Sri G.Srinivas

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE) ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI.G.SRINIVAS,

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C., 

(EXCISE) KARIMNAGAR.

MONDAY, THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2018.

CC.No. 619 of 2016.

Between: Patha Gangadhar, S/o. Laxmaiah, Age: 51 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Mankammathota, Karimnagar town and District. … Complainant. 

And

A.1: Veneshetty Ramesh, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Business, 

A.2:Veneshetty Shobha, W/o. Ramesh, Age:45 yrs, Occ: House Hold, 

Both are R/o. H.No.5­32, Kalvasrirampur (v) & (M), Karimnagar District. At presently residing at Flat No.201, H.No.16­2­227/48,Vijaya Sai Residency, Sardar Patel Nagar, JNTU Back Side, Hyderabad. 

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 16.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence Sri.K.Gopala Krishna, Learned Counsel for the Complainant and Sri.M.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for the Accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Complainant – Patha Gangadhar filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the accused – Veneshetti Ramesh and Veneshetti Shobha praying that the accused may be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.12,00,000/­, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”).

2C.C.No.619/2016

2.In the complaint, it is mentioned that the complainant and A.1 and A.2 are acquainted with each other; that on 27.1.2014, A.1 and A.2 approached the complainant and requested to advance handloan of Rs.12,00,000/­ to meet their business, family and legal necessities; that A.1 and A.2 having received loan amount of Rs.12,00,000/­ from the complainant on 27.1.2014, promised to repay the same within a period of three months; that after three months, when the complainant approached A.1 and A.2 and asked them to repay the loan amount, the accused postponed the matter and failed to pay the handloan amount, inspite of several repeated demands of the complainant; that on 30.12.2014

A.1 issued cheque bearing No.000013, dated:30.12.2014 for

Rs.4,00,000/­, drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank and on 21.1.2015

A.1 and A.2 issued Joint account cheque bearing No.104582, dated;21.1.2015 for Rs.2,00,000/­, drawn on State Bank of

Hyderabad, Vavilalapally Branch, towards part payment and discharge of their legally enforceable debt. On 27.1.2015, the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.000013 for realization before his Bank i.e., Vijaya Bank, Karimnagar for encashment, but the said cheque was returned unpaid on 27.1.2015 on the ground of “funds insufficient” in the account of the accused. The complainant also presented another cheque

No.104582 of the State Bank of Hyderabad, Vavilalapally Branch (Joint account of A.1 and A.2) for realization before his bank i.e.,

Vijaya Bank, Karimnagar Branch for encashment, but the said 3C.C.No.619/2016 cheque was returned unpaid on 21.1.2015 on the ground of “Account Closed”. Memos along with the returned cheques were given to the complainant. The complainant got issued legal notice on 29.1.2015 to the accused and the accused received the said notice, but failed to repay the amount. A.1 and A.2 committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Act against the accused by the learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar and

registered the case as C.C.No.953/2015. Summons were issued to the accused.

4.After securing presence of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them.

5.At this stage the case was transferred to this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Karimnagar. On transmission of entire case record, this Court registered the case as

C.C.No.619/2016.

6.After securing presence of the accused before this Court, A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Act. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

4C.C.No.619/2016

7.P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to P9 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Statement of Account is marked as

Ex.P8, but as Ex.P8 was already marked, not it is treated as

Ex.P10.

8.After closure of the evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant. The accused denied the same. 

9.On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 is examined and marked no documents. 

10.Heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the Accused.

11.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, beyond reasonable doubt. 

POINT:

12. The accused are tried for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Act. It is needless to mention here that in order to establish the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant is required to prove all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act. For proper appreciation, Section 138 of the Act is extracted hereunder:­ 5C.C.No.619/2016 “Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc., of funds in the account:­

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a terms which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both; 

Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall apply unless:­

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by 6C.C.No.619/2016 him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid: 

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money, to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 

Explanation:­ For the purposes of this Section, ‘debt or other liability’ means a legally enforceable debt or other liability”. 

13.From the above Section of Law and from the settled proposition of law, the complainant is required to prove the following aspects, in order to establish the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act against the accused. 

▪ Drawing of the cheque by the accused on account maintained by him with a banker, for payment of any amount of money to the complainant from that account for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. 

▪ Presentation of cheque to the bank within a period of six months (now three months) from the date of its drawing or within the period of its validity.

▪ Returning of cheque unpaid by the drawee bank.

▪ Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount. 

7C.C.No.619/2016 ▪ Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days on receipt of the notice. 

