Smt. Farheen Kouser

1

CC No.121/2019

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD,

AT:: MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT:Smt.Farheen Kouser,

XXVII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram

Dated, the 23rd day of May, 2022

CC.No.121 of 2019

The state of Telengana through Sub-Inspector of Police Kandukur Police Station Represented by APP …Complainant.

Vs.

A1: Banda Venu, S/o.Shankaraiah, aged : 28 years, Caste: BC-Kuruma, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Kolanguguda Village of Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A2: Bathulla Narsimha Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, Aged about 80 years, Caste :OC-Reddy, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Gummadavelli Village of Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 09.05.2022 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Subash Reddy,

Advocate Nos.1 and 2 for accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Kandukur against accused for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code herein after referred to as IPC and Section 35 (1) of AP WALT Act,2002

2.The allegations in brief leveled against accused are as follows:-

That on 06-02-2019 at 1700 hours, received a complaint from

Smt.D.Sandhyarani, MRO of Kandukur Mandal in which she stated that one the report of Mandal Giridwar who inspected Gummadavelly village revenue and noticed that one

Banda Venu village of Kandukur Mandal was conducting illegal excavation, transportation and selling away gravel for personal benefit to needy customers in 2

CC No.121/2019

Bathula Narsimha Reddy patta land bearing Sy.No.427 of Gummadavelly revenue by taken the lease and dig the gravel 2 ½ feet depth in above said land. Hence the report.

3.Basing on the contents of complainant, Lw-6/G.Prabhakar, SI of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.29/2019 U/s.379 IPC and 35 (1) of AP Walta Act, 2002 and investigation was done by Lw-6 G.Prabhakar. During course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Lw-1 and he went to the scene of offence

Gummadavally village in Sy.No.427 in the presence of mediators he conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. Later he seized one tractor bearing No.TS-08-

UB 8089 and one trolley bearing No.TS-08-UB-8057 and he issued notice to the accused A1 and A2. A1 was surrendered before the Hon’ble Court and released on bail on 18-3-2019. A2 was issued notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the court.

4.This Court basing on the material, produced by the investigation officer, took cognizance for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 35(1) of Walta Act-2002 against A1 and A2 and numbered as CC.No.121 of 2019. On appearance of A1 and

A2, case copies furnished to them in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Later A1 and

A2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against them and they denied the same. Later charges for the offences under section 379 IPC and section 35(1) of Walta Act-2002 were framed and the same were read over and explained to A1 and A2 and they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case on behalf of prosecution Pw1 to Pw6 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to P3.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available against him and accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3

CC No.121/2019

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

8.Now the point arises for determination is whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences under Sections 379 IPC and section 35(1) of Walta Act-2002 beyond reasonable doubt?

9.The case of prosecution is that A1 and A2 were indulged in illegal excavation of soil from the land in survey No.427 of Gummadavelly Village. In order to prove these facts the prosecution examined the eye witnesses as Pw1 and Pw3, de facto complainant examined as Pw-2, panch witness for confession-cum-seizure and scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch examined as Pw-4 and Pw-5 and the investigating officer examined as Pw6. Apart from this oral evidence of prosecution marked Ex.P1 report, Ex.P-2 is FIR, Ex.P-3 is scene of offence panchanama cum rough sketch.

9. Pw-1 deposed that Lw-1 received a information about the illegal excavation in

Sy.No.427 of Gummadavelly village and Lw-1 instructed them to inspect the land, then himself and Lw-2 (Revenue Inspector) visited the land and found the land digging and excavated and no one was found at the place. Hence they came to know that the said land was given to Narasimha Reddy and he gave the land to one Banda Venu on lease basis and he was doing illegal excavation and digging of the land without permission from the Government and selling the soil to the public. After due enquiry Lw-2 submitted a report to Lw-1 and Lw-1 lodged a complaint before the police. During cross- examination Pw-1 admitted that no letter was given to him for inspecting the scene of offence and no documents were collected to know lease is made from whom to whom and he has not ascertain the total extent of the land in Sy.No.427 and no land documents were collected with respect to Sy.No.427 and nothing was collected with respect to Sy.No.427.

4

CC No.121/2019

10.Pw-2 deposed that on 6-2-2019 his Mandal Revenue Inspector and VRI while inspecting the Gummadavally village in Sy.No.427, one person by name Banda Venue was conducting illegal excavation to an extent of 2 ½ feet depth and transportation and the same was reported to him by his MRI and VRI and then he complained at Kandukur

P.S.against A1 and A2. During cross-examination, Pw-2 deposed that he has not received any written compliant from MRI and VRI and he has not collected any record with respect to show the owners of Sy.No.427 and he has no idea how many acres of land in Sy.No.427 and he has not filed any photos to show the depth of excavation and not filed any report with respect to some. Further admitted that he did not enquire with neighbours of the said scene of offence and he does not remember whether police has recorded his statement because his statement was taken for total 10 number of cases together.

11.Pw-3 deposed that Pw-2 has received information about illegal excavation of red soil and same was informed to them i.e. Pw-1 and they inspected the place and found the same at Sy.No.427 which belongs to A2 and A1 was digging the land which is illegal excavation and then again after two days when they went there they saw 2 ½ feet was dug and then he filed report before Pw-2 and she filed complaint before Kandukur P.S.

