Farheen Kouser

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 1 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Present : SMT. FARHEEN KOUSER,

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet.

(Dated, this the 27th day of April, 2026)

O.S.No. 135 of 2025

Old OS No.154 of 2019

Between: Mekala Issak S/o. Gamaiah, Aged: 69 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.Dhoopahad village of Penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District.

... Plaintiff.

AND

Nakrekanti Sujatha D/o. Issak (W/o. Bhargav), Aged: 35 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. Annaram Village of Penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District. … Defendant.

This suit came before me for hearing on 21-04-2026 in the presence of Sri M.Eshwar Kumar, Counsel for plaintiff, Sri Bagala Narsimha, Counsel for Defendant, having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for declaration of title, injunction and cancellation of gift settlement deed No.858/2014, dated 29.01.2014.

Brief averments of the plaint:

2. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural dry land to an extent of Acs. 1-00 in Sy. No.

32/A situated at within the revenue village of Dhoopahad village of

PenphadMandal, Suryapet District. The plaintiff is also having other land the full particulars of the said land are clearly mentioned in the schedule

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 2 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026 annexed to this plaint and the same is herein after called as suit schedule land.

3. It is submitted that the defendant is the daughter of plaintiff and that the plaintiff is also having another daughter by name Dunna Tabitha and sons Sudhakar and Prabhakar. It is submitted that the plaintiff with his hard work, he earned properties and that the suit schedule land and other lands record in the name of plaintiff in the revenue records and that the revenue authorities have also issued pattedar pass book and title deed book and later in the purification of the records and in "SAMAGRA

SURVEY", Telangana Government issued e-pass book bearing

No.T2900150024 vide Katha No.41.

4. It is submitted that the plaintiff performed the marriages of his two daughters and that in the year 2014 the defendant and another daughter of plaintiff namely Dunna Tabitha requested some extent of land for the purpose of getting Bank loans by mortgaging the said properties accordingly by believing and trusting the words of his daughters, the plaintiff due to love and affection executed Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the defendant and another daughter Dunna Tabitha vide document

No.858/2014 with regard to the extent of ACs.1-00 each in Sy.No.32/A, that the said documents are only nominal and no possession was delivered to the defendant or to the another daughter of plaintiff Dunna

Tabitha and the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit land and other land gifted to another daughter.

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 3 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026

5. It is submitted that the defendant having cordial relations with the plaintiff and his sons and that since last one year the plaintiff demanded the defendant to cancel the Gift Settlement Deed which is executed on the request of the defendant for the purpose of getting Bank loan by knowing that the defendant has not availed loan and more particularly without having any possession or legal title she is trying to sell the suit land to others by misleading the proposed purchasers stating that she is the exclusive owner. It is further submitted that by knowing the said illegal intention of the defendant, the plaintiff informed that he will approach the court of law if she fails to cooperate in cancellation of the nominal gift settlement deed and more particularly on verification of the gift settlement deed the plaintiff surprised that the boundaries also wrongly mentioned in the said deed and that the land under the gift settlement deed is on the backside of the road leads to Suryapet to Nereducherla but the defendant mentioned that western side boundary is road leads to Suraypet to

Nereducherlain fact the plaintiff executed the gift settlement deeds with regard to the backside of the land of the road but the defendant and her sister Dunna Tabitha shown the boundaries on the western side wrongly as road leads to Suryapet to Nereducherla and that when the plaintiff objected such illegal acts of defendant and her sister Dunna Tabitha proposing to sale of the land which was given nominally by the plaintiff, the defendant and her sister Dunna Tabitha taking advantage of the nominal document of gift settlement deeds in their favour they are encroaching into the land of son of plaintiff i.e. Mekala Prabhakar who is

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 4 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026 having his land on the road face leads to Suryapet to Nereducherla and in that regard the disputes arose and that they are not talking terms and that quarreled the defendant without having any possession or valid title in order to achieve her illegal goal of sale of the plaint schedule land filed suit against the plaintiff and his sons vide O.S.No.68/2019 by receiving the said notice, the plaintiff shocked and realized that taking advantage of the nominal documents the defendant in order to achieve her goal of alienating the property and to cause loss to the plaintiff filed the said suit as such about one week back once again the plaintiff demanded the defendant for amicable cancellation of the gift settlement deed bearing

No.859/2014 but the defendant bluntly refused to do so for cancellation of the document.

