Sri G.Lenin Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka) · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Sri G.Lenin Babu, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Senior Civil Judge Court, Nandigama (Taluka), Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 7,685 court orders on record since 2015. 18 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, PRC cases.

7,685

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/407/2025 Acquitted

The SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Vijayawada East vs Nagella Chandra Rao

29 Apr 2026

– 1 –

APKR070004542025

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No.407/2025

Date of offence : 14-03-2024 1)

Date of Complaint : 14-03-2024 2)

Date of Apprehension of: -- 3) accused

Date of Commencement: 17-09-2025 4) of Trial

Date of Close of Trial: 27-04-2026 5)

Date of Judgment: 29-04-2026 6)

Complainant: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of 7) Police, SEB Vijayawada East P.S.

Name of the accused: Nagella Chandra Rao S/o. Yesupadham, 8) aged about 41 years, Resident of D.No.53-4- 68, Christhurajpuram, OPP Simhachalam Apartments, Gunadala, Vijayawada.

Offence: U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968. 9)

Plea of accused : NOT GUILTY 10)

Finding: NOT GUILTY 11)

Result:In the result, the accused is found not guilty 12) for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The M.O.’s 1 & 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over (C.P.No.315/2025). The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of Six months, as per the Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file on 03-04-2025. 13) Trial was commenced on 17-09-2025 and – 2 – closed on 27-04-2026. The Judgment was

pronounced on 29-04-2026. Hence, the

delay.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

– 3 –

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS : : VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SRI G. LENIN BABU

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Six.

C.C. No.407/2025

Between :

The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

SEB Vijayawada East P.S.. . .Complainant.

and

Nagella Chandra Rao S/o. Yesupadham, aged about 41 years,

Resident of D.No.53-4-68, Christhurajpuram,

OPP Simhachalam Apartments, Gunadala, Vijayawada.… Accused.

This Case is coming before me on 28-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant/State and Sri. P.Rana Prathap, Advocatefor the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G E M E N T

01. The accused is arraigned before the Court for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

02.The brief averments of the prosecution case are :-

On 14-03-2024 at about 05.00 p.m., L.W.2/Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB

Vijayawada East P.S. along with L.W.’s 3 & 4 conducted patrolling opposite to Mary

Matha Church, Gunadala, Vijayawada urban and found two persons with a mica bags. On seeing police, they tried to skulk away. L.W.2 stopped one of the person with the assistance of her staff and the another person was absconded from that place by leaving his bag. L.W.2 secured L.W.1 as a mediator from the neighborers of scene of offence. On questioning, the accused disclosed his identitity particulas and also confessed about the possession of liquor bottles. Then, she verified the bag in the prsence of mediators and found 1. Old Timer Blue Classic Whisky 180ml -06 bottles. L.W.2 also verified the bag of absconded person and found 2.Kingfisher

Strong Beer 650ml -30 bottles, in total 36 liquor botles without heals. The accused confessed that he purchased liquor bottles from the various GRO’s at Vijayawada for the purpose of selling at higher prices. Then, L.W.2 informed the accused that – 4 – possession and sale of Liquor bottles is an offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 without any License or permit and drawn one bottle from each brand as sample and sent for chemical analysis, which were sealed and affixed identity slips to entire property and sample duly signed by her and the accused under the cover of Mediators Report which was drafted at the scene of offence and detained the accused and returned to the Police Station along with case property and accused. Basing on the Mediators Report, L.W.2 registered a case in Cr.No.

81/2024 under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act,1968, issued notice to the accused under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and sent the samples to the Government

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, who inturn examined the samples, issued an Analysis

Report in which he opined that the samples are “INDIAN MADE LIQUOR”. After receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, L.W.5 filed charge sheet.

03.The case is taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

04.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure and he was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and read over and explained the contents of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 in Telugu to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and

M.O.’s 1 & 2 were marked. The evidence of L.W.1/N.Pradeep, L.W.3/L.Surendra,

Head Constable, SEB Vijayawada East P.S. L.W.4K.Srinivas, Constable,

L.W.5/G.Anil Babu, S.I. of Police, Vijayawada East P.S. was given up by the learned

A.P.P.

06.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

07.Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, beyond all

– 5 – reasonable doubt?

P O I N T :-

08.To prove its case, the Prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.’s 1 & 2.

09.P.W.1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Vijayawada East P.S.

10.Ex.P1 is the Mediators Report. Ex.P2 is the Original First Information Report.

Ex.P3 is the Letter of Advice. Ex.P4 is the Chemical Analysis Report.M.O.1 is the sample bottle of unexpended portion of Old Timer Blue Whisky. M.O.2 is the sample bottle of unexpended portion of Kingfisher Strong Beer.

11.It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 along with L.W.2 found the accused in possession of 06 IMFL bottles without any license and also found 30 liquor bottles at the scene of offence, in total 36 liquor bottles and they seized the said contraband and drawn one bottle from each brand as sample for analysis purpose and returned to Police Station and he registered a case basing on Ex.P1, issued notice to the accused under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and sent the samples for analysis purpose and after receipt of Ex.P4 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12.It is the case of defence that the accused did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose.

13.Now, to prove the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, the prosecution must prove that P.W.1 and other staff found the accused in possession of 06 IMFL bottles without any license and also found 30 liquor bottles at the scene of offence, in total 36 liquor bottles, which is prohibited under the Act.

