Once that initial burden of proof is discharged, the burden shifts on to the defendant to prove his contention. In the evidence of P.W.1, she categorically stated that the defendant had borrowed

Rs.10,000/­ and Rs.20,000/­, total amount of Rs.30,000/­ under suit promissory notes.

From the cross­examination of PW.1, the defendant did not impeach anything by preponderance of probabilities to disbelieve the version of plaintiff with regard to passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and A2. From the evidence of PW.1 coupled with

Ex.A1 and A2 the very execution of promissory notes for Rs.10,000/­ and Rs.20,000/­ have been proved.Further more, the defendant indirectly admitting his signatures on promissory notes by saying that he allegedly issued two blank promissory notes. This admission discharges the initial burden of proof cast on the plaintiff. Now the burden shifts on the defendant. 

11.To discharge his burden, the defendant himself examined as DW.1. In his cross examination, he admitted that he usually put his signature in English language. He admitted in his written statement and also in his chief affidavit, he did not dispute about the dates mentioned in promissory notes and also amount mentioned in those 5 OS No.70 of 2021 notes. He admitted that the plaintiff is his close relative. He admitted that he did not issue any legal notice nor file any complaint with regard to non return of alleged promissory notes executed by him. He admitted that even he did not obtain any receipts for payment of alleged amount by him. He admitted that he did not issue any reply.

12.It is the plea of defendant that he discharged amount of Rs.10,000/­ in the year 2018. But, a perusal of written­statement or chief affidavit of defendant, there is no date and month when the defendant pay back the alleged amount. That apart, a perusal of evidence of defendant side, it can be discernible that there is no proof to show that the defendant discharged the amount of Rs.10,000/­ or this suit amount. He admitted that even he did not obtain any receipt to the alleged payment. Now, the defendant seek to discharge his burden of proof on his mere oral evidence and denial in his cross­examination, which is insufficient, could not bring any material on record to prove his case that he borrowed only Rs.10,000/­ from the plaintiff and he discharged the same.

13.The defendant had also taken a subsidiary plea that in the second promissory note dt.13.01.2018 an amount of Rs.5,000/­ added adjacent to amount column, and the plaintiff did not mention it in her legal notice or in the plaint, therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of Ex.A2, it indicates that adjacent to the number amount column, i.e. adjacent to the numbers 20,000/­, it was mentioned “+5000/­”.

Ex.A2 is also indicates that in words column it clearly mentioned as 20,000 in words. It is a general rule that when there is ambiguity, words will prevail over numbers. But in the present case, there is no such ambiguity, as the plaintiff cleared it. PW.1 stated in her cross­examination that after borrowing amount under Ex.A1 and A2, the defendant again asked for hand loan of Rs.5,000/­, she gave it and for her remember she mentioned in the promissory note. This explanation of plaintiff repelled the contention 6 OS No.70 of 2021 of the defendant. Hence, this court does not find any force in the defence put­forth by the defendant. In these circumstances, in this court view, the defendant failed in rebutting the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, and also by preponderance of probabilities failed to discharge his burden. Hence, it can be said that the promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant, and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed for. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3 :­

In the result, the Suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.51,266/­ (Rs.17,133/­ + 34,133/­) with subsequent interest at 12% P.A., on the principal amount of Rs.30,000/­ (Rs.10,000/­ + 20,000/­) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereon at 6% P.A., from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the day of 19 th day of April, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:

PW.1:P.Lakshmi

PW.2: V.Sambasiva Rao (Eschewed)

For Defendant:

DW.1: R.Srinivasa Rao 

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff: Ex.A.1 : Promissory note dated 03.01.2018

Ex.A.2 : Promissory note dated 13.01.2018

Ex.A.3 : Office Copy of Registered Notice dated 15.12.2020 

Ex.A.4 : Postal Acknowledgment dated 16.12.2020

For Defendant: ­NiL­ Sd/Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar., Prl. Junior Civil Judge ­cum­ Judicial First Class Magistrate, //True copy// PJCJ,GD Gudivada..