I. Drawing of cheque – For Discharge of Debt or Other

Liability: ­

14.The evidence of complainant as P.W.1 is that himself and A.1 and A.2 are acquainted with each other; that on 27.1.2014, A.1 and A.2 approached him and requested to advance hand­loan of Rs.12,00,000/­ to meet their business, family and legal necessities; that A.1 and A.2 having received loan amount of

Rs.12,00,000/­ from him on 27.1.2014, promised to repay the same within a period of three months; that after three months, when he approached A.1 and A.2 and asked them to repay the loan amount, the accused postponed the matter and failed to pay the handloan amount, inspite of several repeated demands; that on 30.12.2014 A.1 issued Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.000013,

dated:30.12.2014 for Rs.4,00,000/­, drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank

and on 21.1.2015 A.1 and A.2 issued Ex.P2 Joint account cheque bearing No.104582, dated;21.1.2015 for Rs.2,00,000/­, drawn on

State Bank of Hyderabad, Vavilalapally Branch, towards part payment and discharge of their legally enforceable debt.

15.It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that he is an income tax assesee and that he has not filed income tax returns into the Court. P.W.1 volunteered that he has not shown the subject amount of Rs.12,00,000/­ in his income tax returns till the date of his cross­examination. Learned counsel for the accused 8C.C.No.619/2016 submitted that as P.W.1 failed to show the said amount in his income tax returns, the alleged debt cannot be termed as legally enforceable debt. He relied on a decision reported in

R.CHENNAKESAVA RAO, HYDERABAD v. P.LAXMINARSAIAH,

HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER: 2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 279 (AP),

wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is categorical admission that the amount advanced was not disclosed in income tax returns, it would be unaccounted money and thereby it is not legally recoverable and as such it cannot be said that it is a legally enforceable liability within the meaning of explanation to Section 138 of the Act. It is also to be mentioned that the presumptions available Act can be rebutted by adducing independent evidence or by eliciting something in the cross­examination of the complainant.

As such, it cannot be held that the complainant failed to prove that the cheques are issued to discharge legally enforceable debt.

16.It is suggested to P.W.1 that he run chits and that A.1 is a chit member. D.W.1 deposes that P.W.1 was maintaining two chits, each Rs.5,00,000/­ and that he was member in both the chits. He also deposes that during the year 2014 he lifted two chits with a gap of one month and at the time of lifting of the chits, the complainant obtained three blank cheques from him and by utilizing the said cheques, the complainant filed two complaints

before this Court and one complaint before another Court. It is

elicited in the cross­examination of D.W.1 that he has not got issued reply notice to Ex.P5, wherein it was mentioned that Exs.P1 9C.C.No.619/2016 and P2 are issued towards part payment, out of total amount of

Rs.12,00,000/­. It is to be mentioned that though no probable evidence is let in by the accused in regard to A.1 being member of chits run by P.W.1 and his giving three cheques at the time of lifting of the chits, the conduct of the complainant i.e., P.W.1 is also to be appreciated, in view of the observations in the above referred

Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court. It was observed that when

the complainant did not approach the Court with clean hands, his conduct is contrary to the conduct of the prudent man and failed to explain why no instruments were executed although a huge some of money was allegedly paid to the accused are the relevant questions which could be posed in the matter. It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that he has not filed any document such as promissory note and receipt in proof of the accused receiving Rs.12,00,000/­. He deposes that no documents are executed. It is his evidence that Rs.12,00,000/­ is huge amount to him. Thus, when huge amount is advanced, as deposed by P.W.1, he would have obtained any document such as promissory note.

His conduct is not that of a prudent man. Further more, it is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that he has not filed any statements of the bank to show that he withdrew the amount from the Bank. He also deposes that he does not remember the denomination of the currency notes and bundles of the said amount of Rs.8,00,000/­ and Rs.4,00,000/­. It is also elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that in Ex.P1 the name of the payee 10C.C.No.619/2016 is mentioned as “Pata Gandhar”. As such, it cannot be presumed that the said cheque was issued in favour of P.W.1. It is also elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that there is difference in the writings in the name of payee and the amounts in Ex.P2. It is also to be mentioned that it is elicited in the cross­examination of

P.W.1 that Ex.P2 cheque does not contain the signature of A.2.

P.W.1 denied the suggestion that though A.2 did not sign Ex.P2, she is arrayed as A.2 in this case falsely. It is to be mentioned that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. APARNA A. SHAH v. M/s.

SHETH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER: AIR

2013 SC 3210 held that under Section 138 of the Act, it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be prosecuted. It is also held that in case of issuance of cheque from joint accounts, a joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by each and every person who is the joint account holder. In view of the said decision, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against

A.2.

17.It is also contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant has no capacity to lend Rs.12,00,000/­ and that he failed to show his source. It is elicited in the cross­ examination of P.W.1 that he has not mentioned in the complaint as to the nature of the business done by him. It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that he is running shop in the name of

Gangadhar traders i.e., Rice Depot. It is elicited in his cross­ examination that he has not obtained license in regard to purchase 11C.C.No.619/2016 and sale of Rice. It is also elicited in his cross­examination that he has not filed statements from the Bank to show that he withdrew the amount from the Bank.  In K.SUBRAMANI v. K.DAMODARA

NAIDU: 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 603 SC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld acquittal of the accused therein on the ground that the complainant had no source of income to lend the amount.