During cross-examination, Pw-3 admitted that he reported before Tahasildar about the illegal excavation and he does not remember the exact date when was he statement was recorded and he has filed the report to Tahsildar office but same is not given to police and when he visited Sy.No.427 for inspection no digging was taken place and further admitted that he has not filed report with respect to Sy.No.427 and no photos are filed.

12.Pw-4 and Pw-5 did not support the case of prosecution, Pw4 and Pw-5 testified that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and police obtained their signatures on white papers and police did not examine them nor recorded their statement. .

5

CC No.121/2019

13. Pw6 investigating officer testified that on 6-2-2019 he received a petition from

Tahasildar of Kandukur and he registered a case in Cr.No.29/2019 U/s.379 IPC and 35 (1) of AP Walta Act, 2002 and investigation was done by him and during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Lw-1 and later he went to the scene of offence located in Gummadavally village in Sy.No.427 in the presence of two mediators he conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch and later he seized one tractor bearing No.TS-08-UB-8089 and one trolley bearing No.TS-08-UB- 8057 and later he issued notice to the accused A1 and A2 and A1 was surrendered

before the Hon’ble court and released on bail on 18-03-2019 and A2 was issued notice

U/s.41-A Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the

Court. During cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that there is no complaint made by any independent person and accused was caught after 40 days of incident and there is no independent eye witness and the witnesses examined are all official witnesses. PW-6 further admitted that no independent witness is examined and also adjacent land owners are not examined and he cannot say what is the extent of land in Sy.No.427 and also he has not filed any document pertaining to the said Survey Number and not filed any photographs to show the commission of the offence and as per the complaint there is delay of three days in registration of FIR.

14.This court after carefully scrutinizing the evidence on record found that the prosecution has not elicited about identification of accused Nos.1 and 2 by the witnesses also. Arrest of accused A1 and A2 after 40 days of alleged offence is not explained. Even the witnesses has only deposed the theft of soil from the said land, but none of the witnesses has deposed that accused A1 and A2 are the responsible persons for soil theft.

15.Hence there is no incriminating evidence and for the lack of corroborative evidence this court holds that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of A1 and A2 and against prosecution.

6

CC No.121/2019

16.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences under section 379 of

IPC and section 35 (1) of Walta Act-2002 and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 are stands cancelled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of May, 2022.

XXVI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: MAHESHWARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: Smt.G.Haritha - Nil – PW2: P.Sandhya Rani PW3: K.Jangaiah PW4: A.Ramesh PW5: A.Ganesh PW6: G.Prabhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Complainat -Nil – Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: Scene of offence panchanama cum rough sketch

XXVII ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: MAHESHWARAM.

7

CC No.121/2019

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MAHESHWARAM, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

C.C.No.121/2019

_____________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 06-02-2019

Date of report or complaint: : 06-02-2019

Date of apprehension of accused: 08-03-2019

Date release on bail, if any: 20-03-2019

Date of commencement of trial: 13-03-2020

Close of trial: 06-05-2022

Date of sentence or other order: 23-05-2022

Remarks: Nil

Offence U/Sec.: 379 IPC and Sec.35(1) of AP WALTA Act.

Finding: Not guilty

Result: In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 379 IPC and Sec.35(1) of

AP WALTA Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused are stands cancelled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C.

XXVII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT MAHESHWARAM

Copy to:

The Hon’ble I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB

Nagar.

1

OS No.199/2021

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT:: MAHESHWARAM, R.R. DISTRICT

PRESENT: Farheen Kouser Junior Civil Judge, At Maheshwaram

Dated, the 9th day of May, 2022

OS.No.199 of 2021

Between:

1.Gottipati Srimannarayana S/o G. Chenchu Ramaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.SRT-634, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

2.Sabavath Bhaskar, S/o.Heerya, Aged about 33 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.5-113, Nagaram village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Bakkani Ravi S/o Bakkani Narsimha, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-19, Kalwakole village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.….Petitioners/Plaintiffs

AND

1. Jatavath Valya s/o Late Sevya, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Agriculture, 2.Jatavath Gobriya s/o Late Sevya, Aged about 83 years, Occ: Agriculture

3. Jatavath Humla s/o Late Sevya, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture

All are r/o K.C. Thanda, Maheshwaram village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Respondents/defendants.

This suit coming on for final hearing before me on 17.03.2022 in the presence of Sri S.Jyothi, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendants are set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is suit filed for decree of Perpetual Injunction by the Plaintiffs against

Defendants.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of piece and parcel of the Open Plot bearing No.45, admeasuring area 196.00 sq yards or equivalent to 163.85 meters, in D.T.C.P.approved 2

OS No.199/2021

Syout vide C.No.863/05/HRO/H2 and L.P.No.273/2006/HRO, in Survey Nos.300/A & 301/A, situated at Maheshwaram Revenue village and Grampanchayath,

Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same through a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.16069/2020 dated 30th day of December, 2020 from its original owner PARIM PRABHAKAR, represented his General Power of

Attorney Sri JETTA VEERESH vide GPA (General Power of Attorney validated by the

District Registrar, Ranga Reddy Distrct, vide File No.10668/E/2020 dated 09-12-2020.