14.At the outset, it is the case of prosecution that P.W.1 and along with L.W.2 conducted patrolling opposite to Mary Matha Church, Gunadala, Vijayawada

Report. P.W.1 deposed that on 07-03-2024 at about 05.00 p.m., she along with

L.W.2 conducted patrolling opposite to Mary Matha Church, Gunadala, Vijayawada

Vijayawada and found the accused in possession of 06 liquor bottles without any license and P.W.1 also found 30 liquor bottles at the scene of offence, in total 36 liquor bottles and they seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P1 and they – 6 – tried to secure mediators but in vain and took samples from the seized property under M.O.1 & M.O.2 returned to SEB Vijayawada East P.S, along with accused and the seized property and then she registered a case against the accused basing on

Ex.P1, issued notice to the accused under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and also sent the samples for analysis purpose and after completion of investigation and receipt of

Ex.P4, L.W.5 filed charge sheet.

15.Now, to prove the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against the accused, the evidence of P.W.1 is relevant. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, admittedly she is the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Vijayawada

East P.S. So, Ex.P1 which was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police cannot be believed, to the extent of the confession said to be made by the accused, as a confession before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence. When P.W.1 is a police officer, her evidence has to be scrutinized with caution and see whether the seizure of contraband from the accused was true and made as per the procedure prescribed under law.

16. In the cross examination of P.W.1, she admitted that the scene of offence is a busy road surrounded with shops. She did not serve notices to the neighbors of the locality to act as mediators. She did not collect samples from each bottle. She did not enquire from which shop the accused purchased liquor bottles. She did not serve search proceedings to the accused. She did not affix any identification marks on each seized bottle. She did not affix the specimen seal on sample bottles and obtain the signature of accused. She did not fill the FSL form at scene of offence.

She did not mention the batch numbers and manufacturing date on Ex.P1. She did not serve seizure list to the accused. She did not sent the total bottles for chemical analysis. She did not sent the sample to the chemical analyst on the same day and she did not explain the reasons for delay of sending sample. She is the defacto complainant and investigating officer in this case. She did not mention through whom the sample was sent to the chemical analyst and also did not shown him as a witness. So, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that she did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which, the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to – 7 – them” and 100(5) envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7) shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. But, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the procedure prescribed under Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) was not followed while seizing the contraband from the accused. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a busy area, but P.W.1 did not issue any written summons to any witnesses to act as mediators for the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused, she made only a stray statement that she tried to secure mediators. Under the above circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed to be trustworthy as she failed to comply with the mandatory provisions under Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) of

Code of Criminal Procedure. When P.W.1 did not secure any mediators, though the scene of offence is a busy area it creates a doubt over the evidence of P.W.1 who is a police witness. In the above circumstances, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution whether really P.W.1 seized the contraband from the accused, as she is a police officer and she did not secure any independent mediators, though available near the scene of offence.

17.It is further considering point is that the P.W.1 who is the Informant/De-facto

Complainant is the Investigating Officer in this case. At this juncture, it is helpful to rely upon a Judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohanlal

Vs. the State of Punjab in CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1880 of 2011 Dt.16.08.2018 at

Para No.15 held that:

“It was held that the Head Constable being the complainant himself could not have proceeded with the investigation and it was a practice, to say the least, which should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation”.

18.The Learned Counsel for the accused submitted that P.W.1 being the Sub-

Inspector of Police who was present at the time of offence and she was the investigating officer and as such, it is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. According to the case of the Prosecution, P.W.1 has drafted Ex.P1, took up investigation of the case registered Original F.I.R. vide Ex.P2, sent the sample for chemical analysis received Ex.P4. P.W.1 was the person who drafted Ex.P1, registered Ex.P2 and she being the investigation officer, certainly it is not proper and correct. The investigation – 8 – ought to have been done by any other investigating Officer. On this score itself, the investigation is bound to suffer and as such, the entire proceedings will be vitiated.

19.Hence, it is held that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed and accepted to be true as P.W.1 failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under law for seizure of contraband from the accused. When the evidence of P.W.1 is held to be not trustworthy, and when the alleged seizure of contraband from the accused was not made according to the procedure prescribed under law, it creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and liable to be acquitted.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1)

of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The M.O.’s 1 & 2 shall be

destroyed after appeal time is over (C.P.No.315/2025). The Bail Bonds of the

accused shall stand canceled after expiry of Six months, as per the Section

437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

– 9 –

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1: N.Kanaka Dugra, Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Vijayawada East P.S.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Mediators Report,

Ex.P2:First Information Report,

Ex.P3:Letter of Advice,

Ex.P4:Chemical Analysis Report,

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1 is the sample bottle of unexpended portion of Old Timer Blue Whisky,

M.O.2 is the sample bottle of unexpended portion of Kingfisher Strong Beer.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

CC/419/2023 Acquitted

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NUNNA P.S. vs JONNALAGADDA SARAMMA

23 Apr 2026

– 1 – APKR070004202023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No.419/2023.

1)Date of Offence : 04-08-2021

2)Date of Complaint : 04-08-2021

3)Date of Apprehension of: 04-08-2021 to 13-08-2021. Accused

4)Dateof: 16-05-2025 Commencement of Trial

5)Date of Close of Trial: 12-03-2026

6)Date of Judgment: 23-04-2026.

7)Nameofthe: The State, represented by Inspector of Police, ComplainantNunna P.S.