7 OS No.70 of 2021

1

C.C.No.853 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GUDIVADA

Present:- Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Monday, this the 26th day of July, 2021

C.C.No. 853 of 2020

State Represented by Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Gudivada ….Complainant

Vs.

Muddineni Ashok Kumar, S/o Prasada Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o Pamarru village and Mandal

..... Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri

P.V.Raju, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Gudivada filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.76/2019 for the offence punishable under sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a) On 24.12.2019 L.W.1/Smt. N.Lakshmikanthamma, P & E. Sub

Inspector and LW.2/Sri V.V.S.S.Satyanarayana, P & E.C. along with staff while patrolling for detection of Proh. & Excise offences in Pamarru Mandal, when they reached near vegetable market on the way to Challapalli in Pamarru village at 05.00 A.M., found one person holding one mica bag in his right hand.

On seeing them, he perturbed. On suspicion, LW.1 caught hold him and on

2

C.C.No.853 of 2020 questioning, he confessed that the bag contained liquor bottles. Then LW.1 sent LW.2 to secure mediators, after some time, LW.2 returned and informed that none come forward to act as mediators. Then LW.1 got opened the bag and found 1) Officer’s Choice Supreme Whisky 180 ml 3 Nips, 2) ACP Prestige

Deluxe Whisky 180 ml 02 Nips and the same were as Duty Paid liquor. The accused stated that he purchased the liquour bottles from unknown person to sell the same for higher price and also stated that he has no license, bill or permit. Then LW.1 issued notice to the accused under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., seized the 05 Nips, drawn one sample from the contraband for chemical analysis, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by LWs.1 and 2 under the cover of special report. L.W.1 registered the special report as FIR in Crime

No.76 of 2019 under Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, L.W.1 sent the samples along with letter of advice for chemical analysis. She received proceedings of Deputy

Commissioner, Proh. & Excise, Vijayawada with a direction to confiscation of contraband. After completion of investigation L.W.1 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this court for the offence U/sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and accused was examined U/Sec.239

Cr.P.C. for the allegations levelled against him from the charge sheet contents, for which he denied. Charge framed for the offence under Section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

C.C.No.853 of 2020

5. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P6 and

M.Os.1 and 2 are were got marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.2/Sri V.V.S.S.Satyanarayana. Consequently prosecution side evidence is closed.

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

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to him. He has denied the entire evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for determination is __

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond

all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act?

9.POINT:- To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.W.1.

P.W.1 is the Investigating Officer in this case, she reiterated the charge sheet contents in her chief examination, further deposed that when she caught hold the accused at the crime scene, she tried to secure mediators, but the persons who gathered at that place were refused to act as mediators. P.W.1 further deposed that she sent LW.2/V.V.S.S.Satyanarayana to secure mediators, but in vain. P.W.1 verified the bag and found the contraband and seized. P.W.1 drawn one Nip from each brand, and prepared a Special Report/Ex.P1 at the spot.

Thereafter, she registered a case as in Ex.P2/FIR. P.W.1 released the accused after obtaining sufficient sureties. P.W.1 sent sample bottle along with letter of

Advice/Ex.P3 to Chemical Laboratory. Ex.P6 is the Chemical Analysis report.

P.W.1 received the proceedings/Ex.P4 from Dy. Commissioner with a direction to confiscation the seized property, she destroyed the same under

Ex.P5/destruction proceedings. M.Os.1 and 2 are the sample bottle. After completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet.

4

C.C.No.853 of 2020

10.P.W.1 admitted in her cross-examination that the crime scene is busy locality. P.W.1 further admitted that L.W.2 did not inform her about the persons who contacted by him to act as mediators. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not issue any notices to any person with a request to act as mediators. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not mention in Ex.P1 how much amount was selling the contraband by the accused. Here, simple statement made by the

P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. It is expected from the

P.W.1 that she should put forth reasonable grounds and the attempts made by her to secure mediators. If anybody refuses to act as mediators, the officials can initiate proceedings against those persons under Sec.187 of IPC, as contemplated under Sec.100(8) of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, P.W.1 did not take action against any person. Except the evidence of P.W.1, no other person was examined to fortify her contention.

