Sri G.karthik

CC.No.406 of 2016 1PCJ(JD), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)–

CUM -JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Present : Sri G.Karthik,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Tuesday, this the 23 rd day of April, 2024

C.C.No.406 of 2016

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Chowdepalle Police Station.

…. Complainant.

Vs.

Kaveti Siva, aged about 29 years, S/o K.Sreenivasulu,

R/at D.No.1/1303/09, Mudigubba Town and Mandal, Ananthapur District.

…. Sole Accused.

This case came before me on 18.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Ramakrishna, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Ravindranath, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chowdepalle Police Station, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.68/2015 for the offences punishable under section 304A of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC for brevity and convenience) and under section 192 (1), 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 and 146 read with 196 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 against the accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2015 at 6.00 PM near

Peddakondammari village, Chowdepalle Mandal on Chowdepalle –

Boyakonda road, the accused being driver of Maruthi wagnor bearing registration No.TN 09 AM 2669 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution and hit the left side going

Pedestrian P.Mangamma (deceased). As a result of which the said

Mangamma sustained bleeding fracture injuries on both legs, bleeding injury on her head and internal injuries. The said Mangamma was shifted the injured

CC.No.406 of 2016 2PCJ(JD), Punganur

to Govt. Hospital, Madanapalle for treatment and from there shifted to

SVRRGG. Hospital Tirupati for better treatment. While undergoing treatment the said Mangamma was succumbed to injuries on 17.10.2015 at 3.45 PM.

3. On 17.10.2015 PW.1 preferred a report before the SHO of

Chowdepalle PS. Basing on the report of PW.1 a case in Cr.No.68/2015 for the offence U/s.337 IPC was registered and investigated into by PW.9. On 18.10.2015 at 4.00 PM PW.9 altered the section of law from 337 IPC to 304A

IPC. During the course of investigation PW.9 examined the witnesses and recorded the statements of PW 1 to 7, LW.4 P.Radhakrishna, LW.5

V.Muneppa, LW.6 B.Ananda and LW.7 Venkataswamy Radhakrishna and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mangamma in the presence of inquest panchayathdars LW.12 G.Nagabhushanam Reddy, LW.13

A.Narasimhulu and PW.8 and made requisition for autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Mangamma which was conducted by

LW.15/Dr.S.Venkateswar Rao who is the Medical officer. Subsequently PW.9 served 41A Cr.P.C notice to accused on 26.09.2016 and enquired about D.L.

of accused, insurance, R.C. records of the crime vehicle but accused not produced the R.C. and insurance. PW.9 made requisition to MVI Inspector for examination of crime vehicle. The accused did not provide first aid to the injured person and failed to inform the accident to nearest police station, as there is no valid insurance to the crime vehicle and not having valid registration to the crime vehicle at the time of accident thus section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187, 146 r/w 196 and 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 was also added. PW.9 being investigating officer did investigation in chronological sequence. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187, 146 r/w 196 and 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 against accused.

5. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C for brevity and convenience). The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under

CC.No.406 of 2016 3PCJ(JD), Punganur

sections 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187, 146 r/w 196 and 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 against accused by explaining the substance of accusation to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. The learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW.4 P.Radhakrishna, LW.5

V.Muneppa, LW.6 B.Ananda, LW.7 Venkataswamy Radhakrishna, LW.12

G.Nagabhushanam Reddy, LW.13 A.Narasimhulu, LW.15 Dr. S.Venkateswar

Rao, LW.16 P.Ramabrahmam, LW.17 T.R.Pandurangan.

7. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available against him for which he denied the same and stated no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record. This case record is received by this Court at the stage of NBWs pending against the accused from I Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Punganur as per the proceedings of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Chittoor in Dis.No.1021/2022 dt.22.11.2022.

9. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable under section 304A of IPC and under section 134 (a)

and (b) read with 187, 146 r/w 196 and 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988

beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. P O I N T:-

(i) To prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC the prosecution has to establish that the accused drove the crime vehicle rashly or negligently manner and caused death of Mangamma.

To prove the same, the prosecution examined PW.1 who is the defacto complainant as well as daughter of the deceased Mangamma. PW.2 who is the brother of the deceased Mangamma. PW.3 is sister-in-law of the deceased Mangamma. PW.4 to PW.7 who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence. PW.8 who is inquest panchayathdar to Ex.P9 and PW.9 who is

Investigating Officer.

CC.No.406 of 2016 4PCJ(JD), Punganur

(ii) PW.1 deposed that on 16.10.2015 at about 9.00 am she along with PW.2, 3 and her mother P.Mangamma and other villagers went to agriculture fields, after attending their agricultural operations they all returned from work to home, when they reached near Boyakondagangamma temple situated on Chowdepalle-Boyakonda Road at about 6.00 pm one maruthi car proceeding towards Boyakonda hit her mother P.Mangamma. In the result she received facture injuries to her two legs and fell on the road. Then immediately she along with PW.2, PW.3 shifted her mother to Govt. Hospital,

Madanapalle for treatment then as per the advice of the doctors they shifted her mother to SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. PW.1 further deposed that on 17.10.2015 at about 3.45 pm her mother succumbed to the injuries in the accident while she was undergoing treatment at SVRRGG

Hospital, Tirupati. PW.1 further deposed that while she was in the

SVRR.Govt. General Hospital, Tirupati, Chowdepalle Police obtained her signature on some written papers but she do not know the contents of the same and that she do not know the manner of accident and she do not know the particulars of the crime vehicle as well as driver of crime vehicle and she do not know on whose negligence the accident was done, except that she do not know anything about the case facts.

(iii) PW.2 and PW.3 also deposed in similar lines as that of PW.1.

PW.4 to PW.7 who are eyewitnesses to accident deposed that they do not know anything about facts of the case and they did not witness any accident at any point of time and they do not know manner of accident, particulars of the crime vehicle and its driver. PW.4 to PW.7 further deposed that they do not know on whose negligence the accident was occurred .

(iv) PW.8 is inquest panchayathdar. He deposed that on coming to know about the death of deceased Mangamma in a road accident while she was coming near Boyakonda arch she was died at the Ruya Hospital,

Tirupati, then he along with LW.12 Nagabhushanam Reddy, LW.13 A.

Narasimhulu and other villagers went to see the dead body of deceased

P.Mangamma. At that time Chowdepalle police requested him, LW.12

Nagabhushanam Reddy, LW.13 A. Narasimhulu to act as inquest panchayathdars, accordingly himself and LW.12 Nagabhushanam Reddy,

LW.13 A. Narasimhulu were acted as inquest panchayathdars. PW.8 further deposed that LW.17/HC held inquest over the dead body of deceased

CC.No.406 of 2016 5PCJ(JD), Punganur

P.Mangamma in their presence and prepared inquest report and read over the contents of inquest report, then they signed on inquest report and he know the contents of inquest report and they are of the opinion that the deceased died due to injuries caused in the road accident.