8)Name of the Accused: 1. Jonnalagadda Saramma W/o. Suresh, aged No.1 & 2about 36 years, Resident of D.No.77-35-17,

2. Hanumanthula Manga W/o. Siva Kumar (late), aged about 45 years, Resident of D.No.7-35-26,

3. Dasari Lakshmi W/o. Srinivas (late), aged about 42 years, Resident of D.No.77-35-27, All are Residents of Santhi Nagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada.

9)Offences: U/s.8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

10)Plea of Accused : NOT GUILTY.

11)Finding: NOT GUILTY.

12)Result: In the result, the Accused No’s 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said – 2 – offence. The Bail Bonds of the Accused shall stand canceled after expiry of Six months, as per the Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. (C.P.No.16/2026).

13)Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file on 20-03-2023. Trial was commenced on 16-05-2025. Trial was closed on 12-03-2026. The Judgment was

pronounced on 23-04-2026. Hence, the delay.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

– 3 –

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SRI G. LENIN BABU,

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 23 rd day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Six.

C.C. No.419/2023.

Between :

The State, represented by Inspector of Police,

Nunna P.S. . . .Complainant.

and

1. Jonnalagadda Saramma W/o. Suresh, aged about 36 years, Resident of D.No.77-35-17,

2. Hanumanthula Manga W/o. Siva Kumar (late), aged about 45 years, Resident of D.No.7-35-26,

3. Dasari Lakshmi W/o. Srinivas (late), aged about 42 years, Resident of D.No.77-35-27, All are Residents of Santhi Nagar, Payakapuram, Vijayawada.

… Accused.

This Case is coming before me on 26.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor,for the

Complainant/State and Sri. M.V.L.Gayathri, Advocatefor Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G E M E N T

01.The Inspector of Police, Nunna P.S. laid charge sheet against the

Accused in Crime No.426/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

02.The averments of the charge sheet, in brief, are that

i).On 04-08-2021 at about 08.00 a.m., on receipt of information about

Ganja, L.W.8/Sub-Inspector of Police, Nunna P.S. along with mediators and staff were proceeded to Bhaskara Rao Shop Center, Santhi Nagar,

Vijayawada and found three female persons with a plastic cover. On seeing – 4 – the police, they tried to skulk away. L.W.8 stopped them with the assistance of his staff and on questioning, they disclosed their identity particulars and also confessed about the possession of ganja. On questioning, A1 confessed that due to financial problems, she along with A2 and A3 usually purchase ganja from unknown saint at Vijayawada Railway station for Rs.4,000/- per kg. and pack the ganja in small packets at home for the purpose of selling @

Rs.8,000/- per kg. As usually, on the date of incident also, L.W.8 along with A2 and A3 were purchased ganja at Railway station and while on returning to home, the police caughthold them. A2 and A3 are also corroborated the confession of A1. Then, L.W.8 informed to the accused that the possession of ganja is an offence, seized the contraband in the presence of mediators under the cover of Mediators Report.

ii)L.W.8 served notices to A1 to A3 under Section 50 NDPS Act, arrested and produced them along with the seized contraband before

L.W.7/Gazetted officer and his staff obtained electric weighing machine for weighing ganja. L.W.7 weighed the ganja which was seized from the possession of A1 to A3 in the presence of mediators and found 450 gms, 450 gms and 400 gms respectively. L.W.7 drawn two samples each weighing about 50 gms for chemical analysis purpose and affixed identification slips and recorded Mediators Report. Later, the seized contraband along with the accused were taken to the police station.

iii) L.W.8 registered a case in Crime No. 426/2021 for the offence punishable U/s.8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sent the copies to the concerned officials. He visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined L.W.’s 1 to 4 and recorded their statements. L.W.8 arrested the accused and sent to the Court for Judicial custody. Later, L.W.8 send samples of Ganja to the chemical analyst and obtained analysis report. L.W.8 filed requisition before this Court to conduct inventory and this Court conducted – 5 – inventory of seized Ganja on 23.10.2021 and issued Inventory Certificate and photos. L.W.9 forwarded the samples of Ganja which were taken during inventory to the chemical analyst and obtained analaysis report. After completion of investigation, L.W.9 filed charge sheet.

03.The Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. On appearance of the Accused No’s 1 to 3 before the Court, Copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused No’s 1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and read over and explained the contents of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of

NDPS Act, in Telugu to the Accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.On behalf of prosecution, P.W.’s 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P17 and M.O.’s 1 & 2 were marked.

05.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused No’s 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

06.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for Accused.

07. Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

Accused No’s 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(A) of Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act?”

POINT:

08.To prove its case, the Prosecution has examined P.W.’s 1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P1 to P17 and M.O.’s 1 & 2.

– 6 –

09.It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.’s 2, 5, 8 found the accused in possession of Ganja at Bhaskara Rao shop Center, Santhi Nagar, Vijayawada and they confessed that they purchased the same from one saint at Vijayawada

Railway Station for Rs.4,000/- for the purpose of packing in small packets at home and selling @ Rs.8,000/- per kg. and they seized the contraband from their possession, produced them before L.W.6 and drawn sample for analysis purpose in his presence and under the cover of Mediators Report/Ex.P7 and returned to Police Station. P.W.8 registered a case and arrested them and produced before the Court and sent the samples for analysis purpose. P.W.8 filed requisition before the Court for conducting inventory of Ganja and this Court conducted inventory and issued inventory certificate and photos. P.W.9 forwarded the samples of Ganja to the chemical analyst and obtained analysis report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

10.It is the case of defence that the Accused did not commit any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case.