3.The plaintiffs further submitted that the Vendor of the Plaintiffs namely Parim

Prabhakar is the sole absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the Open Plot bearing

No.45, admeasuring area 196.00 sq. yards or equivalent to 163.85 sq. metters, in

D.T.C.P.approved layout vide C.No.863/05/HRO/H2 and L.P.No.273/2006/HRO, in

Survey Nos.300/A & 301/A, situated Maheshwaram Revenue village and

Grampanchayath, Maheshwaram Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from M.N.B. PROJECTS & DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD., Rep by its

Managing Director, Sri M.N. Brahmalah s/o Venkata Subbaraiah, through a Registered

Sale Deed bearng document No.15665/2006 dated 21-09-2006. The Vendor of the

Plaintiffs namely Parimi Prabhakar has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri Jetla Veeresh s/o J. Venkatesh in respect of suit schedule property and the said

General Power of Attorney validated by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, vide File No.10668/E/2020, dated 9-12-2020. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as absolute owners and peaceful possessors without any sort of interference or obstruction from anybody else. On 10th day of August, 2021 at about 9.00 am the plaintiffs went to the suit schedule property along with labours for levelling the land for start of construction of compound wall to safeguard the suit plot from the land grabbers and the defendants along with their henchmen came to the suit plot and raised objections against the plaintiff and tried to interfere over the ongoing levelling work on the suit plot, immediately the plaintiffs questioned the said acts of the defendants and the defendants represented that they are the owners of the suit plot but failed to produce any documents in support of their contentions. On 19-08-2021 the defendants along with their henchmen and unsocial elements came tot he suit plot and tried to interfere with 3

OS No.199/2021

plaintiffs peaceful possession of suit property and the plaintiffs with the help of neigbhours and locality people resisted the illegal acts of the defendants. Immediately, the plaintiff approached the concerned Police and gave a complaint against the defendants but the police did not take any action against the defendants. Hence the plaintiffs have no other option except to approach this Hon'ble Court for grant of perpetual injunction.

4.Notice served to the defendants. The defendants called absent. No representation. Hence they were set exparte on 29-11-2021.

5.In order to prove his case the Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as Pw1 and marked Ex.A1 to A3.

6.Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiffs and perused the Record.

7.Now the point for consideration is “whether plaintiffs are in lawful possession of suit land, if so whether Plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of Perpetual Injunction”?

POINT:-

8.On careful perusal of pleadings, it shows that Plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property. To substantiate the said contention PW-1 filed Ex.A1 is the Mee-seva sale deed bearing document No.16069/2020, dated 30-12- 2020 executed by Parimi Prabhakar represented by his General Power of Attorney Jetla

Veeresh in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. Ex.A2 is the Mee-seva sale deed bearing document No.15655/2006, dated 21-9-2006 executed by M.N.B.Projects Developers

Pvt.Ltd. In favour of Parimi Prabhakar. Ex.A3 is the Mee-seva sale deed bearing document No.9147/2006, dated 20-06-2006 executed by M.Rama and another represented by his AGPA holder M.Ram in favour of T.Seshachalam represented by his

AGPA Tella Suresh Babu in favour of M/s.M.N.B.Projects and Developers Pvt.Ltd. All the documents are proved. Pw1 testified these facts in his evidence. The said evidence is unchallenged one. This court taking in to consideration of above referred documentary evidence coupled with unchallenged evidence of Pw1 holds that Plaintiffs established their lawful possession in and over the suit schedule property on the date of filing of suit.

4

OS No.199/2021

9.The specific pleading of Plaintiffs are that the Defendants trying to encroach the suit schedule property, more particularly on 19-08-2021 came to the suit schedule property along with their henchmen with a view to occupy the same but the Plaintiffs resisted the Defendants with the help of village elders and family members. Pw1 testified the same this fact in his evidence and the said evidence is un-challenged one.

Since the evidence of Pw1 un-challenged one and in the absence of any other material to rebut the said version, this court holds that Plaintiffs established interference of

Defendants in the lawful possession of Plaintiffs.

10.For granting a decree of Perpetual Injunction, the Plaintiffs has to establish his lawful possession in and over the suit schedule property and the interference of

Defendants in such lawful possession. Herein above, this court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of Plaintiffs holds a finding that Plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit land and also the interference of Defendants in such lawful possession. Therefore, the Plaintiffs established the essential requirements for granting a Perpetual Injunction decree. Hence, the Plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of

Perpetual Injunction. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of Plaintiffs and as against Defendants.

11.In the result, suit is decreed without costs by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, associates henchmen etc.from causing any sort of interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in any manner.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of May, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT MAHESHWARAM,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs:- PW1: G.Srimannaryana For Defendants:- -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

5

OS No.199/2021

Ex.A1 is the Mee-seva sale deed bearing document No.16069/2020, dated 30-12-2020 executed by Parimi Prabhakar represented by his General Power of Attorney Jetla

Veeresh in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3.

Ex.A2 is the Mee-seva sale deed bearing document No.15655/2006, dated 21-9-2006 executed by M.N.B.Projects Developers Pvt.Ltd. In favour of Parimi Prabhakar.