(v) PW.9 is Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 17.10.2015 at about 09.00 am while he was in Police Station PW.1 came to the Police

Station and preferred a report dt.17.10.2015 vide Ex.P10to him. Basing on the report he registered a case in Cr.No.68/2015 for the offences under section 337 IPC and issued FIR vide Ex.P11. Then he secured the presence of PW.1, examined and recorded her detailed statement in his part – II C.D and he left the Police Station along with PW.1 and visited the SVRRGG

Government Hospital, Tirupati, where the injured by name Mangamma was undergoing treatment and tried to examined her but she is unconscious. Then he tried to secure some other witnesses at Hospital but none were available and he left the hospital at 2.30 pm and reached the scene of offence at about 6.00 pm situated at Boyakonda – Chowdepalle main road near 100 feets eastern side of Peddakondamarri village. PW.9 further deposed that he observed the scene and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence vide

Ex.P12and in the scene of offence he secured the presence of PW.2 and

PW.3 examined them and recorded their statements in his part II C.D. and in the scene of offence he found the crime vehicle Maruthi wagnor bearing

No.TN09 AM 2669 and he shifted the crime vehicle to Police Station for the purpose of MVI examination, thereafter on 18.10.2015 while he was on other case duty the LW.17 /HC was being in-charge S.H.O. he was present in the

Police Station he received hospital intimation with regard to death of injured

Mangamma due to injuries caused in the accident. Basing on the death intimation and report of PW.1 the LW.17/HC altered the section of Law from 337 to 304A IPC and issued alteration memo vide Ex.P13, then LW.17/HC informed him about the alteration of FIR. PW.9 further deposed that he instructed him to visit SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati to conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased Mangamma. Accordingly he left the Police Station and visited the SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and made a requisition to duty doctor and received the dead body and LW.17/HC secured the presence of blood relatives of PWs.1 to 3, LW.4 V.Muneppa, LW.5 B.Ananda and also secured inquest panchayathdars i.e. PW.8, 12 and 13 then LW.17/HC held

CC.No.406 of 2016 6PCJ(JD), Punganur

inquest over the dead body of Mangamma in the presence of PW.8, LW.12

G.Nagabhushanam Reddy and LW.13 A. Narasimhulu, then LW.17/HC examined the PWs 1 to 3, LW.4 V.Muneppa, LW.5 B.Ananda and recorded their details statements, then LW.17/HC made a requisition to duty doctor to conduct P.M. examination over the dead body of deceased, accordingly

LW.15/Medical officer conducted PM examination over the dead body of deceased. PW.9 further deposed that after PM examination LW.17/HC handed over the dead body of deceased Mangamma to her blood relatives and obtained acknowledgment, then he left the hospital and reached Police

Station. Then LW.17/HC handed over the case dairy file to him and he verified the instigation done by LW.17/HC and found it on correct lines and on 19.10.2015 he took up further investigation again he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW.6 B.Ananda, LW.7 Venkataswamy

Ramakrishna, LW.8 T. Babu, PW.5 to PW.7 and examined them and recorded their detailed statements at scene of offence. Then he sent a requisition to MVI Inspector and issued report vide Ex.P14. Thereafter on 26.09.2015 while he was present in the Police Station accused K.Siva came to the Police Station and voluntarily surrendered before him and admitted the guilt of offence. PW.9 further deposed that he verified his identity particulars and he served 41 A notice to accused and enquired about D.L. of accused, insurance, R.C. records of the crime vehicle but accused not produced the

R.C. and insurance, thereafter he obtained P.M. certificate from

LW.15/Medical officer and MVI report from LW.16/MVI and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused. He further deposed that

PWs 1 to 7 stated before him and LW.17/HC as in Ex.P2 to P8 respectively.

(vi) Since PW.1 to 7 did not support the case of prosecution the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined them with the permission of Court. During the cross examination also PW.1 to 7 denied the suggestions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. On perusal of entire testimonies of PWs 1 to 9, this Court has not found a single attribution attributed against the accused that the accused caused the death of deceased by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide.

Though the prosecution established that the said Mangamma died due to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident and he

CC.No.406 of 2016 7PCJ(JD), Punganur

drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of the deceased. In other words, the prosecution failed to establish the direct nexus and proximity, between the death of Mangamma and rash or negligent act of accused, which is the essential ingredient to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC.

(vii) Further, to prove guilt of the accused under section 134 (a) and (b) read with section 187 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the prosecution must prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of incident and failed to provide first aid to the deceased Mangamma and did not inform the matter to nearest police station. As per the above discussion the identity of accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident is not established by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution also failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 134

(a) and (b) read with section 187 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

(vii) Now coming to the offences under section 146 r/w 196 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and under section 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 the prosecution must prove that accused drove crime vehicle without having valid insurance to the crime vehicle and without having valid registration certificate to the crime vehicle at the time of accident. But as discussed in above paragraphs the prosecution failed to prove that accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under section 146 r/w 196 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and under section 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused.

11. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under section 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187, 146 r/w 196 and 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of

CC.No.406 of 2016 8PCJ(JD), Punganur

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months. No property was produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer in computer, corrected signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G.Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1 B.Purshpavathi - None -

PW.2 B.Rajanna

PW.3 B.Venkatalakshmi

PW.4 T.Babu

PW.5 P.Narasimhaiah

PW.6 C.Munirathnam

PW.7 B.Chalapathi

PW.8 T.Sankara

PW.9 V.Sreenivas

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on report dated 17.10.2015

Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P5 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4

Ex.P6 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5

Ex.P7 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6

CC.No.406 of 2016 9PCJ(JD), Punganur

Ex.P8 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7

Ex.P9 is the inquest report of deceased Mangamma dt. 18.10.2015

Ex.P10 is the report of PW.1 dt. 17.10.2015

Ex.P11 is the FIR

Ex.P12 is the rough sketch of scene of offence

Ex.P13 is the alteration memo

Ex.P14 Is the MVI report

Ex.P15 is the PM certificate of deceased Mangamma

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil.

