D. Pavani

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Present: Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu

Friday, the 20 th Day of June, 2025.

Calendar Case No.580 of 2022

Between:-

State Represented Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Ananthapuramu.…Complainant. AND

1. Gujjala Maruthi Prasad, age 35 years, S/o. G.Sreenivasulu, R/o. Papampeta Village, Ananthapuramu Rural.

2. B.Sreenivasulu, age 35 years, S/o.B.Linganna, R/o. Old Town, Ananthapuramu.…Accused 1 & 2

This case came before me on 20.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri A.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for accused 1 & 2 and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The State represented by Enforcement Bureau, Ananthapuramu, filed charge sheet against the accused 1 & 2 in Cr.No.113/2020 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act.

2)The case of the prosecution is that on 23.05.2020 at about 6.30AM, as per the instructions of Proh. & Excise Insepctor, Ananthapuramu, during the raids condcuted by the LW.5 along with staff and LW.1 & 2 raided at Under NH44 Bridge,

Near Anna Canteen on the way of Ananthapuramu to Bellary bus road in

Ananthapuramu town and found the accused persons engaged in Blue Colour Hero

Honda Splendor Plus two wheeler motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP02-AE-6724 in a

2 possessionof one whtie polythene bag, on seeing them, accused dropped the two wheeler vehicle and tried to escape. Then the LW.5 surrounded the A1 with the help of staff and A2 was ran away. Then the LW.5 verified the white polythene bag in the presence of LW.1 & 2 and found 04 (750ml) Mansion House XO Brandy and 03 (180ml) Mansion HOuse XO Brandy for sale in Telangana only. On enquiry A1 disclosed about the liquor bottles, that he brought liquor bottles from Telangana

State with the help of A2 who ran away and also he revealed his identity particulars, then he seized the reamaining the property, vehicle Blue colour Hero Honda

Splendor plus two wheeler motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP02-AE-6724 and arrested

A1 under the cover of Panchanama. LW.5 registered a case in Cr.No.113/2020,

U/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act of SEB Station, Ananthapuramu and issuing 41-A

Cr.P.C. Notice to accused(A1).

During the course of further investigation in this case on 25.05.2020 at about 11.30AM, LW.5 along with their staff rushed to D.No.16/614, Umanagar, Old Town,

Ananthapuramu and arrested the accused(A2) and he was released on self bail after issuing 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to accused(A2). LW.5 drawn sample from one bottle and sent for chemical analysis Report to Chemical Examiner, Govt., Regional

Excise Laboratory, Chittoor, vide C.E.No.810/2020, dated 10.07.2020, in

S.No's.10717 & 10718 and he opined that “The sample is Indian Made Liquor”.

The contraband which was seized and destroyed as per orders vide

Rc.No.518/2020/B1, dated 20.08.2020. After completion of investigation LW.6 filed

charge sheet in this case.

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

3

4)On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to them as required u/s.207 Cr.PC.

5) On 03.09.2024accused 1 & 2 were examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them in the charge sheet, for which, they denied. Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against accused for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act. Charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu language. For which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6)In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6, on behalf of the prosecution and on the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

7)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 20.06.2025, accused 1 & 2 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8)Heard arguments of prosecution and defence. Perused the entire record.

9)The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 & 2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act and that without having any license, the accused was in possession of the liquor bottles which were seized by PW.4, that no inconsistent statement was made by PW.4 and as such the accused 1 & 2 are liable to be convicted for the offence U/s.34 (a) of AP Excise Act.

4

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused 1 & 2 are that the accused were falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose and nothing else and the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11)Now the point arose for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused 1 & 2 for the

offence punishable U/Secs.34 (a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable

doubt”?

12)POINT:-

i)P.W.1 & 2 deposed that, who are mediators, they do not know anything facts of the case, at about 4 years ago, they have been police station on their personal work, Police obtained their signatures on some written papers, the signatures are marked as Ex.P1 & P2.

ii). PW.3-B.Prema Aran Jyothi, Police Constable, deposed that on 23.05.2020 at about 6.30AM, as per the instrucions of Proh. & Exicse Inspector herself Pws 1 & 2 Lws 4 & 5 proceeded to Anna Canteen Situated between Ananthapur to Bellary bus road under NH-44 bridge at 6.30AM. They found two persons stanidng by parking two wheeler, on seeing them in uniform, they tried to skulk away, with the assistance of staff LW.5 caught hold of one accused and other flee away. The persons whom they caught voluntarily recealed his identity particulrs in the presence of PW.1 & 2 and the reasons for his escape, he voluntarily revealed that his name as G.Maruthi Prasad/Accused(A1) and also revealed identity of other persons who flee away from the spot is B.Sreenivasulu(A2). On further enquiry he confessed that he is having possession of liquor bottles which were kept side bag of his vehicle. LW.5 verified the vehicle and found 04 Mansion House XO Brandy 5 each 750ml and 3 Nips of mansion House XO Brandy (NDPL) each 180 ml which is written as sale in Telangana. LW.5 veriifed the motorcycle of A1 bearing