18.From the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, it can be held that the complainant failed to discharge his initial burden of proof that the accused issued Exs.P1 and P2 cheques for discharge of legally enforceable debt and that the accused could rebut the evidence of the complainant as P.W.1. Accordingly, the point is answered. 

II. Presentation of cheque in the Bank – within the

stipulated time: ­

19.P.W.1 deposes that On 27.1.2015, he presented Ex.P1 cheque bearing No.000013 for realization before his Bank i.e.,

Vijaya Bank, Karimnagar for encashment, but the said cheque was returned unpaid on 27.1.2015 on the ground of “funds insufficient” in the account of the accused. Ex.P1 bears the date of 30.12.2014.

He also deposes that he presented Ex.P2 cheque No.104582 of the

State Bank of Hyderabad, Vavilalapally Branch (Joint account of

A.1 and A.2) for realization before his bank i.e., Vijaya Bank,

Karimnagar Branch for encashment, but the said cheque was returned unpaid on 21.1.2015 on the ground of “Account Closed”.

Ex.P2 bears the date of 21.1.2015. As per the evidence of P.W.1 12C.C.No.619/2016

Ex.P1­Cheque was returned under Ex.P3 and Ex.P2 Cheque was returned under Ex.P4. As per the evidence of D.W.1, P.W.1 obtained three blank cheques during the year 2014 and utilized them. It is to be mentioned that when it is not established by the complainant that Exs.P1 and P2 cheques were issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the case of the defence is that blank cheques were mis­utilized, it cannot be said that Exs.P1 and P2 cheques are proved to be presented before the bank within stipulated period. P.W.3 deposes that Ex.P2 was presented on 21.1.2015. It is also to be mentioned that as per the cross­ examination of P.W.2, in case of mismatching the name of payee of the cheque, the cheque has to be returned and it is to be represented a fresh making correction. It is already mentioned above Ex.P1­Cheque was in the name of “Pata Gandhar”. These circumstances, make it evident that P.W.1 failed to prove that

Exs.P1 and P2 were presented within a period of six months from the date of issuance of the cheques. The factum of date of issuance of cheque is not established.

III. Returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee Bank:­ 

20.The evidence of P.W.1 is that Ex.P1­Cheque was returned unpaid with a memo, which is exhibited under Ex.P3, for the reason of “funds insufficient” and Ex.P2 cheque was returned for the reason of “Account Closed”, under Ex.P4­Memo. Exs.P3 and P4 bear the seal of the Bank and the signature of the official of the bank, as such invoking Section 146 of the Act, it can be held 13C.C.No.619/2016 that Exs.P1 and P2 were returned unpaid. P.Ws.2 and 3 depose in regard to return of the cheques.

IV. Giving Notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque

demanding payment of the cheque amount: ­

21.The evidence of P.W.1 is that on 29.1.2015 he issued

Ex.P5­Legal notice demanding to repay the amount. It is not in dispute that the accused received the said legal notice. It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that he issued Ex.P5­

Legal notice demanding the accused to pay Rs.12,00,000/­. It is also elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that the amount under Exs.P1 and P2 is Rs.6,00,000/­. He denied the suggestion that the complaint is not maintainable as Ex.P5­Notice was issued calling upon the accused to pay Rs.12,00,000/­ and it is invalid. Learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision reported in MATTA RAMBABU v. STATE OF A.P., REPRESENTED

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P: 2011 (2) ALT

(Cri) 199, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that what is necessary is making of a demand for the amount covered by the bounced cheque and if it is conspicuously absent in the notice, it is to be treated as imperfect notice. A perusal of Ex.P5­Notice show that the accused were called upon to pay Rs.12,00,000/­. As elicited from the cross­examination of P.W.1, the amount covered under Exs.P1 and P2 is only Rs.6,00,000/­. Thus, it is to be held that the said notice is invalid and it does not meet the required specified under Section 138 of the Act.

14C.C.No.619/2016

V. Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days on

receipt of the notice. 

22.The evidence of P.W.1 is that accused received legal notice, office copy of which is marked as Ex.P5, and that the accused failed to pay the cheque amount. It is to be mentioned that it is not the case of the accused is that they paid the said amount.

23.Having regard to the above discussion, as the complainant is required to prove all the ingredients of Section 138 of the Act and as he failed to prove some of the ingredients i.e., in regard to legally enforceable debt, issuance of cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt, presentation of the cheque within stipulated time and in regard to issuance of valid legal notice, it is held that the complainant failed to prove all the ingredients of

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the accused are to be acquitted. Accordingly, the point is answered.

21.In the result, the accused are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. 

Typed to my Dictation on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 23rd day of April,

2018.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Excise, Karimnagar. 

