Sri. G.l.v. Prasad

1

CC. No_41_2021 Dated 22.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: TUNI,

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Present: Sri G. L. V. Prasad

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class

FAC. Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Wednesday, the Twenty-second day of September 2021

C. C. No.41 of 2021

Between

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station Crime No.163 of 2020 … Complainant

and

Goddi Someswararao, s/o Danayya, aged about 26 years, C/Relli, r/o Relli Xolony, Tuni town, East Godavari District.

... Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 20.09.2021 through video conferencing in the presence of Smt. N. Sunitha, Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri I. V. S. Satyanarayana, advocate for accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following___

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.163 of 2020 of his station alleging that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 7B read with Section 8B of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act.

2.The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.09.2020 at about 3.30 PM., on receipt of credible information, PW.3, who is the SI of Police, after securing his staff i.e., PW.2, Mr. G. V. K. Dora-PC1163 and Mr. M. Nageswara Rao–PC1372 (LWs.3 and 4) and mediators i.e., PW.1 and Geddamuri Supriya (LW.2) proceeded to Katrallakonda of Relli colony in Tuni and noticed one person standing with one black coloured plastic tin. On seeing the team of PW.3, the said person tried to skulk away from that place. Immediately, PW.3 chased the said person with the help of PW.2 and other staff caught hold of the said person and on enquiry, the said person disclosed his name and address particulars as that of accused. On further enquiry by PW.3, accused confessed that he purchased 15 liters of ID arrack from an unknown person by paying an amount of Rs.1,500/- with an intention to resale the same for higher price at Relli Colony and brought the same to that place for selling higher price; and in the meanwhile, on seeing the 2

CC. No_41_2021 Dated 22.09.2021 police, he tried to escape, but, however, he was caught by the police. Immediately

PW.3 recorded the confession statement of the accused and seized the black coloured plastic container containing 15 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused and drawn 300 ml in one bottle for sample purpose under the cover of a mediators report in the presence of PW.1 and Geddamuri Supriya (LW.2). After returning to the police station, PW.3 registered the mediators report as a case in

Crime No.163 of 2020, under Section 7B read with 8B of A P Prohibition Act and took up investigation, arrested the accused and sent him for judicial remand.

During investigation, PW.3 visited the scene of offence, drew rough sketch of scene of offence, examined PW.2, Mr. G. V. K. Dora–PC 1163 and Mr. M.

Nageswara Rao-PC1373 and recorded their statements. PW.3 also sent the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise

Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. On 22.09.2020, analyst issued report opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation, PW.3 laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.On 29.01.2021, this Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case papers as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. are furnished to accused.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence. A charge under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act is framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Geddamuri Supriya, Mr. G. V. K. Dora–PC 1163 and Mr. M.

Nageswara Rao – PC1372 (LWs.2 to 4).

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied.

7.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant, Sri I. V. V.

Satyanarayana, learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

3

CC. No_41_2021 Dated 22.09.2021

8.Now the point that arises for determination is___

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused of the offence under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point: According to prosecution, the law was set into motion against the accused based on Ex.P1 mediators report on the ground that on 06.09.2020 at about 3.30 PM., at Katrallakonda in Relli colony of Tuni, PW.3 apprehended the accused, recorded his confession statement and in-pursuance of the confession of accused seized black coloured container containing 15 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused and drawn 300 ml in one sample bottle, registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P2 FIR and sent MO.1 sample bottle to the analyst, who issued Ex.P4 analyst report opining that the sample containing illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. In order to establish its case, as already noted, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P4 and MO.1 sample bottle were marked.

10.Coming to the evidence of PWs1 to 3, in her evidence, PW1, who is one of the mediators of Ex.P1 mediators report, while reiterating the contents of Ex.P1 deposed about caught hold of accused, recording of confession statement of accused in her presence and in the presence of another mediator by PW.3 and seizure of contraband, drawing of 300 ml. in MO.1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 mediators report etc. facts. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by not only the evidence of PW.2, who is a police constable accompanied PW.3, but also the evidence of PW.3, who is the investigating officer. The evidence of PW.3 further goes to show about his investigation, arresting and sending the accused to judicial custody, visiting scene of offence, drawing Ex.P3 rough sketch of scene of offence, sending MO.1 sample bottle to the analyst for analysis and filing of charge sheet on receipt of analyst report etc. facts.