Reg.No.AP02-AE-6724. On further enquiry A1 confessed that A2 supplied the liquor bottles. LW.5 drawn one sample from each variety duly sealed and labelled with signed slips, seized the propety arrested the accused of informing the grounds of arrest to him and his family under the cover of Panchayathinama, Ex.P3 is

Panchayathinama which was marked as Ex.P1 on dictation of LW.5 she scribed

Ex.P3. Later they brought the accused along with seized the propety to excise station.

iii). PW.2-K.Nagaraju ,(Retried), deposed that on 23.05.2020 at about 6.30AM, as per the instrucions of Proh. &Exicse Inspector himself Pws 1 to 3, Lws 4 proceeded to Anna Canteen Situated between Ananthapur to Bellary bus road under NH-44 bridge at 6.30AM. They found two persons stanidng by parking two wheeler, on seeing them in uniform, they tried to skulk away, with the assistance of staff he caught hold of one accused and other flee away. The persons whom we caught voluntarily revealed his identity particulars in the presence of PW.1 & 2 and the reasons for his escape, he voluntarily revealed that his name as G.Maruthi

Prasad/Accused(A1) and also revealed identity of other persons who flee away from the spot is B.Sreenivasulu(A2). On further enquiry he confessed that he is having possession of liquor bottles which were kept side bag of his vehicle. He verified the vehicle and found 04 Mansion House XO Brandy each 750ml and 3

Nips of mansion House XO Brandy (NDPL) each 180 ml which is written as sale in

Telangana. He veriifed the motorcycle of A1 bearing Reg.No.AP02-AE-6724. On 6 further enquiry A1 confessed that A2 supplied the liquor bottles. He drawn one sample from each variety duly sealed and labelled with signed slips, seized the propety arrested the accused of informing the grounds of arrest to him and his family under the cover of Ex.P3 upon my dictation of PW.3 scribed Ex.P3. Later they brought the accused along with seized the propety to excise station.

Basing on Ex.P1, he registered a casein Cr.No.113/2020, U/sec.34 (a) of

A.P.Excise Act. On the same day he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused.Ex.P4 is

FIR. On the same day he forwarded the samples chemical examiner, Chittoor under letter of advice, Ex.P5 is letter of advice, On 25.05.2020 he arrested A2 at his house and after completing legal formalities he issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused (A2). Later he handed over to CD file to LW.6 for further investigation. He verified investigation done by me and found it on correct lines and after receipt of analyisis report. LW.6 filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P6 is Analasis

Report.

13)To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused is in possession of 04 Mansion House XO Brandy each 750ml and 3 Nips of mansion House XO

Brandy (NDPL) each 180 ml bottles for selling.

14)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, it is necessary to have a look at section 42 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 which deals with regard to the presumption as to the commission of the offence in certain cases. The said Section reads as follows; 7 “Sec.42 : Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:-

In prosecutions U/s.34, [Sec.37 and 37-A], it shall be

presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the

accused person has committed the offence punishable

under that section in respect of -

(a) any intoxicant, or

(b) any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever

in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy, or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process

towards the manufacture of an for the possession of

which he is unable to account satisfactorily”.

The above said section would make it clear that there is shall presumption stood in favour of the prosecution for the offences U/s.34, 37, 37-A, which mandates that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, any utensil, implement or apparatus in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy or any materials which have undergone any process to the manufacture of an intoxicant and from which intoxicant has been manufactured when the accused is unable to account satisfactorily. To avail the said presumption, it is initially for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of liquor bottles. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 4.

15) On reading of the testimony of P.W.4, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by him with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of P.W.4 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.6 and as such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden and as such, the prosecution is entitled to the presumption under Section 42 of the A.P. Excise Act.

8

16) The burden of rebutting the presumption by the accused is not as high as that of the burden of proving the case by the prosecution. If the accused succeeds in placing positive evidence, the presumption will be disappeared and again the prosecution is not entitled to the said presumption and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17) Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section Sec.100 of

Cr.P.C, 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 willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating

Officer.

18)In the present case P.W.1 and 2 who are the mediators deposed that the police did not arrest the accused and did not seize the contraband in their presence. The evidence of mediators creates a doubt in the mind of the court as to the very case of the prosecution and the same would be sufficient to rebut the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution and as such the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution. Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of P.W4 is silent as to from which shop the accused person purchased the liquor bottles and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Admittedly no identity slips 9 were affixed on the seized property and no explanation has been offered to that effect. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution with regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused persons creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the prosecution.

19) At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.

P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,Vizianagaram

Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

20) In the result, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case propery shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

10

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : B.Jayaramulu Nil PW2 : U.Obulesu PW3 : B.Prema Aran Jyothi PW4 : K.Nagaraju

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on Mahazarnama. Ex.P2 : Signature of PW.2 on Mahazarnama. Ex.P3 : Panchayathinama. Ex.P4 : First information Report Ex.P5 : Letter of Advice Ex.P6 : Analysis Report

Exhibits marked for Delfence:Nil

Mos marked on behalf of Prosecution :NIL

I/d-D.P., Spl. J.M.F.C P&E/ATP.

//True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU.

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence OffenceComplaintof accused on bailment of trialtrialOrder 23.5.202023.5.202023.5.202023.05.20205.6.202519.6.202520.6.2025

Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.580/2023 on the file of Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The SEB Station, Ananthapuramu.

