Sri D.V.R Tejo Karthik, Kollapur FAC of JCJ, NGKL

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAGARKURNOOL

Monday, this the 29th day of August, 2016

Present: Smt. B. Deepti Judl. Magistrate of First class, Spl. Mobile, Nagarkurnool. FAC of JFCM, Nagarkurnool

C.C. No.325 of 2015

Between:

The State represented through Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Telkapally …Complainant

And

Reddipakula Padma w/o Dasharatham, age: 48 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Telkapally village and Mandal …Accused

Section of law: Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and she is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.PC.

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, on behalf of prosecution and Sri K. Giridhar Goud, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused has arraigned before this court for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) read with 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

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

(a) The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Telkapally has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging therein that on 7.08.2014 at about 3-15 P.M upon the information about the illegal selling of I.D liquor in Telkapally village, accordingly he along with his staff after securing the presence of two mediators i.e., B.

Venkataiah and N. Laxmaiah proceeded to the suspected house at 2

Telkapally town and found no one present in the said house and on enquiry the said the owner of said house Reddipakula Padma who is accused. After that they prepared search memo and affixed to the doors, and entered into the house. During checking of the house, they found one plastic can containing (5) liters of I.D liquor.

Immediately, he seized the said contraband under the cover of panchnama before the mediators duly drawing the samples.

(b) During the course of investigation, registered this case against the accused vide PCOR No.313/2014-15, submitted the case papers

before this court, deposited the samples with a request to send one

of the samples for chemical examination by depositing the remaining contraband before Deputy Commissioner of Excise,

Mahabubnagar for confiscation. After receipt of Chemical

Examination report and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by showing absconding the accused.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.PC.

5.The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. A charge has been framed for the said offence, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 on its behalf.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments.

3

9.Now, the point that arises for consideration herein is: ‘whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the above said offence’?

10.Point: PW.1 B. Venkataiah deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case and Excise police never summoned him for any panchnama and nothing had recovered by the Excise police in his presence. PW.2 deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. Excise police never summoned him for any panchanama and not seized any thing in his presence.

11.PW.3 Venkatramulu deposed that on 7.08.2014 at about 2-15 P.M upon credible information about the illegal possession of I.D liquor, he along with his staff proceeded to Telkapalloy town and secured the presence of two mediators and went to the house of the accused. Upon seeiang them one lady ran away from house. Thereafter they issued search memo and conducted search of the house and found a plastic can containing (5) liters of I.D liquor, then immediately he seized the same duly drawing the samples under the cover of panchnama before the mediators. He further deposed that basing on the panchnama this case is registered vide PCOR No.313/2014-15, submitted the case papers, samples before this Court and deposited the remaining contraband before

Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mahabubnagar. After receipt of chemical examination report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused praying to issue NBW against accused.

12.During the course of his cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that he has not mentioned the house number and how many rooms of scene of offence house in the panchnama and he has also not filed ownership certificate or the boundaries pertaining to the scene of offence. He denied that accused is no way concerned with the seized contraband and he filed this case against the accused for the purpose of statistics.

4

13.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, prosecution altogether cited (3) witnesses and examined i.e., PW.1 to

PW.3. PW.1 and PW.2 are the alleged panch witnesses for the seizure of the contraband. PW.3 is the Investigating officer of this case. PW.3 categorically stated before this Court that on 7.08.2014 upon credible information about illegal sale of I.D liquor at Telkapally town, he along with his staff by securing two mediators proceeded to the house of the accused and seized a plastic can containing (5) liters of I.D liquor which was found in the house of the accused, under the cover of panchnama

before the mediators. But, the mediators who are examined as PW.1 and

PW.2 are not supported the version of PW.3 and simply stated that Excise police never summoned them and not seized any contraband in their presence. Hence, it can be said that there is no corroboration to the evidence of Investigating officer with respect to the seizure of the contraband from any of the independent witnesses. Admittedly, no house number or boundaries of the house from where the contraband is seized, is not filed before this Court. Though PW.3 categorically stated before this

Court that he along with his staff proceeded to the house of the accused but neither the names of the said staff members are mentioned in the panchnama nor they were examined by the prosecution, for the best reasons known to the prosecution.

14.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this Court and in view of the above appreciation of evidence, it can be said that there is no sufficient material to sustain the conviction against the accused. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

Point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and he is 5 acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled subject to Section 437-A Cr.PC. MO.1 i.e., sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 29th day of August, 2016.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1 B. Venkataiah -None- PW.2 N. Laxmaiah PW.3 Venkatramulu

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Search Memo Ex.P2 Panchanama Ex.P3 PCOR No.313/2014-15 of Excise Telkapally Ex.P4 Chemical Examination Report

Defence: - Nil-

Material Objects marked

M.O.1: sample bottle

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

Monday, this the 26th day of September, 2016

PRESENT: D.V.R. Tejo Karthik, Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur FAC of JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

O.S. No.74 of 2016

Between:

1. Niranjan s/o Pedda Pentaiah, age 37 yrs. Occ. Agril.

2. Ramchandraiah s/o Chinna Pentaiah, age 36 yrs. Occ. Agril.

3. Balraju s/o Chinna Pentaiah, age 27 yrs. Occ. Agril. All R/o Gorita vlg. of Thimmajipet Mandal. …Plaintif

And

1. Mallamma w/o late Mallaiah, age 60 yrs. Occ. Agril. R/o Bhattupally vlg. of Boothpur Mandal.

2. Chandraiah s/o late Hanmaiah, age 65 yrs. Occ. Agril.

3. Kondamma w/o Chandraiah, age 55 yrs. Occ. Agril. Both R/o Gorita vlg. of Thimmajipet Mandal.

4. Chittemma w/o Buchaiah, age 45 yrs. Occ. Agril. R/o Pathepur vlg. of Nawabpet Mandal.

5. Yellamma w/o Venkataiah, age 35 yrs. Occ. Agril. R/o Cherla Itikyala vlg. of Tadoor Mandal.

6. Balaiah s/o late Hanmaiah, age 55 yrs. Occ. Agril. R/o Masigundlapally vlg. of Midjil Mandal.

7. The Tahsildar, Thimmajipet.

8. The Revenue Divisional Officer/L.A.O, Nagarkurnool

9. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar. …Defendants

This suit is coming on before me for hearing on 26.09.2016 in the presence of Sri B. Rajashekar and Sri M. Narsimha Reddy Advocates for plaintifs and the Sri K. Ravikantha Rao, Advocate for defendants No.1 to 5 and having stood over for determination till this day the Court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

Both parties called present. Learned counsel for plaintifs filed memo seeking that the plaintifs and defendants have compromised the suit out of Court as such the plaintifs are not pressing the suit. Hence in view of the memo filed suit is dismissed for non prosecution.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of September, 2016.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil- Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

day 9th day of August, 2016 PRESENT: Smt. S.Shalini Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool

CC. No. 145 OF 2012

Between:-

Prohibition and Excise station, Telkapally Address - Prohibition and Excise station, Telkapally Advocate- App ..Complaint

AND

Telugu Sathyanarayana Address - Age 45 years, Caste. Telugu, Occ. Hotel business, Ro. Boppally vg Telkapally Mandal, mahabubnagar Dist.

....Accused

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEu/s7(a)r/w8(e)APExciseProhibitionAct1995

ORDER:

Death certificate of accused filed con against obtatied bail bonds of accused stand cansled no unmarked property hence no order its distred.

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 9 th day of Agust, 2018

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.