Ex.A3 is the Mee-seva sale deed bearing document No.9147/2006, dated 20-06-2006

For Defendants:- -Nil –

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT MAHESHWARAM.

6

OS No.199/2021

DECREE IN ORIGINALSUIT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD: AT MAHESHWARAM

PRESENT: Smt.Farheen Kouser, Junior Civil Judge, at Maheshwaram

Monday, the 28th day of March, 2022

OS.No.05 of 2022

Between:

Manchikanti Srihari, S/o.Late Manchikanti Sri Ramulu, Aged about 48 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Plot No.Malani Enclave, G.V.Nivas Apartments,

Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad, Hyderabad…..Plaintiff

AND 1.G.Shiva Shankar Goud, S/o.Satyanarayana, Aged about 40 years, Occ:Upa-Sarpanch, 2 G.Hari Krishna Goud, S/o.Satyanarayana, Aged about 38 years, Occ:Business,

Both are R/o.Rachloor Village,

Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Defendants

CLAIM: Suit for perpetual injunction.

CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action to the suit arose on 26-12-2021 when the defendants and their men tried to dispossess and grab the suit schedule property.

VALUATION: The value of suit schedule property is valued at Rs.10,000/- and paid court fee of Rs.786/- is under section 26(c) of APCF and S.V.Act,which is sufficient.

Suit presented on : 04-01-2022 Suit numbered on : 04-01-2022

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Sanjeeva Goud, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendants are set exparte and having heard and stood over for consideration, this court doth the compromise decree as follows:

1. The suit of the plaintiffs be and the same is decreed without costs by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, associates henchmen etc.from causing any sort of interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff to ingress and egress over the suit schedule property and work of remodeling of existing 33’ wide road which is abetting to the suit schedule property in any manner.

7

OS No.199/2021

2. That there is no orders as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal on this the 28th day of March, 2022

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABA AT MAHESHWARAR

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

1. Stamp on plaintRs.786-00

2.Stamp on Vakalath Rs.102-00Defendants set exparte

3.Stamp on Exhibits Rs.

4.Stamp on process Rs. 70-00

5.Publication Charges Rs.

6.Advocate fees Sr.Rs.

7.Advocate fees. Jr.Rs.

8.Misc/preparation charges Rs. Total Rs. 958-00

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD AT MAHESWARAM

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that five plots having purchased under separate registered sale deeds from different vendors i.e. 1) Open Plot bearing No.18 admeasuring 206 sq.yards 172.22 sq.mtrs, 2) Open Plot bearing No.19 admeasuring 206 sq.yards or 172.22 sq.mtrs, 3) open Plot bearing No.20, admeasuring 206 sq.yards or 172.22 sq.mtrs 4) Open Plot bearing No. 21 admeasuring 206 sq.yards or 172.22 sq.mtrs., mtrs 5) Open Plot bearing No. 22 admeasuring 300 sq.yards or 250.85 sq.mtrs , all the above plots abetting to each other continuously forming part of compact block existing in Sy.No.403, total admeasuring 1124 sq.yards in the name and style of “CASTLE KNOCK” with DTCP approved layout vide C.No.2426/2007/H and confirmed in L.P.No.56/2007/H, situated at Rachloor Village and Grampanchayat, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and bounded by :

NORTH:Plot No.17, 16 & 60’ wide road SOUTH:33’ wide road & Plot No.23 EAST:Existing 33’ wide road WEST:Plot Nos.8 to 12

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD AT MAHESHWARAM

1

CC No.92/2017

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD,

AT:: MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Smt.Farheen Kouser XXVII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram.

Monday, the 23rd day of May, 2022.

CC.No.92 of 2017

Between:

State represented by Inspector of police

P.S. Kandukur.…Complainant.

Vs.

Kondaparthy Indra Mohan @ Vinay Kumar, S/o.Srinivas, aged : 34 years, Caste:Brahmin,

Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.SRT 95,

Jawahar Nagar, Chikkadapally,

Hyderabad.…Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 16.05.2022 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri L.Srinivas, Advocate for accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT

1.Accused stands for accusations under section 341 of Indian Penal Code herein after referred to as IPC.

2.The prosecution alleges and proposes to prove the following facts against accused is that the wife of defacto complainant purchased land admeasuring Ac.5-00 in

Sy.No.84/2, situated at Pulimamidi Village through document No.1045/2001, dated 18- 4-2001 and 31-8-2015 LW-3/Ramavatyhi Ravi and Lw-4/Meghavath Vijay were working in the land and the accused went there and inform that accused is the representative of

Nooruddin Mandani and Kharithunnisa Mandani and others and they got right over the land and obstructed Ramavathi Ravi and Vijay. Hence the complaint.