Crime No: 113/2020

Father's or Name of the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Husband’s Name Accused

Papampeta G.Maruthi Prasad35 yrsG.SreenivasuluHindu---Anantapur village

Papampeta B.Sreenivasulu35 yrsB.LingannaHindu---Anantapur village Offence: U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excsie Act. Finding: Accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case propery shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu Dis. No. Dt.

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Present: Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Friday, the 20 th Day of June, 2025

Calendar Case No.1457 of 2022

Between:-

Station House Officer. Special Enforcement Bureau,

Singanamala....Complainant.

AND

Moode Devi Bai, W/o.M.Ramudu Naik, R/o.Nagulaguddam Thanda Village,

Singanamala Mandal. ...Accused

This case came before me on 20.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri.B.Sanjay, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The State represented by Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement

Bureau, B.K.Samudram filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.138/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

2)The case of the prosecution is that on 18.09.2020 at about 5.40PM, during the raids conducted by CI, SEB, Singanamala & LW.5 along with staff and mediators raided at Nagulaguddam Thanda Cross, between Singanamala to

Garladinne bus road, Nagulaguddam Thanda of Singanamala Mandal and found one female person was in possession of ID liquor in one white plastic bag kept infront of her and holding on her hand. On observing them in uniform the accsued tried to flee away from the spot, she revealed the bag and ran away from the scene 2 of offence. On enquiry village mediators revealed the identity particulars of ran away female person. LW.5 verified the plastic bag and found it contain 05 liters of

ID liquor packet and seized the property under the cover of Panchayathnama. LW.5 registered a case in Cr.No.138/2020, U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act - 2020, of Specia Enforcement Bureau, Signamala,

Further, on 02.11.2020 on credible inforamtion during raids conducted by the

CI SEB, Singanamala and Lw.5 along with staff and mediators reached at

Nagulaguddam Thanda, Signamala Mandal and proceeded to Moode Devi Bai house and found the above person who was involved in Cr.No.138/2020 on seeing them she tried to escape, they detained her with the help of staff. LW.5 arrested the accsued and sent to judicial custody. LW.5 drawn sample from one bottle and sent for chemical analysis Report to Chemical Examiner, Govt., Regional Excise

Laboratory, Chittoor, vide C.E.No.1519/2020, in S.No.20484, dated 20.10.2020.

During the course of investigation, the property which was seized was destroyed by orders RC.No.123/SEB-SNML/2021, dated 15.04.2021. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act.

4)On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to her as required U/s.207 Cr.PC.

5) On 13.07.2023, accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied. Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against 3 accused for the offence punishable U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act.

Charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6)In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 on behalf of the prosecution. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

7)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 20.06.2025, accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8)Heard arguments of prosecution and defence. Perused the entire record.

9)The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 4 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act and that the accused was in possession of 05 liters of ID liquor packet, which was seized by PW.4, that no inconsistent statement were made by PW.4 and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offenceU/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act.

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused was falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes and nothing else and the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11)Now the point arose for determination is:

4

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

punishable U/s. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable

doubt?

12)POINT:-

i)P.W.1 & 2 deposed that, who is mediators, at about three years ago the police obtained their signatures on some written papers in the police station. The signatures of PW.1 & 2 on the Mahazarnama, dated 18.09.2020 are marked as

Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 ii) PW.3: S.Venkatesh, Constable, deposed that on 18.09.2020 at about 5.40PM, during the raids conducted by SEB CI along LW5/G.Maruthi Prasad, SI of police, himself along with staff and mediators raided at Nagulaguddam Thanda

Cross, Singanamala Mandal and found one female person was in possession of ID

Liquor in his plastic bag kept in infront of her and holding on her hand, on obesrving in uniform on TATA sumo the accused tried flee away from the spot, she leaved the bag and ran away from the scene of offence. On enquiry, village mediators revealed the Identity particulars of ran away person. On search of bag they found 5 liters of

ID liquor from her possession. Then LW5 drawn one sample from the seized property under cover of Panchayathnama. on the dictation of LW.5 himself prepared Panchayathnama. LW.5 attested the arrest, seizure Panchayathnama.

Ex.P3 is Panchayathnama.

Further, on 02.11.2020 on credible information during the raids conducted by

CI, SEB Singanamala and Lw.5 along with staff and mediators reached at

Nagulaguddam Thanda. Singanamala and proceeded to Mood Devi Bai House and found the above person who was in involved Cr.No.138/2020 on seeing them she 5 tried to escape, they detained her with the help of staff, on enquired, she confessed the offence which is held on 18.09.2020 of SEB Singanamala and after informing the grounds of arrested the accused and send her to judicial custody.

iii) PW.4-G.Maruthi Prasad, Sub-Inspector, deposed that on 18.09.2020 at about 5.00PM, he along with staff conducted raids at Nagulagundam Thanda

Cross, Singanamala Mandal and found one female person having possession of ID liquor in plastic bag. on seeing them in uniform, she skulk away by leaving the bag on the spot. On his enquiry the village mediator revealed identity particulars of flee away person as Moode Devi Bai/Accused. On verifying the bag found 5 liters of ID liquor. He drawn one sample of 180ml for chemical analysis purpose and seized the sample as well as the reaminng ID liquor along with plastic bag under the cover of

Ex.P3. Later he went to SEB Station Singanamala along with contraband.