11.As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P1, P2, P4 and

MO.1, it appears that pursuant to the alleged confession of accused certain contraband i.e., 15 liters of ID liquor was seized from the alleged possession of accused and drawn 300 ml., in MO.1 sample bottle. But, it may be mentioned here either in the evidence of PW.1 or in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, it is nowhere stated about the steps, if any, taken with regard to the alleged 15 liters of

ID. liquor, excluding 300 ml. drawn in MO.1 sample bottle. Similarly, in Ex.P1 mediators report also, it is nowhere mentioned whether the remaining ID liquor was either handed over to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

Peddapuram or whether the same was destroyed at the scene of offence, as per 4

CC. No_41_2021 Dated 22.09.2021 any specific orders from the authorities concerned. Therefore, the said missing point definitely throws any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of the prosecution.

12.Further, according to prosecution, the scene of offence area is in Relly

Colony, whereas PW.1, who is one of the mediators of Ex.P1, deposed in her cross-examination that she is a resident of 5th ward i.e., Brahmala Colony.

Admittedly, prosecution has not examined the other mediator Geddamuri Supriya (LW.2). Therefore, if the evidence of PW.1 is taken into consideration, she is not a resident of scene of offence locality. From this, it is quite clear that PW.3 has not followed the mandatory provision of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C i.e., securing of respectable inhabitants of the locality as mediators while recording confession of accused and seizure of contraband from the alleged possession of the accused.

On this aspect, in the decision reported in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF

AP 1, it was held by Hon’ble High Court as follows___ “5. Here, in the case on hand, the accused was found in possession of ID liquor at bypass road Rangadhampalli near Siddipet. The evidence of PW.1, the Excise Sub Inspector, disclose that they are residential houses at a distance of 25 yards from the scene of offence. There are hotels also near the scene of offence. As per the evidence of PW.1, they took the panch witnesses along with them to the scene. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station is about 3 kilometers as per the evidence of PW.3, the then Excise Inspector, Siddipet. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of 3 kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor PW.3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P1 panchanamana also does not discloses that any effort was made by the excise officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence, in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr. P.C are not followed by the excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing ID liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.” 1 (2005(3) (ALT) (Cri.) 1 (AP) 5

CC. No_41_2021 Dated 22.09.2021

13.The facts in Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra) are PW.3, who is the investigating officer therein, picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence; and that he did not try to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality to act as mediators. In those facts and circumstances, in Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra), it was held by the

Hon’ble High Court that since the provisions of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C are not

followed by the excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing ID liquor, the seizure made is illegal. Coming to the case on hand, the facts are altogether similar. In the instant case also, PW.3 secured PW.1 and another mediator in the police station and took them to the scene of offence area along with him in the police jeep. Further, in her cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that Relly Colony is a residential area and there are several temples in that area, besides a counselor is also there in Relly Colony. Similarly, in his cross-examination, PW.3 also deposed that there is a pump house as per the rough sketch of scene of offence and he has not examined the staff available at pump house. In view of the said facts and inasmuch as the facts in the case on hand and the facts in Gajamker

Narayana’s case (1 supra) are similar, following the decision of the Hon’ble High

Court Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra), this Court is of the view that the alleged seizure made in this case is also illegal.

14.Another discrepancy pointed out by learned counsel for accused is with regard to MO.1 sample bottle. In her cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that empty bottle to collect the sample was secured on the road; and the sample bottle was not cleaned before taking sample. Similar is the evidence of PW.2. In his cross-examination, PW.3 also deposed that they secured the bottle by the side of the road and they did not clean the said bottle. As seen from the said evidence of

PWs.1 to 3, it is evident that without taking any precautions, sample was drawn from the alleged contraband in MO.1 sample bottle. The said circumstance also creates any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution. Further, assuming for a moment that MO.1 sample was sent to the analyst in a proper manner is true, no doubt, the contents of Ex.P4 analyst report go to show that the unexpended portion of the sample will be returned securely sealed. But, in his cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that MO.1 bottle was not sealed; and that MO.1 does not contain the seal and signature of the chemical examiner. The said discrepancy also throws any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution. Yet another discrepancy pointed out by learned counsel for accused is with regard to the date on MO.1. According to prosecution, the sample was drawn on 06.09.2020. As per the contents of Ex.P4 analyst report, MO.1 sample was received by the chemical analyst on 11.09.2020 and he issued Ex.P4 report 6

CC. No_41_2021 Dated 22.09.2021 22.09.2020. Coming to evidence, in his cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that

MO.1 bottle contain the date as 27.06.2020. PW.3 did not offer any explanation with regard to the date 27.06.2020 on MO.1. Therefore, all these discrepancies create any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution.

