Smt D Soujanya

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PARVATIPURAM.

Present: Smt.D.Soujanya, I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Parvatipuram.

Friday, the 12th day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No. 812 of 2023

Between:

State represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Parvathpiram. …… Complainant. And:

1) Matcha Papinaidu, S/o. Madhava Rao, Age 35 years, Bandaluppi village , Parvathipuram Mandal.

2) Mamidi Ramakrishna @ Kurakula Ramakrishna, S/o. Appalaswamy, Age 42 years, Tallaburidi village, Parvathipuram Mandal. ……. Accused

This case coming before me on 8.4.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao for the accused No.1 and of Kum S.Prameela, Advocate for the accused No.2 and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau station, Parvatipuram filed charge sheet against the accused in

C.r.No 291/2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Parvatipuram for the offence punishable under Section 7B r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 (Act 18 of

APP Amendment Act, 2020).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 26.5.2022, as per the information, M.V.Gopala Krishna, the

Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Parvatipuram, along with Smt

P.Sujatha, Mahila Police/L.W.1, Sri G.Bhushana Rao, Eneforcement constable/L.W.2, Sri R.Vasudeva Rao, Enforcement Constable/L.W.3 conducted raids at Bandaluppi village of Parvathipuram Mandal and found the accused with a bag containing 100 sachets of ID Arrack. Thereafter, the police party enquired him about his name and particulars. He disclosed his name and particulars and further 2 disclosed that he purchased the contraband from the accused No.2. He arrested the accused No.1 and sent him to the Honourable Court for judicial remand

Thereafter, he drew samples, sealed and affixed identification slips duly signed by all. The Enforcement Inspector seized the property under the cover of a mediators report and handed over the mediators report, the contraband and the samples to

S.V.Ramarao, Enforcement Sub-Inspector/L.W.5 on the point of jurisdiction. He registered the case in Crime No 291/2022 under section 7B read with 8(B) of AP

Prohibition Act 1995(Amendment) Act No 18 of 2020. During the course of the investigation, Sri L.Upendra, Enforcement Inspector/LW6, arrested the accused

No.2 and sent him to the Honourable Court for judicial remand. During the investigation, he sent the sample of seized property to the Chemical examiner of the

Prohibition and Excise laboratory, Visakhapatnam who issued opinion that sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption, and injurious to health.

Further, on proposals submitted during the investigation, the Deputy commissioner of the Special Enforcement Bureau, Visakhapatnam having regard to all facts of the case had ordered for confiscation of property to the state and issued instructions to destroy the same. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Parvatipuram had destroyed the property in the presence of the Enforcement Superintendent, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Parvatipuram, and mediators under cover of Panchanama

Report. After completion of the investigation, Sri V.V.Ramana, Enforcement Sub

Inspector/L.W.7 filed the charge sheet before the court against the accused.

3. The case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under section7B r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code explaining the substance of the charge sheet contents in Telugu for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge under section 7B r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohobition Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language.

3

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked exhibits P.1 to P3 documents and M.O.1.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which he denied the incriminating evidence made out against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7B r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act ? POINT:

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor advanced his arguments. He argued that the MSP supported the prosecution and the evidence of the other

Prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. He further argued that it is proved that the accused were found in the possession of the contraband and so the

Prosecution proved the case against the accused and prayed to convict the accused.

11.Per contra, the learned defence counsels argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws 1 to 3. They argued that the mediator did not testify about the colour of the bag from which the contraband was alleged to be seized and the said bag was not seized by the investigating officer as such a doubt is cast on the case of the prosecution. He further argued that the no seperate seizure list was prepared at the scne of offence and accused were falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

12.P.W.1 testified that on 26.5.2022, the Enforcement Sub Inspector asked her to act as mediator and she along with the police staff proceeded to

Bandaluppi village of Parvathipuram Mandal and found the accused in possession of one bag in a suspicious manner Thereafter, the police party caught hold of him and verified the bag containing 100 litres of ID arrack. The accused further disclosed that he purchased the ID arrack from one M.Ramakrishna @ K.Ramakrishna to sell 4 the same at a higher price.They lifted the samples at the scene of offence. They seized the contraband under the cover of mediators report. They brought the samples and the seized contraband to the police station.

13.P.W.2 testified in the same lines of P.W.1 and further testified that he handed over the mediators report, the contraband and the samples to P.W.3 on the point of jurisdiction. P.W.3 testified that he registered case basing on the mediators report. He sent the samples for chemical analysis, received report and arrested the accused No.1 and produced before this court for judicial remand. He handed over the CD file to Sri L.Upendra, the Enforcement Inspector/L.W.6 for furtherr investigation. He arrested the accused No.2 and produced him before this court for judicial remand. Sri V.V.Ramana, Enforcement Sub-Inspector/L.W.7 filed the charge sheet before the Court after completion of the investigation.