2

CC No.92/2017

3.A report was lodged by K.V.Vijay Kumar/Inspector of police basing on that the he registered a case in crime No.221/2016 under sections 4427, 427 and 506 of IPC and entrusted to the investigation to the Lw-8/P.Sudhakar, Sub-Inspector of Police. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded statements of Lw-1/Anil Kumar and later he visited the scene of offence situated at Pulimamidi village in Sy.No.84/2 there he recorded the statements Lw-2/R.Surender Reddy, Lw-3/Ramavath Ravi, LW- 4/Megavath Vijay and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators Lw-5/Potta Kumar and Lw-6/Sreenu. On 13-11-2016 accused was served

U/s.41-A Cr.P.C.notice. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This Court basing on the material on record took cognizance for the offence under Section 341 of IPC against accused. After appearance of accused case copies were furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Later accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against him for the offences under section 341 of IPC and accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, on behalf of prosecution Pw1 to Pw7 were examined and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P-5.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available against him and accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

3

CC No.92/2017

8.Now the point for determination is whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 341 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9. The simple case of the prosecution is that accused wrongful restraining the complainant. In order to prove these facts prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW-1, eye witness examined as Pw-2, Pw-3 and Pw-5, panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch examined as Pw-3 and Pw-4 and investigating officer examined as Pw-4. Investigating officer examined as

PW-6 and PW-7. Apart from this oral evidence prosecution marked Ex.P-1 is the report, Ex.P-2 is the copy of sale deed bearing document No.1045/2001, dated 18-4- 2001, Ex.P-3 is the section 161 Cr.P.C.statement contents of PW-2, Ex.P-4 is the section 161 Cr.P.C.statement contents of PW-3, Signature of Pw-4 on panchanama.

10.Pw1 testified that in the year 2001 the society purchase the land and extent of

Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy.No.84/2, situated at Pulmamidi village from Mudavath Narsing through registered sale deed and the society obtain pattedar pass books, title deeds and mutation proceedings were also issued in favour of society, since then society is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. On 31-8-2016 the associates of accused tress passed into the society land and damage fencing stones, plants and name board and the associates of accused threatened workers and accused is claiming the land illegally from Nooruddin Mandani and the society got a decree of perpetual injunction against Nooruddin Mandani and the society got a Decree of perpetual injunction against

Nooruddin Mandani and the society was also obtained favourable orders from the

Hon’ble High Court. On 3-10-2016 he lodged a report with police Kandukur. Ex.P-1 is

the report, Ex.P-2 is the true copy of sale deed bearing document No.1045/2001, dated 18-4-2001 and he submitted all copies of documents including copy of judgment and decree and also orders of Hon’ble High Court to the police. During cross-examination,

Pw-1 admitted that Ex.P-1 was prepared by his counsel and he does not know about existence of any GPA in favour of accused executed by Nooruddin Mandani and he 4

CC No.92/2017

does not know whether Nooruddin Mandani is in abroad. PW-1 further admitted that accused filed suit against him before the Hon’ble Prl.District Judge and witness adds that no orders are passed in favour of accused. He lodged Ex.P-1 with a delay of more one month. Pw-1 further admitted that he does not know the total extent of Sy.No.84 and they obtained decree against Nooruddin Mandani and others. PW-1 further admitted that he was not an eye witness to the incident and he did not state before police and in Ex.P-1 the number of workers and their names. Pw-1 further admitted that he do not know the total number of pattedars in Sy.No.84 and the police did not seize the damage property from the scene of offence.

11.PW-2 to PW-5 did not support the case of prosecution.

12.PW-6 is the investigating officer and he testified that on 3-11-2016, Lw-7 registered a case in Cr.No.221/2016 for the offence U/s.447, 427 and 506 IPC and CD file handed over to him for further investigation of this case. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of Lw-1 and later he visited the scene of offence situated at Pulimamidi village in Sy.No.84/2 there he recorded the statements of Lw-2 to Lw-4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators LW-5 and Lw-6 and on 13-11-2016, accused was served 41-A

Cr.P.C.notice and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. During cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that there is delay of three months in lodging of FIR by the complainant from the date of incident. Further admitted that there is civil dispute pending in Senior Civil Judge Court between accused and the complainant and he has not seized any material to show the damage caused at the said land and he was not aware whether the accused is the legal owner of Sy.No.84/2/1 and he is possession.

13.Pw-7 testified that on 3-11-2016 at 11.00 hours received complaint from Pw-1 and basing on the complaint registered a case in Cr.No.221/2016, U/s.447, 427, 506 5

CC No.92/2017

IPC and investigation entrusted to PW-6. During cross-examination, Pw-7 admitted that there is three months delay from the lodging of complaint to the date of incident and no explanation is placed before this court for the delay.

14.After considering the evidence on record, it is found that three months dely in lodging of complaint by Pw-1 is not explained. Also PW-1 is not the eye witness and has lodge complaint on behalf of his wife and in what capacity is not explained before this court.

15.There is no incriminating of evidence with respect to identification of accused and also the investigating officer has admitted that there is already civil dispute pending between the accused and wife of complainant. Also no damaged property is seized from the scene of offence and no valuation of damage is made by the complainant.

16.In view of afore said discussion and reasons, though the prosecution established the purchase of land by Pw1 and with oral and documentary evidence but at the same time the evidence on record discloses rival claims between parties and pendency of civil cases.

17.In the result accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 341 of IPC and accordingly is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused is stands cancelled subject to 437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of May, 2022.

XXVII Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CYBERABAD: MAHESHWARAM.