15.The other discrepancy pointed out by leaned counsel for the accused is with regard to the delay in sending the sample to the analyst for analysis. On this aspect, the contents of Ex.P4 analyst report go to show that the sample was received by the analyst on 11.09.2020. According to prosecution, the sample was drawn on 06.09.2020. From this, it is clear that there is four days delay in sending the sample to the analyst. The prosecution has not offered any explanation with regard to the delay in sending the sample to the analyst for analysis. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the delay in sending the sample also creates any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution.

16.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused of the offence with which he is charged and he is accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act and he is accordingly acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd day of September 2021.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JMFC, TUNI

FAC. ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TUNI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW.1: B. Shantha KumariNone. PW.2: Mr. D. Suryaprakash Rao – Police Constable PW.3: Mr.P.V.Ch.S. Naidu – S.I. of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: 06.09.2020 : Mediators Report Ex.P2: ---- : Printed FIR in Crime No.163 of 2020 Ex.P3: ---- : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P4: 22.09.2020 : Analyst report For Defence: Nil. Material Objects Marked MO.1 one sample bottle

FAC AJCJ-CUM-AJMFC

7

CC. No_41_2021 Dated 22.09.2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN CC. No.41/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT

OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

DATE OF

OffenceComplaintApprehensioReleaseTaken Commence-Close ofOrder of or reportn of accusedon bailon filement of trialtrialsentence 06.09.20 06.09.20 06.09.2020 17.09.20 29.01.21 08.03.2021 09.04.21 22.09.2021

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station Crime No.163 of 2020

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused Goddi Someswararao, s/o Danayya, aged about 26 years, C/Relli, r/o Relli Xolony, Tuni town, East Godavari District.

Offence: under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act.

Crime No.163 of 2020

Finding: Found not Guilty

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 one sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JMFC, TUNI

FAC. ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TUNI.

Seal: Submitted to

Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

East Godavari District, Rajahmahendravaram.

1

CC. No_43_2021 Dated 27.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: TUNI,

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Present: Sri G. L. V. Prasad

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class

FAC. Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the Twenty-seventh day of September 2021

C. C. No.43 of 2021

Between

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station Crime No.156 of 2020 … Complainant

and

Gampala Prasanth Kumar, s/o Satyanarayana, aged about 22 years, C/SC Madiga, r/o Veeravarapupeta, Tuni town, East Godavari District.

... Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 20.09.2021 through video conferencing in the presence of Smt. N. Sunitha, Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri M. Ganesh, advocate for accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following___

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.156 of 2020 of his station alleging that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 7B read with Section 8B of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act.

2.The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.07.2020 at about 4.00 PM., on receipt of credible information, PW.2, who is the SI of Police, along with his staff Mr. M.V.S.S.S Narayana-PC 3715, Mr. N. Srinu-PC3630 and Mr. M.

Nageswara Rao-PC1372 (LWs.3 to 5) and mediators i.e., PW.1 and Muppidi

Satyanarayana (LW.2) proceeded to Ambedkar Statue, Veeravarapupeta of Tuni and noticed one person standing with one black coloured plastic tin. On seeing the team of PW.2, the said person tried to skulk away from that place towards

Ramakrishna Colony. Immediately, PW.2 chased the said person with the help of his staff caught hold of the said person and on enquiry, the said person disclosed his name and address particulars as that of accused. On further enquiry by PW.2, accused confessed that he purchased 15 liters of ID arrack from an unknown person in Valluru village by paying an amount of Rs.1,500/- with an intention to sell 2

CC. No_43_2021 Dated 27.09.2021 the same for higher price, in the meanwhile, on seeing the police, he tried to escape, but, however, he was caught by the police. Immediately PW.2 recorded the confession statement of accused and seized the black coloured plastic tin containing 15 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused and drawn 300 ml in one bottle for sample purpose under the cover of a mediators report in the presence of PW.1 and Muppidi Satyanarayana (LW.2). After returning to the police station, PW.2 registered the mediators report as a case in Crime No.156 of 2020, under Section 7B read with 8B of A P Prohibition Act and took up investigation, arrested the accused and sent him for judicial remand. During investigation, PW.2 visited the scene of offence, drew rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined

Mr. M. V. S. S. S Narayana-PC 3715, Mr. N. Srinu-PC3630 and Mr. M. Nageswara

Rao-PC1372 (LWs.3 to 5) and recorded their statements. PW.2 also sent the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise

Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. On 06.08.2020, analyst issued report opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation, PW.2 laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.On 29.01.2021, this Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case papers as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. are furnished to accused.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence. A charge under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act is framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Muppidi Satyanarayana, Mr. M. V. S. S. S Narayana-PC 3715, Mr. N. Srinu-PC3630 and Mr. M. Nageswara Rao-PC1372 (LWs.2 to 5).

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied.