6. That the gift settlement deed is got by misrepresenting and misleading the plaintiff and no possession was delivered and that the said document is not acted upon and the said gift settlement deed is liable to be cancelled. These are the facts to file the suit as the defendant is denying the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land. As such, the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration. Hence, the suit.

Brief averments of the written statement:

7. The plaintiff is the father of the defendant and he is having another one daughter and other two sons. Originally the plaintiff was the owner and possessor of the suit land apart from other lands. The plaintiff herein gifted the said land to the defendant through registered gift Settlement

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 5 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026 Deed vide No.858/2014, dated: 29-01-2014. On the date of itself the plaintiff delivered the possession to the defendant, since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment over the suit land.

8. It is submitted that the plaintiff was having the patta of the land to an extent of Ac.4-12gts in Sy.No.32/A, apart from other lands, out of the said land the plaintiff gifted Ac.1-00gts of land each to his daughters i.e., the defendant and his another daughter by name Dunna Tabitha (Defendant in O.S.No. 153 of 2019) and also the plaintiff gifted the Ac.2- 00gts of land gifted to his son viz., MekalaPrabhakar through registered gift settlement deeds. After deducting the said Ac.4-00gts of land, the plaintiff is now having the patta of the land to an extent of Ac.0-12gts, but there is no physical availability of the land in said Survey number. But taking advantage of the patta of the land in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and his two sons were colluded with each other and they got created sale deed in favour of his son namely MekalaPrabhakar for the rest of the land to an extent of Ac.0-10gts by mentioning the boundaries partly pertaining to the suit land and land of sister of the defendant

Tabitha for the purpose of occupy the valuable land, which is located to the road face of the suit land.

9. It is submitted that the suit land is situated to the road face of

Suryapet to Nereducharla at Dhoopahad village and the rate of the suit land abnormally increased, as such the plaintiff and his sons developed eye sore against the defendant and her sister Tabitha, so taking advantage of created sale deeds, the plaintiff and his sons are trying to

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 6 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026 occupy the part of the suit land towards road face i.e. western side part of the suit land wrongly claiming and denying the title of the defendant over the part of the suit land. On 31-03-2019 while the plaintiff and his sons tried to enter into the suit land along with land of Dunna Tabitha by showing alleged sale deed, for the purpose of occupying the part of the suit land, but the Tabitha and defendant resisted the acts of the plaintiff and his sons, and tried to dispossess them there from and interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of them over the Suit Schedule

Land. With great difficulty with the help of neighboring land owners the defendant and Tabitha could resist the illegal attempts of the plaintiff and his sons and send them away from the Suit Schedule Land. The plaintiff and his sons along with their henchmen left the place they will come at any time to illegally occupy the Suit Schedule Land at any cost forcibly, as such said Dunna Tabitha have filed a suit against the plaintiff herein and his sons for declaration of title and injunction and declare the sale deed

No.3540/2019, dated: 11-03-2019 as null and void before this Court.

10. It is submitted that originally the plaintiff out of love and affection, he gifted the Suit Schedule Land to the defendant and another land to his another daughter Tabitha. But there after some minor disputes placed between the defendant, said Tabitha and the plaintiff, as such the plaintiff in collusion with his sons, filed this false suits against the defendant.

11. To settle the suit, this court framed the following issues:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare as owner and possessor of suit schedule property as prayed for?

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 7 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the gift settlement deed No.858/2014, dated 29.01.2014 registered in SRO, Suryapet as prayed for?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of suit schedule property as prayed for?

4.If so, to what relief?

12. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 mee seva registered gift settlement deed bearing

No.858/2014, dated 29.01.2014, Ex.A2 office copy of application to the

DMHO with regard to Appeal case order No.C1/926/22, dated 21.11.2022, Ex.A3 certified copy of order of the District Collector in

Appeal case No.C1/926/22, dated 16.07.2022, Ex.A4 online copy of Bhu

Bharathi Pahani, Ex.A5 online copy of pattadhar pass book cum title deed

No.T29200150024, Khatha No.41, Ex.A6 online specimen copy of 1-B namoona (ROR) and Ex.A7 certified copy of Lok Adalath Award along with terms of compromise and also examined one Dongari Aravind as PW2 and reported no further evidence. Hence, plaintiff evidence is closed.