Material objects:- Nil

Sd/- G.Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

// True copy//

PCJ(JD)-cum-JMFC, PGR

CC.No.406 of 2016 10PCJ(JD), Punganur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Calendar cases tried by the PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)– CUM -JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Apprehension Released Comment Close of Sentence Offence Report of Accused on Bail of Trial Trial or Order 17.10.2015 17.10.2015 26.09.2016 09.10.2023 08.12.2023 18.04.2024 23.04.2024

Explanation for delay: This case record was transferred to this Court from I

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Punganur on 05.01.2023 at the stage of NBWs pending against accused. Accused is examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. on 12.10.2023. PW.1 to PW.9 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed. Accused is examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C on 18.04.2024. Heard both sides on 18.04.2024. Judgment

pronounced on today. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C.No.406/2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)– Cum -Judicial Magistrate Of First Class:: Punganur

Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chowdepalle Police Station. Name of the Kaveti Siva, aged about 29 years, S/o K.Sreenivasulu, accused : R/at D.No.1/1303/09, Mudigubba Town and Mandal, Ananthapur District. Nature of Causing death by rash or negligent act and did not provide first Offence and aid to the injured person and failed to inform the accident to section of lawnearest police station, there is no valid insurance to the crime vehicle and not having valid registration to the crime vehicle at the time of accident U/s.304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Under section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187, 146 r/w 196 and 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under section 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Under section 134 (a) and (b) read with 187, 146 r/w 196 and 192 (1) of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months. No property was produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of property.

Sd/- G.Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide

Dis.No……….., Dt…………………...

// True copy//

CC.No.406 of 2016 11PCJ(JD), Punganur

PCJ(JD)-cum-JMFC, PGR

1

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS :: PALAMANER 

 Present : Sri G.Karthik, 

Principal Junior Civil Judge­ Cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Punganur. FAC Junior Civil Judge­ Cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palamaner.

Tuesday, this the 09 th day of January, 2024

C.C.No. 146 of 2023

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota Urban Police Station. … Complainant.

And

M.Ravi, Age 49 years, S/o Late Munaswamy, Caste by SC­Mala, Mudaramdoddi Village, V.Kota Mandal. 

… Accused.

 This case has come before me on 02.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Smt C.Swathi, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Smt A.Haritha and Sri D.R.Gandhi, Advocates for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, V.Kota Police Station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.284/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of AP

Excise New Amendment Act against accused.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2022 at 5.30 PM, PW.2 received credible information regarding unlawful possession and transportation and sale of

Karnataka State liquor under tamarind tree, at Mudaramdoddi Village, V.Kota Town and then he along with PW.1, LW.1 Vinodh Kumar, Police Constable, V.Kota Urban

P.S. and LW.3 S.Rajesh, Police Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S. proceeded to the above 2

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

said place and while conducting vehicle checking they saw the accused sitting under a tamarind tree and tried to escape from the place. Then PW.2 with the help of his staff apprehended the accused. On enquiry by PW.2, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he was in possession of forty 90 ml tetra packets of

Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey­, each tetra packet Rs.35.13/­, total cost of the liquor of Rs.1,405.2/­ in order to sell the same illegally without any valid license or permit.

Then PW.2 arrested the accused and seized the contraband and drawn one sample under cover of police proceedings and registered the crime for the above said offences and produced the accused before Court for judicial remand. Thereafter he has sent the sample to Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis and later PW2 handed over the CD file to LW6 M.Rambhupal, Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota Urban P.S. for further investigation. Then LW6 Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota P.S. verified the investigation done by PW2 found to be on correct lines. LW6 Sub Inspector of Police,

V.Kota P.S. received the chemical analysis report, wherein it is opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor”. Thereafter, LW6 Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota P.S. sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor with a request to confiscate the seized contraband according to law. After completion of further investigation LW6

Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020 against accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity and convenience). Accused has been examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C.

After hearing both sides the Court framed charge under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of AP

Excise Amendment Act, 2020 against accused and read over the contents of charge 3

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

and explained the same to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW.1 Vinod Kumar, Police Constable, LW3

S.Rajesh, Police Constable, LW4 K.Ramadevi, Chemical Examiner, Chittoor and LW6

M.Rambhupal, Sub Inspector of Police,V.Kota P.S. 

6.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against the accused to enable him to give any explanation for such adverse circumstances. Accused denied the same and stated no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of AP Excise New Amendment Act, 1968. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborates with each other in all material aspects which establishes that the accused was found in possession of seized contraband without any license and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of

AP Excise New Amendment Act, 2020.

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the police have falsely implicated the accused in this case only for statistical purpose. He further argued that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not corroborated to each other. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

4

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

10. Now the point for determination is:­

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all

reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)

r/w 34(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 1968?

11. P O I N T :­

(i)To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) r/w 34 (1) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020 the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubts that on 23.12.2022 at about 5.30 PM, under tamarind tree, at Mudaramdoddi Village, V.Kota Town, accused was found in unlawful possession of forty 90 ml tetra packets of Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey which is prohibited. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1. P.W1 is Police Constable who accompanied

PW.2 for the purpose of investigation and PW.2 is Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is Police

Proceedings, Ex.P2 is F.I.R., Ex.P3 is Chemical Examiner’s Report and MO.1 is unexpended portion of sample packet.

(ii)PW.1 deposed that on 23.12.2022 at about 5.00 pm while he along with

LW1 Vinod Kumar, Police Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S., LW3 S.Rajesh, Police

Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S., LW4 K.Ramadevi, Chemical Examiner, Chittoor and

PW.2 were present in the Police Station, PW.2 received credible information about possession and sale of liquor in Mudaramdoddi village. Then he along with LW1

Vinod Kumar, Police Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S., LW3 S.Rajesh, Police Constable,

V.Kota Urban P.S., accompanied PW.2 to the above said place in police vehicle and reached SC Colony under a tamarind tree at about 5.30 pm and found one person who was having one plastic cover tried to skulk away from the said place and they able to caught hold the said person. Then on enquiry by PW.2, the said person stated 5

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

his name and address particulars as Ravi and also stated that he brought liquor from

Karnataka State without permission in order to sell the same for higher prices in State of A.P. for his livelihood. Then PW.2 opened the plastic cover in their presence and found 40 Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey tetra packets of each 90 ml each worth of

Rs.1405/­ in total. Then PW.2 explained to the above said person that possession and sale of Karnataka liquor without permission is an offence and arrested the accused and seized the above said contraband and lifted one sample of tetra packet for chemical analysis under the cover of police proceedings in the scene of offence. Then the accused, seized contraband were brought to the V.Kota police station. Then PW.2 registered the case and took up further investigation. 

(iii)PW.2 deposed that on 23.12.2022 at about 5.00 pm while he along with

LW1 Vinod Kumar, Police Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S. and LW3 S.Rajesh, Police

Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S. and PW.1 were present in the police station, he received credible information about possession of Karnataka State liquor under a tamarinde tree SC Colony, Modaramdoddi Village, V. Kota Mandal. Then he along with LW1

Vinod Kumar, Police Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S. and LW3 S.Rajesh, Police

Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S. and PW.1 proceeded to about said place in police vehicle and reached there at 5.30 P.M. and found one person having white color plastic bag and on seeing them the said person tried to skulk away from the said place and they able to caught hold the said person. Then on enquiry by him the said person stated his name and address particulars as M. Ravi and also stated that he brought the

Karnataka State Liquor in order to sell the same for higher prices in the state of A.P.