7.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant, Sri M. Ganesh, learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

3

CC. No_43_2021 Dated 27.09.2021

8.Now the point that arises for determination is___

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused of the offence under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point: According to prosecution, the law was set into motion against the accused based on Ex.P1 mediators report on the ground that on 22.07.2020 at about 4.00 PM., near Ambedkar Satatue, Veeravarapupeta of Tuni, PW.2 apprehended the accused, recorded his confession statement and in-pursuance of the confession of accused seized black coloured tin containing 15 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused and drawn 300 ml in one sample bottle, registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P2 FIR and sent MO.1 sample bottle to the analyst, who issued Ex.P4 analyst report opining that the sample containing illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. In order to establish its case, as already noted, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 sample bottle were marked.

10.Coming to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, in his evidence, PW1, who is one of the mediators of Ex.P1 mediators report, while reiterating the contents of Ex.P1 deposed about caught hold of accused, recording of confession statement of accused in his presence and in the presence of another mediator by PW.2 and seizure of contraband, drawing of 300 ml. in MO.1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 mediators report etc. facts. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by

PW.2, who is the investigating officer. The evidence of PW.2 further goes to show about his investigation, arresting and sending accused to judicial custody, visiting scene of offence, drawing Ex.P3 rough sketch of scene of offence, sending MO.1 sample bottle to the analyst for analysis and filing of charge sheet on receipt of analyst report etc. facts.

11.As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1, P2, P4 and MO.1, it appears that pursuant to the alleged confession of accused certain contraband i.e., 15 liters of ID liquor was seized from the alleged possession of accused and drawn 300 ml., in MO.1 sample bottle. But, it may be mentioned here either in the evidence of PW.1 or in the evidence of PW.2, it is nowhere stated about the steps, if any, taken with regard to the alleged 15 liters of ID.

liquor, excluding 300 ml. drawn in MO.1 sample bottle. Similarly, in Ex.P1 mediators report also, it is nowhere mentioned whether the remaining ID liquor was either handed over to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

Peddapuram or whether the same was destroyed at the scene of offence, as per any specific orders from the authorities concerned. Therefore, the said missing 4

CC. No_43_2021 Dated 27.09.2021 point definitely throws any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of the prosecution.

12.Further, according to prosecution, the scene of offence area is near

Ambedkar Statue in Veeravarapupeta of Tuni, whereas PW.1, who is one of the mediators of Ex.P1, deposed in his cross-examination that he is the Village

Revenue Officer for Ward Nos.15 and 16 and in-charge for Ward Nos.25 and 26; and that Veeravarapupeta is a residential locality. In his cross examination, PW.2, who is the investigating officer, deposed that he has no idea about the number of

Ward Secretariat for which PW.1 and another mediator were attached; and that the scene of offence area is a residential locality and that he has not examined the residents of the said locality and not tried to secure the mediators from that locality. Therefore, if the said evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is taken into consideration,

PW.1 is not a resident of scene of offence locality. From this, it is quite clear that

PW.2 has not followed the mandatory provision of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C i.e., securing of respectable inhabitants of the locality as mediators while recording confession of accused and seizure of contraband from the alleged possession of the accused. On this aspect, in the decision reported in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF AP 1, it was held by Hon’ble High Court as follows___ “5. Here, in the case on hand, the accused was found in possession of ID liquor at bypass road Rangadhampalli near Siddipet. The evidence of PW.1, the Excise Sub Inspector, disclose that they are residential houses at a distance of 25 yards from the scene of offence. There are hotels also near the scene of offence. As per the evidence of PW.1, they took the panch witnesses along with them to the scene. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station is about 3 kilometers as per the evidence of PW.3, the then Excise Inspector, Siddipet. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of 3 kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor PW.3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P1 panchanamana also does not discloses that any effort was made by the excise officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence, in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr. P.C are not followed by the excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing ID liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

13.The facts in Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra) are PW.3, who is the investigating officer therein, picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence; and that he did not try to secure 1 (2005(3) (ALT) (Cri.) 1 (AP) 5

CC. No_43_2021 Dated 27.09.2021 respectable inhabitants of the locality to act as mediators. In those facts and circumstances, in Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra), it was held by the

Hon’ble High Court that since the provisions of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C are not

followed by the excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing ID liquor, the seizure made is illegal. Coming to the case on hand, the facts are altogether similar. As already noted, in the instant case, the evidence of PW.2 goes to show that he did not try to secure mediators from the scene locality; and that the scene of offence area is a residential locality. In view of the said facts and inasmuch as the facts in the case on hand and the facts in Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra) are similar, following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court Gajamker

Narayana’s case (1 supra), this Court is of the view that the alleged seizure made in this case is also illegal.