11.Admittedly crime scene is a busy area, if the P.W.1 really tried to secure mediators, definitely she may success. In a case between Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in S.Babu Sahed @ Babu vs. The State of A.P. 2009 LawSuit(AP) 258 held that

[16] xxx 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 mediato Rs. 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

5

C.C.No.853 of 2020

of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but

sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

12. In another case reported between A. Rambabu @ Ramu vs. State of

A.P. 2014 LawSuit(AP) 69 held that

Whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of a police

official, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of

that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available

and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police official is

almost removed, that the Court can rest its conclusions on the

evidence of the police officials.

Based on the above discussion and observation made by Hon’ble High

Court, it can be said that if the Investigating Officer failed to secure mediators though there was a chance to secure mediators, in this Court view that prosecution failed to prove its case. In this case, P.W.1 sent the sample/M.O.1 to the Laboratory and received Ex.P6/Chemical analysis report, it reveals that the sample was Indian Made Liquour. Therefore, it can be said that except proving the seizure bottle as a liquor, nothing proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that such contraband was seized from the possession of this accused. Therefore, prosecution is failed.

In the result, this Court find the Accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 and 2 Vide C.P.R No.143/2020 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of July, 2021.

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Gudivada

6

C.C.No.853 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1: Smt. N.Lakshmikanthamma - None

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Special Report

Ex.P.2: FIR

Ex.P.3: Letter of Advice.

Ex.P.4: Confiscation Proceedings.

Ex.P.5: Destruction Proceedings.

Ex.P.6: Chemial Analysis report.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 : Sample bottle of Officer’s Choice Supreme Whisky 180 ml

M.O.2 : Sample bottle of ACP Prestige Deluxe Whisky 180 ml

A.J.F.C.M

Gdv

7

C.C.No.853 of 2020

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE; GUDIVADA

C.C.No.853 OF 2020

Date of

OffenceComplaintNotice served toCommencemClose ofSentence or the accused u/sent of trialtrialorder 41(A) Cr.P.C. 24.12.1924.12.201924.12.201909.03.202109.03.202126.07.2021

Between:

State Represented by Proh. & Excise Sub Inspector, Gudivada ….Complainant

Vs.

Muddineni Ashok Kumar, S/o Prasada Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o Pamarru village and Mandal

..... Accused

Offence: Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding:“FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE In the result, this Court find the Accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.Os.1 and 2 Vide C.P.R No.143/2020 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 03.10.2020. On 27.11.2020 on appearance of accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 08.03.2021 Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed against accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 09.03.2021 on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 is examined and Exs.P1 to P6, M.Os.1 and 2 are marked. Prosecution evidence is completed. On 17.03.2021 Accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. On 23.07.2021 Heard arguments on both the sides. On 26.07.2021 Judgment pronounced in open Court. Hence, the delay.

Copy submitted to: Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Gudivada.

Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1 C.C.No.274/2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, GUDIVADA

PRESENT: Sri.Ch.Kishore Kumar, Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl First Class Magistrate, Gudivada

THURSDAY, THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL, 2023

C.C.No.274 of 2021 Between: State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedaparupudi Police Station ….Complainant

Vs.

Vintha Lakshma Reddy @ Lakshmana Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, 45 Years, Reddy, Veerapanenigudem Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Driver of Eicher Van AP 07 ED 1137

... Accused

This case coming on today for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri P.Eswara Rao, Learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pedaparupudi Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.120/2020 for the offence punishable under Secs.338, 337 of

Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a) On 12.12.2020 at 02.00 hours, L.W.1 along with his mother/Parvathi proceeded to Jayanthi Village of Veerulapadu Mandal to pay their condolences in respect of death of their relative and returned on 13.12.2020 at 11.00 hours on his motor cycle along with his mother and nephew Karthik, when they reached near

Vanapamula Village, the driver of Eicher Van bearing No. AP 16 TD 1137 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, tried to avert the blow of a buffalo, dashed against the motor cycle of LW.1, he along with his mother and nephew fell down. His mother received cut injury on her right elbow and abrasion on waist and unable to walk, his nephew received fracture to left leg below knee.