14.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on hand, the case of the

Prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of the contraband which was seized by the Investigating Officer. The evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 reveals that the contraband was seized from the accused under the cover of mediators report ie.,

Ex.P.1. Ex.P.3 is the Chemical Analysis report which prima facie reveals that the sample of the contraband is “ Illicitly distilled liquor”. So, the burden heavily lies on the Prosecution to prove that the seizure is beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. As per section 23 of AP Prohibition Act, 1995, P.Ws 1 and 2 are bound to follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search. As per Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Investigation Officer is bound to conduct search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

16.It is the argument of the learned defence counsel that the investigating

Officer has not followed the procedure as contemplated u/sec.100 (4) Cr. P.C.

properly and it cannot be said that contraband was recovered from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P.1/Mediators report and it is clear that the prosecution has failed to observe the norms initiated u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. to create confidence in the mind of the public at large in respect of the acts of the officials as 5 such a serious doubt is created on the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the mediator does not disclose the exact time at which the offence took place and his evidence is totally silent with regard to the preparation of a seperate seizure list at the scene of offence. Admittedly, no seperate seizure list was prepared at the scene of offence. It is incumbent on the part of the investiagting officer to prepare seperate seizure list of the seized property and to furnish a copy of the same to the accused.

But, in the present case on hand no such exercise was made by the police. Though there is no dispute with regard to the identification of the accused by the witnesses, but the said identification of the accused is not itself suffice to hold that the accused committed the offence. Further the investigating officer also did not make any effort to know how the accused No.2 got the contraband. Hence, the entire story of the

Prosecution has to be suspected.

17.This aspect further creates doubt as to whether the I.O followed the procedure as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C and also with regard to the seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of the accused. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it can be concluded that registering the crime and securing the chemical analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution.

18. Further, a reasonable doubt is also created in favour of the accused with regard to the seizure. When the accused is not proved to be in possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt, the question of proving either transporting, selling or buying of the same does not arise. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Prosecution proved the contraband is

Indian liquor, however, the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused is not proved, beyond all reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, this

Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the contraband and thereby failed to prove the case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 7B r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohobition Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

6

The accused No.1 and 2 are directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each under Section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 and M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution. For Defence P.W.1: Padala Sujatha- None - P.W.2: M.V.Gopala Krishna, Enforcement Inspector P.W.3: S.V.Rama Rao, Enforcement Sub-Inspector

Documents Marked

For Prosecution Ex.P.1 : Mediators report dated 26.5.2022. Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.291/2022 of Special Enforcement Bureau station, Parvatipuram. Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report dated 18.7.2022

For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects M.O.1: Two sample bottles

M.O.2 : One sample sachet.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar case tried by the Court of the I Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum I Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Date of Offence : 26.5.2022 Date of report or Complaint : 26.5.2022 Date of apprehension of accused : 27.05.2022(A.1),06.09.2022(A.2) Date release on bail, if any: 30.05.2022(A.1),13.09.2022(A.2) Date of commencement of trial : 26.09.2023 Close of trial : 02.02.2024 Date of sentence or other order: 12.04.2024 Explanation of delay and remarks : The matter under went several adjournments as prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.812 of 2023 on the file of the I Addl.Junior Civil

Judge cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Complainant : State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau station, Parvatipuram in Crime No.291/2022 u/s. 7B r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act. =================================================================== Name of the accused, Father/Husband, Age, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal.

1) Matcha Papinaidu, S/o. Madhava Rao, Age 35 years, Bandaluppi village , Parvathipuram Mandal.

2) Mamidi Ramakrishna @ Kurakula Ramakrishna, S/o. Appalaswamy, Age 42 years, Tallaburidi village, Parvathipuram Mandal. ==================================================================== Offence : Section 7-B r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act: Sale, export, import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely contravening section 7B of AP Prohibition Act, under which the above are prohibited.

Finding : Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 7B r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

Sentence :Accused are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 and 2 are directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PARVATIPURAM

Present: Smt.D.Soujanya, I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Parvatipuram.

Monday, the 8TH day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No.68/2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram Rural Police station. …… Complainant.

And: Kona Govinda, S/o. Ramu, 19 years, Rajam, Vizianagaram District.