14.Another discrepancy pointed out by learned counsel for accused is with regard to MO.1 sample bottle. In his cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that the sample bottle was secured from the jeep and that the bottle was not cleaned in his presence; and that the same was not measured in his presence. He further deposed that MO.1 does not contain his signature. Similarly, in his cross- examination, P.W.2 deposed that they lifted the sample in the plastic bottle, which was secured in their jeep; and that they have not cleaned the said bottle before lifting the sample. As seen from the said evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is evident that without taking any precautions, sample was drawn from the alleged contraband in MO.1 sample bottle. The said circumstance also creates any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution. Further, assuming for a moment that MO.1 sample was sent to the analyst in a proper manner is true, no doubt, the contents of Ex.P4 analyst report go to show that the unexpended portion of the sample will be returned securely sealed. But, in his cross- examination, PW.1 deposed that MO.1 does not contain his signature.

Interestingly, PW.2 deposed in his cross-examination that himself and PW.1 subscribed their signatures on MO.1 sample bottle. From this, it is clear that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is contrary to each other with regard to the signature of

P.W.1 on M.O.1 sample bottle. The said discrepancy also throws any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution. According to prosecution, the sample was drawn on 22.04.2020. As per the contents of Ex.P4 analyst report,

MO.1 sample was received by the chemical analyst on 24.07.2020 and he issued

Ex.P4 report 06.08.2020. Coming to evidence, in his cross-examination, PW.2 deposed that there was delay of two days in reaching the sample to the chemical examiner for analysis and that the said delay was not explained in charge sheet properly. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused 6

CC. No_43_2021 Dated 27.09.2021 the said two days delay is definitely fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, all these discrepancies create any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution.

15.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused of the offence with which he is charged and he is accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act and he is accordingly acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27th day of September 2021.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JMFC, TUNI

FAC. ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TUNI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW.1: Addala NethajiNone. PW.2: Mr. P. Srinivas Kumar – S.I. of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: 22.07.2020 : Mediators Report Ex.P2: 22.07.2020 : Printed FIR in Crime No.156 of 2020 Ex.P3: ---- : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P4: 06.08.2020 : Analyst report For Defence: Nil. Material Objects Marked MO.1 one sample bottle

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

FAC AJCJ-CUM-AJMFC

7

CC. No_43_2021 Dated 27.09.2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN CC. No.41/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT

OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

DATE OF

OffenceComplaintApprehensioReleaseTaken Commence-Close ofOrder of or reportn of accusedon bailon filement of trialtrialsentence 22.07.20 22.07.20 23.07.2020 06.08.20 29.01.21 06.04.2021 26.04.21 27.09.2021

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station Crime No.156 of 2020

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused Gampala Prasanth Kumar, s/o Satyanarayana, aged about 22 years, C/SC Madiga, r/o Veeravarapupeta, Tuni town, East Godavari District.

Offence: under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act.

Crime No.156 of 2020

Finding: Found not Guilty

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 one sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JMFC, TUNI

FAC. ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TUNI.

Seal: Submitted to

Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

East Godavari District, Rajahmahendravaram.

1

CC. No_68_2021 Dated 27.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: TUNI,

EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

Present: Sri G. L. V. Prasad

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class

FAC. Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the Twenty-seventh day of September 2021

C. C. No.68 of 2021

Between

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station Crime No.174 of 2020 … Complainant

and

Kundeti Durga Rao, s/o Sathibabu, aged 30 years, SC-Madiga, Ramakrishna colony, Tuni town, East Godavari District.

... Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 20.09.2021 through video conferencing in the presence of Smt. N. Sunitha, Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri Saka Sattibabu, advocate for accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following___

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.174 of 2020 of his station alleging that accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 7B read with Section 8B of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act.

2.The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.09.2020 at about 7.00 AM., on receipt of credible information, PW.2, who is the SI of Police, along with his staff Mr. M.V.S.S.S Narayana-PC 3715, Mr. M. Nageswara Rao-PC1372 and Mr.