11.Now, to prove the offence under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS

Act, the prosecution must prove that P.W.’s 2, 5, 8 found Accused in possession of 450 gms, 450 gms and 400 gms of Ganja respectively without any license, which is prohibited under the Act.

12.P.W.’s 1, 3 & 7 who are the eye witnesses to the apprehension of

Accused, deposed that they do not know the Accused, do not know anything about this case and Police never examined them. They turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and their statements were marked as Exs. P1, P4 & P8 respectively. Hence, the evidence of P.W.’s 1, 3 & 7 are not useful to the case of the prosecution.

13.P.W.’s 2 & 5 who are the mediators to the Mediators Reports dated 04-08-2021 at 08.00 hours and 10.15 hours, deposed that they do not know anything about this case, they were not acted as mediators, the police obtained their signatures in the police station on written papers but do not know the – 7 – contents. They turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and their signatures on the Mediators Reports were marked as Exs. P2, P3, P5 & P6. Mere marking of signatures does not amount to proof of drafting of Mediators Reports. As

P.W.’s 2 & 5 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of Ganja from the possession of the accused.

14.P.W.4 who weighed the seized Ganja deposed that on 04.08.2021 at about 08.15 a.m., he weighed 3 packets of Ganja in which two packets are weighing about 450 gms and one packet is weighing about 400 gms of Ganja which were seized from the possession of accused and the police obtained the signature on Mediators Report. P.W.4 did not identify A1 to A3. If P.W.4 is present at the time of weighing Ganja and the accused were also present at the time of recording Mediators Report, he will identify the accused before the Court.

But he failed to identify them. Hence, the very presence of P.W.4 at the time of recording the Mediators Report itself doubtful.

15.P.W.8/Sub-Inspector of Police, Nunna P.S. deposed that on 04.08.2021 at about 08.00 a.m., he along with his staff and mediators seized 1.300 kg. of

Ganja from the possession of accused at Bhaskararao Shop Center, Santhi

Nagar, Vijayawada and the accused confessed that they purchased Ganja from a saint at Vijayawada Railway Station for the purpose of selling at higher rates.

He further deposed that he produced the accused before P.W.6 along with the seized Ganja, P.W.6 weighed Ganja in the presence of mediators and found the weight of Ganja is 450 gms, 450 gms and 400 gms and P.W.6 has drawn two samples each weighing about 50 grams for analysis purpose and drafted

Ex.P7/Mediators Report. P.W.8 admitted in the cross-examination that M.O.1 does not contain his signature, the signatures of P.W.’s 4 & 6. As per the said admission, P.W.8 did not sign on Ex.P7 and also did not obtained the signatures of P.W.’s 4 & 6 and as such, his evidence is doubtful.

16.On consideration of the entire material, when the mediators turned hostile to the case of prosecution, P.W.’s 1, 3 & 7 who are the eye-witnesses – 8 – also turned hostile, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the seizure of Ganja and further the non-signing of P.W.8 on

M.O.1 creates doubt about his presence at the time of lifting samples and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution and hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17.IN THE RESULT, the Accused No’s 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be canceled after six months. M.O.’s 1 & 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer.G-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rdday of April, 2026.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1 : Rodda Devi, P.W.2 : Kandi Venkata Ramana Reddy, P.W.3 : Alla Seshu Kumari, P.W.4 : Garre Manikanta, P.W.5 : Sk.Mastan, P.W.6 : S.V.V.Lakshmi Narayana, Inspector of Police, Ajith Singh Nagar P.S., P.W.7 : Pathan Taherunnisa, P.W.8 : A.V.Srinivas, S.I. of Police, Nunna P.S., P.W.9 : J.R.K. Hanish Babu, Inspector of Police, Nunna P.S. FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 is the Statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P2 is the Signature of P.W.2 on the Mediators Report,

dated 04.08.2021 at 08.00 a.m.,

– 9 – Ex.P3 is the Signature of P.W.2 on the Mediators Report,

dated 04.08.2021 at 10.15 a.m.,

Ex.P4 is the Statement of P.W.3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P5 is the Signature of P.W.5 on the Mediators Report,

dated 04.08.2021 at 08.00 a.m.,

Ex.P6 is the Signature of P.W.5 on the Mediators Report,

dated 04.08.2021 at 10.15 a.m.,

Ex.P7 is the Mediators Report, dt.04.08.2021, Ex.P8 is the Statement of P.W.3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P9 is the Mediators report, dt.04.08.2021, at about 08.00 a.m., Ex.P10 is the Original FIR, Ex.P11 is the Rough sketch, Ex.P12 is the Letter of advice, dated 08.08.2021, Ex.P13 is the Analysis Report, dated 12.08.2021, Ex.P14 is the Inventory Certificate, Ex.P15 is the photos, Ex.P16 is the Letter of Advice, dated 17.01.2022, Ex.P17 is Analysis Report, dated 22.01.2022.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

FOR PROSECUTION :

M.O.1 is the sample of unexpanded portion of Ganja (3 packets), M.O.2 is the sample of unexpanded portion of Ganja.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vijayawada.