……. Accused

This case coming on 26.3.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri M.V.Ramana, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The state represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Parvathipuram Rural Police station, filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.13/2024 of Parvathipuram Rural Police station for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 10.01.2024 at about 7.30 hours, on receiving credible information Sri P.Dinakar, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvatipuram Rural

Police station/L.W.3 along with his staff Sri G.Nagabushan Rao, Head constable /L.W.1, Sri V.Trinadha naidu, Police constable /L.W.2 reached to

Venkampeta Y Junction , there they found the accused in possession of a gunny bag on a scooty and started running on seeing the police party. The

Sub-Inspector of Police caught him and questioned him about his identity and why he was escaping after seeing them. The accused disclosed his identity and confessed that he had IMFL bottles in his possession and he further confessed that he purchased the liquor bottles to sell them at higher price, he was caught 2 by the police. On verification, the police found 1) Classic Blue finest whisky- 180ml -130 bottles, 2) Manjeera Classic 180 ml-178 bottles, On that, the Sub

Inspector of Police/LW3 informed him that possession and transporting of

IMFL liquor is an offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968. Then he tried to secure mediators but nobody came forward to act as mediators.

Thereafter, he seized the contraband under the cover of the occurrence report and separated samples for sending the same to chemical analysis. Thereafter, he brought the accused along with seized property to the police station and registered the occurrence report as a case in Crime No.13/2024 under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.. He arrested the accused and produced before the

Court for judicial remand. Thereafter, he sent a sample of seized property to the Chemical examiner of the Prohibition and Excise, Regional Excise

Laboratory, Visakhapatnam who issued a report that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption, and injurious to health. He filed the charge sheet before the court against the accused.

3. The case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused is examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code explaining the substance of the charge sheet contents in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Charge under section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act. was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked exhibits P.1 to P3 documents and

M.O.1 and M.O.2.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which, he denied 3 the incriminating evidence made out against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act?

10.To prove the case of the Prosecution, the Prosecution examined

P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 and M.O.2.

11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor advanced his arguments.

He argued that though the independent witnesses were not secured at the scene of offence, the evidence of the other Prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

12.Per contra, the learned Defence counsel argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2. He argued that the independent witnesses were not secured by the prosecution and only the official witnesses were examined. He further argued that the accused is falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

POINT:

13.P.W.1 is the Police constable, who testified that 10.01.2024 at about 7.30 hours, he along with the Sub-Inspector of Police and the other staff reached to Venkampeta Y Junction , there they found the accused in possession of a gunny bag on a scooty and started running on seeing the police party. The Sub-Inspector of Police caught him and questioned him about his identity and why he was escaping after seeing them. The accused disclosed his identity and on verification, the police found 1) Classic Blue finest whisky- 180ml -130 bottles, 2) Manjeera Classic 180 ml-178 bottles, . They seized the contraband under the cover of Occurrence report. They brought the accused and the seized contraband to the police station. P.W.2 is the investigating 4 officer who testified in the same lines of P.W.1 and further testified that he registered the case basing on the occurrence report. . E.x.P.1. is the occurrence report. He arrested the accused and produced him before this court for judicial remand. He collected samples from the seized contraband and sent the same for chemical analysis and received the analysis report. Ex.P.3. is the Chemical analysis report. After completing the investigation he filed the charge sheet

before this court.

14.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on hand, the case of the

Prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of the illicitly distilled liquor which was seized by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet for the offence u/sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, .

The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 reveals that the contraband was seized from the accused under the cover of occurrence report ie., Ex.P.1. Ex.P.3 is the Chemical

Analysis report which prima facie reveals that the samples of the contraband is “ Indian liquor”, which is prohibited under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act. However, the entire case of the Prosecution is based on the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. So, the burden heavily lies on the Prosecution to prove that the seizure is beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. As per section 23 of AP Prohibition Act, 1995, P.Ws 1 and 2 are bound to follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search. As per Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, the

Investigation Officer is bound to conduct search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality. It clearly reveals that no efforts were made by the investigating officer to secure independent mediators at the scene of offence which is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution.

16.It is the argument of the learned defense counsel that the investigating Officer has not followed the procedure as contemplated u/sec.100 (4) Cr. P.C. properly and it cannot be said that contraband was recovered from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P.1/Occurrence report.

5

Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to observe the norms initiated u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. to create confidence in the mind of the public at large in respect of the acts of the officials. In the case on hand, it was not so done. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a busy locality and no independent mediators are secured by the Police Officials and as such, the entire story of the Prosecution has to be suspected. Even the evidence of P.W.2 does not reveal about the efforts made by them to secure the mediators. If such is the situation, it can be certainly inferred that the investigating officer did not make any serious efforts to secure the independent local mediators at the scene of offence.