6

CC No.92/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:

PW1: Jilla Anil Kumar PW2: Meghavath Vijay PW3: Ramavath Ravi PW4: P.Kumar PW5: P.Surender Reddy PW6: P.Sudhakar PW7: K.V.Vijay Kumar

For Accused:

-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P1: is complaint. Ex.P2: CC of Sale deed doc.No.1045/2001, dated 18-4-2001 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C.statement of Pw-3 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C.statement of Pw-4 Ex.P5: Signature of Pw-2 on panchanama

For Accused:

-Nil –XXVII Addl. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CYBERABAD: MAHESHWARAM.

7

CC No.92/2017

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MAHESHWARAM, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

C.C.No.92/2017

_____________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 03-11-2016

Date of report or complaint: : 31-08-2016

Date of apprehension of accused: 13-11-2016

Date release on bail, if any: 13-11-2016

Date of commencement of trial: 11-07-2019

Close of trial: 12-04-2022

Date of sentence or other order: 23-05-2022

Remarks: Nil

Offence U/Sec.: 341 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Result: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 341 IPC and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after appeal time.

XXVII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT MAHESHWARAM

Copy to:

The Hon’ble I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB

Nagar.

1

CC No.256/2020

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD, AT::

MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT.FARHEEN KOUSER

XXVII Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram.

Dated, the 9th day of May, 2022

CC.No.256 of 2020

Between:

State represented by Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of police P.S. Ex.Maheshwaram. …Complainant.

AND A1: Barla Adinarayana, S/o.Gangulu, Aged 30 years, R/o.Sudheer Goud Mango Thota, Maheshwaram Mandal.

A2:Swarnaganti Balraj, S/o.Bavaiah, Aged 45 years, R/o.H.No.1-145, Maheshwaram.

A3:Mudavath Redya, S/o.Gopya, Aged 27 years, R/o.H.No.2-69, Murali Nagar, Kandukur.

A4:Mudavath Mothi, S/o.Gopya, Aged 59 years, R/o.H.No.2-69, Muralinagar, Kandukur.

A5: Pittala Balaraj, S/o.Lavaiah, Aged 42 years, R/o.H.No.1-142, Dhannaram Village, Kandukur Mandal.…Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me 07-07-2022 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.Murali Goud, Advocate for accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a charge sheet filed by Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police

Excise PS Maheshwaram for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act-1995 against accused Nos.1 to 3.

2.The allegations leveled against accused are as follows:-

That on 18-4-2020 on reliable information about illegal transportation of illicitly

Distilled liquor through Chippalapally Chowrasta, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy 2

CC No.256/2020

District and LW-3 went to the scene of offence and secured two panch witnesses Lw-1,

Lw-2 and kept watch and at about 6.00 am found A1 and A2 are coming on vehicle and on suspicion, the vehicle is stopped and found one plastic cover on it and while searching the vehicle Honda Shine No.AP-28-AE-5875. On enquiry the accused revealed their particulars and secured PW-1 and Lw-3 and on search he found two bottles of two liters capacity and on opening the caps of the bottles pungent smell of illicitly distilled liquor is coming from it total four liters illicitly distilled liquor. A3 to A5 confessed that they purchased jiggery and alum and manufactured illicitly distilled liquor for sale purpose and later he collected two samples each 350 ml and seized contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and later he returned to the station along with accused and seized property with samples and registered a case in

COR No.16/2020 for the offence U/s.34(2) and 34 (1) of TS Excise Act, 1968 and

Section 8 (3) of TS Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 and later he issued U/s.41-A

Cr.P.C.notice. He deposited one sample before the Hon’ble Court and another sample for chemical analysis. The remaining contraband deposited with Deputy Commissioner for confiscation. After receipt of CE report filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of T.S..

Prohibition Act R/w.34 (e) of Excise Act against accused Nos.1 to 5 and registered the case as CC No.256 of 2020. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as provided under section 207 Cr.P.C. Further examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C and they denied the accusations. A charge for the offence under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of T.S.. Prohibition Act R/w.34 (e) of Excise Act was framed and the same is read over and explained to accused. Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and marked

Exs.P1 to P4.

3

CC No.256/2020

6.After completion of prosecution evidence accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence, available in the prosecution evidence, for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of T.S.. Prohibition Act R/w.34 (e) of

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

ANSWER TO POINT:-

9.The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in illegal sales of liqour. In order to prove this fact prosecution examined the panch witness PW-1 and the investigation officer examined as PW-2 and also marked Ex.P1 signature of Pw-1 on

Panchanama, Ex.P2 COR, Ex.P-3 CE report and Ex.P4 Panchanama.