CC/23/2025 Acquitted

The Sub Inspector of Police, Penamaluru P.S. vs Parasa Ravi Chandra and other

22 Apr 2026

– 1 –

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

C.C. No.23/2025

Date of offence : 27-07-2024. 1) Date of Complaint : 27-07-2024. 2) Date of Apprehension of: --- 3) accused Date of Commencement of: 06-08-2025. 4) Trial Date of Close of Trial: 11-03-2026. 5) Date of Judgment: 22-04-2026. 6) Name of the Complainant: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, 7) Penamaluru P.S. Name of the accused: 1. Parasa Ravi Chandra S/o. Venkateswara Rao, 8) aged about 39 years, Resident of F.No.56, Lakshmi Vinutha Enclave, Near Sai Baba Temple, Edupugallu Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna Distrtict.

2. Kilaru Tarun Babu S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 30 years, Resident of F.No.305, Furms Praathama Apartment, Penamaluru Village and Mandal, Krishna District. Offence: under Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS. 9)

10)Plea of accused: NOT GUILTY.

11)Finding: NOT GUILTY.

12)Result:In the result, the Accused No’s 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS and they are acquitted under Section 278(1) of BNSS for the said offence. The Bail Bonds of the accused No’s 1 & 2 shall stand canceled after expiry of Six months, as per the Section 481 of BNSS.

13)Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file on 18-01-2025. Trial was commenced on 06-08-2025. Trial was closed on 11-03-2026. The Judgment was pronounced on – 2 – 22-04-2026. Hence, the delay.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vijayawada.

– 3 –

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: SRI G. LENIN BABU,

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Six.

C.C. No.23/2025

Between :

The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penamaluru P.S.. . .Complainant.

and

1. Parasa Ravi Chandra S/o. Venkateswara Rao, aged about 39 years,

Resident of F.No.56, Lakshmi Vinutha Enclave, Near Sai Baba Temple,

Edupugallu Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna Distrtict.

2. Kilaru Tarun Babu S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged about 30 years,

Resident of F.No.305, Furms Praathama Apartment,

Penamaluru Village & Mandal, Krishna District. … Accused.

This Case is coming before me on 09-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Kum. G.E. Radhika, Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant/State and Sri. S.V. Siva Rao, Advocatefor the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G E M E N T

01. The accused are arraigned before the Court for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS.

02.The Case of the Prosecution in brief is that :

i).On 27-07-2024 at about 19.10 hours, while L.W.1/Gurram Srinivasa

Rao/APSRTC Bus Driver was proceeding from Kaleswararao Market to Pamarru with passengers and crossed the signal point at Tadigadapa 100 feet road and going to stop the bus at the bus stop and in the mean time, two persons came in a car, crossed the bus from left side and proceeded while rubbing the bus. L.W.1 noticed the car in speedy manner without signaling. The said two persons got – 4 – down from the car and boarded the bus which was stopped violently and hit him on the driver’s seat, hit him on the face with hands and pulled down and beat him with hands. As a result, L.W.1 sustained swollen injury under his right eye and painful sores on top of his head. At that time, L.W.2/Conductor of the bus and the passengers separated the two people who were beating L.W.1 and on that they both of them threatened L.W.1 to see his end and how will he run the bus in the route from tomorrow. L.W.2 took L.W.1 to GGH, Vijayawada.

Thereafter, L.W.1 came to Penamaluru P.S. and lodged a Report.

ii)Basing on the hospital intimation and report of L.W.1, L.W.7/S.I. of

Police, Penamaluru P.S. registered a case in Crime No.706/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS, visited the scene of offence, prepared Rough Sketch and examined L.W.’s 1 to 5 and recorded their statements. L.W.7 issued notices to the accused under Section 35(3) of BNSS. L.W.6/Medical Officer, GGH, Vijayawada who treated the injuries of L.W.1 opined that the injuries are “simple in nature”. After completion of investigation, L.W.7 filed charge sheet.

03.The Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS against A1 and A2. On appearance of the accused before the Court, Copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under Section 230 of BNSS. They were examined under Section 274 of

BNSS and read over and by explaining the particulars of offences in Telugu to the accused and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.To prove the guilt of the accused, the Prosecution has examined P.W.'s 1 to 5 and Exs. P1 to P4 were got marked through them. The evidence of

L.W.4/Mutyala Vivek and L.W.5/Kagita Ganesh was gave up by the learned APP.

05.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, A1 & A2 were examined under

Section 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied it and reported no Defence evidence.

06. Heard Arguments on both sides.

– 5 –

07.The learned A.P.P. argued that the evidence of P.W.’s 1 to 4 is corroborating with each other, the evidence of P.W.’s 1 to 3 proves that the accused stopped the bus, beat P.W.1 and abused him in filthy language and threatened him to see his end and that the prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused and prayed the Court to punish the accused.

08.The learned counsel for accused argued that P.W.’s 1 to 3 did not identify the accused before the Court and that the prosecution has failed to prove the identification of accused and the same is fatal to its case. He further argued that

P.W.’s 1 to 3 are working in APSRTC and the investigating officer has failed to examine the independent witnesses. He further argued that the scene of offence is a busy locality which was surrounded by shops and hotels and there are

CCTV cameras but the same were not seized and the same are fatal to the case of prosecution and prayed the Court to acquit the accused.

09. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the Accused has committed the offences punishable under

Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS and Whether the Prosecution has

proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? POINT :-

10.To bring home the guilt of the Accused, it is for the Prosecution to prove that the Accused obstructed the duty of P.W.1 on 27.07.2024 at the Bus stop,

Tadigadapa 100 feet Road, Penamaluru Village, beat him, threatened him to see his end with common intention and thereby, they committed the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS.