Then he opened the plastic bag and found 90 ml Original Choice Whiskey tetra packets 40 in numbers worth of Rs.1,405/­ in total. Then he explained to the above said person that possession and sale of Karnataka State Liquor is an offence and 6

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

arrested the accused and seized the above said contraband along with two wheeler and lifted one sample tetra packet for chemical analysis under the cover of police proceedings vide Ex.P1. Then the accused, seized contraband were brought to V.Kota (U) police station. Then he registered the case in Cr.No.284/2022 for the offence under Section 34(1) r/w 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and issued FIR vide Ex.P2 to all concerned officers and took up further investigation. Then he has complied all the legal formalities and produced the accused before the Court for judicial remand.

Thereafter he has sent the sample to Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for Chemical Analysis and later LW6 M.Rambhupal, Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota P.S received Chemical

Analysis Report vide Ex.P3 and unexpended portion of sample packet from Excise

Laboratory, Chittoor wherein it is opined that the sample is Indian Made Liquor.

Thereafter W6 M.Rambhupal, Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota P.S has sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor for confiscation of seized contraband and the same is pending. After completion of investigation, W6

M.Rambhupal, Sub Inspector of Police,V.Kota P.S filed charge sheet before this Court. 

 (iv)During cross examination PW.2 admitted that there are residential houses near the scene of offence and there is panchayat office in the scene of offence village. Perusal of evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 shows that PW.2 did not secure mediators to act as witnesses to the alleged search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused. At this stage it is relevant to note section 100(4) of Cr.P.C, according to which while conducting search the investigating officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate to attend and witness the search and if local inhabitants are not available efforts has to be made to call upon inhabitants from other locality to act as witnesses and issue an order in writing to them. PW.2 deposed that he tried to 7

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

secure mediators but no one came forward. But PW.2 did not issue any written order to any local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants to attend and act as witness to the search and seizure. At this stage it is relevant to refer judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Yeduru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs State of Andhra

Pradesh, 2002 (1) ALD Cri 347 wherein while dealing with the application of section 100(4) Cr.P.C the Hon’ble High Court held that in the absence of written order under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C the evidence of prosecution witnesses that no one came forward to act as witnesses to panchanama cannot be believed and relied upon and the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated. In the present case also

PW.2 has not issued any written order to any local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants to attend and act as witnesses to the search and seizure. So, the reasons given by PW.1 and PW.2 for not securing mediators at the time of search and seizure are not satisfactory. Further, PW.2 has not prepared any rough sketch of scene of offence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that non securing of mediators at the time of search and seizure is fatal to the case of prosecution and the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 with regard to seizure of contraband from the accused cannot be believed.

(v)In the present case the only evidence available against accused is that of his confession said to be made before PW.1 and PW.2 who are Police Officials.

According to section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872confession made before police is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, the confession of accused cannot be taken into consideration. Further, except the police officials there are no independent witnesses in this case. InBotcha Raju Vs State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram

Rural Circle, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl) 69 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the Police Officials without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.

8

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

(vi)In view of the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P Excise

Amendment Act, 2020. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused.

12. In the result, this Court found accused not guilty for the offence under Section

Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months.

MO.1 sample packet which was deposited in C.P.R.No.68/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer in computer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 09nd day of January, 2024. 

Sd/G.Karthik

Principal Junior Civil Judge–cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Punganur. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1:G.Rajendra Babu­ None ­

PW.2:D.Murali Prasad Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:­

Ex.P1:Police proceedings,

Ex.P2:F.I.R

Ex.P3:Chemical Analysis Report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:­ Nil. 

9

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

Material objects:­ 

MO.1: Unexpended portion of sample packet.

Sd/G.Karthik

Principal Junior Civil Judge–cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Punganur. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner. // True copy//

PJCJ­cum­JMFC, PGR FAC JCJ­cum­JMFC, PLMR 10

CC.No.146 of 2023JCJ-cum-JMFC, PLMR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Calendar cases tried by the JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM ­ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: PALAMANER

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of Date ofDate ofApprehensio Released onCommentClose ofSentence or OffenceReportn of Accused Bail of TrialTrialOrder 23.12.2022 23.12.2022 24.12.202229.12.2022 12.12.2023 02.01.2024 09.01.2024

Explanation for delay: Cognizance was taken on 29.03.2023. Accused was examined on 24.08.2023. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 02.01.2024. Heard both sides on 02.01.2024. Judgment pronounced on today. 

Judgment in C.C.No.146/2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge–cum­ Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Palamaner.

Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota Urban Police Station. Name of M.Ravi, Age 49 years, S/o Late Munaswamy, Caste by SC­Mala, the accused : Mudaramdoddi Village, V.Kota Mandal. 

Nature of Offence and Unlawful possession of Karnataka State liquor packets, Under section of lawSection 34(a) r/w 34(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, this Court found accused not guilty for the offence under Section Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months.MO.1 sample packet which was deposited in C.P.R.No.68/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/G.Karthik

Principal Junior Civil Judge–cum­

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Punganur. FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide Dis.No.33,

Dt : 09­01­2024. 

// True copy//

PJCJ­cum­JMFC, PGR FAC JCJ­cum­JMFC, PLMR

1 C.C.No.308 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)–

CUM -JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Present : Sri G.Karthik,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 24 th day of April, 2024

C.C.No.308 of 2023

Between:

The State represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur. … Complainant.

And

L.Hemavathi, aged about 39 years, W/o L.Subramanyam, R/at Nidigunta village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Sole Accused.

This case has come before me on 19.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State Sri T.Rama Krishna and of Sri M.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the accused, on hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Punganur, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.225/2019 for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.09.2019 at about 09.00 AM

PW.1 was conducting raids along with LW.1 M.Satheesh Babu and LW.2

P.Yashoda at Gutturu cross situated on Punganur to Naaluguroadlu bus road of

Peddapanjani Mandal, there they saw the accused possessed with white colour plastic who tried to skulk away on seeing them and apprehended by them.

