G.Suresh Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER.

Present: Smt. B.Baby Rani, 

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, 

Piler. 

Tuesday, this the Sixth (06th ) day of February, 2018.

O.S.No. 61 of 2007

Between : 

1. Janjayala Gyanamma

2. Janjayala Reddeppa…Plaintiffs

And :

Janjayala Narasimhulu... Defendant

This suit is coming up on 13.12.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs, and Sri K.M.R.Balaprasad, Advocate for Defendant, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day; this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants etc., from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that –

The suit schedule mentioned property was owned by the joint family of 1) J.Basavaiah, 2) J.Chinnabba who is the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff and one Reddemma who is married 2 daughter residing with her husband, 3) J.Krishnaiah, S/o Kethanna, 4)

J.Venkatramaiah, S/o Gurrappa. Thus, all the four members have jointly entitled the same and they have been in possession of the same. While so, long back, they have got differences in enjoying their joint house among themselves and have divided and ‘C’ schedule property was allotted to

Chinnabba who is father of 2nd plaintiff and husband of 1st plaintiff and others were given their respective shares and all of them got executed an agreement of partition, dt.13.09.1986 and everybody enjoying their respective shares given in the said partition. Thus, the husband of 1st plaintiff, father of 2nd plaintiff by name Chinnabba has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property with absolute rights and perfected his right and title to the same by adverse possession also. Later, the said Chinnabba died leaving behind him, the plaintiffs and one

Reddemma to succeed his estate including the suit schedule property.

After the death of his father Chinnabba, the 2nd plaintiff being the male member was managing the affairs of their family. The Gramapanchayat assessed the suit schedule property under assessment No.5701B and being given door No.11/45 new Nos.11­106, 11­115. while being in possession, the 2nd plaintiff paid the house tax to Gram panchayat, Piler.

The Panchayat Secretary, Piler also issued a certificate, dt.15.09.2004 in favour of 2nd plaintiff which discloses that the Gram panchayat has no objection to grant electricity connection to the schedule mentioned house in the name of 2nd plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiffs along with Reddemma have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights.

3

The plaintiffs submitted that they have got differences with the defendant with regard to the criminal cases and taking advantage of plaintiffs’ weak support in the village, the defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs also issued a legal notice, dt.31.01.2007 to the defendant not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The defendant received the same but he did not give any reply. The plaintiffs let out one room for rent to one

Chandrasekhar Raju of Andhra Jyothi Reporter and the plaintiffs are enjoying the three rooms.

While so, on 22.02.2007, the defendant along with his men came to suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs without any valid right to do so and at the intervention of elders, the defendant went away saying that he will not allow the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit schedule property peacefully. The said Reddemma and the plaintiffs got right and title as Reddemma was not shown as plaintiff being residing with her husband as such the other plaintiffs are protecting her right and interest also, as co­owners of suit property. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. But, he is proclaiming that he will dispossess the plaintiffs from suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contended that the plaint schedule property is not belong to the plaintiffs and it is only exclusive property of Basavaiah as he acquired the same with his own earnings and purchased the same from 4 its rightful owner Mallu Rami Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, Mekalavani kalva of

Piler Mandal under a regd. Sale deed, dt.14.02.1957 for valid consideration and on the same day itself he was put in possession of the schedule property by his vendor. Since then, the said Basavaiah had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, the said Basavaiah in order to construct a pucca building started construction in its place. Then, the Gram Panchayat objected through their notice under ROC No.230/72­10A2, dt.27.09.1972 calling the said

Basavaiah to get approved the plan for construction and then the said

Basavaiah got approved the plan and proceedings from Gram Panchayat,

Piler under D.Dis.No.333/16/72, dt.19.10.1972 and later he constructed a pucca building in its place and enjoying the same by paying house tax to the Gram panchayat, Piler regularly. The said Basavaiah also got the electricity connection from APSEB, Piler under Service No.6713 and regularly paying electricity consumption charges to the APSEB, Piler regularly. While being in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property, the said Basavaiah due to family disputes got partitioned the whole properties except the plaint schedule property as the same is exclusively belongs to him, with his other co­sharers. As the plaint schedule property is exclusive property of Basavaiah, the same was omitted from family partition. Hence, the said Basavaiah had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same until his death along with other properties. During his lifetime, he executed a regd. Will in favour of the sons of this defendant and his brother J.Rangaiah namely J.Kishore

Kumar and J.Raajendra Prasad on 08.08.2003. Subsequently, the said 5

Basavaiah died and the said regd. Will came into force. The said Kishore

Kumar and Rajendra Prasad succeeded the same and have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, the ground floor of plaint schedule property is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

Kishore Kumar and his father i.e., this defendant, up stair portion is enjoying by Rajendra Prasad and his father J.Rangaiah without any kind of interruption with the knowledge of whole villagers including the plaintiffs. The plaint schedule property is more valuable one and the rates are increasing day by day. Hence, the plaintiffs became green eyed and on the instance of enemies of this defendant, got filed the above suit by claiming share based on false allegations and documents. The plaintiffs or others have no any manner of right, title, possession, enjoyment whatsoever over the suit schedule property and they ought to have filed declaration suit. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial :

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

2) To what relief ?