11.P.W.1 deposed that on 27.07.2024 at about 08.15 p.m., while he was in duty in Kaleswara Rao Market to Pamarru route in Bus No.AP11Z7469 with passengers, the traffic was jammed at signal point of Tadigadapa 100 feet Road and he stopped the bus at near by bus stop, in the meantime, one car came infront of him and stopped his bus and asked him to got down and abused him in filthy language and slapped him on his cheek and P.W.3 joined him in

Government hospital for treatment and thereafter he lodged a written report in

Penamaluru P.S.

– 6 –

12.P.W.2 deposed that on 27.07.2024 between 07.45 p.m. to 08.15 p.m., while he was proceeding from Vijayawada to Pamarru in APSRTC Bus bearing

No.7469 and crossing Tadigadapa 100 feet Road, one Belore Car came from

Siddhardha College, while crossing the bus, the Car slightly touched the bus for which P.W.1 stopped the bus immediately after crossing the signal and they altercated with him, dragged him down and assaulted him. He further deposed that he intervened and separated him, P.W.1 sustained injuries on his head and right cheek and taken him to GGH, Vijayawada for treatment.

13.P.W.3 deposed that on 27.07.2024, while he was in duty as Conductor in

APSRTC Metro City Bus bearing No.AP11Z7469 in the route of Kaleswara Rao

Market to Pamarru Village and reached 100 feet Road in Tadigadapa at about 08.40 p.m, when the bus taking left turn, one car touched the bus and two persons who are present in the car and P.W.1 were altercated together.

He further deposed that after shifting the passengers to another bus, he returned and P.W.2 told that the two persons in the car beat P.W.1 and he found swelling injuries on below right eye and head of P.W.1 and he shifted P.W.1 to GGH,

Vijayawada for treatment.

14.P.W.4 deposed that on 27.07.2024 at about 10.00 p.m., he examined

P.W.1 and found 1. Pain and swelling on right side face, 2. X-ray ML C4466 facial bones and sinuses are intact, 3. X-ray City Brain MLC2555 shows no bony injury and opined that the injuries are simple in nature and issued Ex.P2/Wound

Certificate of P.W.1.

15.P.W.1 is working as APSRTC Driver and that he is a public servant and the accused never denied the same. As per the evidence of P.W.’s 1 to 3, two persons stopped their car in-front of APSRTC Bus at Tadigadapa 100 feet Road

Bus stop, beat P.W.1, slapped him on cheek and abused him in filthy language.

The evidence of P.W.’s 1 to 3 is corroborating that two persons beat P.W.1 on his face and the medical evidence also corroborating the same.

– 7 – Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved that P.W.1 is a public servant and the two persons stopped him and they beat him on face and that he sustained swelling injury on right face.

16.Then, the prosecution has to prove that the accused beat P.W.1 and caused obstruction to his duties. In this regard, P.W.’s 1 to 3 deposed that they cannot identify the persons who abused P.W.1 and hit him and cannot say their names. The evidence of P.W.’s 1 to 3 is silent about the names of two persons who caused the incident and also they failed to identify them in the Court.

Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the persons who abused P.W.1 and hit him and caused obstruction to his duties.

17.P.W.4 admitted in the cross-examination that the scene of offence is located beside the traffic signal and surrounded by shops and hotels and there are CCTV Cameras at scene of offence and he has not collected the CCTV footage. If really the CC TV Cameras were present at scene of offence at the time of incident, the CC TV footage is very much useful to the prosecution to prove the entire incident with the identification of the accused. But the same was not seized by the investigating officer for the reasons best known to him.

The non-collection of CC TV footage by the investigating officer is fatal to the case of prosecution.

18. On considering the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and in view of the discussion already made supra, the prosecution has proved that two persons caused obstructions to the duty of P.W.1, hit him on face and abused him in filthy language but failed to prove the identity of accused. Hence, it is held that prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused and thereby failed to prove the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 &

A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt and liable to be acquitted. Accordingly, the point is answered.

– 8 –

19.In the result, Accused No’s 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences

punishable under Sections 132 and 351(2) r/w. 3(5) of BNS and they are

acquitted under Section 278(1) of BNSS for the said offences. The Bail

Bonds of the accused No’s 1 & 2 shall stand canceled after expiry of Six

months, as per the Section 481 of BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-G-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :

P.W.1 : Gurram Srinivasa Rao, APSRTC Driver,

P.W.2 : K. Mukesh, APSRTC Driver,

P.W.3 : Komaravalli Nagaraju, APSRTC Conductor,

P.W.4 : Dr.Ravi Paul, CMO, GGH, Vijayawada,

P.W.5 : K.Usha Rani, W.S.I. of Police, Penamaluru P.S.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 is the Written Report of P.W.1,

Ex.P2 is the Wound Certificate of P.W.1,

Ex.P3 is the Hospital Intimation,

Ex.P4 is the Original FIR.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS : Nil.

VI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vijayawada.

CC/200644/2015 Acquitted

S.H.O Pro and Excise Vissannapeta vs Bhukya Lalu

25 Sep 2015

C.C.No. 644/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: TIRUVURU

C.C. No. 644/2015

1.Offence : 7.1.2015

2.Complaint : 7.1.2015

3.Apprehension of Accused:

4.Commencement of Trial: 16.9.2015

5.Close of Trial: 16.9.2015

6.Judgment: 21.9.2015

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by SubInspector of Police, Vissannapeta P.S.