PW.1 deputed LW.2 P.Yashoda to Gutturu village for securing mediators, but in vain. On enquiry by PW.2, the accused revealed his identity particulars and stated that he brought liquor from Karnataka State and selling the same in his village for higher prices for his livelihood. On verification of the Plastic bag

PW.2 found Karnataka State liquor i.e., 21 nips of ACP prestige Deluxe whisky 2 C.C.No.308 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur of 180 ML each in order to sell the same for higher prices unlawfully without any valid license or permit. Upon his confession the accused was arrested and the contraband was seized and lifted one sample bottle for chemical analysis under cover of special report by PW.1. Then the accused and seized contraband were brought to the SEB Punganur Station and handed over to PW.2 for further

Investigation. On 23.09.2019 at about 9.00 AM PW.1 came to the station and produced accused and seized contraband along with Ex.P1 and sample before him. Then PW.2 registered the crime for the above said offence against accused and produced the accused before Court for judicial remand.

Subsequently PW.2 had sent the sample to Regional Prohibition & Excise

Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis. After analysis PW.2 received the report, wherein it is opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor.” Further

PW.2 had also sent a requisition to Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, Special Enforcement Bureau, Ananthapuram with a request to destroy case property according to law. After completion of investigation LW.5 G.Ashok

Kumar (Enforcement Sub Inspector) filed charge sheet against accused.

3.After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to her under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity and convenience). The accused has been examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides the Court framed charge under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against accused and read over the contents of charge and explained the same to her in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1, PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e. LW.1 M.Satheesh Babu,

LW.2 P.Yashoda and LW.5 G.Ashok Kumar.

6.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against the accused to enable her to 3 C.C.No.308 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur give any explanation for such adverse circumstances. The accused denied the same and stated no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has examined P.W.1, P.W.2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. The evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 corroborates with each other in all material aspects which establishes that the accused was found in possession of seized contraband without any license and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the excise police have falsely implicated the accused in this case only for statistical purpose. He further argued that PW.1 did not secure independent witnesses at the time of alleged search and seizure of contraband as such the alleged search and seizure conducted by PW.1 is not according to law. He further argued that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are Excise officials and their evidence cannot be relied upon solely as it is not corroborated with any other independent witness.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

10.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section

34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968?

11. P O I N T :-

(i) To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubts that on 23.09.2019 the accused was found in unlawful possession of Karnataka State liquor 21 nips of ACP Prestige Deluxe whisky of 180 ML each which is prohibited. To prove the same the prosecution has examined PW.1, PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. P.W.1 and

PW.2 are Investigating Officers. Ex.P1 is special report. Ex.P2 is F.I.R. Ex.P3 is chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is unexpended portion of sample bottle.

4 C.C.No.308 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur

(ii) P.W.1 deposed that on 23.09.2019 at about 9.00 am while he along with LW.1 M.Satheesh Babu, LW.2 P.Yashoda were proceeding on

Punganur to 4 Road Junction Bus road in their department vehicle and when they reached Gutturu Cross they found accused who was having one white colour plastic cover tried to skulk away from the said place and they able to caught hold accused and on enquiry by him accused stated her name and address particulars as Hemavathi and also stated that she brought liquor from

Karnataka State without permission in order to sell the same for higher prices in state of A.P. for her livelihood. PW.1 further deposed that he deputed LW.2

P.Yashoda to Gutturu village to secure mediators but no one came forward.

Then he opened the plastic cover and found 21 nips of ACP Prestige Deluxe whisky of 180 ml each. Then I explained to the above said person that possession and sale of Karnataka liquor without permission is an offence and arrested the accused and seized the above said contraband and lifted one sample bottle for chemical analysis under the cover of special report vide Ex.P1 in the scene of offence drafted by LW.1 M.Satheesh Babu on his dictation.

Then the accused, seized contraband were brought to the SEB Punganur

Station and handed over to PW.2 for further investigation. Then PW.2 registered the case and took up further investigation.

(iii) PW.2 deposed in similar lines to that of PW.1 regarding the seizure of contraband and he further deposed his part of investigation regarding that on 23.09.2019 PW.1 came to the station and produced the accused and seized contraband along with Ex.P1 and sample before him. Then PW.2 registered the case under Ex.P2 and arrested and forwarded the accused for judicial custody before the Court. PW.2 further deposed that he had sent the sample to

Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis, after analysis he received report vide Ex.P1 along with remaining sample wherein it is opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor”. PW.2 further deposed that he had sent a requisition for confiscation of the remaining seized contraband to

Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Ananthapuram to confiscate the seized contraband and after receiving the permission the seized contraband is destroyed. After completion of investigation LW.5 G.Ashok Kumar (Enforcement Sub Inspector) filed charge sheet against the accused.

5 C.C.No.308 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur

(iv) Perusal of evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 shows that PW.1 did not secure mediators to act as witnesses to the alleged search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused. At this stage it is relevant to note section 100(4) of Cr.P.C, according to which while conducting search the investigating officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate to attend and witness the search and if local inhabitants are not available efforts has to be made to call upon inhabitants from other locality to act as witnesses and issue an order in writing to them. PW.1 stated that he tried to secure mediators but no one came forward. But PW.1 did not issue any written order to any local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants to attend and act as witness to the search and seizure. At this stage it is relevant to refer judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Yeduru Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh, 2002 (1) ALD Cri 347 wherein while dealing with the application of section 100(4) Cr.P.C the Hon’ble High Court held that in the absence of written order under section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C the evidence of prosecution witnesses that no one came forward to act as witnesses to panchanama cannot be believed and relied upon and the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated. In the present case also PW.1 has not issued any written order to any local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants to attend and act as witnesses to the search and seizure. So, the reasons given by PW.1 for not securing mediators at the time of search and seizure are not satisfactory. Further, PW.1 has not prepared any rough sketch of scene of offence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that non securing of mediators at the time of search and seizure is fatal to the case of prosecution and the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 with regard to seizure of contraband from accused cannot be believed.

(v) In the present case the only evidence available against accused is that of his confession said to be made before PW.1 who is excise official.

According to section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872confession made before police is not admissible in evidence. At this stage it is relevant to refer the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Kalidindi

Ramaraju @ Rambabu Vs State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALD (Cri) 863 (AP) wherein it was held that “It is settled law that an excise officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and a confession made by the 6 C.C.No.308 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur accused person before an excise official, if otherwise not proved, is inadmissible in evidence”. Relying on the above decision this Court is of the view that the confession of accused cannot be taken into consideration.

Further, except the excise officials there are no independent witnesses in this case. InBotcha Raju Vs State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl) 69 the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh held that conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officials without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.

(vi) In view of the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused.

12. In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and accordingly, she is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer in computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G.Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1M.Murali Mohan - None -

PW.2S.Venkatramana

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1Special Report

Ex.P2F.I.R

Ex.P3Chemical Analysis Report 7 C.C.No.308 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil.

Material objects:-

M.O.1 is unexpended portion of sample bottle.