2 C.C.No.274/2021

LW.1 received bleeding injury on the back side of head. The neighbours telephoned to 108 ambulance and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Gudivada. Basing on their statements, L.W.9/ASI of Pedaparupudi P.S registered the same as case in

Crime No.120/2020 U/Sec.338 and took up investigation.

(b) During the course of investigation, on 13.12.2020 at 20.00 hours L.W.9 received hospital intimation and statements of injured, visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch, drafted scene observation report. Further investigation done by L.W.10/S.I, he forwarded a requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle.

LW.10 served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After receipt of wound certificates of injured, L.W.10/S.I filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this court for the offence U/Secs.337, 338 of I.P.C against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the accussation levelled against him from the charge sheet contents, for which he denied. The accused pleaded not guilty for the offence u/Sections-337, 338 of I.P.C and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P.8 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of L.W.4/J.Sanjeeva Rao,

L.W.6/Y.Sateesh, L.W.7/VSVSR Naidu, L.W.8/Dr Vidyadhari, L.W.10, V.Rajendra

Prasad, L.W.11/K.Durga Prasada Rao. Consequently prosecution side evidence is closed.

6. After closer of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to him. He denied the entire evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

3 C.C.No.274/2021

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel

for accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Secs. 337, 338 of I.P.C ?

POINT :-

9.In the present case on hand, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and injured, P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1/injured, P.Ws.3 and 4 are eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.5 is the Investigating officer in this case. P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that he does not know the accused. At about 3 years back he got accident at Vanapamula and himself and L.W.2/his mother received injuries. He cannot say manner of accident and also who caused the accident. He admitted that the signature on a statement belongs to him, on that day police obtained his signature on a written paper and he signed without knowing its contents. Ex.P.1 is his signature.

10.P.W.2 is also another injured witness has deposed that she does not know anything about the case, police never examined her and recorded her statement.

PW.3 and 4 are alleged eye witnesses to the incident, they categorically deposed that they do not know about this incident, and they never examined by the police. PW.1 to 4 declared as hostile witnesses, in their cross examination nothing was elicited against their version and their Sec-161 CrPC statements are became Ex.P2 to P5.

11.The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.5. He deposed that on 13.12.2020 at about 8.00 P.M, he received hospital intimation/Ex.P6 along with statement of P.W.1 from Gudivada Hospital. Basing on that, he registered a case as in Ex.P7/FIR.. He visited to Government Hospital, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Immediately, he rushed to the crime scene and prepared rough sketch/ExP8. He gave requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector with a request to 4 C.C.No.274/2021 inspect the crime vehicle and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused, after receipt of wound certificate and MVI Report, they filed charge sheet against accused. In his cross examination, he admitted that till completion of his investigation, they do not know that this accused was rider of crime vehicle. He denied the suggestion that they filed charge sheet mechanically.

12.In this case, P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the defacto complainant/injured did not support the case of prosecution and Pws.3 and 4 who are the alleged eye witnesses of incident also did not support. The learned A.P.P declared P.Ws.1 to 4 as hostile witnesses and cross examined them and did not elicit anything from their evidence against the accused except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements. The evidence of

P.W.5/Investigating officer shows that after receipt of hospital intimation, he registered a crime in this case, except that there is no evidence to prove that this accused was rider of the crime vehicle at relevant point of time, and he drove the same in a rash or negligent manner and caused the accident.

13.To prove the guilt of the accused U/Secs-337 or 338 of I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove the culpable act of rash or negligent manner on the part of the accused apart from establishing his identity. The material on record is not sufficient to link the accused with the prosecution case. In this case no witness deposed that this accused was the culprit. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.337, 338 of IPC.