13. On the other hand, though the defendant filed written statement did not come forward to cross examine PW1 and PW2 even though several opportunities were given. Hence, cross examined of PW1 and PW2 was treated nil. Further, the defendant did not choose to produce any evidence on her behalf to prove her case. Hence, treated no defendant evidence.

14. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant’s arguments treated heard.

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 8 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026

Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare as owner and

possessor of suit schedule property as prayed for?

Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to cancel the gift

settlement deed No.858/2014, dated 29.01.2014 registered in SRO,

Suryapet as prayed for?

Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction

against the defendant in respect of suit schedule property as prayed

for?

As all issues are interrelated to each other, hence discussed together.

15. On perusal of both oral and documentary evidence, the claim of the plaintiffs is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.32/A situated within the revenue village of Dhoopahad village of Penpahad Mandal.

16. In proof of the same the plaintiff filed mee seva registered gift settlement deed bearing No.858/2014, dated 29.01.2014, copy of application to the DMHO and certified copy of order of the District

Collector and copy of Bhu Bharathi pahani, online copy of pattadhar passbook cum title deed No.T29200150024, Khatha No.41, online specimen copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR) and copy of Lok Adalath award along with terms of compromise.

17. The present suit is filed for cancellation of registered gift deed

Doc.No.858/2014 dated: 29-01-2014. It is the claim of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the same was gifted to the defendant/daughter only for the purpose of

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 9 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026 getting bank loan by mortgaging the suit schedule property. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant was not delivered the possession of the suit schedule property and that she is trying to alienate the property without legal title and possession.

18. On the other hand it is submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff and his sons has created sale deeds and trying to occupy the part of the suit land towards road facing and denying the title of defendant. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has gifted the suit schedule property out of love and affection to the defendant and another land to the extent of Ac. 1-00 gts was gifted to another daughter named Dunna Tabitha, but due to some minor disputes between defendant and plaintiff, as such the plaintiff in collusion with his sons filed the present false suit.

19. On perusal of averments of both sides, it is undisputed that the suit schedule property, originally belongs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has executed registered gift deed in favour of the defendant. The contention of the plaintiff that the gift deed was nominally registered only for the purpose of obtaining the loan without delivery of the possession is the weak argument, as the property was gifted to defendant vide registered gift deed and it was executed voluntarily containing the absolute terms in the said deed Ex.A1.

20. As per Sec 122 of Transfer of Property Act 1982, the gift is a voluntarily transfer without any condition or consideration and when the gift deed is registered and signed and also attested it becomes a valid transfer document. The registered gift deed is presumed to be valid and

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 10 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026 genuine unless fraud is proved by the person challenging its validity. In the present suit, the plaintiff contends that he has executed a registered gift deed only for the purpose of obtaining loan by mortgaging the suit schedule property, hence as per Sec 92 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, an oral evidence cannot contradict written document, also once valid gift is executed it is irrevocable.

21. The learned counsel for plaintiff filed citation supporting his argument but on perusal of the same, the said citations are irrelevant as it emphasizes on the maintenance and welfare of the parents under

Senior Citizens Act 2007 and argued that plaintiff was neglected by the daughter and the sons and hence he was granted maintenance under

Senior Citizens Act 2007 vide Appeal No. C1/926/2022 by the appellate tribunal. It is also argued that the daughter of the plaintiff filed suit vide

O.S.No. 68/2019 before Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court at Suryapet and the

suit filed by the plaintiff for the cancellation of the gift deed vide O.S.No.

153/2019 were compromised and Lok Adalat award was passed and the gift deed of the daughter Dunna Tabitha was cancelled.

22. In the present suit the plaintiff, has not made any pleadings with respect to his rights as Senior Citizen and under maintenance and welfare of parents and it is simply pleaded that the registered gift deed was executed for loan purpose without the real intention of gifting the property with love and affection.

23. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the transaction was not without love and affection towards his daughter and

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 11 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026 that the same was executed for any other purpose. It is also argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that there is no delivery of possession, but it is an evident fact that for an immovable property registration itself sufficient and physical possession is not mandatory.

24. Further, the father/plaintiff has not challenged the execution of gift deed as fraud or misrepresentation or with undue influence hence mere contending that the gift deed was registered for loan purpose is not sufficient to prove it as invalid.