Sd/- G.Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

// True copy//

PCJ(JD)-cum-JMFC, PGR 8 C.C.No.308 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Calendar cases tried by the PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)– CUM -JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Apprehension Released Comment Close of Sentence OffenceReportof Accused on Bail of TrialTrialor Order 23.09.2019 23.09.2019 23.09.2019 27.09.201906.03.202415.04.202424.04.2024

Explanation for delay: This case record was transferred to this Court from I

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Punganur on 20.10.2023 at the stage of section 239 Cr.P.C.

examination of accused. Accused is examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C. on 28.11.2023. PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed. The accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 15.04.2024. Heard both sides on 19.04.2024. Judgment pronounced on today. Hence, the delay. Judgment in C.C.No.308/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) –cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Complainant:The State represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur. Name of the L.Hemavathi, aged about 39 years, W/o L.Subramanyam, accused : R/at Nidigunta village, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District. Nature of Unlawful possession of Karnataka State liquor packets, Offence and Under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 section of law FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, and accordingly, she is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G.Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide

Dis.No……….., Dt…………………...

// True copy//

PCJ(JD)-cum-JMFC, PGR

1 C.C.No.373 of 2022 PCJ(JD), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)–

CUM -JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Present : Sri G.Karthik,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 24 th day of April, 2024

C.C.No.373 of 2022

Between:

The State represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur. … Complainant.

And

Vadla Sreenu, aged about 19 years, S/o V.Sreeramulu, R/at Kalikiri Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. … Sole Accused.

This case has come before me on 19.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State Sri T.Rama

Krishna and of Sri S.Samiullah, Advocate for the accused, on hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Punganur, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.249/2020 for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2020 at about 6.20 PM on credible information PW.4 along with his staff PW.3 and mediators PW.1 and

PW.2 conducted raids at Katharlapalle cross situated on Punganur to

Sankarayalpeta bus road of Peddapanjani Mandal, there they saw the accused possessed with white plastic bag coming on a Bajaj Pulsur motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 03 BL 2336 who tried to skulk away on seeing them and apprehended by them. On enquiry by PW.4, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he brought liquor from

Karnataka State and he was in illegal possession of Karnataka State liquor preserved in plastic bag i.e., 19 bottles of old admiral VSOP brandy of one 2 C.C.No.373 of 2022 PCJ(JD), Punganur liter each in order to sell the same for higher prices unlawfully without any valid license or permit. Upon his confession the accused was arrested and seized the contraband, motorcycle and lifted one sample bottle for chemical analysis under cover of panchayathnama by PW.4. Then the accused and seized contraband were brought to the SEB Punganur Station. Then PW.4 registered the crime for the above said offence against accused and produced the accused before Court for judicial remand. Subsequently PW.4 had sent sample to Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis. After analysis PW.4 received the report, wherein it is opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor.” Further PW.4 had also sent a requisition to

Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Ananthapuram with a request to destroy case property according to law. After completion of investigation LW.5 G.Ashok Kumar (Enforcement Sub

Inspector) filed charge sheet against accused.

3.After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity and convenience). The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2023 was framed against him, the contents of the charge are explained to the accused in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e. LW.5 G.Ashok Kumar.

6.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused was explained to him to enable him, to give any explanation for such adverse circumstances in the evidence. The accused denied the same and stated no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. This case record is received by this Court at the stage of 239 Cr.P.C examination of accused 3 C.C.No.373 of 2022 PCJ(JD), Punganur from I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Punganur as per the proceedings of Hon’ble Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor in Dis.No.1074/2023 dt.12.10.2023.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Amendment Act, 2023. Though the mediators P.W.1, P.W.2 turned hostile the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 corroborates with each other in all material aspects which establishes that the accused was found in possession of seized contraband without any licence and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2023.

9.Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused argued that accused is falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes. He has further contended that PW.3, P.W.4 are police officials and their evidence cannot be relied upon solely as it is not corroborated with any other independent witness owing to the fact that the mediators PW.1, PW.2 turned hostile and did not support case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2023.

10.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section

34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act,

2023”?

11. P O I N T:-

(i) To prove guilt of the accused for the offence under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2023 the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubts that on 15.06.2020 the accused was found in unlawful possession of seized contraband i.e., 19 bottles of old admiral VSOP brandy of one liter each which is prohibited. To prove the same the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. PW.1 and PW.2 are mediators to Ex.P3. PW.3 is 4 C.C.No.373 of 2022 PCJ(JD), Punganur

Enforcement constable who accompanied PW.4 for the purpose of investigation and P.W.4 is Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is signature of PW.1 on panchayathnama dt.15.06.2020. Ex.P2 is signature of PW.2 on panchayathnama dt.15.06.2020. Ex.P3 is panchayathnama dt.15.06.2020.

Ex.P4 is F.I.R. Ex.P5 is Chemical Analysis report. M.O.1 is unexpended portion of sample bottle.

(ii) PW.1 & PW.2 who are said to be mediators to Ex.P3 deposed in similar lines that they do not know anything about facts of this case and they did not witness any search and seizure of contraband from any person by the excise officials. They further deposed that when they went to SEB Station on their personal work, excise officials obtained their signatures on some written papers and they do not know its contents as such their signatures on Ex.P3 are marked as Ex.P1 and P2 respectively. Thus PW.1, PW.2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and no material facts were elicited by the learned APP in their respective cross examinations in support of its case.

(iii) PW.3 deposed that on 15.06.2020 at about 6.20 pm while he along with PW.4 and mediators were moving on Punganur-Sankarayalapeta bus road in their department vehicle and when they reached Katharlapalle cross road they found accsued who was having one white colour plastic bag coming on a two wheeler and tried to skulk away from the said place and they able to caught hold accused and on enquiry by PW.4 accused stated his name and address particulars as V.Sreenu and also stated that accused brought liquor from Karnataka State without permission in order to sell the same for higher prices in state of A.P. for his livelihood. PW.3 further deposed that PW.4 opened the plastic bag in their presence and found 19 bottles of Old admiral

VSOP brandy of each 1000 ml. Then PW.4 explained to accused that possession and sale of Karnataka liquor is an offence and arrested accused and seized the above said contraband and two wheeler and lifted one sample bottle for chemical analysis under the cover of panchayathnama in the scene of offence drafted by him on the dictation of PW.4 and he know the contents of the panchayathnama vide Ex.P3. Then accused, seized contraband were brought to the SEB Punganur Station. Then PW.4 registered the case and took up further investigation.