In the result, this Court find accused is not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs-337.338 of I.P.C, accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Ch.Kishore Kumar,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada 5 C.C.No.274/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1: Ch.Suneel None

PW.2: Ch.Parvathi

PW.3: M.Ravi Kumar

PW.4: V.David Raju

PW.5: B.Durga Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on Report

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4

Ex.P.6: Hospital Intimation

Ex.P.7: FIR

Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-Ch.Kishore Kumar,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate Gudivada 6 C.C.No.274/2021

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, GUDIVADA

C.C.No.274 OF 2021 Date of

OffenceComplaintNotice served toCommencemeClose of trialSentence or ord the accused u/snt of trial 41(A) Cr.P.C. 13.12.202015.07.202213.12.202029.03.202313.04.202320.04.2023

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedaparupudi Police Station ….Complainant

Vs.

Vintha Lakshma Reddy @ Lakshmana Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, 45 Years, Reddy, Veerapanenigudem Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Driver of Eicher Van AP 07 ED 1137

... Accused

Offence: 337, 338 of I.P.C

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding: “FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE In the result, this Court find accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs-337, 338 of I.P.C, accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, shall be in force for six months.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 25.05.2021. On 02.09.2021 on appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 27.10.2021 Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, for the offence under Sections-337, 338 of I.P.C, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 29.03.2023 to 13.04.2023 on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.8 were marked. On 19.04.2023, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. On 20.04.2023 heard arguments on both the sides and on the same day Judgment pronounced in open Court.

Copy submitted to: Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Judge, Machilipatnam. Gudivada..

7 C.C.No.274/2021

1 C.C.No.274/2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, GUDIVADA

PRESENT: Sri.Ch.Kishore Kumar, Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl First Class Magistrate, Gudivada

THURSDAY, THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL, 2023

C.C.No.274 of 2021 Between: State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedaparupudi Police Station ….Complainant

Vs.

Vintha Lakshma Reddy @ Lakshmana Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, 45 Years, Reddy, Veerapanenigudem Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Driver of Eicher Van AP 07 ED 1137

... Accused

This case coming on today for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri P.Eswara Rao, Learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pedaparupudi Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.120/2020 for the offence punishable under Secs.338, 337 of

Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

(a) On 12.12.2020 at 02.00 hours, L.W.1 along with his mother/Parvathi proceeded to Jayanthi Village of Veerulapadu Mandal to pay their condolences in respect of death of their relative and returned on 13.12.2020 at 11.00 hours on his motor cycle along with his mother and nephew Karthik, when they reached near

Vanapamula Village, the driver of Eicher Van bearing No. AP 16 TD 1137 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, tried to avert the blow of a buffalo, dashed against the motor cycle of LW.1, he along with his mother and nephew fell down. His mother received cut injury on her right elbow and abrasion on waist and unable to walk, his nephew received fracture to left leg below knee.

2 C.C.No.274/2021

LW.1 received bleeding injury on the back side of head. The neighbours telephoned to 108 ambulance and they were shifted to Government Hospital, Gudivada. Basing on their statements, L.W.9/ASI of Pedaparupudi P.S registered the same as case in

Crime No.120/2020 U/Sec.338 and took up investigation.

(b) During the course of investigation, on 13.12.2020 at 20.00 hours L.W.9 received hospital intimation and statements of injured, visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch, drafted scene observation report. Further investigation done by L.W.10/S.I, he forwarded a requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle.

LW.10 served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After receipt of wound certificates of injured, L.W.10/S.I filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case was taken cognizance by this court for the offence U/Secs.337, 338 of I.P.C against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the accussation levelled against him from the charge sheet contents, for which he denied. The accused pleaded not guilty for the offence u/Sections-337, 338 of I.P.C and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P1 to P.8 were got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of L.W.4/J.Sanjeeva Rao,

L.W.6/Y.Sateesh, L.W.7/VSVSR Naidu, L.W.8/Dr Vidyadhari, L.W.10, V.Rajendra

Prasad, L.W.11/K.Durga Prasada Rao. Consequently prosecution side evidence is closed.

6. After closer of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material was put to him. He denied the entire evidence against him and reported no defence evidence.

3 C.C.No.274/2021

7. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel

for accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Secs. 337, 338 of I.P.C ?