Basing on Ex.P3, he registered a case in Cr.No.138/2020, U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act. Submitted copies of FIR to the court concerned. Ex.P4 is FIR. On the same day he forwarded the samples chemical examiner Chittoor under letter of advice, Ex.P5 is letter of advice, On 02.11.2020 he arrested the infront of her house. After informing the grounds of arrest to her and her family members. On the same day he produced the accsued judicial remand. Later he handed over to CD file to LW.7 for further investigation. He verified investigation done by him and found it on correct lines and after receipt of analyisis report. LW.7 filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P6 is Analasis Report.

6

13)To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused is having possession of 5 liters of ID liquor.

13) On reading of the testimony of P.W.4, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by him with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of P.W.4 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P6 and as such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden and as such, the prosecution is entitled to the presumption under Section 42 of the A.P. Excise Act.

14) Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section Sec.100 of

Cr.P.C, 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 willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating

Officer.

15)In the present case P.W.1 & 2 who are the mediators deposed that the police did not arrest the accused and did not seize the contraband in their presence. The evidence of mediator creates a doubt in the mind of the court as to the very case of the prosecution and the same would be sufficient to rebut the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution and as such the accused has successfully rebutted the 7 presumption stood in favour of the prosecution. Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of

P.W.4 is silent as to from which shop the accused purchased the material to prepare ID liquor and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act. Admittedly no identity slips were affixed on the seized property and no explanation has been offered to that effect. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution with regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused person creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the prosecution. In this case except P.W.4 none witness deposed against accused.

17) At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.

P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram

Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition

Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

18) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7 (A)8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act and he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

8 Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

Sd/- Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : Anjaneyulu Naik Nil PW2 : M.Ramakrishna Naik PW3 : S.Venkatesh PW4 : G.Maruthi Prasad

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on Mahazarnama, dated 18.09.2020. Ex.P2 : Signature of PW.2 on Mahazarnama, dated 18.09.2020. Ex.P3 : Panchayathnama Ex.P4 : First information Report Ex.P5 : Letter of Advice Ex.P6 : Analysis Report

Exhibits marked for Delfence:Nil

MO's marked on behalf of Prosecution-NIL-

I/d-D.P., Spl. J.F.C.M, P & E.,/ATP //True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES,

ANANTAPURAMU.

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence OffenceComplaintof accused on bailment of trialtrialOrder 18.9.202018.9.20202.11.20206.11.202005.07.2024 19.6.2025 20.06.2025

Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.1457/2022 on the file of Special Judicial

First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Enforcement Inspector, B.K.Samudram SEB PS Crime No: 138/2020

Father's Name of the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name Accused

M.RamuduNagulaguddam M.Devi Bai --Hindu---Singanamala NaikThanda

Offence: U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of AP Excsie Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act and he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.PC. The unmakred case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu

Dis.No. dt.

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of Cases

under A.P. Proh. & Excise Act, Ananthapuramu

Present: Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 12 th day of December, 2025

Calendar Case No.660 of 2024

Between:-

State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu Rural Police Station.…Complainant

AND

1. P.Hemalatha, age 50 years, W/o.P.Narayana Reddy,

2. P.Narayana Reddy, age 57 years, S/o.P.Hanumappa,

Both are Residing at Native of D.No.3/30, Guruguntla Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, Now at D.No.15-143-9, Prashanthi Nagar Extension, Near Vedha Gayathri Temple, Bellary Road, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal. …Accused 1 & 2

This case came before me on 09.12.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for accused 1 & 2 and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, filed a Charge-Sheet against the accused 1 & 2 in Cr.No.74/2024 of Ananthapuramu Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the Charge-Sheet is that LW.1 arranges cloth for contract works for stiching uniform of Governemnt School & Hostel students to her known textile owner from Govt., of AP & Telangana states by her own expenses, later her collects her processs expenses and good will commission from the textile owners. On request of A1 & A2 (who are the owner of Hema

Textiles. LW.1 provided uniform cloth to A1 & A2 for Ananthapuram District BC

Hostel students uniform stitching work for 36,042 pairs of uniform stitching work @ 25% commission per each pair to LW.1, the said commission and the process expenses incurred by LW.1 total Rs.9,00,050/-. A1 & A2 promised that they will pay the rest of Rs.7,00,050/- after getting the bills amount and entered into an agreement, but A1 not paid balance there by A1 cheated LW.1, LW.1 so many times requested A1 & A2 again approached LW.1 told that there was school students uniforms stitching works is present at Telangana state Govt., they requested her to provide the said work and promised that they will the clear the earlier due and the upcoming amount also. Deceving their talks LW.1 bought 50,000 schools students uniform stitching work Govt., of Telangana state for 6 Mandal of Mahaboob Nagar

District for which Rs.15/- per pair total 50,000 pair of Rs.7,50,000/- and her process fees of Rs.1,00,000/-, total 8,50,000/-. In addition with LW.1 provided sub contract work for stitching of school students uniforms 52,000 pairs, Rs.10/- commission per pair to LW.1 total of Rs.5,20,000/- from Sreeja Fashions Proprietor, Mahaboob

Nagar, A1 & A2 agreed the above terms and conditions and entered into an agreements signed by LWs 5 & 6 as witnesses.