5 C.C.No.373 of 2022 PCJ(JD), Punganur

(iv) PW.4 deposed in similar lines to that of PW.3 regarding the seizure of contraband and he further deposed his part of investigation regarding registration of case under Ex.P4 and arrest and forwarding the accused for judicial custody before the Court. PW.4 further deposed that he had sent the sample to Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis, after analysis he received report vide Ex.P5 along with remaining sample wherein it is opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor”. PW.4 further deposed that he had sent a requisition for confiscation of the remaining seized contraband to Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Ananthapuram to confiscate the seized contraband and after receiving the permission the seized contraband is destroyed. After completion of investigation LW.5 G.Ashok Kumar (Enforcement Sub

Inspector) filed charge sheet against accused.

(v) PW.1 and PW.2 who are said to be mediators turned hostile and deposed that excise officials obtained their signatures in police station. PW.3 and PW.4 deposed that PW.4 did not prepare rough sketch of scene of offence. If really PW.4 has went to the scene of offence he should have prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence. But in this case PW.4 has not prepared rough sketch.

(vi) The only evidence available on record is that of PW.3, PW.4 who are excise officials. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of police officials has to be subjected to strict scrutiny with the aid of independent witnesses evidence. But in the instant case P.W.1, P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution to scrutinize the evidence of PW.3, PW.4. Thus the only evidence available against accused is that of his confession made before

PW.3, PW.4 and reduced into writing as in Ex.P3 which is inadmissible piece of evidence according to section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 owing to the fact that PW.3, PW.4 are excise officials. At this stage it is relevant to refer the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Kalidindi

Ramaraju @ Rambabu Vs State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALD (Cri) 863 (AP)

wherein it was held that “It is settled law that an excise officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and a confession made by the accused person before an excise official, if otherwise not proved, is inadmissible in evidence”. Relying on the above decision this Court is of the view that the confession of accused cannot be taken into consideration.

6 C.C.No.373 of 2022 PCJ(JD), Punganur

Further a conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses as held by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Botcha Raju Vs State Rep. By the

Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl) 69 the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that conviction cannot be given

basing on the sole evidence of the police officials without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.

(vii) In view of the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2023.

12. In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Amendment Act, 2023, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of

Sec.437A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer in computer corrected signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

- Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1T.Mahesh- None -

PW.2T.Reddinagendra

PW.3M.Valli

PW.4P.T.Srenivasulu Reddy 7 C.C.No.373 of 2022 PCJ(JD), Punganur

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1is signature of PW.1 on panchayathnama dt.15.06.2020.

Ex.P2is signature of PW.2 on panchayathnama dt.15.06.2020.

Ex.P3is panchayathnama dt.15.06.2020.

Ex.P4is F.I.R.

Ex.P5is Chemical Analysis report.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil.

Material objects:-

M.O.1 is unexpended portion of sample bottle

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

- Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur 8 C.C.No.373 of 2022 PCJ(JD), Punganur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Calendar cases tried by the PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)– CUM -JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Apprehension Released Comment Close of Sentence OffenceReportof Accused on Bail of TrialTrialor Order 15.06.2020 15.06.2020 15.06.2020 04.03.202229.11.202318.03.202424.04.2024

Explanation for delay: This case record was transferred to this Court from I

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate

of I Class, Punganur on 10.11.2023 at the stage of section 239 Cr.P.C. examination of accused. Accused is examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C. on 17.11.2023. PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed. The accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 18.03.2024. Heard both sides on 19.04.2024. Judgment pronounced on today. Hence, the delay. Judgment in C.C.No.373/2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) –cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Complainant:The State represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur.

Name of the Vadla Sreenu , aged about 19 years, S/o V.Sreeramulu, accused : R/at Kalikiri Village and Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of Unlawful possession of Karnataka State liquor bottles, Offence and Under Section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra section of lawPradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2023. FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) read with 34 (1) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2023, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G.Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide

Dis.No……….., Dt…………………...

// True copy//

PCJ(JD)-cum-JMFC, PGR

1 C.C.No.900 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)–

CUM -JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Present : Sri G.Karthik,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 24 th day of April, 2024

C.C.No.900 of 2023

Between:

The State represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur.

… Complainant.

And

A1.Maddili Hari Krishna Reddy, aged about 35 years, S/o K.Shankarappa,

R/at Bandamida Jarvaripalle, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District.

A2.Kondeti Ravi, aged about 30 years, S/o K.Shankarappa, R/at Bandamida

Jarvaripalle, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Accused No.1 and 2.

This case has come before me on 19.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State Sri T.Rama

Krishna and of Sri B.Alexander, Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2, on hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Punganur, filed charge sheet in Cr.No.146/2020 for the offence punishable under section under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 against A1 and A2.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.2020 at about 6.00 AM on credible information PW.4 along with his staff PW.3 and mediators PW.1,

PW.2 proceeded towards Dasinampalle cross situated on Kallupalle to

Royalpeta bus road of Peddapanjani Mandal. There they had seen A1 and A2 in unlawful possession of blue colour plastic bag coming on a hero Honda

Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 03 AH 6787 who tried 2 C.C.No.900 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur to escape on seeing them and apprehended by them. PW.4 verified the blue colour plastic bag in the presence of PW.1 to PW.3 and found 80 packets of

ID Arrack of 100 ML each in order to sell the same illegally without any valid license or permit. Later on enquiry by PW.4 in the presence of mediators

PW.1, PW.2, A1 and A2 revealed their identities particulars and confessed that they are having ID arrack and selling the same for their livelihood. Upon their confession A1 and A2 were arrested and the contraband, two wheeler were seized and lifted one sample packet for chemical analysis under cover of panchanama by PW.4 in the presence of mediators PW.1, PW.2 and returned to police station and registered this case against A1 and A2. Later

PW.4 had sent the sample to Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis and received the report, wherein it is opined that the sample is “Illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health” and also sent a requisition to Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, Special Enforcement Bureau, Ananthapuram with a request to destroy case property according to law. After completion of investigation LW.6

G.Ashok Kumar (Enforcement Sub Inspector) filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 against A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to them under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity and convenience). The A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed against them, the contents of the charge are explained to A1 and A2 in Telugu for which A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW.5 K.Ramadevi and LW.6

G.Ashok Kumar.

6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating circumstances appearing in 3 C.C.No.900 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur the evidence against A1 and A2 was explained to them to enable them, to give any explanation for such adverse circumstances in the evidence. The A1 and A2 denied the same and stated no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

8. The contention of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Though the mediators P.W.1, P.W.2 turned hostile the evidence of

P.W.3 and P.W.4 corroborates with each other in all material aspects which establishes that the accused was found in possession of seized contraband without any licence and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

9. Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that accused is falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes. He has further contended that PW.3, P.W.4 are excise officials and their evidence cannot be relied upon solely as it is not corroborated with any other independent witness owing to the fact that the mediators PW.1, PW.2 turned hostile and did not support case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

10. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2

beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section

7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995”?