15C.C.No.619/2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE COMPLAINANT: FOR THE DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Patha Gangadhar, D.W.1: Venishetti Ramesh, P.W.2: Ch.Rajashekar, P.W.3: Ramesh Kore, 

EXHIBITS MARKED

For COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P.1:Original Cheque bearing No.000013, dated: 30.12.2014 Ex.P.2:Original Cheque bearing No.104582, dated: 21.01.2015. Ex.P.3:Cheque return memo, dated: 27.01.2016 Ex.P.4:Cheque return memo, dated: 21.01.2015 Ex.P.5:Office copy of Legal notice, dated: 29.01.2015 Ex.P.6:Postal Receipt, dated:29.01.2015 Ex.P.7:Postal Receipt, dated: 29.01.2015 Ex.P.8:Postal Acknowledgment Card. Ex.P.9:Postal Acknowledgment Card. Ex.P.10:Statement of Account. (given Exhibit mark as Ex.P8 in the deposition of witness, but as it is noticed that Ex.P8 was already marked, statement of account is treated as Ex.P10)

For Defense: Nil. 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

Nil. 

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Excise, Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE) ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI.G.SRINIVAS,

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C., 

(EXCISE) KARIMNAGAR.

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.

CC.No.263/2015.

(Cr.No.156/2012 of P.S.Karimnagar I town).

Between: The State through the Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I­town. … Complainant. 

And

A.1 Maheshula Chandraiah, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age: 50 yrs, Caste: Padmashali, R/o. Choppadandi, now at Saraswathinagar, Karimnagar. 

A.2Nazeer Khan, S/o. Munavar Khan, Age:42 yrs, Caste; Muslim, Occ: Pan Shop near Maharaja Sweet House, Mukurampura, R/o. H.No.2­7­708, Mukurampura, Karimnagar. 

A.3Kaspa Ramesh, S/o. Laxminarayana, Age:52 yrs, Caste: M.Kapu, Agent of Kalyan Company, R/o. H.no.9­4­199, Sapathagiri colony, Karimnagar. 

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 16.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Ranga Swamy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri.P.Sugunakar Rao, Learned Counsel for A.1 and A.3 and Sri.M.Satyanarayana, Learned counsel for A.2 and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.A.1 to A.3 are tried for the offences punishable under

Sections 3 and 4 of A.P.Gaming Act. 

C.C.No.263/2015. Page­2

2. The Inspector of Police, P.S.Karimnagar I town filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 alleging that on 15.5.2012 at 2.00 PM, A.1 went to the shop of A.2 to handover Matka Chit and amount, that the police party rushed to the said shop and apprehended A.1 and

A.2; that on interrogation in the presence of mediators, A.1 and A.2 voluntarily confessed about commission of offence of organizing matka and that the confession panchanamas were recorded and

Rs.1,500/­ net cash and mobile were seized from the possession of

A.1 and matka chit, net cash of Rs.1900/­ and a mobile were seized from the possession of A.2. A.1 to A.3 committed offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the AP Gaming Act.

3.Cognizance was taken for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act against A.1 to A.3 by the learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar and

registered the case as C.C.No.574/2014.

4.After securing presence of the A.1 to A.3, copies of documents were furnished to them. At this stage, the case was transferred to this Court by the Hon'ble Sessions Court,

Karimnagar and after receiving the case file, this Court numbered the case as C.C.No.263/2015.

5.After securing presence of the accused before this Court, they were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C explaining the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of

C.C.No.263/2015. Page­3

AP Gaming Act. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.Os.1 to 6. Exs.D1 to D3 are marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. 

8.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused. 

9.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT

10.P.W.2 is the Head constable in P.S.Karimnagar I town.

P.W.3 is the then Head Constable and P.W.4 is the then Police

Constable in P.S.Karimnagar I town and P.W.5 is the then Police constable in CAT party. P.W.6 is the then Inspector of Police,

P.S.Karimnagar I town. P.W.1 is examined as panch witness to

C.C.No.263/2015. Page­4 confession and recovery panchanama, but he did not support the case of the prosecution.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 is that on 15.5.2012 at about 2.00 PM he accompanied P.W.6 to Maharaja Sweet House,

Mukarampura and there, some persons were playing matka. He also deposes that they seized four or five chits and two cell phones from Chandraiah, Nazeer Khan and Ramesh. The evidence of

P.W.3 is also to the effect that at about 2.00 PM, on 15.5.2012, they went to Pan tela in front of Maharaja Sweet House and that a person was there and beside him two others were there. He deposes that they are A.1 to A.3. He also deposes that they recovered numbering chits and some money and cell phones from

A.1 to A.3 and that P.W.6 conducted panchanama in the presence of two panchas and seized the property. P.W.4 also deposes that they proceeded to Pan Shop near Maharaja Sweet House,

Karimnagar and searched near the Pan Shop and found two persons and about 10 chits. He deposes that they seized

Rs.1,500/­ from A.1 and Rs.1,900/­ from A.2. The evidence of

P.W.5 is that on 15.5.2012 at 2.00 PM, on the information to the

Inspector of Police P.S.Karimnagar I town, they proceeded to

Maharaja Sweet House and they found two persons writing Matka numbers near Pan Tela and that P.W.6 took them into custody and in the presence of P.W.1 and M.Vishnu, panchanama was conducted and an amount of Rs.1,900/­ was seized from Nazeer

C.C.No.263/2015. Page­5 and Rs.1,500/­ was seized from Chandraiah and that two cell phones were also seized.