V. Srinivasu PC-3627 (LWs.3 to 5) and mediators i.e., PW.1 and Kandipamula

Venkataramana (LW.2) proceeded to near Thandava river flyover bridge in

Medharapeta of Tuni and noticed one person standing with one black coloured plastic tin. On seeing the team of PW.2, the said person tried to skulk away from that place towards Ramakrishna Colony. Immediately, PW.2 chased the said person with the help of his staff caught hold of the said person and on enquiry, the said person disclosed his name and address particulars as that of accused. On further enquiry by PW.2, accused confessed that he purchased 10 liters of ID arrack from an unknown person in Pentakota village of Payakaraopet Mandal by 2

CC. No_68_2021 Dated 27.09.2021 paying an amount of Rs.1,000/- with an intention to sell the same for higher price, in the meanwhile, on seeing the police, he tried to escape, but, however, he was caught by the police. Immediately PW.2 recorded the confession statement of accused and seized the black coloured plastic tin containing 10 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused and drawn 300 ml in one bottle for sample purpose under the cover of a mediators report in the presence of PW.1 and

Kandipamulu Venkataramana (LW.2). After returning to the police station, PW.2 registered the mediators report as a case in Crime No.174 of 2020, under Section 7B read with 8B of A P Prohibition Act and took up investigation, arrested the accused and sent him for judicial remand. During investigation, PW.2 visited the scene of offence, drew rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined Mr. M. V.

S. S. S Narayana-PC 3715, Mr. M. Nageswara Rao-PC1372 and Mr. V. Srinivasu

PC-3627 (LWs.3 to 5) and recorded their statements. PW.2 also sent the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise Laboratory,

Kakinada for analysis. On 20.10.2020, analyst issued report opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation, PW.2 laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.On 16.02.2021, this Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case papers as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. are furnished to accused.

4.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offence. A charge under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act is framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Kandipamula Venkataramana, Mr. M. V. S. S. S.

Narayana-PC 3715, Mr. M. Nageswara Rao-PC1372 and Mr. V. Srinivas-PC 3621 (LWs.2 to 5).

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied.

3

CC. No_68_2021 Dated 27.09.2021

7.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant, Sri Saka

Sattibabu, learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is___

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused of the offence under Section 7B read with 8B of AP Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point: According to prosecution, the law was set into motion against the accused based on Ex.P1 mediators report on the ground that on 28.09.2020 at about 7.00 AM., near Thandava river flyover bridge in Medharapeta of Tuni, PW.2 apprehended the accused, recorded his confession statement and in-pursuance of the confession of accused seized black coloured tin containing 10 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused and drawn 300 ml in one sample bottle, registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P2 FIR and sent MO.1 sample bottle to the analyst, who issued Ex.P4 analyst report opining that the sample containing illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. In order to establish its case, as already noted, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 sample bottle were marked.

10.Coming to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, in her evidence, PW1, who is one of the mediators of Ex.P1 mediators report, while reiterating the contents of Ex.P1 deposed about caught hold of accused, recording of confession statement of accused in her presence and in the presence of another mediator by PW.2 and seizure of contraband, drawing of 300 ml. in MO.1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 mediators report etc. facts. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by

PW.2, who is the investigating officer. The evidence of PW.2 further goes to show about his investigation, arresting and sending accused to judicial custody, visiting scene of offence, drawing Ex.P3 rough sketch of scene of offence, sending MO.1 sample bottle to the analyst for analysis and filing of charge sheet on receipt of analyst report etc. facts.

11.As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1, P2, P4 and MO.1, it appears that pursuant to the alleged confession of accused certain contraband i.e., 10 liters of ID liquor was seized from the alleged possession of accused and drawn 300 ml., in MO.1 sample bottle. But, it may be mentioned here either in the evidence of PW.1 or in the evidence of PW.2, it is nowhere stated about the steps, if any, taken with regard to the alleged 10 liters of ID.

liquor, excluding 300 ml. drawn in MO.1 sample bottle. Similarly, in Ex.P1 mediators report also, it is nowhere mentioned whether the remaining ID liquor was either handed over to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 4

CC. No_68_2021 Dated 27.09.2021

Peddapuram or whether the same was destroyed at the scene of offence, as per any specific orders from the authorities concerned. Therefore, the said missing point definitely throws any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of the prosecution.