8.Name of the Accused: Bhukya Lalu, S/o. Desya, Age 41 Years, Lambadi,R/o.VemireddipalliVillage, Vissannapeta Mandal.

9.Offence: U/Sec. 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11.Finding: NOT GUILTY

12.Result: In the result, the Accused is acquitted under Sections 248(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against him. The bail bond of the Accused shall stand canceled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Sections 437A of The Code of Criminal Procedure. The Mo.1 nonvaluable property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The Accused has not undergone any remand period.

13.Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 2.9.2015. Trial commenced on 16.9.2015 and closed on 16.9.2015. The Judgment was pronounced on 21.9.2015. Hence the delay.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tiruvuru.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 5

C.C.No. 644/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TIRUVUR

Present: Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN; LL.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Tiruvur

Monday, this the Twenty First (21st) day of September, 2015

C.C.No. 644 of 2015

Between:

The State, rep. by SubInspector of Police, Vissannapeta P.S....Complainant

AND

Bhukya Lalu, S/o. Desya, Age 41 Years, Lambadi, R/o. Vemireddipalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming up before me on 16.9.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri P.V. Satish & M. Kumar, Advocates for Accused, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police, Vissannapeta P.S. filed Final Report as per Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No.779/201415 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995, alleging, in brief, as follows:

On 7.1.2015 at about 7.00 p.m. Lw1 (T.Niranjan RaoP&ESI of Police) along with staff went to Nuthipadu and found a person near NSP Canal carrying black polythene cover and after seeing them he tried to skulk away then he surrounded him and asked his name and he revealed his identity and stated that he purchased 15 liters of ID liquor; that he tried to secure mediators but in vain, seized the ID liquor and collected 300 ML of liquor as a sample and sealed it by affixing identity slips; that after informing of carrying of ID is an offence as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report and seized the cover and arrested the Accused; that after coming to

P.S he registered FIR in Cr.No. 779/201415 under Sections 7A r/w.8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act and served notice under Section 41A of The Code of Criminal

Procedure on him and after obtaining sureties, released him on bail; later sent the sample to the Director, Excise Laboratory and after receiving the chemical analysis report he submitted final report.

Corrections Page No. 2 of 5

C.C.No. 644/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

2.Final report was taken on file against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

3.Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused as contemplated under

Sections 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure when examined under Sections 239 of

The Code of Criminal Procedure the Accused denied the offence made against him.

Hence, under Sections 240 of The Code of Criminal Procedure charges under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 were framed against the Accused and read over and explained to him in Vernacular Language and when questioned the

Accused pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw1 and marked Ex. P1 to Ex.

P4 and Mo.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw 2 to avoid repetition of evidence. On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Sections 313 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure and he denied the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

5.Arguments of both sides are heard.

6.Now, the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Sections 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT

7.It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused was in illegal possession and found trying to sell ID liquor after purchasing it from an unknown person. Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 is framed against the Accused. The defence of the Accused is that he did not commit the offence and he is innocent. To prove the case against the Accused prosecution examined Pw.1.

8.Regarding the commission of offence, evidence of Pw.1 alone remains for consideration. Pw.1 in his evidence deposed that on 7.1.2015 at about 7.00 p.m. he along with his staff went to Nuthipadu Village and found a person near NSP Canal

Corrections Page No. 3 of 5

C.C.No. 644/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur carrying black polythene cover and after seeing them he was trying to skulk away, then he along with his staff surrounded him and asked his name then he refused to answer and on further questioning he confessed his name as Bhukya Lalu, S/o. Desya, Age 41

Years, Lambadi, R/o. Vemireddipalli Village, Vissannapeta Mandal. He stated that since long time he used to purchase I.D arrack and sell it near his house and it is his livelihood, then he asked him about the cover for which he stated that today he purchased 15 liters of arrack and filled it in cover, when he opened the cover it was filled with arrack; then he collected 300 ML of arrack as a sample and pasted a slip on the sample as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report and seized the cover and arrested the Accused and after coming to P.S. he registered a FIR in Cr. No.

779/2014 under Sections 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, later sent the sample bottle Mo1 for chemical examination and after receipt of analysis report he filed Final Report.

9.Sections 100(4) of Cr.P.C contemplates “before making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The evidence of Pw.1 reveals that he has not made any attempts to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 violated the mandatory provisions of Sections 100(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Coming to the confession made by the Accused. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per

Sections 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused may be considered as per Sections 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

10.Coming to the seizure and sending the sample for chemical analysis, it is the evidence of Pw.1 that the sample was seized by him on 7.1.2015 whereas it was received by the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise Regional

Corrections Page No. 4 of 5

C.C.No. 644/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Kakinada on 16.3.2015 and there is a delay of 78 days in forwarding the sample to the chemical examiner and that this delay in sending sample is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. No doubt, as per Rule 24 of A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969, the samples shall be sent to the Court with a requisition to send one of the samples expeditiously to the chemical examiner. Hence, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

11.In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of

Pw1. The Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. For the aforementioned reasons, this

Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Accused is found not guilty of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

In the result, the Accused is acquitted under Sections 248(1) of The Code of

Criminal Procedure of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against him. The bail bond of the Accused shall stand canceled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Sections 437A of

The Code of Criminal Procedure. The Mo.1 nonvaluable property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The Accused has not undergone any remand period.