12.The evidence of P.W.6 is that on 15.5.2012, on credible information that Matka was being played in pan shop in front of

Maharajasweet house, Mukaramapur, as per the instructions of

Sub­Divisional Police Officer, Karimangar, they proceeded to Pan

Shop in front of Maharaja Sweet House, Mukarampura,

Karimnagar at about 2.00 PM and that the Pan Shop is “Nazeer

Khan” Pan shop. He also deposes that A.2 was inside the panshop and one person was in front of the shop. He also deposes that A.1 was in front of the Pan shop and he was writing some numbers.

The further evidence of P.W.6 is that he got enquired A.1 through

P.W.1 and M.Vishnuanand and that A.1 disclosed that he was in the habit of playing Matka and that A.3 collects amount and that

A.1 is having single numbers and double numbers. He also deposes that an amount of Rs.1,500/­ was with A.1 and also a cell phone. He also deposes that in the presence of the panchas, he conducted panchanama and seized the said property. The evidence of P.W.6 is also that A.2 disclosed that he was in the habit of playing matka and he used to collect amounts from Public and writing chits and keeping some of the chits with him and giving some chits to others and that he used to pay the collected amounts to A.3 by deducting his commission. He also deposes that from

C.C.No.263/2015. Page­6 the posssession of A.2 an amount of Rs.1,900/­, 25 chits having written numbers and one cell phone was seized.

13.It is to be mentioned that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6 is that they proceeded to Maharaja Sweet House and in front of it the subject pan Shop was there. However, it is elicited in the cross­ examination of P.Ws.2,3 and also P.W.5 that they stated in their

Section 161 Cr.P.C statements as in Ex.D1 to D3 that they proceeded to Nagarjuna Sweet house. It is also elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.6 that as per Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.2 to 5 the stated seizure was infront of

Nagarjuna Sweet House. As such, the place of offence and seizure of the stated material objects is in doubt. It is also elicited from the cross­examination of P.W.6 that he has not examined the neighbors of the said Sweet House and other independent witnesses. P.Ws.2 to 6 are the Police Officials. It is also elicited in the cross­ examination of P.W.6 that he has not collected any ownership certificate in respect of existence of Tela (Pan Shop) and its being run by the accused. It is also elicited in the cross­examination of

P.W.6 that he has not examined the owner of Maharaja Sweet

House. As such, the evidence of the witnesses goes into the root of the matter in respect of place of seizure of the property. P.W.1 deposes that about 4 or 5 years back, when he went to

P.S.Karimnagar I town, police obtained his signature on blank papers and that the accused were not present at that time. Thus,

C.C.No.263/2015. Page­7 the independent witness examined by the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution.

14.It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.6 that

M.Os.1 to 6 did not contain panch chits. Learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision reported in PUTHOTA INNAIAH v.

STATE: (1997) 2 APLJ 338, whereunder the Hon’ble High Court took the circumstances of material objects therein containing no signatures of the accused, witnesses and the raid party, into consideration to acquit the accused therein. It is also to be mentioned that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 is also not reliable. It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.6 that P.Ws.2 to 5 did not state in regard to the names of the persons from whom the stated cash and phones were seized. The evidence is inconsistent in regard to presence of number of persons. It is also elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.6 that P.W.4 did not state to him that they searched near the Pan Shop and an amount of Rs.1,900/­ was seized from Nazeer and Rs.1,500/­ was seized from Chandraiah.

P.W.2 did not depose as to recovery of any amount. While the evidence of P.W.6 is that as per the instructions of Sub­Divisional

Police Officer, Karimnagar, they went to the Pan Shop, as per the cross­examination of P.W.3, after receiving information they straight away went to Pan Shop in front of Maharaja Sweet House.

It is to be mentioned that the proceedings of permission, if any, received by P.W.6, are not filed into the Court. As contended by the

C.C.No.263/2015. Page­8 learned counsel for the accused, as per Section 5 of the Andhra

Pradesh Gaming Act, the Police Officer not below the Rank of

Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of

Police may give authority by a warrant to search the persons and places and seize the property. As such, the evidence of P.W.6 that as per the instructions of Sub­Divisional Police Officer,

Karimnagar, they proceeded to the Pan Shop is not in compliance of the authority under the provisions of The A.P. Gaming Act. In view of the above circumstances, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15.IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A.3 are acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of AP

Gaming Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. M.Os.1 to 6 are directed to be confiscated to the state after appeal period is over.