12.Further, according to prosecution, the scene of offence area is located near

Thandava river flyover bridge in Medapapeta of Tuni, whereas PW.1, who is one of the mediators of Ex.P1, deposed in his cross-examination that he has not submitted any documentary evidence to show that Thandava bridge comes under the purview of his jurisdiction, except voluntarily stating that she was incharge by that time for Medharapeta. Whereas in his cross-examination, PW.2, categorically deposed that PW.1 is Village Revenue Officer of Kondavarupeta and Medharapet did not come under the purview of her jurisdiction. From this, it is quite clear that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is contrary to each other with regard to the place where PW.1 was the Village Revenue Officer. Further, PW.2 also deposed in his cross-examination that the scene of offence area is a residential locality and that he has not examined the neighbours at the scene of offence as witnesses in this case. The fact remains, PW.2 did not secure respectable inhabitants of the locality as mediators. Therefore, it can be easily said that PW.2 has not followed the mandatory provision of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C i.e., securing of respectable inhabitants of the locality as mediators while recording confession of accused and seizure of contraband from the alleged possession of the accused. On this aspect, in the decision reported in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF AP 1, it was held by Hon’ble High Court as follows___ “5. Here, in the case on hand, the accused was found in possession of ID liquor at bypass road Rangadhampalli near Siddipet. The evidence of PW.1, the Excise Sub Inspector, disclose that they are residential houses at a distance of 25 yards from the scene of offence. There are hotels also near the scene of offence. As per the evidence of PW.1, they took the panch witnesses along with them to the scene. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station is about 3 kilometers as per the evidence of PW.3, the then Excise Inspector, Siddipet. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of 3 kilometers. Neither the testimony of PW.1 nor PW.3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P1 panchanamana also does not discloses that any effort was made by the excise officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence, in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr. P.C are not followed by the excise officials while seizing the plastic can 1 (2005(3) (ALT) (Cri.) 1 (AP) 5

CC. No_68_2021 Dated 27.09.2021 containing ID liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

13.The facts in Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra) are PW.3, who is the investigating officer therein, picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence; and that he did not try to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality to act as mediators. In those facts and circumstances, in Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra), it was held by the

Hon’ble High Court that since the provisions of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C are not

followed by the excise officials while seizing the plastic can containing ID liquor, the seizure made is illegal. Coming to the case on hand, the facts are altogether similar. As already noted, in the instant case, the evidence of PW.2 goes to show that he did not try to secure mediators from the scene locality; and that the scene of offence area is a residential locality. In view of the said facts and inasmuch as the facts in the case on hand and the facts in Gajamker Narayana’s case (1 supra) are similar, following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court Gajamker

Narayana’s case (1 supra), this Court is of the view that the alleged seizure made in this case is also illegal.

14.Another discrepancy pointed out by learned counsel for accused is with regard to MO.1 sample bottle. In her cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that there is no mention about the place of securing of empty bottle to lift the sample in the report. He further deposed that S.I. of police did not take steps to clean the bottle

before lifting the sample. In his evidence, PW.2 has nowhere deposed from where

he secured empty bottle. Further, in their evidence, PWs.1 and 2 has nowhere stated whether MO.1 sample bottle was cleaned as per the procedure before lifting the sample from the alleged contraband. Therefore, the non mentioning of the said crucial facts also create any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution.

15.The other discrepancy pointed out by leaned counsel for the accused is with regard to the delay in sending the sample to the analyst for analysis. On this aspect, the contents of Ex.P4 analyst report go to show that the sample was received by the analyst on 08.10.2020. According to prosecution, the sample was drawn on 28.09.2020. From this, it is clear that there is ten days delay in sending the sample to the analyst. In fact, in his cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that there is delay of ten days in receiving the sample by the chemical examiner and the said delay was not explained in the charge sheet. Since the prosecution has not offered any explanation with regard to the delay in sending the sample to the analyst for analysis, this Court is of the view that the delay of ten days in sending 6

CC. No_68_2021 Dated 27.09.2021 the sample also creates any amount of doubt with regard to the very case of prosecution.

16.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused of the offence with which he is charged and he is accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act and he is accordingly acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27th day of September 2021.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JMFC, TUNI

FAC. ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TUNI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW.1: M. RatnamNone. PW.2: Mr. P. Srinivas Kumar – S.I. of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: 28.09.2020 : Mediators Report Ex.P2: ---- : Printed FIR in Crime No.174 of 2020 Ex.P3: ---- : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P4: 20.10.2020 : Analyst report For Defence: Nil. Material Objects Marked MO.1 one sample bottle

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

FAC AJCJ-CUM-AJMFC

7

CC. No_68_2021 Dated 27.09.2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT IN CC. No.68/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT

OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

DATE OF

OffenceComplaintApprehensioReleaseTaken Commence-Close ofOrder of or reportn of accusedon bailon filement of trialtrialsentence 28.09.20 28.09.20 28.09.2020 06.10.20 16.02.21 24.03.2021 08.04.21 27.09.2021

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Tuni Town Police Station Crime No.174 of 2020

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused Kundeti Durga Rao, s/o Sathibabu, aged 30 years, SC-Madiga, Ramakrishna colony, Tuni town, East Godavari District.

Offence: under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act.

Crime No.174 of 2020

Finding: Found not Guilty

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 7B read with Section 8B of AP Prohibition Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JMFC, TUNI

FAC. ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TUNI.