10.This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. In order to prove the seizure of distilled liquor totaling to two liters from the possession of accused the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW2. PW2 is the investigating officer testified that on 18-4-2020 on reliable information about illegal transportation of illicitly Distilled liquor through Chippalapally Chowrasta, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and

LW-3 went to the scene of offence and secured two panch witnesses Lw-1, Lw-2 and kept watch and at about 6.00 am found A1 and A2 are coming on vehicle and on suspicion, the vehicle is stopped and found one plastic cover on it and while searching the vehicle Honda Shine No.AP-28-AE-5875. On enquiry the accused revealed their particulars and secured PW-1 and Lw-3 and on search he found two bottles of two liters capacity and on opening the caps of the bottles pungent smell of illicitly distilled liquor is coming from it total four liters illicitly distilled liquor. A3 to A5 confessed that they purchased jiggery and alum and manufactured illicitly distilled liquor for sale purpose and later he collected two samples each 350 ml and seized contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and later he returned to the station along 4

CC No.256/2020

with accused and seized property with samples and registered a case in COR

No.16/2020 for the offence U/s.34(2) and 34 (1) of TS Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8 (3) of TS Prohibition Amendment Act, 1997 and later he issued U/s.41-A Cr.P.C.notice.

He deposited one sample before the Hon’ble Court and another sample for chemical analysis. The remaining contraband deposited with Deputy Commissioner for confiscation. After receipt of CE report filed charge sheet against the accused. During cross examination PW2 deposed that he has not collected any document pertaining to the ownership of house and no search memo was issued and no notice was issued to panch witness and accused was not arrested and hence he was issued 41-A

Cr.P.C.notice. However PW1 mediator for Ex.P1 panchanama denied seizure of ID liquor from the possession of accused. PW1 deposed that he do not know anything about this case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence and nothing was seized. Now it has to see whether the evidence of PW2 can be relied upon in the absence of independent evidence. However as noted herein above the investigating officer failed to collect any document to show the ownership of said house. The case is one registered suomoto by the excise officers and the investigation conducted by them.

Moreover, the investigation officer who seized the ID liquor is not examined. Under those circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that PW2 investigating officer evidence has to be corroborated by some more independent evidence. But such evidence is absent on record. In the absence of such corroborative evidence this Court hesitated to rely on the sole testimony of PW2 in proof of seizure of ID liquor under

Ex.P5.

11.Ex.P2 is the COR which issued a consequential to Ex.P4, therefore the same is not helping the prosecution. Ex.P3 is the Analysis Report which discloses that sample tested is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption. However the sample collected under Ex.P3 itself is not established. As such Ex.P3 does not support the prosecution in proving its case.

5

CC No.256/2020

12.In view of afore said discussion and reasons, for the lack of adequate corroborative evidence this court holds that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

13.In the result, accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly, accused are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused are stands cancelled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C. Un marked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of May, 2022.

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: AT MAHESHWARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: P.Sattaiah - Nil -

PW2:L.Hanumanthu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw-1 on panchanama -Nil-

Ex.P2: Crime Occurrence Report

Ex.P3: CE Report

Ex.P4: Panchanama

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: AT MAHESHWARAM 6

CC No.256/2020

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MAHESHWARAM, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

C.C.No.256/2020

_____________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 18-04-2020

Date of report or complaint: : 18-04-2020

Date of apprehension of accused: 18-04-2020

Date release on bail, if any: 18-04-2020

Date of commencement of trial: 22-12-2021

Close of trial: 16-03-2022

Date of sentence or other order: 09-05-2022

Remarks: Nil

Offence U/Sec.: 8 (e) of T.S.Prohibition Act,1965

Finding: Not guilty

Result: In the result, accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences under section 8 (e) of T.S.Prohibition

Act,1965 and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after appeal time.

XXVII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT MAHESHWARAM

Copy to:

The Hon’ble I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB

Nagar.

1

CC No.266/2020

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CYBERABAD, AT::

MAHESHWARAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: SMT.FARHEEN KOUSER

XXVII Addl Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, At Maheshwaram.

Dated, the 18th day of May, 2022

CC.No.266 of 2020

Between:

State represented by Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of police P.S. Ex.Maheshwaram. …Complainant.

AND Vakudavath Ravi, S/o.Manikyam, age: 36 years, R/o.Murali Nagar, Kandukur Mandal, R.R.District.…Accused

This case coming on for final hearing before me 11-04-2022 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri , Advocate for accused and having heard and stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a charge sheet filed by Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police

Excise PS Maheshwaram for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act-1968 against accused.

2.The allegations leveled against accused are as follows:-

That on 02.05.2020 at about 7.45 am, Sub-Inspector of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at the agriculture land of

Venkudothu Ravi, Murali Nagar, Kandukur mandal. Later he proceeded to the place of accused along with his staff in Jeep. On enquiry the accused revealed his particulars as

Vankudothu Ravi and he secured LW-1/Ram Singh and Lw-2/V.Kishan at Peddamma

Thanda, Maheshwaram Mandal. On search he found one plastic can behind rock filled with liquid. On opening the cap of the can pungent smell of illicitly distilled liquor is coming from it which is about 2 liters illicitly distilled liquor and also found two plastic drums at the place and on verification of drums, found about 200 liters fermented jiggery wash kept for distillation of illicitly distilled liquor. Later he collected two samples each 350 ml and seized contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of 2

CC No.266/2020

mediators. Later he returned to the station along with accused and seized property with samples and registered a case in COR.No.33/2020 U/Sec. 34(2), 41 and 42(c) of TS

Excise Act, 1968 and Sec. 7(A) r/w Sec. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Amendment Act, 1995 and later he issued 41-A notice and he deposited one sample before the Hon'ble Court and another sample for chemical analysis. The remaining contraband deposited with

Deputy Commissioner for confiscation. After receipt of CE report filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of T.S..