Typed to my Dictation directly on bench computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 20th day of April, 2018.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

­­­­­­­­­­­NONE­­­­­­­­­­­­­ P.W.1: B.Narshima Reddy, P.W.2: T.Srinivas, P.W.3: S.Srinivas, P.W.4: B.Anjaiah, P.W.5: A.Gouraiah, P.W.6: V.Surender, 

C.C.No.263/2015. Page­9

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Signature of P.W.1 on Panchanama. Ex.P.2:Signature of P.W.1 on panchanama. Ex.P.3:First Information Report. 

For Defense: 

Ex.D1: relevant portion in S.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2. Ex.D2: relevant portion in S.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3. Ex.D2: relevant portion in S.161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

M.O.1 is Rs.2,600/­ (Rs.100x26) M.O.2 is Rs.50/­ (Rs.50x1) M.O.3 is Rs.100/­ (Rs.20x5) M.O.4 is Rs.650/­ (Rs.10x65) M.O.5 is Nokia Cell Phone. M.O.6 is Nokia Cell Phone. 

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Excise, Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE) ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI.G.SRINIVAS,

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C., 

(EXCISE) KARIMNAGAR.

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.

CC.No. 317 OF 2017.

(Cr.No.42 of 2017 of P.S.Ramadugu)

Between:

The State through Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station­ Ramadugu. … Complainant. 

And

Bodasu Mahesh, S/o Kothaiah @ Devadas, Aged: 24 years, Caste: Wadder, R/o Vellulla village of Metpalli Mandal, Jagtial District.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 13­4­2018 for final hearing in the presence Sri. S.Ranga Swamy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri. A.Srinivas, learned legal aid counsel for the accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The accused is tried for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 511 IPC.

2.The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Ramadagu filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that the defacto­complainant­

K.Narasimha Murthi presented report alleging that on the morning of 28­03­2017 he went to Ramalayam Temple in Kokkerakunta village, opened the lock of front gate and found that the lock of the temple was already opened and the latch of the Hundi opened and some unknown offenders attempted to commit theft. A case was 2C.C.No.317 of 2017.

registered and during the course of the investigation, on 22­08­2017 Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S Choppandandi, arrested the accused and that accused confessed his guilt. The accused committed offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 read with 511 IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under

Section 380 read with 511 IPC.

4.After securing presence of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him. He was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C explaining the accusation. He denied. Heard. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 511 IPC was framed, read over and explained to him. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence. 

7.Heard the learned APP and learned legal aid counsel for the accused. 

8.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 511 IPC against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

3C.C.No.317 of 2017.

POINT:

9.The evidence of P.W.1 is that on 28­03­2017 in the morning hours he went to Kondanda Ramalayam of Kokkerakunta village and opened the main gate and found that the doors of the temple were opened and Hundi was opened and that somebody attempted to commit theft. He presented ExP.1 report. The evidence of P.W.2 is that P.W.1 informed in regard to opening of the main gate. He also deposed that they found latch of Hundi was broken. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. The evidence of P.W.3 is that about one year back Police visited

Ramulavari Temple in Kokkerakunta village and prepared ExP.2 crime details form in respect of commission of theft in the said temple. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 it is evident that there was attempt to commit theft in the temple.

10.The evidence of P.W.4 is that about 2 or 3 months back Police summoned him to Police Station, Choppandandi in the afternoon hours and in their custody the accused was there. He also deposed that in their presence, Police interrogated the accused who confessed that he committed offences of theft at Ramalayam

Temple, Kokkerakunta, Thigalaguttapalli and in 4 or 5 places. He also deposes that from the possession of the accused Police seized gold rings, chains , matti, and also silver items and TVS XL motorcycle and another motorcycle. It is to be mentioned that

P.W.4 did not depose that the accused confessed that he attempted to commit theft at Ramalayam. The evidence of P.W.5 is that in the 4C.C.No.317 of 2017.

month of August 2017 at Navodaya school, in the outskirts of

Choppadandi, the accused confessed that he committed theft in

Nizamabad District, Gundapur village, Thigalaguttapalli,

Ramadugu and a motor cycle at Choppadandi and the he hide it.

He also deposes that XL Motor cycle was recovered from the possession of the accused. He also deposes that the accused led them, may be, to Thimmapur village, in Morthad Mandal, near to a

Temple and showed property of gold rings, matis, and chains etc hide under a stone and the said property was recovered under a panchanama. The evidence of P.W.7 is that on 22­08­2017 while conducting vehicle checking at Navodaya school, Choppadandi at 6.40 PM, the accused was coming on a motor cycle in suspicious manner and in presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 the accused confessed that he committed offences in 13 cases and regard to attempt to commit theft in Ramalayam Temple in Kokkerakunta village. It is to be mentioned that the evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 is not consistent with the evidence of each other. While the evidence of

P.W.4 is that the accused confessed in the Police Station, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 is that the accused confessed that near

Navodaya School. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that it was in the afternoon hours but as per the evidence of P.W.7, it was at about 6.40 PM. P.Ws.4 and 5 did not depose that the accused confessed that he attempted to commit theft in Ramalayam temple in

Kokkerakunta village. It is also to be mentioned that no attempt is made by the investigating agency to collect fingerprints of the offenders at the Hundi in the Temple. No property is seized in respect of the present case, including the weapon/tool used in 5C.C.No.317 of 2017.

stated attempted to commit theft. As such, the accused can be given the benefit of the doubt. It is for the prosecution to prove his case against the accuse beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Accordingly the point is answered. 