17. In present case as P.W 1 and 2 are the official witnesses, hence it can be concluded that registering the crime and securing the chemical analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution. This aspect further creates doubt as to whether the I.O followed the procedure as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C and also in regard to the seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of the accused due to the absence of any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

18. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the

Prosecution proved the contraband is Indian liquor, however, the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused is not proved, beyond all reasonable doubt. The absence of corroboration from the independent witnesses creates doubt about the version of P.Ws 1 and 2 which effects the roots of the case of the Prosecution. Further, a reasonable doubt is also created in favour of the accused with regard to the seizure. When the accused is not proved to be in possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt, the question of proving either transporting, selling or buying of the same does not arise. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the contraband and thereby failed to prove the case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

6

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

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A

Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1: Sri V.Trinadha Naidu, Police Constable -None- P.W.2: Sri P.Dinakar Sub-Inspector of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Occurrence report dated 10.01.2024 Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.13/2024 of Parvathipuram Rural Police station Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report dated 24.1.2024.

For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects

M.O.1: One sample bottle of Classic blue finest whisky -180 ml ,

M.O.2: One sample bottle of Manjeera Classic- 180 ml

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar case tried by the Court of the I Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum I Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Date of Offence : 10.01.2024 Date of report or Complaint : 10.01.2024 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.01.2024 Date release on bail, if any: 12.01.2024 Date of commencement of trial : 27.02.2024 Close of trial : 06.03.2024 Date of sentence or other order: 08.04.2024 Explanation of delay and remarks : The matter under went several adjournments as prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 68 of 2024 on the file of the I Addl.Junior

Civil Judge cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Complainant : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,Parvathipuram Rural Police station in Crime No.13/2024 u/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968. ========================================================== Name of the accused, Father/Husband, Aged, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal. Kona Govinda, S/o. Ramu, 19 years, Rajam, Vizianagaram District.

================================================================ Offence : Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act: Penalty for illegal import etc., Importing, exporting, transporting, manufacturing, collecting or possession or selling any intoxicant contravening AP Excise Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under the Act.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act,1968.

Sentence :Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PARVATIPURAM

Present: Smt.D.Soujanya, I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Parvatipuram.

Thursday, the 18tH day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No.1268/2023

Between:

State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau station, Parvatipuram. …… Complainant.

And:

Toopuru Prasad, S/o. Satyamdora, 39 years,

R/o Kottavalasa village, Seethanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram Disrtict.

……. Accused

This case coming on 16.4.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri G.Muralimohan Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The state represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau station, Parvathipuram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 10/2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau station, Parvathipuram for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 10-1-2021 at about 15.00 hours, while Sri R.Jaibheem,

Enforcement Inspector/L.W.2, along with Sri P.Jagadeesawara Rao, Enforcement constable/LW1, went to conduct route watch at Adduruvalasa village limits of

Seethanagaram Mandal, they noticed one person with possession of a bag. On suspicion, the police party caught hold the accused and verified the bag and found 1) 4 Quats bottles of Imperial Blue Finest whisky 750 Ml, 2) 3 Quats bottles of Royal stag premier whisky 750 Ml, 3) 4 Quats bottles of MC Dowells

No.1 Reserve whisky 750-Ml. Then he tried to secure mediators but nobody came forward to act as mediators. Thereafter, he seized the contraband under the 2 cover of the occurrence report, collected samples from each brand for sending the same to chemical analysis. Thereafter, he brought the accused along with seized property to the police station and handed over the same to

Smt.D.Padmavathi, Enforcement Sub-Inspector/L.W.3 on the point of jurisdiction.

She registered the occurrence report as a case in Crime No.10/21 under section 34(a) of the AP Excise Act. She arrested the accused and produced him before this court. After completion of the investigation, she filed the charge sheet against the accused before the court.

3. The case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused is examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code explaining the substance of the charge sheet contents in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Charge under section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act. was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked exhibits P.1 to P3 documents and M.O.1 to M.O.3.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which, he denied the incriminating evidence made out against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act?

10.To prove the case of the Prosecution, the Prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 to M.O.3.