Prohibition Act R/w.34 (e) of Excise Act against accused and registered the case as CC

No.266 of 2020. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as provided under section 207 Cr.P.C. Further examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C and he denied the accusations. A charge for the offence under section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of T.S.. Prohibition Act R/w.34 (e) of Excise Act was framed and the same is read over and explained to accused. Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined PW1 tp PW3 and marked

Exs.P1 to P5.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence, available in the prosecution evidence, for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w.8 (e) of T.S.. Prohibition Act R/w.34 (e) of

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

3

CC No.266/2020

ANSWER TO POINT:-

9.The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in illegal sales of liqour. In order to prove this fact prosecution examined the panch witnesses PW-1 and

PW-2 and the investigation officer examined as PW-3 and also marked Ex.P1 and

Ex.P-2 are signature of Pw-1 and Pw-2 on Panchanama, Ex.P3 COR, Ex.P-4 CE report and Ex.P5 Panchanama.

10.This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. In order to prove the seizure of distilled liquor totaling to two liters from the possession of accused the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW3. PW3 is the investigating officer testified that on on 02.05.2020 at about 7.45 am, Sub-Inspector of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at the agriculture land of

Venkudothu Ravi, Murali Nagar, Kandukur mandal. Later he proceeded to the place of accused along with his staff in Jeep. On enquiry the accused revealed his particulars as

Vankudothu Ravi and he secured LW-1/Ram Singh and Lw-2/V.Kishan at Peddamma

Thanda, Maheshwaram Mandal. On search he found one plastic can behind rock filled with liquid. On opening the cap of the can pungent smell of illicitly distilled liquor is coming from it which is about 2 liters illicitly distilled liquor and also found two plastic drums at the place and on verification of drums, found about 200 liters fermented jiggery wash kept for distillation of illicitly distilled liquor. Later he collected two samples each 350 ml and seized contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. Later he returned to the station along with accused and seized property with samples and registered a case in COR.No.33/2020 U/Sec. 34(2), 41 and 42(c) of TS

Excise Act, 1968 and Sec. 7(A) r/w Sec. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Amendment Act, 1995 and later he issued 41-A notice and he deposited one sample before the Hon'ble Court and another sample for chemical analysis. The remaining contraband deposited with

Deputy Commissioner for confiscation. After receipt of CE report filed charge sheet against the accused. During cross examination PW3 deposed that he has not collected any document pertaining to the ownership of house and no search memo was issued and no notice was issued to panch witness and accused was not arrested and hence he was issued 41-A Cr.P.C.notice. However PW1 and PW2 mediators for Ex.P5 4

CC No.266/2020

panchanama denied seizure of ID liquor from the possession of accused. PW1 and

PW2 deposed that they do not know anything about this case and no panchanama was conducted in their presence and nothing was seized. Now it has to see whether the evidence of PW3 can be relied upon in the absence of independent evidence. However as noted herein above the investigating officer failed to collect any document to show the ownership of said house. The case is one registered suomoto by the excise officers and the investigation conducted by them. Moreover, the investigation officer who seized the ID liquor is not examined. Under those circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that PW3 investigating officer evidence has to be corroborated by some more independent evidence. But such evidence is absent on record. In the absence of such corroborative evidence this Court hesitated to rely on the sole testimony of PW3 in proof of seizure of ID liquor under Ex.P5.

11.Ex.P3 is the COR which issued a consequential to Ex.P5, therefore the same is not helping the prosecution. Ex.P4 is the Analysis Report which discloses that sample tested is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption. However the sample collected under Ex.P4 itself is not established. As such Ex.P4 does not support the prosecution in proving its case.

12.In view of afore said discussion and reasons, for the lack of adequate corroborative evidence this court holds that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7 (A)

R/w.8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1968 and accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused is stands cancelled subject to section 437(A) Cr.P.C. Un marked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2022.

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: AT MAHESHWARAM 5

CC No.266/2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: M.Ram Singh - Nil -

PW2: V.Kishan

PW3:L.Hanumanthu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw-1 on panchanama -Nil-

Ex.P2: Signature of Pw-1 on panchanama

Ex.P3: COR

Ex.P4: CE Report

Ex.P5:Panchanama

XXVII ADDL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD: AT MAHESHWARAM 6

CC No.266/2020

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF XXVII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MAHESHWARAM, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

C.C.No.266/2020

_____________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 02-05-2020

Date of report or complaint: : 02-05-2020

Date of apprehension of accused: 02-05-2020

Date release on bail, if any: 02-05-2020

Date of commencement of trial: 22-12-2021

Close of trial: 01-04-2022

Date of sentence or other order: 18-05-2022

Remarks: Nil

Offence U/Sec.: 7 (A) r/w.8 (e) of T.S.Prohibition Act,1965

Finding: Not guilty

Result: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 7 (A) R/w.8(e) of T.S.Prohibition

Act,1968 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after appeal time.

XXVII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT MAHESHWARAM

Copy to:

The Hon’ble I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB

Nagar.