11.In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 380 read with 511

IPC. The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

Typed to my Dictation directly on bench computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2018.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

­­­­­­­­­­­NONE­­­­­­­­­­­­­ P.W.1: K.Narsinga Murthi P.W.2: T.Ram Reddy. P.W.3: B.Thirupathi. P.W.4: A.Venkatesh. P.W.5: S.Raju P.W.6: Abdul Kareem. P.W.7: M.Chandrashekar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report. Ex.P.2:C.D.Form Ex.P.3: Attested copy of Panchanama. Ex.P.4: Accused confession cum recovery panchanama, Ex.P.5:Accused confession cum recovery panchanama, Ex.P.6:FIR For Defense: Nil. 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Excise, Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE) ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI.G.SRINIVAS,

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C., 

(EXCISE) KARIMNAGAR.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.

CC.No. 104/2016.

(C.O.R.No.26/2015­16 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Karimnagar Urban). Between: The State through the Sub­Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Karimnagar Urban … Complainant. 

And

Erugadindla Saritha, W/o. Jampaiah, Age: 24 yrs, Caste:Oddera, Occ:Labour, R/o. Thirumalanagar, Karimnagar. 

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 23.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Ranga Swamy, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri.V.Venkateshwar Rao, Learned Counsel for the accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The accused is tried for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. 

2.The Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Karimnagar Urban filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 22.04.2015 at about 08.40 AM, on reliable information that the accused was indulging in illegal sale of ID liquor in front her house at

Thirumalanagar, Karimnagar, the raid party rushed there after securing Panduga Pramod/L.W.1 and Terandas Shiva/L.W.2; that on seeing the raid party the accused tried to run away; that the raid party stopped her and took the accused into custody and on search the raid party found one bag containing 50 polythene 2 C.C.No.104/2016 covers, each cover containing 100ml, total 5 liters of ID liquor; that the Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector opened the bag in the presence of panchas, smelt the content therein and found it to be ID liquor and conducted panchanama in the presence of panchas, seized the property and drew two samples from the seized contraband; that the seized property and the accused were brought to the Prohibition and Excise station. A case was registered and the accused was sent for Judicial Custody; that the sample was sent to the Government Chemical Examiner of Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory at Warangal and after analyzing the sample, the analyst opined that the sample contained illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption. The seized contraband was deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise. The accused committed offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under

Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. After securing presence of the accused copies of documents were furnished to her. 

4.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C explaining the accusation. She denied. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act was framed, read over and explained to her. She denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

5.Prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and

M.Os.1 and 2.

3 C.C.No.104/2016

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. She denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused. 

8.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act, beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT:

9.The evidence of P.W.1 is that on reliable information that the accused was indulging in illegal sale of ID liquor, after securing presence of P.Prmod and T.Shiva, she and M.A. Ghani and staff proceeded to Thirmalanagar, Karimnagar, on 22.4.2015 and reached there at about 8.40 AM; that on seeing them the accused tried to run away, but they stopped her and took her into custody.

She also deposes that on searching the bag, they found 50 polythene covers, each cover containing 100 ml, total 5 liters of ID liquor; that she also conducted panchanama and drew two samples each 180ml. The further of P.W.1 is that she registered a case, sent the accused for Judicial Custody and deposited the case property before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise; that she further deposes that M.A.Ghani/L.W.3 forwarded the sample to the chemical analyst.

4 C.C.No.104/2016

10.It is to be mentioned that it is well settled that the prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.1 is Excise Official and no independent witness is examined by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1 is not inspiring confidence and that her evidence cannot be relied on to find the accused guilty of the offence with which she stood charged. In arriving at such finding, the following circumstances are taken into consideration, by appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

i) Ex.P1­Panchanama is not established by the prosecution by examining independent witnesses. The evidence of L.Ws. 1 and 2 was closed on report that their whereabouts are not known.

ii) It is elicited from the cross­examination of P.W.1 that both the panchas to Ex.P1­Panchanama are not the local inhabitants of the area of the seizure of the property. As such, the investigating officers failed to comply the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C. It is also not placed on record as to the compelling circumstances to secure the stated panchas to Ex.P1­Panchanama, though they are not local inhabitants.

iii) It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that under the

Ex.P1 the description of the impression and the name of the attester of the impression is not mentioned. It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that the sample bottles are in the station till they were sent to the analyst. It is to be mentioned that as it was reported L.W.3­M.A.Ghani is in coma as he met with an 5 C.C.No.104/2016 accident, his evidence was closed. As he statedly forwarded sample to the analyst, L.W.5 evidence is essential in that regard.