11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor advanced his arguments. He argued that though the independent witnesses were not secured at the scene of 3 offence, the evidence of the other Prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

12.Per contra, the learned Defence counsel argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2. He argued that the independent witnesses were not secured by the prosecution and only the official witnesses were examined. He further argued that the accused is falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

POINT:

13.P.W.1 is the police constable, who testified that on 10-1-2021 at about 15.00 hours, while he along with the sub Inspector of police went to conduct route watch at Adduruvalasa village limits of Seethanagaram Mandal, they noticed one person with possession of a bag. On suspicion, the police party caught hols of the accused and verified the bag and found 1) 4 Quats bottles of

Imperial Blue Finest whisky 750 Ml, 2) 3 Quats bottles of Royal stag premier whisky 750 Ml, 3) 4 Quats bottles of MC Dowells No.1 Reserve whisky 750-Ml

They seized the contraband under the cover of Occurrence report. They brought the accused and the seized contraband to the police station. P.W. 2 testified in the same lines of P.W.1 and further testified that he handed over the occurrence report, the samples, the contraband to P.W.3 on the point of jurisdiction. P.W.3 is the investigating officer who testified that she registered the case basing on the occurrence report. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report. She arrested the accused and produced before this court for judicial remand. He collected samples from the seized contraband and sent the same for chemical analysis and received the analysis report. Ex.P.3. is the Chemical analysis report. She filed the charge sheet

before this court after completing the investigation.

14.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on hand, the case of the

Prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of the illicitly distilled liquor which was seized by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer filed charge sheet for the offence u/sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, . The evidence of P.W.1 and 2 reveals that the contraband was seized from the accused 4 under the cover of occurrence report ie., Ex.P.1. Ex.P.3 is the Chemical Analysis report which prima facie reveals that the samples of the contraband is “ Indian liquor”, which is prohibited under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

However, the entire case of the Prosecution is based on the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. So, the burden heavily lies on the

Prosecution to prove that the seizure is beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. As per section 23 of AP Prohibition Act, 1995, P.Ws 1 and 2 are bound to follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search. As per Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Investigation

Officer is bound to conduct search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality. It clearly reveals that no efforts were made by the investigating officer to secure independent mediators at the scene of offence which is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution.

16.It is the argument of the learned defense counsel that the investigating Officer has not followed the procedure as contemplated u/sec.100 (4) Cr. P.C. properly and it cannot be said that contraband was recovered from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P.1/Occurrence report. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to observe the norms initiated u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. to create confidence in the mind of the public at large in respect of the acts of the officials. In the case on hand, it was not so done.

Admittedly, the scene of offence is a busy locality and no independent mediators are secured by the Police Officials and as such, the entire story of the Prosecution has to be suspected. Even the evidence of P.W.2 does not reveal about the efforts made by them to secure the mediators. If such is the situation, it can be certainly inferred that the investigating officer did not make any serious efforts to secure the independent local mediators at the scene of offence.

17. In present case as P.W 1 to 3 are the official witnesses, hence it can be concluded that registering the crime and securing the chemical analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution.

This aspect further creates doubt as to whether the I.O followed the procedure as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C and also in regard to the seizure of the 5 alleged contraband from the possession of the accused due to the absence of any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

18. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the

Prosecution proved the contraband is Indian liquor, however, the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused is not proved, beyond all reasonable doubt. The absence of corroboration from the independent witnesses creates doubt about the version of P.Ws 1 and 2 which effects the roots of the case of the Prosecution. Further, a reasonable doubt is also created in favour of the accused with regard to the seizure. When the accused is not proved to be in possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt, the question of proving either transporting, selling or buying of the same does not arise. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the contraband and thereby failed to prove the case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

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

Section34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A

Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1: Sri P.Jagadeeswara Rao , Enforcement Constable None - P.W.2: Sri R.Jaibheem, Enforcement Inspector P.W.3: Smt D.Padmavathi, Enforcement Sub Inspector - 6

Documents Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Occurrence report dated 10.1.2021 Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.10/2021 of SEB Parvathipuram Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report dated 5.3.21

For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects

M.O.1 : Imperial blue finest Whisky-750 ML-one bottle.

M.O.2: Royal stag premier Whisky-750 ML-one bottle.

M.O.3 : MC Dowells No.1 Reserve Whisky-750 ML-one bottle

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar case tried by the Court of the I Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum I Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Date of Offence : 10.01.2021 Date of report or Complaint : 10.01.2021 Date of apprehension of accused : 11.01.2021 Date release on bail, if any: 29.01.2021 Date of commencement of trial : 06.02.2024 Close of trial : 20.02.2024 Date of sentence or other order: 18.04.2024 Explanation of delay and remarks : The matter under went several adjournments as prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 1268 of 2023 on the file of the I Addl.Junior

Civil Judge cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Complainant : State represented by the Enforcement Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau station ,Parvathipuram, in Crime No.10/2021 u/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968. ================================================= Name of the accused, Father/Husband, Aged, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal. Toopuru Prasad, S/o. Satyamdora, 39 years,

R/o Kottavalasa village, Seethanagaram Mandal, Vizianagaram Disrtict.

Offence : Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act: Penalty for illegal import etc., Importing, exporting, transporting, manufacturing, collecting or possession or selling any intoxicant contravening AP Excise Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under the Act.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act,1968.