25. It is also pertinent to discuss that the present suit is filed in year 2019, whereas the Ex.A1 the registered gift deed was executed in year 2014 and hence the relief is barred by limitation as per Article 59 of

Limitation Act 1963. The plaintiff has not explained the said delay in filling of present suit and also when a person who voluntarily executes a registered gift deed cannot, after 5 years, convert it into a conditional or nominal document merely because the consequences are no longer convenient.

26. Further, though there is no rebuttal evidence filed the defendant, but the plaintiff has failed to prove his claim, that Ex.A1 the registered gift deed was only a nominal document and does not create any rights in favour of the defendant and such pleadings of plaintiff cannot be considered, as registered gift deed itself creates validity and ownership rights in favour of defendant and such gift deed is irrevocable. Hence, issue No.1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff.

OS No.135/2025

Old OS No.154/2019 .. 12 of 12.. Dt:27-04-2026

27. In the result, suit is dismissed. No costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.)

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs: PW1 : Mekala Issak PW2 : Dongari Aravind.

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs: Ex.A1: Mee seva registered gift settlement deed bearing No.858/2014,

dated 29.01.2014

Ex.A2:Office copy of application to the DMHO with regard to Appeal case Order No.C1/926/22, dated 21.11.2022 Ex.A3:Certified copy of order of the District Collector in Appeal case No.C1/926/22, dated 16.07.2022 Ex.A4:Online copy of Bhu Bharathi Pahani Ex.A5: Online copy of pattadhar pass book cum title deed No.T29200150024, Khatha No.41 Ex.A6: Online specimen copy of 1-B namoona (ROR) Ex.A7: Certified copy of Lok Adalath Award along with Terms of Compromise.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Defendants: -Nil-

Exhibits marked

For defendants: - -Nil-

Senior Civil Judge,

Suryapet.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

THUNGATHURTHY

Dated, this the 16th day of October, 2024. PRESENT:- Smt. Farheen Kouser, Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Thungathurthy

CC No. 03 of 2023

Between:

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

AND

Lakavath Devika D/o Sukya, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Lakya Thanda H/o.

Kukkadam Village, Suryapet Dist.

…Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 16-10-2024 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State 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 Thungathurthy for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995

Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 against the accused.

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

That on 21.01.2022, LW-4/P&ESI of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at Lakya Thanda H/o. Kukkadam Village, and that he along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses i.e.,

LWs.1 and 2. On search he found containing (10) Liters of I.D liquor, when LW.3 opened the plastic can a smell strong odour is emitting and that they found it as ID liquor and Later he collected two samples each 180 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 LW3 registered a case in

PCOR. No. 04/2022 under Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 and later he issued notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. 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 Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P

Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 against accused and registered the case as CC No. 03/2023. 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

Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 were framed and the same is read over and explained to accused. Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and marked

Exs.P1 to P5.

5. 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 defendant evidence.

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

7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S

Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 beyond reasonable doubt?

ANSWER TO POINT:-

8. The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in illegal sales of liquor. In order to prove this fact, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and also marked Ex.P1 is the signatures of panch witnesses on panchnamas, Ex.P3 is panchanama, Ex.P4 is the CE report Ex.P5 COR.

9. This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. In order to prove the seizure of distilled liquor totaling to 180 ml from the possession of accused the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-2. PW-3 is the investigating officer testified that on 21-01-2022, LW-3/P&ESI of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at Lakya Thanda H/o. Kukkadam Village and that he along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses i.e.,

LWs.1 and 2. On search he found containing (10) Liters of I.D liquor, when LW.3 opened the plastic can a smell strong odour is emitting and that they found it as ID liquor and Later he collected two samples each 180 ml and seized contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and deposited one sample before the Hon'ble Court and another sample for chemical analysis and the remaining contraband deposited with Deputy Commissioner for confiscation and receipt of CE report i.e., Ex.P4, filed charge sheet against the accused.

10. 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.

11. Now it has to see whether the evidence of PW1 and P2 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 place.The case is one registered suomoto by the excise officers and the investigation conducted by them.

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 and Pw4 in proof of seizure of ID liquor under Ex.P3.

12. Ex.P5 is the COR which issued a consequential to Ex.P3, 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.

13. 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.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 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 16th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurth

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Lakavath Mangya.

PW2 : Bhanothu Suresh. - Nil -

PW2 : Baloji Naik.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the Signature of Panchanama.

Ex.P2: is the Signature of Panchanama.