11. P O I N T:-

(i) To prove guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubts that on 19.04.2020 the A1 and A2 were found in unlawful possession of seized contraband i.e ID Arrack at the scene of offence which is prohibited. To prove the same the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. PW.1 and PW.2 are mediators to Ex.P3. P.W.3 is Excise constable who accompanied PW.4 for 4 C.C.No.900 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur the purpose of investigation and PW.4 is Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is signature of PW.1 on panchayathnama. Ex.P2 is signature of PW.2 on panchayathnama. Ex.P3 is panchayathnama. Ex.P4 is F.I.R. Ex.P5 is

Chemical Analysis report. M.O.1 is sample packet.

(ii) PW.1 & PW.2 who are said to be mediators to Ex.P3 deposed in similar lines that they do not know anything about facts of this case and they did not witness any search and seizure of contraband from any person by

SEB officials. They further deposed that when they went to SEB Station on their personal work, excise police obtained their signatures on some written papers and they do not know its contents as such their signatures on Ex.P3 are marked as Ex.P1 and P2 respectively. Thus PW.1, PW.2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and no material facts were elicited by the learned APP in their respective cross examinations in support of its case.

(iii) PW.3 deposed that on 19.04.2020 at about 6.00 am while he along with PWs 1, 2, PW.4 and their Inspector were moving on Kallupalle-

Rayalapeta road in their department vehicle and when they reached

Dasiganipalle Cross they found A1, A2 who were coming in two wheeler Hero

Honda Splender plus having one Pink and Blue colour plastic bag and tried to

skulk away from the said place and they able to caught hold A1, A2 and on enquiry by PW.4 A1, A2 stated their names and address particulars as

Harikrishna Reddy and Ravi and also stated that A1, A2 are having ID liquor in order to sell the same for their livelihood. PW.3 further deposed that PW.4 opened the plastic cover in their presence and found 80 packets of ID liquor of each 100 ml. Then PW.4 explained to A1, A2 that possession and sale of ID liquor is an offence and arrested A1, A2 and seized the above said contraband and lifted sample in 180 ml bottle for chemical analysis under the cover of panchayathnama in the scene of offence drafted by him on the dictation of PW.4 and he know the contents of the panchayathnama vide

Ex.P3. Then A1, A2, seized contraband were brought to the SEB Punganur

Station. Then PW.4 registered the case and took up further investigation.

(iv) PW.4 who is the Investigating Officer deposed in similar lines to that of P.W.3 regarding the seizure of contraband under cover of panchayathnama, Ex.P3 in the presence of mediators PW.1, PW.2 and he 5 C.C.No.900 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur further deposed his part of investigation regarding registration of case under

Ex.P4 and arrest and forwarding the accused for judicial custody before the

Court. PW.4 further deposed he had sent sample of I.D.Arrack to Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis, the same was analyzed and received report wherein it is opined that the sample is “Illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.” PW.4 further deposed that he had sent a requisition for confiscation of the remaining seized contraband to Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Special

Enforcement Bureau, Ananthapuram to confiscate the seized contraband and after receiving the permission the seized contraband is destroyed. After completion of investigation LW.6 G.Ashok Kumar (Enforcement Sub

Inspector) filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

(v) PW.1 and PW.2 who are said to be mediators turned hostile and deposed that police obtained their signatures in police station. PW.3 and

PW.4 deposed that PW.4 did not prepare rough sketch of scene of offence. If really PW.4 had went to the scene of offence he should have prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence. But in this case PW.4 had not prepared rough sketch.

(vi) The only evidence available on record is that of PW.3, PW.4 who are excise officials. At this stage it is relevant to refer the decision of Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in Kalidindi Ramaraju @ Rambabu

Vs State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALD (Cri) 863 (AP) wherein it was held that “It is settled law that an excise officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and a confession made by the accused person before an excise official, if otherwise not proved, is inadmissible in evidence”. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of police officials has to be subjected to strict scrutiny with the aid of independent witnesses evidence. But in the instant case P.W.1, P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution to scrutinize the evidence of PW.3, PW.4. Thus the only evidence available against accused is that of his confession made before PW.3, P.W.4 and reduced into writing as in Ex.P3 which is inadmissible piece of evidence according to section 25, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 owing to the fact that

P.W.3, P.W.4 are police officials. Relying on the above decision this Court is of the view that the confession of accused cannot be taken into consideration.

Further a conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police 6 C.C.No.900 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses as held by Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Botcha Raju Vs State Rep. By the

Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) ALT (Crl) 69 the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that conviction cannot be given

basing on the sole evidence of the police officials without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.

(vii) In view of the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w 8(e) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

12. In the result, this Court found A1 and A2 not guilty for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer in computer corrected signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- G. Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1 K.Sankara - None -

PW.2 Gangulappa

PW.3 K.Damodar Reddy

PW.4 S.Venkatramana

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1 is signature of PW.1 on panchayathnama.

Ex.P2 is signature of PW.2 on panchayathnama.

Ex.P3 is panchayathnama.

7 C.C.No.900 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur

Ex.P4 is F.I.R.

Ex.P5 is Chemical Analysis report.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:- Nil.

Material objects:-

M.O.1 Unexpended portion of sample packet

Sd/- G. Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur // True copy//

PCJ(JD)-cum-JMFC, PGR 8 C.C.No.900 of 2023 PCJ(JD), Punganur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Calendar cases tried by the PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)– CUM -JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Apprehension Released Comment Close of Sentence Offence Report of Accused on Bail of Trial Trial or Order 19.04.2020 19.04.2020 19.04.2020 04.05.2020 18.01.2024 15.04.2024 24.04.2024

Explanation for delay: In this case cognizance was taken on 01.12.2023. The accused is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C on 08.01.2024. PW.1 to 4 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed. The accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 15.04.2024. Heard both sides on 19.04.2024. Judgment pronounced on today. Hence, the delay. Judgment in C.C.No.900/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge(JD)–cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Complainant:The State represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Punganur. Name of the A1.Maddili Hari Krishna Reddy, aged about 35 years, S/o accused : K.Shankarappa, R/at Bandamida Jarvaripalle, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District. A2.Kondeti Ravi, aged about 30 years, S/o K.Shankarappa, R/at Bandamida Jarvaripalle, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District. Nature of Unlawful possession of ID.Arrack, Offence and Under Section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition section of lawAct, 1995

FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, this Court found A1 and A2 not guilty for the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall be in force in terms of Sec.437A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a period of six months. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G. Karthik

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide

Dis.No……….., Dt…………………...

// True copy//

PCJ(JD)-cum-JMFC, PGR