Later on 17.04.2023 A1 paid an amount of Rs.2,26,000/- and took her signature in Dairy including earlier paid amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (total amount of

Rs.4,26,000/-) A1 & A2 made three transctions with LW.1 for commission of

Rs.9,00,050/- (inlcuding process amount) 2nd transction with 50,000 pairs with

Rs.15/- commision per pair total Rs.8,50,000/- (including process amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-) and 3rd transaction with 52,000 pair with Rs.10/- commission per pair total commission of Rs.5,20,000/-. Grand total of commission of Rs.9,00,050 +

Rs.8,50,000/- + Rs.5,20,000/-=Rs.22,70,050/- out of which A1 & A2 paid total amount of Rs.4,26,000/- which two instalments and failed to reapy the rest of balance amount of Rs.18,45,000/-, So many times LW.1 asked A1 & A2 to pay her due amount, but A1 & A2 intentionally postpone the same in order to cheat her.

On 24.03.2024 at 8.00AM due to financial crisis LW.1 asked A1 to pay the due amount, where A1 started abusing LW.1 indiscriminately in the meantime A2 of

A1 intervened and told that he is working ASI of Police, Ananthaur IV town PS abused LW.1 in filthy language( as lanjaa) how dare to come here and asked money, if again came to them will ask money that they will kill LW.1, A2 stated that as he is working police deaprtment that he will thrown into jail by booking false case., This was eye witnesses by LWs 2 & 3 who are intervened and rescued LW.1 from the cluthes of A1 & A2.

Basing on the complaint of LW.1/P.Lalithamma, LW.7 registered a case in

Cr.No.74/2024, U/sec.420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation LW.7 examined LW.1 and recorded her statement, he produced 1) Indian Non-Judicial stamp paper Rs,100 one, 2) Indian

Non-judicial stamp paper Rs.50 two papers, 3) 8 colour photos, 4) Maroon Red and black colour sandisk curzer Blade 8GB USB flash drive and seized the same under a cover of seizure police proceedings. On A1 & A2 voluntarily surrendered before

LW.7 and they denined the knowledge of offence and LW.7 served 41-A Cr.P.C

Notice to them. Hence the accused 1 & 2 are liable for an offence U/s.420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation he filed a charge sheet.

3.On perusing the material on hand cognizance is taken for the offence under

Section 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC against the accused 1 & 2.

4.On appearance of the accused 1 & 2 the copies of the case documents were furnished on accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.At this stage, The accused 1 & 2 were examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation leveled against them for which they denied and charge under Sections 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC, was framed and read over explained in Telugu for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Lw.1/P.Lalithamma as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2, LW.2/P.Lakshminarayanamma as PW.2 and got marked as Ex.P3, LW.3/P.Meena as PW.3 and got marked as Ex.P4,

LW.4/Reddyvari Nagaraju as PW.4 and got marked as Ex.P5,

LW.5/P.Venkatanarayana as PW.5 and got marked as Ex.P6, LW.7/G.Ramakrishna

Reddy as PW.6 and got marked as Ex.P7 & P8. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw.6/D.Adilakshmi and he did not support the case of the Prosecution as main and material witnesses turned Hostile. Hence the prosecution evidence is closed as there is no incriminating material against the accused 1 & 2, examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C dispensed with,

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point arose for determination is:

"Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt"?

9)POINT:-

It is alleged by the Prosecution that the accused have cheated LW.1 is paying amounts pertaining to the Contract works of Govt. School & Hostel students uniforms stitching and committed offences punishable under Section 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as PW.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P8.

10.On coming to the evidence of PW.1 shows that, she take the contract work of stiching unifoms to Govt., school and hostels students from the government of

AP and Telangana and the same was delegated to accused as the accused are textiles owners. As the per the agreement the accused promised to pay Rs.15/- per uniform. After completion of work the accused made part payment and promised her that they will pay remaining amount as and when they received. Inspite of receiving payment the accused failed to pay the amount she preferred the complaint. Later after lodging the complaint the accused paid the amount. Police not examined her. Ex.P1 is complaint. As PW1 did not support the prosecution version, in material aspects, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has declared him as hostile and cross examined him with the permission of the Court. PW1 denied that he stated before the police, as in Ex.P2 i.e., statement of PW.1 recorded under section 161(3) of of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Nothing was elicited from her evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against the accused. Since, the PW1, being the crucial and material witnesses turned hostile.

11. On coming to the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 shows that, they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not examined them.

12. On coming to the evidence of PW.6/P.Ramakrishna Reddy, Inspector of

Police shows that, basing on complaint by LW.1 he registered a case in

Cr.No.74/2024, U/sec.420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P7 is FIR and submitted copies of FIR to the court concerned and secured the presence of PW.1 examined and recorded her statement. PW.1 also produced the two documents, eight colour photos and one pendrive which is seized after verifying it under the cover of police proceedings. Ex.P8/Police proceedings. Further he secured the presence of PWs 2 to 5 an LW.6 at Syndicate Nagar, examined them and recorded their statements.