POINT :-

9.In the present case on hand, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and injured, P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1/injured, P.Ws.3 and 4 are eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.5 is the Investigating officer in this case. P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that he does not know the accused. At about 3 years back he got accident at Vanapamula and himself and L.W.2/his mother received injuries. He cannot say manner of accident and also who caused the accident. He admitted that the signature on a statement belongs to him, on that day police obtained his signature on a written paper and he signed without knowing its contents. Ex.P.1 is his signature.

10.P.W.2 is also another injured witness has deposed that she does not know anything about the case, police never examined her and recorded her statement.

PW.3 and 4 are alleged eye witnesses to the incident, they categorically deposed that they do not know about this incident, and they never examined by the police. PW.1 to 4 declared as hostile witnesses, in their cross examination nothing was elicited against their version and their Sec-161 CrPC statements are became Ex.P2 to P5.

11.The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.5. He deposed that on 13.12.2020 at about 8.00 P.M, he received hospital intimation/Ex.P6 along with statement of P.W.1 from Gudivada Hospital. Basing on that, he registered a case as in Ex.P7/FIR.. He visited to Government Hospital, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Immediately, he rushed to the crime scene and prepared rough sketch/ExP8. He gave requisition to Motor Vehicle Inspector with a request to 4 C.C.No.274/2021 inspect the crime vehicle and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused, after receipt of wound certificate and MVI Report, they filed charge sheet against accused. In his cross examination, he admitted that till completion of his investigation, they do not know that this accused was rider of crime vehicle. He denied the suggestion that they filed charge sheet mechanically.

12.In this case, P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the defacto complainant/injured did not support the case of prosecution and Pws.3 and 4 who are the alleged eye witnesses of incident also did not support. The learned A.P.P declared P.Ws.1 to 4 as hostile witnesses and cross examined them and did not elicit anything from their evidence against the accused except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements. The evidence of

P.W.5/Investigating officer shows that after receipt of hospital intimation, he registered a crime in this case, except that there is no evidence to prove that this accused was rider of the crime vehicle at relevant point of time, and he drove the same in a rash or negligent manner and caused the accident.

13.To prove the guilt of the accused U/Secs-337 or 338 of I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove the culpable act of rash or negligent manner on the part of the accused apart from establishing his identity. The material on record is not sufficient to link the accused with the prosecution case. In this case no witness deposed that this accused was the culprit. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/Sec.337, 338 of IPC.

In the result, this Court find accused is not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs-337.338 of I.P.C, accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, shall be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-Ch.Kishore Kumar,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada 5 C.C.No.274/2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1: Ch.Suneel None

PW.2: Ch.Parvathi

PW.3: M.Ravi Kumar

PW.4: V.David Raju

PW.5: B.Durga Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on Report

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4

Ex.P.6: Hospital Intimation

Ex.P.7: FIR

Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-Ch.Kishore Kumar,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate Gudivada 6 C.C.No.274/2021

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE, GUDIVADA

C.C.No.274 OF 2021 Date of

OffenceComplaintNotice served toCommencemeClose of trialSentence or ord the accused u/snt of trial 41(A) Cr.P.C. 13.12.202015.07.202213.12.202029.03.202313.04.202320.04.2023

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedaparupudi Police Station ….Complainant

Vs.

Vintha Lakshma Reddy @ Lakshmana Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, 45 Years, Reddy, Veerapanenigudem Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Driver of Eicher Van AP 07 ED 1137

... Accused

Offence: 337, 338 of I.P.C

Pleading:”Pleaded Not Guilty”

Finding: “FOUND NOT GUILTY”

SENTENCE In the result, this Court find accused is not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs-337, 338 of I.P.C, accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, shall be in force for six months.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This case was taken on file on 25.05.2021. On 02.09.2021 on appearance of accused, the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 27.10.2021 Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, for the offence under Sections-337, 338 of I.P.C, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 29.03.2023 to 13.04.2023 on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.8 were marked. On 19.04.2023, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. On 20.04.2023 heard arguments on both the sides and on the same day Judgment pronounced in open Court.

Copy submitted to: Prl.Junior Civil Judge cum The Hon’ble I Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Judge, Machilipatnam. Gudivada..

7 C.C.No.274/2021