5.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of defendants,

D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 were marked.

6.Heard both sides.

6

7.Issue No.1 :

To grant permanent injunction the plaintiffs have to establish that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit and there is a threat or invasion or interference by the defendants and the plaintiff approached this court with clean hands as per Section 38 of Specific Relief Act.

8.The 2nd plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit as reiterated in plaint. Ex.A.1 is house tax receipt, dt.08.02.2005. Ex.A.2 is the house tax receipt, dt.18.10.2006. Ex.A.3 is certificate, dt.15.09.2004 issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Piler. Ex.A.4 is office copy of notice, dt.31.01.2007. Ex.A.5 is the served acknowledgment. Ex.A.6 is the receipt for Rs.6,000/­ issued by the defendant. Ex.A.7 is certified copy of will, dt.29.05.2003. In his cross examination, he categorically deposed that his paternal grandfather had got four sons by name Gurrappa (died), Basavaiah, Chinnappa and

Krishnaiah. Gurrappa had got one son by name Venkatramaiah.

Basavaiah had got two sons by name Narasimhulu (defendant) and

Rangaiah. Chinnabba had got one son and one daughter i.e., himself and

Reddemma. Krishnaiah had got two sons by name Gurunadha and

Harinadha and two daughters.

9.This suit was filed for house property and its survey number is 285 at Nehru Bazar, Piler. The door number of suit schedule house is 11/45 and now it is 11/51. He admitted that the said house property was purchased in the name of Basavaiah on 14.02.1957 out of joint family 7 benefits, as Basavaiah is the elder of the family. The measurements of the house property is 6 yards from East to West, 27 ½ yards from North to

South. They filed suit for two items. First item is from East to West – 17 ¾ feet, North to South – 24 feet and second item is East to West ­ 16 ½ feet and North to South – 8 ¼ feet as the said property was allotted to his father’s share Chinnappa under partition agreement, dt.19.09.1986. Prior to filing of suit, his father got issued legal notice to defendant, Panchayat

Secretary, Piler. He denied the suggestion that suit is not maintainable for non­joinder of necessary parties. He admitted the notice issued by

Panchayat Secretary, Piler on 27.09.1972 to Basavaiah while constructing the house jointly. He admitted about the registered partition deed among their family members for the lands situated at Doddipalli. House property was kept joint. He denied the suggestion that suit schedule property was self­acquired property of Basavaiah and due to that, the said property was not shown in partition deed, dt.29.05.2003. Basavaiah died in the year 2004. The wife of Basavaiah was also no more. He denied the suggestion that after the death of Basavaiah, defendant and his brother developed the plaint schedule property and not by him. He denied the suggestion that partition agreement, dt.13.09.1986 is a nominal document. He further deposed that there are no disputes in between their family and Basavaiah family during his lifetime. Ex.A.7 was executed by Basavaiah in favour of one Mamatha, D/o Venkatramaiah and Ex.A.7 reveals his name as boundary owner of said property. He further deposed that Basavaiah created another will, dt.08.08.2003 in favour of grandsons of Basavaiah which contains the suit schedule property also. He denied the suggestion 8 that suit schedule property was self­acquired property of Basavaiah and after his death, defendant and his brother enjoying the same.

10.P.W.2 filed his chief affidavit supporting the chief examination of P.W.1 and in his cross examination, he categorically deposed that

Basavaiah purchased the house property from one Mallu Rami Reddy with joint family funds i.e., 18 feet x 82 ½ feet in Sy.No.285 of Piler. In the year 1972, Basavaiah constructed house in the said extent. He had site previously to the eastern side of suit schedule property and the same was sold by him 10 years back. He came to know that on 29.05.2003,

Basavaiah and his brother partitioned their properties under registered partition deed for their joint family assets. He never seen the said partition deed. An agreement was entered in the year 1986 partitioning the suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that the suit schedule property was self­acquired property of Basavaiah, due to that only the said property was not shown in partition deed, dt.29.05.2003.

Prior to filing of suit, a bore well was dug after 1986 in plaint schedule property. He had not seen the receipt issued by the defendants prior to filing of suit. He denied the suggestion that plaintiffs never in possession of suit schedule property and it was in possession of defendants.