On 30.04.2024 he served 41-A Cr.P.C Notice to the accused and PW.1 to PW.5 and

LW.6 stated before him as in Ex.P2 to P6 and after completion of investigation he filed chargesheet.

11. In such facts and circumstances, the Court finds no incriminating material to hold that accused 1 & 2 committed the offences punishable under Section 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC. It is needless to mention that the prosecution utterly failed to establish of accused under levelled charges, beyond the reasonable doubts.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

12.In the result,accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties shall stands continued for a period of six months as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no property, no specific order is passed with regard to its disposal.

Typed my dictation of stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 12th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-Smt.D.Pavani,

SPL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PROH. & EXCISE COURT,ANANTHAPURAMU.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW.1 : P.Lalithamma -NIL- PW.2 : P.Lakshminarayanamma PW.3 : P.Meena PW.4 : Reddyvari Nagaraju PW.5 : P.Venaktanarayana PW.6 : B.Ramakrishna Reddy

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on Complaint. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.1. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.2. Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.3. Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.4. Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.5. Ex.P7 : First Information Report. Ex.P8 : Police Proceedings.

Exhibits marked for Delfence:Nil

Mos marked on behalf of: NIL

I/d-D.P., Spl. J.F.C.M, P & E/ATP. //True Copy//

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, (Excise), Ananthapuramu.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU. CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU.

OffenceReportApprehensioReleasedCommencemClose of trialSentence n of Accusedon bailent of trial 15.4.202416.4.202430.4.202430.4.202416.10.20258.12.202512.12.2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.660/2024 on the file of Special Judicial First Class

Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant : The Ananthapuramu Rural Police Station. Cr.No:74/2024

Name of the Age Father’s Name Religion Residence Mandal Accused

P.Hemalatha50 yrsP.Narayana ReddyHinduBellary RoadAnantapur

P.Narayana Reddy57 yrsP.HanumappaHinduBellaryAnantapur

Under Sections 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC Offence :- accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty. Finding :- Sentence :- In the result,accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties shall stands continued for a period of six months as required U/s.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no property, no specific order is passed with regard to its disposal.

Sd/-Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, (Excise) Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, (Excise), Ananthapuramu. Dis. No. Dt.

1 APAN040008342019

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (mobile),

Ananthapuramu

Present: Smt. D. Pavani,

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ananthapuramu FAC. Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No.254 of 2019

(Crime No.16 of 2018 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station)

Between:-

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented Inspector of Police, Bukkarayasamudram PS.…Complainant.

AND

1. Pannuru Narayana Swamy, aged 28 years, S/o P. Subbanna,

2. Pammiri Nagamma, aged 60 years, W/o P. Subbanna,

3. Pannuru Subbanna, aged 71 years, S/o Late P. Obulesu, (Abated)

4. Meesla Krishnaveni, aged 34 years, W/o M. Chandra Sekhar (All are residing at D.No.12-188, KVS Nagar, B.K.Samudram Mandal) …Accused.

* * * This case came on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri G. Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate

for Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, upon hearing both sides and having perused the

material on record, this court delivers the following:

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

1.The State through Inspector of Police, Bukkarayasamudram Police Station 2 filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.16 of 2018, alleging that the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offences punishable under sections 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The case of prosecution as culled out from the charge sheet is as follows:

LW.1/ P. Siva Kala is the native of Siddarampuram Village, B.K.Samudram

Mandal.A.1/ Pannuru Narayana Swamy is the resident of KVS Nagar,

B.K.Samudram mandal. On 14.10.2016, LW.1 marriage was solemnized with A.1 at Vekateswara Swamy Temple, Devarakoda,B.K.Samudram Mandal as per Hindu

Marriage rites. But, A.1 was married previously but it was concealed with LW.1 and her parents. At the time of marriage parents of complainant given gold ornaments worth of Rs.51,000/- to A.1 as dowry. After marriage they lived happily for three months. After knowing previous marriage, LW.1 questioned A.1, since then ill feelings existed between them. On that A.1 to A.4 harassed LW.1 physically and mentally. By knowing the same through LW.1, LW.2 and LW.3 met A.1 and requested him not to harass their daughter, but the accused did not changed their attitude towards LW.1, more over they demanded for additional dowry. On the request of LW.2 to 6 approached A.1 to A.4, conveyed panchayat and chastised

A.1 to A.4 and advised them to live amicably with LW.1. but the accused did not heed their words and increased harassment and threatened her that they will give divorce to LW.1. After delivery, LW.2 took LW.1 and went to KVS Nagar to drop her at her in laws and husband house. At that time A.1 to A.4 assaulted LW.1 and necked out her from the house without any mercy with a demand to get additional dowry.

Basing on the complaint of LW.1, LW.7/ B. Venkateswarlu, registered a case in Cr.No.16/2018 U/Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.Act against A.1 to A.4.

During the course of investigation, LW.7 secured the presence of LW.1 to 7, examined them and recorded their detailed statements, and inspected the scene 3 of offence. Further, Lw.7 issued 41-A Cr.P.C notices to A.1 to A.4. Hence the charge.