Sentence :Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 to MO.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PARVATIPURAM.

Present: Smt.D.Soujanya, I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Parvatipuram.

Friday, the 19th day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No.1409 of 2023

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector, Parvatipuram Town police station. …… Complainant. And: Pandranki Vinod, S/o. Late Ramu, aged 25 years, Pedda chakali street, Parvathipuram Town. ……. Accused

This case coming before me on 18.4.2024 for final hearing in the presence ofAssistantPublicProsecutorforcomplainant/Stateandof Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub Inspector, Parvatipuram Town police station., filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.429/2023 of Parvatipuram

Town police station for the offence punishable under Section 7B r/w 8(B) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995 (Act 18 of APP Amendment Act, 2020).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 13.5.2023 at about 3.00 hours, on credible information, Sri

SK.Fakruddin, Sub Inspector of Parvathipuram Town police station/L.W.4 along with

Sri K.Rajeswara Rao, Head Constable, Parvatipuram Town police station/L.W.1, Sri

G.Srihari, Police constable/L.W.2 and Sri JNBS Chiranjeevi rao, Police Constable 530/L.W.3 went to Vcenkampeta Goleelu junction, they found the accused in a suspicious manner. On seeing the raid party he tried to escape from the place of offence. On suspicion, the Sub-Inspector of Police stopped him and questioned him about the contents of the six plastic cans for which the accused disclosed that the cans contained I D liquor which were purchased from unknown persons at Vepavalasa village of Odissa at lowest price to sell the same for profit for his livelihood. Thereafter, he verified the cans and found 120 litres of ID arrack. After informing the accused that possession and selling of ID liquor is an offence, Lw.4 arrested the accused and seized the contraband, drew samples, affixed identification slips and drafted occurrence report 2 at the spot as there are no mediators available. Thereafter, he registered occurrence report as case in Cr.No.429/2023 of Parvatipuram Town police station and sent the accused for judicial custody. During the course of investigation, he sent samples to the

Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh & Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for Chemical

Analysis and received the report. He handed over the CD file to L.W.5/Sri P.Dinaker for further investigation. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed by him against the accused before the Court.

3. The case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 7 B R/W 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code explaining the substance of the charge sheet contents in Telugu for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge under section 7 B R/W 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohobition Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked exhibits P.1 to P3 documents and M.O.1.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which he denied the incriminating evidence made out against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 B R/W 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act? POINT:

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor advanced his arguments. He argued that though the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution the other Prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. He further argued that it is proved 3 that the accused was found in the possession of the contraband and so the Prosecution proved the case against the accused and prayed to convict the accused.

11.Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2. He argued that the except the police officials no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. He further argued that the accused was falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose.

Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

12.P.W.1 testified that on 13.5.2023 at about 3.00 hours, on credible information he along with the Sub Inspector of Parvathipuram Town police station and the staff went to Vcenkampeta Goleelu junction, they found the accused in a suspicious manner. On seeing the raid party he tried to escape from the place of offence. On suspicion they verified the cans and found 120 litres of ID arrack. They lifted the samples at the scene of offence. They seized the contraband under the cover of occurrence report. They brought the samples and the seized contraband to the police station.

13.P.W.2 testified in the same lines of P.W.1 and further testified that he registered case basing on the occurrence report. He arrested the accused and produced him before this court for judicial remand. He sent the samples for chemical analysis and handed over the CD file to Sri P.Dinakar, the Sub-Inspector of Police/L.W.5 for further investigation. He received report and filed the charge sheet before the Court after completion of the investigation.

14.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on hand, the case of the Prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of the contraband which was seized by the

Investigating Officer. The evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 reveals that the contraband was seized from the accused under the cover of occurrence report ie., Ex.P.1. Ex.P.3 is the

Chemical Analysis report which prima facie reveals that the sample of the contraband is “ Illicitly distilled liquor”. So, the burden heavily lies on the Prosecution to prove that the seizure is beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. As per section 23 of AP Prohibition Act, 1995, P.Ws 1 and 2 are bound to follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search.

4

As per Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Investigation Officer is bound to conduct search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

16.It is the argument of the learned defence counsel that the investigating

Officer has not followed the procedure as contemplated u/sec.100 (4) Cr. P.C. properly and it cannot be said that contraband was recovered from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P.1/Occurrence report and it is clear that the prosecution has failed to observe the norms initiated u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. to create confidence in the mind of the public at large in respect of the acts of the officials as such a serious doubt is created on the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a busy locality and the police did not secure the mediators at the scene of offence. Even the efforts made by the investigaing officer is also not putforth by him in the chargesheet.