Ex.P3: is Panchanama.

Ex.P4: is CE Report.

Ex.P5:is COR.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

THUNGATHURTHY

Dated, this the 16thday of October, 2024. PRESENT:- Smt. Farheen Kouser, Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Thungathurthy

CC No. 06 of 2023

Between:

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

AND

Nenavath Santhosha W/o Venkanna, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o

Baddhe Thanda H/o. Bakkahemla Thanda, Noothankal Mandal, Suryapet

Dist.

…Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 16-10-2024 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State 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 Thungathurthy for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 against the accused.

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

That on 28-01-2022, LW-3/P&ESI of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at Baddhe

Thanda H/o. Bakkahemla Thanda Noothankal Mandal and that he along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses i.e., LWs.1 and 2. On search he found containing (05) Liters of I.D liquor, when LW.3 opened the plastic can a smell strong odour is emitting and that they found it as ID liquor and Later he collected two samples each 180 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 LW3 registered a case in

PCOR. No.08/2022 under Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended

T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 and later he issued notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. 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 Sections 7A R/w.

Section 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act,1995 against accused and registered the case as CC No. 06/2023. 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 Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P

Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 were framed and the same is read over and explained to accused. Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

5.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 defendant evidence.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused and perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P

Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015beyond reasonable doubt?

ANSWER TO POINT:-

8.The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in illegal sales of liquor. In order to prove this fact, prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.2 and also marked Ex.P1 is the signatures of panch witnesses on panchnamas, Ex.P2 is panchanama, Ex.P3 is the CE report Ex.P4 COR.

9.This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. In order to prove the seizure of distilled liquor totaling to 180 ml from the possession of accused the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-3. PW-2 is the investigating officer testified that on 28.01.2022, LW-3/P&ESI of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at Baddhe Thanda H/o. Bakkahemla Thanda, Noothankal Mandal and that he along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses i.e., LWs.1 and 2. On search he found containing (05) Liters of

I.D liquor, when LW.3 opened the plastic can a smell strong odour is emitting and that they found it as ID liquor and Later he collected two samples each 180 ml and seized contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and deposited one sample before the

Hon'ble Court and another sample for chemical analysis and the

remaining contraband deposited with Deputy Commissioner for confiscation and receipt of CE report i.e., Ex.P4, filed charge sheet against the accused.

10.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.

11.Now it has to see whether the evidence of PW1 and P2 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 place. The case is one registered suomoto by the excise officers and the investigation conducted by them. 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 and Pw4 in proof of seizure of ID liquor under Ex.P3.

12.Ex.P5 is the COR which issued a consequential to Ex.P3, 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.

13.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.

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted)

Rules, 2015 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 16th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge cum -Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: Sri. Nenavath Shankar

PW2 : Sri. Baloji Naik P& EI, - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the Signature of Panchanama.

Ex.P2: is the Signature of Panchanama.

Ex.P3: is Panchanama.

Ex.P4: is CE Report.

Ex.P5: is COR.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge cum -Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

THUNGATHURTHY

Dated, this the 16th day of October, 2024. PRESENT:- Smt. Farheen Kouser, Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Thungathurthy

CC No. 59 of 2023

Between:

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

AND

Jampala Upender, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 45 Years, Occ: Barber, R/o Ganji

Vari Kothapally Village Maddirala Mandal, Suryapet Dist.

…Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 16-10-2024 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State 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 Thungathurthy for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 against the accused.

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

That on 12.04.2022, LW-4/P& ESI of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at Ganji Vari

Kothapally Village and that he along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses i.e., LWs.1 and 3. On search he found containing (05) Liters of I.D liquor, when LW.3 opened the plastic can a smell strong odour is emitting and that they found it as ID liquor and Later he collected two samples each 180 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 LW3 registered a case in PCOR.No. 40/2022, under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 and later he issued notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. 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 Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 against accused and registered the case as CC No.59/2023. 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 Sections 7(A)r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 were framed and the same is read over and explained to accused. Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P5.

5.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 defendant evidence.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused and perused the record.

7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 2015 beyond reasonable doubt?

ANSWER TO POINT:-

8.The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in illegal sales of liquor. In order to prove this fact, prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.3 and also marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the signatures of panch witnesses on panchanamas, Ex.P3 is panchanama, Ex.P4 is the CE report Ex.P5 COR.