3. This Court took cognizance of case for the offences punishable under sections 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and numbered the case as CC.No.254/2019.

4. On appearance of accused No.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On 01.06.2023, Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code for which they denied. After hearing both sides and on considering the entire record, the charges for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of D.P. Act were framed against Accused Nos.1 to 4. The said charges were read-over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Lw.1 as Pws.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses. As PW.1 turned hostile. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence was closed.

7.As there is no incriminating material in prosecution evidence against accused Nos.1 to 4, their examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure

Code, is dispensed with.

4

8.Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel.

9.Now the point that arise for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of

Accused Nos.1 to 4, for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A r/w 34 of of

Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, beyond reasonable doubt?”

10.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution has examined PW.1, out of seven listed witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. PW.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-victim. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the report dt.05.02.2018, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

11.POINT :

As referred above, PW1 is the defacto-complainant in this case. Her evidence goes to show that, on 14.10.2016 her marriage was solemnized with A.1 at Devarakonda Temple, B.K.S Samudram Mandal. After marriage she joined with

A.1. They lived happily for a period of 6 months. Later, she knew that, A.1 was already married with another women. The same was asked to A.1 to A.4, due to that they harassed, threatened to Pw.1. Her evidence further goes to show that, after several panchayat A.1 to A.4 though they did not listen PW.1 and her parents words and again A.1 to A.4 started harassment and demanded additional dowry on assaulting and necked her out his house on that she came to her parents house and the elders pacified the matter and they obtained her signature on white papers, except this she do not know anything about this case. Though she identified her Ex.P1/signature on the report, she categorically stated that she do not know the contents of report.

12.The evidence of PW.1 finally stating that she do not know the case facts and 5 she was not examined by the police. As Pws.1 did not support the prosecution version, in material aspects, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has declared her as hostile and cross examined her with the permission of the Court. Pws.1 denied to have stated before the Police as in Exs.P2 i.e., her statement recorded under section 161(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. Nothing was elicited from her evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against Accused. Since, Pw.1, being the crucial and material witnesse turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

13. In such facts and circumstances, the Court finds no incriminating material to prove the involvement of accused No.1 to 4 in harassing PW.1 both physically and mentally. Therefore, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of DP Act, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the points are answered against the prosecution.

14. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of

DP Act and they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code. No property is produced in this case, as such no order is passed with regard to its disposal.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

6

Sd/- D. Pavani Sd/-J.SUJIN KUMAR

FAC. SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(Mobile) For trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Accused

PW1: P. Siva Kala NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Prosecution Accused

Ex.PSignature of PW1 on Report dt.05.02.2018. NIL 1

Ex.PStatement of PW1 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. 2

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

NILNIL

Sd/- D. Pavani

Sd/-J.SUJIN KUMAR

FAC. SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(Mobile) For trial of cases under P.C.R.Act-cum- II Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

ANANTHAPURAMU

// True Copy// 7

FAC. SPL. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu // True Copy //

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile) : Ananthapuramu

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

(MOBILE), ANANTHAPURAMU

Present:Smt. D. Pavani, Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Ananthapuramu FAC. Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (mobile), Ananthapuramu

Wednesday the 13th day of May, 2026.

Calendar Case No.254 /2019

Complainant:The State represented by Sub Inspector of police, Bukkarayasamudram Police Station.

Crime No.:16/2018 of B.K.S Police Station

Accused :

1. Pannuru Narayana Swamy, aged 28 years, S/o P. Subbanna,

2. Pammiri Nagamma, aged 60 years, W/o P. Subbanna,

3. Pannuru Subbanna, aged 71 years, S/o Late P. Obulesu, (Abated)

4. Meesla Krishnaveni, aged 34 years, W/o M. Chandra Sekhar (All are residing at D.No.12-188, KVS Nagar, B.K.Samudram Mandal)

Date of Report or Apprehensi Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint on of on bail ement of trial Order

accused trial

Prior to 05.02.201841-A Cr.P.C---14.12.2024 11-05-2026 13-05-2026 05.02.2018notice issued to Accused

Offence :-Under sections 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 & 4 of DP Act.

8 Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order:-

In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of

DP Act and they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code. No property is produced in this case, as such no order is passed with regard to its disposal.

Sd/- D.PavaniSd/-J.Sujin Kumar

FAC SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS(Mobile)

ANANTHAPURAMU

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Dis.No._____________, Dt._________________.

// TRUE COPY // // True Copy//

FAC. SPL. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile),

Ananthapuramu

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Present: Smt.D.Pavani

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu

Friday, the 20 th Day of June, 2025.

Calendar Case No.65 of 2024

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Singanamala Police Station. ...Complainant

Vs.

1. Valmeeki Chakavarthi, age 35 years, S/o. Late Gowrappa, Residing at Pulivendula Town. Now at Sanjeevanagar Colony, Raichuti Town.