He would have issued summons to the persons present near the scene of offence to act as mediators, but no such exercise was made by the investigating officer. Hence, the entire story of the Prosecution has to be suspected.

17.This aspect further creates doubt as to whether the I.O followed the procedure as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C and also with regard to the seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of the accused due to the absence of any corroboration from the independent witnesses. Even the seizure list was also not prepared by the investigating officer to show that the procedure prescribed for seizure is followed by him. In view of the aforementioned discussion it can be concluded that registering the crime and securing the chemical analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution.

18. The absence of corroboration from the independent witnesses creates doubt about the version of the prosecution witnesses which effects the roots of the case of the Prosecution. Further, a reasonable doubt is also created in favour of the accused with regard to the seizure. When the accused is not proved to be in possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt, the question of proving either transporting, selling or buying of the same does not arise. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Prosecution proved the contraband is Indian liquor, however, the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused is not proved, beyond all reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the Prosecution 5 failed to prove the seizure of the contraband and thereby failed to prove the case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7 B R/W 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohobition Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Criminal

Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution. For Defence P.W.1: Sri G.Srihari, PC - None - P.W.2: Sri SK.Farukkidin, Sub-Inspector of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution Ex.P.1 : Occurrence report dated 13.5.2023. Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.429/2023 of Parvathipuram Town police station. Parvatipuram. Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report dated 20.6.2023

For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects M.O.1 : Six sample bottles.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar case tried by the Court of the I Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Date of Offence : 13.05.2023 Date of report or Complaint : 13.05.2023 Date of apprehension of accused : 13.05.2023 Date release on bail, if any: 20.05.2023 Date of commencement of trial : 22.12.2023 Close of trial : 24.01.2024 Date of sentence or other order : 19.04.2024 Explanation of delay and remarks : The matter under went several adjournments as prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1409 of 2023 on the file of the I Addl.Junior Civil

Judge cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector, Parvatipuram Town police staion in Crime No.429/2023 u/s 7 B R/W 8(B) of AP Prohibition Act. ======================================================================== Name of the accused, Father/Husband, Age, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal. Pandranki Vinod, S/o. Late Ramu, aged 25 years, Pedda chakali street, Parvathipuram Town. ======================================================================

Section 7 B R/W 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act: Sale, export, import, and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely contravening section 7B of AP Prohibition Act, under which the above are prohibited.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section7 B R/W 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

Sentence :Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM I ADDL.JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PARVATIPURAM.

Present: Smt.D.Soujanya, I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Parvatipuram.

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2024

Calendar Case No. 1367 of 2023

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector, Rural police station, Parvatipuram. …… Complainant. And: Kendruka Mohan Rao, S/o.late Kombulu, 30 years, Billaguddivalasa village, Velagavalasa Panchayat, Parvatipuram Mandal.

……. Accused

This case coming before me on 19.4.2024 for final hearing in the presence ofAssistantPublicProsecutorforcomplainant/Stateandof Sri S.Umamaheswara Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub Inspector, Rural police station,

Parvatipuram, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.127/2023 of Rural police station, Parvatipuram, for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995 (Act 18 of APP Amendment Act, 2021).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that:

On 31.7.2023 at about 10.00 hours,on receiving of credible information Sri

Y.Simhachalam, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvatipuram rural Police station/L.W.3 along with Sri P.Umamaheswara Rao, Head constable 614 of Parvatipuram Rural Police station/L.W.1 and Sri Y.kalyan Kumar, Police constable 680/L.W.2 reached the outskirts of Billaguddivalsa village, there they found a male person having plastic can in front of him and started runnign on seeing the police party. They caught him and found 20 liters of ID arack. He desclosed that he brough the above liquor from an unknown person of Odissa state in order to sell the same at Balagudaba village outskirts.

Thereafter, he seized the contraband under the cover of the occurence report and separated samples for sending the same to chemical analysis. Thereafter, he brought the accused along with seized property to the police station and registered the occurrence report as a case in Crime No.127/2023 under section 7A r/w 8(e) of the AP

Prohibition Act 1995. Later he arrested the accused and produced him before the 2

Court for judicial remand, he sent the sample of seized property to the Chemical examiner of the Prohibition and Excise, Regional Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam who issued a report that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption, and injurious to health. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the court against the accused.

3. The case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code explaining the substance of the charge sheet contents in Telugu for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 and 2 and got marked exhibits P.1 to P.3 documents and M.O.1.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which he denied the incriminating evidence made out against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 ? POINT:

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor advanced his arguments. He argued that the independent witness turned hostile the evidence of the other

Prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused. He further argued that it is proved that the accused was found in the possession of the contraband and so the Prosecution proved the case against the accused and prayed to convict the accused.