Seal: Submitted to

Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge,

East Godavari District, Rajahmahendravaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

(VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Present: Sri G. L. V. Prasad

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of September 2021

Original Suit No.104 of 2021

Between

Bandaru Venkata Lakshmi, w/o Veera Bhadra Rao, aged 47 years, Housewife, D.No.16-6, Nagarrjupeta, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam District.

...Plaintiff

and

1. Peruri Manemma, w/o (late) Apparao, aged 48 years, Housewife, D.No.16-11, Narajupeta, Payakaraopeta.

2. Peruri Veerababu, s/o (late) Apparao, aged 33 years, private employee, D.No.16-11, Nagarajupeta, Payakaraopet.

3. Peruri Siva Ramakrishna, s/o (late) Apparao, aged 27years, private employee, D.No.16-11, Nagarajupet, Payakaraopet.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing through video conferencing in the presence of Sri M.V.S. Prakasa Rao, advocate for plaintiff; and upon perusing the material on record; the Court delivered the following ___

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recover the sum of Rs.2,48,600/- due on pronote, dated 03.08.2018 together with subsequent interest and for costs.

2.Plaintiff filed memo seeking permission to not press the suit stating that she and defendants were compromised the case before elders and settled out of the

Court. Perused the memo and permission is accorded.

3. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed without costs as as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in virtual Court, on this the Twenty second day of

September 2021.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TUNI.

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

FAC AJCJ-CUM-JMFC

`

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

(VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Present: Sri G. L. V. Prasad

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni

Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of September 2021

Original Suit No.104 of 2021

Between

Bandaru Venkata Lakshmi, w/o Veera Bhadra Rao, aged 47 years, Housewife, D.No.16-6, Nagarrjupeta, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam District.

...Plaintiff

and

1. Peruri Manemma, w/o (late) Apparao, aged 48 years, Housewife, D.No.16-11, Narajupeta, Payakaraopeta.

2. Peruri Veerababu, s/o (late) Apparao, aged 33 years, private employee, D.No.16-11, Nagarajupeta, Payakaraopet.

3. Peruri Siva Ramakrishna, s/o (late) Apparao, aged 27years, private employee, D.No.16-11, Nagarajupet, Payakaraopet.

... Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recover the sum of Rs.2,48,600/- due on pronote, dated 03.08.2018 together with subsequent interest and for costs.

Plaint presented on 07.05.2021 Pliant numbered on 10.05.2021

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION

Principal amount of pronote, dt.03.08.2018Rs.1,50,000-00

Interest @ 24% p.a., from 03.08.2018 to 29.04.2021Rs. 98,600-00 ------------------------- Total amountRs.2,48,600-00 ------------------------- A Court fee of Rs.4,926/- is paid under Section 20 Schedule I Articles 1 (b) &

(c) of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 03.08.2018 when defendant Nos.1 to 3 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff by executing a valid suit promissory note to that effect at the same time in favour of the plaintiff at Tuni of East Godavari District and subsequently when the plaintiff made several oral demands to defendants but in vain and the entire transaction took place at Tuni, which is with in the limits and jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

`

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing through video conferencing in the presence of Sri M.V.S. Prakasa Rao, advocate for plaintiff; and upon perusing the material on record; the Court doth order in decree___ (1) that the suit be and is hereby dismissed without costs as not pressed;

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 22nd day of September 2021.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TUNI.

FAC ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI.

COSTS OF SUIT

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, TUNI.

FAC ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUNI.

`

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

(VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Present: Sri G. L. V. Prasad

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of September 2021

C.C. No.316 of 2021

Between

Vemula Siva Narayana, s/o Samba Murthy, Hindu, aged 41 years, Business, Door No.9-192/2, Kotha Suravaram village, Tuni Mandal.

...Complainant

and

Kusanam Satya, w/o Allu Durga Prasad, Hindu, aged 30 years, Private Teacher, Santhi Nagar, Kotha Suravaram village, Tuni Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming on before me for summons to accused in the presence of Sri. Ch.V.Ramana, for the complainant; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following___

JUDGMENT

1.The complainant filed this complaint by praying the Hon’ble Court to take cognizance and to punish the accused as per law and to grant fine amount imposed on the accused to the complainant and for costs.

2.Complainant filed a petition under Section 257 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the case filed by him against the accused and the same is allowed for the reasons recorded thereon.

3. Hence, the complaint is dismissed as withdrawn under Section 257 of

Cr.P.C. and accordingly accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of

NI Act.

Pronounced by me, on this the Twenty Seventh day of September 2021.

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TUNI.

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tuni

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side

Sd/- G.L.V. PRASAD

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

FAC AJCJ-CUM-JMFC

`