2. Valmeeki Jagadish Babu, age 39 years, S/o. Late Gowrappa, Residing at Pulivendula Town.

3. Yenumala Bhagya Lakshmi, age 41 years, W/o.Y.Nagendra Kumar,

Residing at Pulivendula Town. ...Accused 1 to 3

This case is coming on 19.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri G.Peddanna, Advocates for accused 1 to 3 and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Singanamala Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.171 of 2023, for the offences punishable

U/sec.498(A), r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that:

2

On 05.8.2020, the LWs 2 & 3 perfomed LW.1/Boya Maheswari marriage with the Accused (A1) at the time of marriage her parents gave 18 tulas of gold and

Rs.5,00,000/- of cash. After marriage LW.1 and A1 has stay in Bhumaiahgaripalli

Village, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District and they lived their marital life happily. Af- ter few months, A1 has maintain illegal affairs with a lady. since then he is visiting the house irregularly, when she asked the same, for that he started harassing her by suspecting her fidelity and harassed her by physically and mentally for addtional dowry. On that she informed the same to A2 & A3 who are brother and sister of A1.

They also supported A1 and they all three accused harassed her physically and menatlly for additional dowry due to which her inform her parents about the harass- ment and her parents put panchayath in the presence of mediator, but they did not change their behaviour and necked out her from the house. Finally LW.1 came to

PS along with LW.2 and present a complaint against A1 to A3. Thereby the A1 to A3 are liable to be punished U/sec.498(A), r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act. Bas- ing on the report of LW.1/Boya Maheswari, LW.5 registered a case in

Cr.No.171/2023, U/sec. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of

Singanamala P.S., and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.5 examined LWs 1 to 4 and recorded their statements and seized the colour xerox copies of marriage photos and wedding card under the cover of police proceedings and served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notices against the A1 to A3. After completion of in- vestigation he field a charge sheet.

3

3. The Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable U/sec.498(A) r/w 34 of In- dian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act against the accused 1 to 3.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents furnished on accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On 13.6.2025, A1 to A3 were examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for which they denied. After hearing both sides and on consider- ing the entire record, a charges for the offences punishable U/sec.498(A), r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, were framed against A1 to A3. The said charges were read-over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they de- nied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined LW1/Boya Mah- eswari as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 & P2, LW.2/Boya Ramachandra as PW.2 and got marked as Ex.P3. LW.3/B.Sunkamma as PW.3 and got marked as Ex.P4.

The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.4 to 6/B.Jayaram, J.Bashu, PC,

P.Vijay Kumar, SI of Police. Accordingly prosecution side evidence is closed

7.As there is no incriminating material against A.1 to A.3, their examination un- der section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point that arise for determination is as follows:- 4

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused 1 to

3 for the offences punishable U/sec. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.

Act beyond the reasonable doubts?

POINT:-

10. Herein the case, PW1 deposed that on 05.08.2020 her marriage was peformed with A1 at Guntakal. They lived happily for one month. Due to misunderstanding between them, they decided to get mutual divorce. On the advice of elders they went to PS for counselling and his signature was obtained by police on white paper. She did not prefer a any complaint before the police. Police not examined me. Ex.P1 is her signature on complaint.PW1 denied that she stated

before the police, as in Ex.P1 is her signature on complaint and Ex.P2 is her

respective statements recorded under section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW.1. Nothing was elicited from her evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against the accused.

11. PW.2 and PW.3 deposed that on 05.08.2020 their daugher marriage was peformed with A1 at Guntakal. They lived happily for one month. Due to misunderstanding between them, they decided to get mutual divorce. On the advice of elders they went to PS for counselling and their signature was obtained by police on white paper. They did not prefer a any complaint before the police. Police not examined them.PW2 & 3 denied that they stated before the police, as in Ex.P3 &

P4 are their signature on complaint and Ex.P3 & 4 is their respective statements recorded under section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW.3 & 4.

5

Nothing was elicited from their evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against the accused 1 to 3.

Since, the PW1 to PW.3 being the crucial and material witnesses turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

14. In such facts and circumstances, the Court finds no incriminating material to hold that the A1 to A3 harassed PW.1/B.Maheswari both physically and mentally, and demanded additional dowry and further committed other charged offences.

Therefore, the Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.Act beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

15. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.

498(A) r/w 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code . The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties shall be continued for a period of six months as required under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No property produced in this case.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

6

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution

PW1: B.Maheswari PW2: B.Ramachandra PW3: B.Sunkamma

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1 Signature of PW.1 on Complaint

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.1

Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.2

Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW.3

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

NILNIL

I/d-D.P., SFCM/ATP //True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU.

Date of Report or Apprehen-sion Released Commence Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint of accused on bail ment of trial trial Order

01.12.202302.12.2023---41-A Notice 19.06.202519.06.2025 20.06.2025 10.12.2023 Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.65/2024 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu. Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Singanamala P.S., Crime No: 171/2023

Father's or Name of the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Husband’s Name Accused 35Sanjeevanagar V.ChakravarthiLate GowrappaHindu---Raichuti yrsColony 39 V.Jagadish BabuLate GowrappaHindu---Pulivendala townKadapa yrs 41 Y.Bhagya LakshmiY.Nagendra KumarHindu---Pulivendala TownKadapa yrs

Offence: U/sec. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.Act Finding: Accused No 1 to 3 are found not guilty. Sentence: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry prohibition Act and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties shall be continued for a period of six months as required under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No property produced in this case.

Sd/- Smt.D.Pavani,

Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu Dis. No. Dt.