11.In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12.In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. M.Os.1 and 2 are directed to be destroyed after appeal period is over. 

Typed to my Dictation directly on bench computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 24th day of April,

2018.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

­­­­­­­­­­­NONE­­­­­­­­­­­­­ P.W.1: M.Swaroopa, 

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Panchanama. Ex.P.2:Crime and occurrence Report. Ex.P.3: Letter of Advice, Ex.P.4: Attested copy of laboratory report. Ex.P.5:Attested copy of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner. Ex.P.6:Attested copy of destruction panchanama.

For Defense: Nil. 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

M.O.1 is Sample bottle. M.O.2 is sample bottle.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Excise, Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE) ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI.G.SRINIVAS,

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C., 

(EXCISE) KARIMNAGAR.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.

CC.No. 522/2015.

(C.O.R.No.312/2014­15 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Karimnagar Urban). Between:

The State through the Sub­Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Karimnagar Urban … Complainant. 

And

Erugadindla Saritha, W/o. Jampaiah, Age: 20 yrs, Caste:Oddera, Occ:Labour, R/o. Thirumalanagar, Karimnagar. 

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 23.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Ranga Swamy, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri.V.Venkateshwar Rao, Learned Counsel for the accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­ :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The accused is tried for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. 

2.The Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector, Karimnagar Urban filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 09.12.2014 at about 08.10 AM, on reliable information that the accused was indulging in illegal sale of ID liquor in front her house at

Thirumalanagar, Karimnagar, the raid party rushed there, after securing Karnala Ramu/L.W.1 and Jilla Raju/L.W.2; that on seeing the raid party the accused tried to run away; that the raid 2 C.C.No.522/2015 party stopped her and took the accused into custody and on search the raid party found one bag containing 30 polythene covers, each cover containing 100ml, total 3 liters of ID liquor; that the

Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector opened the bag in the presence of panchas, smelt the content therein and found it to be

ID liquor and conducted panchanama in the presence of panchas, seized the property and drew two samples from the seized contraband; that the seized property and the accused were brought to the Prohibition and Excise station. A case was registered and the accused was sent for Judicial Custody; that the sample was sent to the Government Chemical Examiner of Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory at Warangal and after analyzing the sample, the analyst opined that the sample contained illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption. The seized contraband was deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise. The accused committed offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under

Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. After securing presence of the accused copies of documents were furnished to her. 

4.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C explaining the accusation. She denied. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act was framed, read over and explained to her. She denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

3 C.C.No.522/2015

5.Prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6 and

M.Os.1 and 2.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. She denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused. 

8.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act, beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT:

9.The evidence of P.W.1 is that on reliable information that the accused was indulging in illegal sale of ID liquor, after securing presence of K.Ramu and J.Raju, she along staff proceeded to

Thirmalanagar, Karimnagar, on 09.12.2014 and reached there at about 8.10 AM; that on seeing them the accused tried to run away, but they stopped her and took her into custody. She also deposes that on searching the bag, they found 30 polythene covers, each cover containing 100 ml, total 3 liters of ID liquor; that she also conducted panchanama and drew two samples each 180ml. The further evidence of P.W.1 is that she registered a case, sent the accused for Judicial Custody and deposited the case property

before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise; that

4 C.C.No.522/2015 she further deposes that M.A.Ghani, Prohibition and Excise Sub­

Inspector forwarded the sample to the chemical analyst.

10.It is to be mentioned that it is well settled that the prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.1 is Excise Official and no independent witness is examined by the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1 is not inspiring confidence and that her evidence cannot be relied on to find the accused guilty of the offence with which she stood charged. In arriving at such finding, the following circumstances are taken into consideration, by appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

i) Ex.P1­Panchanama is not established by the prosecution by examining independent witnesses. The evidence of L.Ws. 1 and 2 was closed on report that their whereabouts are not known.

ii) It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that under the

Ex.P1 the description of the impression and the name of the attester of the impression is not mentioned. It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that the sample bottles are in the station till they were sent to the analyst.

iii) It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that the particulars of the staff members are not mentioned in Ex.P1­

Panchanama. It is also elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.1 that the specimen seal on Ex.P1­panchanama is that of M.A.Ghani and that he has not participated in the panchanama. 

5 C.C.No.522/2015

11.In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12.In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w. 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. M.Os.1 and 2 are directed to be destroyed after appeal period is over. 

Typed to my Dictation directly on bench computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 24th day of April,

2018.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Excise), Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

­­­­­­­­­­­NONE­­­­­­­­­­­­­ P.W.1: M.Swaroopa, 

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Panchanama. Ex.P.2:Crime and occurrence Report. Ex.P.3: Letter of Advice, Ex.P.4: Attested copy of laboratory report. Ex.P.5:Attested copy of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner. Ex.P.6:Attested copy of destruction panchanama.

For Defense: Nil. 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

M.O.1 is Sample bottle. M.O.2 is sample bottle.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class Excise, Karimnagar.