3

11.Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 3. He argued that the except the police officials there is no other corroborating independent evidence on record to support the case of the prosecution. He further argued that the accused was falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

12.P.W.1 testified that on 31.7.2023 at 10.00 hours, himself along with the

Sub-inspector of Police and other staff proceeded to Billaguddivalsa village and there they found a male person having plastic can in front of him and started running on seeing the police party. They caught him and found 20 liters of ID arack. He desclosed that he brought the above liquor from an unknown person of Odissa state in order to sell the same at Balagudaba village outskirts. Thereafter, he seized the contraband under the cover of the occurence report and separated samples for sending the same to chemical analysis. They brought the samples and the seized contraband to the police station.

13.P.W.2 testified in the same lines of P.W.1 and further testified that he registered case basing on the occurence report. He arrested the accused and produced him before this court for judicial remand. He sent the samples for chemical analysis, received report and filed the charge sheet before the Court after completion of the investigation.

14.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on hand, the case of the Prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of the contraband which was seized by the

Investigating Officer. The evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 reveals that the contraband was seized under the cover of occurrence report ie., Ex.P.1. Ex.P.3 is the Chemical

Analysis report which prima facie reveals that the sample of the contraband is “ Illicitly distilled liquor”. So, the burden heavily lies on the Prosecution to prove that the seizure is beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. As per section 23 of AP Prohibition Act, 1995, P.Ws 1 and 2 are bound to follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search.

As per Section 100 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Investigation Officer is bound to conduct search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

4

16.It is the argument of the learned defence counsel that the investigating

Officer has not followed the procedure as contemplated u/sec.100 (4) Cr. P.C. properly and it cannot be said that contraband was recovered from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P.1/ Occurrence report and it is clear that the prosecution has failed to observe the norms initiated u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. to create confidence in the mind of the public at large in respect of the acts of the officials as such a serious doubt is created on the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a busy locality and the police did not secure the mediators at the scene of offence. Even the efforts made by the investigaing officer is also not putforth by him in the chargesheet.

He would have issued summons to the persons present near the scene of offence to act as mediators, but no such exercise was made by the investigating officer. Hence, the entire story of the Prosecution has to be suspected.

17.This aspect further creates doubt as to whether the I.O followed the procedure as contemplated under section 100 of Cr.P.C and also with regard to the seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of the accused due to the absence of any corroboration from the independent witnesses. Even the seizure list was also not prepared by the investigating officer to show that the procedure prescribed for seizure is followed by him. In view of the aforementioned discussion it can be concluded that registering the crime and securing the chemical analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution.

18. The absence of corroboration from the independent witnesses creates doubt about the version of the prosecution witnesses which effects the roots of the case of the Prosecution. Further, a reasonable doubt is also created in favour of the accused with regard to the seizure. When the accused is not proved to be in possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt, the question of proving either transporting, selling or buying of the same does not arise. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the Prosecution proved the contraband is Indian liquor, however, the seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused is not proved, beyond all reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the contraband and thereby failed to prove the case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohobition Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused is directed to execute bond for

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution. For Defence

P.W.1: P.Umamaheswara Rao, Head constable - None - P.W.2 : Y.Simhachalam, Sub-Inspector of police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution Ex.P.1 : Occurence report dated 31.7.2023. Ex.P.2: FIR in Crime No.127/2023 of Rural police station, Parvatipuram. Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report dated 3.10.2023.

For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects M.O.1 : One sample bottle.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar case tried by the Court of the I Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum I Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram.

Date of Offence : 31.07.2023 Date of report or Complaint : 31.07.2023 Date of apprehension of accused : 31.07.2023 Date release on bail, if any: 02.08.2023 Date of commencement of trial : 26.03.2024 Close of trial : 01.04.2024 Date of sentence or other order : 22.04.2024 Explanation of delay and remarks : The matter under went several adjournments as prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1367 of 2023 on the file of the I Addl.Junior Civil

Judge cum I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvatipuram

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector, Rural police station, Parvatipuram. in Crime No.127/2023 u/s. 7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. ================================================================= Name of the accused, Father/Husband, Age, Calling, Religion,Village and Mandal. Kendruka Mohan Rao, S/o.late Kombulu, 30 years, Billaguddivalasa village, Velagavalasa Panchayat, Parvatipuram Mandal. ==================================================================

Offence : Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act: Producing, manufacturing, storing, possessing, collecting, purchasing, selling and transporting of arrack contravening section 7A of AP Prohibition Act, under which the above are prohibited.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

Sentence :Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.D.Soujanya,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge –Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.