Typed on dictation by Personal Assistant on dual computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of September, 2015.

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Tiruvuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side Pw1: T. Niranjan Rao – P&E SI of Police Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Ex.P1:Occurrence Report Ex.P2:Printed F.I.R; Ex.P3: Letter of Advise Ex.P4:Analysis report Nil Mo. 1: Sample Bottle

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Tiruvuru. Copy submitted to:

1)The First Additional District & Sessions Judge Machilipatnam

2)The Superintendent Of Police Krishna/Machilipatnam.

3)The Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Corrections Page No. 5 of 5

CC/200642/2015 Acquitted

S.H.O Pro and Excise Vissannapeta vs Bollikonda savithri

25 Sep 2015

C.C.No. 642/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: TIRUVURU

C.C. No. 642/2015

1.Offence : 6.1.2015

2.Complaint : 6.1.2015

3.Apprehension of Accused:

4.Commencement of Trial: 16.9.2015

5.Close of Trial: 16.9.2015

6.Judgment: 21.9.2015

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by SubInspector of Police, Vissannapeta P.S.

8.Name of the Accused: Bollikonda Savithri, W/o. Apparao, Age 55 Years, Gowda, R/o. Chittapuru Village, Chatrai Mandal.

9.Offence: U/Sec. 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11.Finding: NOT GUILTY

12.Result: In the result, the Accused is acquitted under Sections 248(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against her. The bail bond of the Accused shall stand canceled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Sections 437A of The Code of Criminal Procedure. The Mo.1 nonvaluable property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The Accused has not undergone any remand period.

13.Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 2.9.2015. Trial commenced on 16.9.2015 and closed on 16.9.2015. The Judgment was pronounced on 21.9.2015. Hence the delay.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tiruvuru.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 5

C.C.No. 642/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

TIRUVUR

Present: Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN; LL.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Tiruvur

Monday, this the Twenty First (21st) day of September, 2015

C.C.No. 642 of 2015

Between:

The State, rep. by SubInspector of Police, Vissannapeta P.S....Complainant

AND

Bollikonda Savithri, W/o. Apparao, Age 55 Years, Gowda, R/o. Chittapuru Village, Chatrai Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming up before me on 16.9.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sri A. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Accused, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police, Vissannapeta P.S. filed Final Report as per Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No.769/201415 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995, alleging, in brief, as follows:

On 6.1.2015 at about 6.00 a.m. Lw1 (T.Niranjan RaoP&ESI of Police) along with staff went to Chittapuru Village and found a woman near Ramalayam Temple carrying black polythene cover and after seeing them she tried to skulk away then he surrounded her and asked her name and she revealed her identity and stated that she purchased 10 liters of ID liquor; that he tried to secure mediators but in vain, seized the ID liquor and collected 300 ML of liquor as a sample and sealed it by affixing identity slips; that after informing of carrying of ID is an offence as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report and arrested Accused; that after coming to P.S he registered FIR in Cr.No. 769/201415 under Sections 7A r/w.8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act and served notice under Section 41A of The Code of Criminal

Corrections Page No. 2 of 5

C.C.No. 642/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

2.Final report was taken on file against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

3.Copies of case documents were supplied to Accused as contemplated under

Sections 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure when examined under Sections 239 of

The Code of Criminal Procedure the Accused denied the offence made against her.

Accused pleaded not guilty of the charge and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw1 and marked Ex. P1 to Ex.

Procedure and she denied the incriminating material available against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

5.Arguments of both sides are heard.

POINT

7.It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused was in illegal possession and found trying to sell ID liquor after purchasing it from an unknown person. Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 is framed against the Accused. The defence of the Accused is that she did not commit the offence and she is innocent. To prove the case against the Accused prosecution examined Pw.1.

8.Regarding the commission of offence, evidence of Pw.1 alone remains for consideration. Pw.1 in his evidence deposed that on 6.1.2015 at about 6.00 a.m. he along with his staff went to Chittapuru Village and found a woman near Ramalayam

Corrections Page No. 3 of 5

C.C.No. 642/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

Temple carrying black polythene cover and after seeing them she was trying to skulk away, then he along with his staff surrounded her and asked her name then she refused to answer and on further questioning she confessed her name as Bollikonda

Savithri, W/o. Apparao, Age 55 Years, Gowda, R/o. Chittapuru Village, Chatrai

Mandal. She stated that since long time she used to purchase I.D arrack and sell it near her house and it is her livelihood, then he asked her about the cover for which she stated that today she purchased 10 liters of arrack and filled it in cover, when he opened the cover it was filled with arrack; then he collected 300 ML of arrack as a sample and pasted a slip on the sample as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report and seized the cover and arrested the Accused and after coming to

P.S. he registered a FIR in Cr. No. 769/2014 under Sections 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, later sent the sample bottle Mo1 for chemical examination and after receipt of analysis report he filed Final Report.

10.Coming to the seizure and sending the sample for chemical analysis, it is the evidence of Pw.1 that the sample was seized by him on 6.1.2015 whereas it was received by the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise Regional

Corrections Page No. 4 of 5

C.C.No. 642/2015 J.M.F.C.Tiruvur

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Kakinada on 16.3.2015 and there is a delay of 69 days in forwarding the sample to the chemical examiner and that this delay in sending sample is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. No doubt, as per Rule 24 of A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969, the samples shall be sent to the Court with a requisition to send one of the samples expeditiously to the chemical examiner. Hence, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.