9.This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. In order to prove the seizure of distilled liquor totaling to 180 ml from the possession of accused the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-2. PW-3 is the investigating officer testified that on 12-04-2022, LW-3/P&ESI of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at Ganji vari Kothapally village and that he along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses i.e., LWs.1 and 2. On search he found containing (05) Liters of I.D liquor, when LW.3 opened the plastic can a smell strong odour is emitting and that they found it as ID liquor and Later he collected two samples each 180 ml and seized contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and deposited one sample before the Hon'ble Court and another sample for chemical analysis and the remaining contraband deposited with Deputy

Commissioner for confiscation and receipt of CE report i.e., Ex.P4, filed charge sheet against the accused.

10.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.

11.Now it has to see whether the evidence of PW1 and P2 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 place. The case is one registered suomoto by the excise officers and the investigation conducted by them. 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 Pw2 and Pw3 in proof of seizure of ID liquor under Ex.P3.

12.Ex.P5 is the COR which issued a consequential to Ex.P3, 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.

13.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.

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted)

Rules, 2015 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. Unmarked 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 16th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: Gopagani Ravi.

PW2 : Panganti Nagaraju. - Nil -

PW3 : D.Murthy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the Signature of Panchanama.

Ex.P2: is the Signature of Panchanama.

Ex.P3: is Panchanama.

Ex.P4: is CE Report.

Ex.P5: is COR.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

THUNGATHURTHY

Dated, this the 16th day of October, 2024. PRESENT:- Smt. Farheen Kouser, Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Thungathurthy

CC No. 50 of 2023

Between:

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

AND

Mittegadatala Purushotham S/o Karraiah, Age: 53 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o

Annaram Village, Thungathurthy Mandal, Suryapet Dist.

…Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 16-10-2024 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State 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 Thungathurthy for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of

A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, against the accused.

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

That on 24-09-2022, LW-4/P&ESI of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at Annaram Village,

Thungathurthy Mandal, and that he along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses i.e., LWs.1 and 2. On search he found containing (02) Liters of I.D liquor, when LW.3 opened the plastic can a smell strong odour is emitting and that they found it as ID liquor and Later he collected two samples each 180 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 LW3 registered a case in PCOR. No. 88/2022 under Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995

Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules and later he issued notice under section 41A Cr.P.C. 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 Sections 7A R/w.

Section 8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 against accused and registered the case as CC No. 50/2023. 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 Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995

Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, were framed and the same is read over and explained to accused. Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P5.

5.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 defendant evidence.

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

7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, beyond reasonable doubt?

ANSWER TO POINT:-

8.The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in illegal sales of liquor. In order to prove this fact, prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.3 and also marked Ex.P1 and Ex. P2 are the signatures on the panchnama, Ex.P3 is panchanama, Ex.P4 is the CE report Ex.P5 COR.

9.This court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. In order to prove the seizure of distilled liquor totaling to 180 ml from the possession of accused the prosecution relied on the testimony of PW-2. PW-3 is the investigating officer testified that on 24.09.2022, LW-3/P&ESI of police received credible information about the illegal sales of illicit distilled liquor at

Annaram Village Thungathurthy Mandal and that he along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses i.e., LWs.1 and 2. On search he found containing (02) Liters of I.D liquor, when LW.3 opened the plastic can a smell strong odour is emitting and that they found it as ID liquor and Later he collected two samples each 180 ml and seized contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and deposited one sample before the Hon'ble Court and another sample for chemical analysis and the remaining contraband deposited with Deputy Commissioner for confiscation and receipt of CE report i.e., Ex.P4, filed charge sheet against the accused.

10.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.

11.Now it has to see whether the evidence of PW1 and P2 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 place. The case is one registered suomoto by the excise officers and the investigation conducted by them. 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 and Pw4 in proof of seizure of ID liquor under Ex.P3.

12.Ex.P5 is the COR which issued a consequential to Ex.P3, 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.

13.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.

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 Amended T.S Excise (Adopted) Rules, 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. Unmarked 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 16th day of October, 2024.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: Bale Sagar.

PW2 : Velishala Srinu.- Nil -

PW2 : Baloji Naik.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is the Signature of Panchanama.

Ex.P2: is the Signature of Panchanama.

Ex.P3: is Panchanama.

Ex.P4: is CE Report.

Ex.P5: is COR.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thungathurthy.