11.P.W.3 filed his chief affidavit supporting the chief examination of P.W.1 and in his cross examination, he categorically deposed that there is no relationship in between himself and Kethanna ancestors. Suit was filed by 2nd plaintiff against defendant. Now he has no land near suit schedule property. Previously he sold the property got by him near suit schedule property. Suit schedule property is house containing of ground 9 floor and first floor and ground floor consisting of two rooms and first floor consisting of 9 rooms. To the east of suit schedule house, one Gurrappa’s house is situated, West – Venkatramaiah’s house, North – House of third parties, South – Road. The father of 2nd plaintiff and father of defendant are brothers. Originally, the plaint schedule house site belongs to one

Mallu Rami Reddy of Mekalavari Kaluva and from the said Rami Reddy, the father of defendant by name Basavaiah purchased the suit house site 30 years back from joint family earnings. At the time of purchase he was not present and he came to know that from out of the joint family funds, the said house was purchased. 14 years back, Bavaiah, Venkataiah,

Chinnappa, Krishnaiah partitioned their joint family properties under registered partition deed. Except the suit schedule property in its higher extent, other landed properties were covered under the partition deed, dt.29.05.2003. He came to know through P.W.1 that there was another partition deed in respect of suit schedule property. He cannot say the date and year of said partition deed. He did not see any house tax and electricity connection documents of plaintiff. He further deposed that defendant dug a borewell but after collecting the amount from other brothers, the said borewell was dug. He do not know whether Basavaiah executed any will in respect of his property specifically in favour of one

Mamatha, grand daughter of Basavaiah and its boundaries. Since 15 years there are differences in between plaintiffs and defendant. Before that they lived amicably. He denied the suggestion that plaint schedule property is self­acquired property of Basavaiah and his children only 10 entitled for the said property but not the plaintiffs. He further deposed that now all the family members are residing in suit schedule house.

12.D.W.1 who is the defendant, filed his chief affidavit as reiterated in his written statement. Exs.B.1 to B.15 are marked through him. Ex.B.1 is the registration extract of regd. Sale deed, dt.14.02.1952.

Ex.B.2 is the C.C of regd. Partition deed, dt.29.05.2003. Ex.B.3 is registration copy of regd. Sale deed, dt.08.08.2003. Ex.B.4 is served copy of notice, dt.27.09.1972 issued by the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat,

Piler. Ex.B.5 is proceeding of the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Piler granting permission to Jangala Basavaiah for construction of terraced and tiled building, compound wall, dt.19.10.1972 along with plan. Ex.B.6 is miscellaneous receipts issued by the Executive Officer, Grampanchayat, dt.19.10.1972. Ex.B.7 is house tax receipts and demand notices – 6 in number stands in the name of Basavaiah. Ex.B.8 is certificate issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O, Piler. Ex.B.9 is the electricity bill along with four receipts stands in the name of Basavaiah. Ex.B.10 is the valuation certificate issued by the Sub Registar, Piler for the suit schedule property. Ex.B.11 is the miscellaneous receipts in the name of Basavaiah.

Ex.B.12 is the house tax receipts (2 in number) and water tax demand notice (1 in number). Ex.B.13 is the house tax receipt for house number 11/106. Ex.B.14 is the death certificate Jangala Basavaiah. Ex.B.15 family member certificate.

13.In his cross examination, he deposed that his paternal grandfather name is Kathanna and he got four sons and admitted the relationship in between himself and plaintiffs. He further deposed that his 11 father Basavaiah as a kartha of joint family managed their family. He do not know when his father and brothers partitioned their joint family property, but in his childhood. When Ex.A.6 was confronted to D.W.1, he deposed that it does not contain his signature. He denied the suggestion that in the year 2003, his father and his brothers partitioned their properties for the first time and there is no prior written partition. He denied the suggestion that his father purchased house property in the year 1957 with joint family earnings. He denied the partition agreement, dt.13.09.1986.

14.He denied the suggestion that plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and he is deposing false. He further deposed that his father executed a registered will in favour of one Mamatha, who is daughter of Venkataramaiah and grand daughter of Basavaiah. In a property purchased under Ex.B.1, there is a building consisting of ground floor and first floor in which the suit schedule property was covered. Two portions and one shop room in ground floor, nine rooms and toilets in 1st floor. In nine rooms, Mamatha was gifted one room in first floor. In Ex.A.7, Northern boundary is shown as Janjala Pedda Reddeppa roomulu. He along with his brother Rangaiah also signed as attestors in Ex.A.7. For four rooms, plaintiff got filed this suit. He further deposed that in nine rooms, Mamatha was gifted first room which was situated to the side of main road and northern portion of the house was also gifted to Mamatha. The plaintiff filed the suit for three rooms adjacent to first room gifted to Mamatha and one room situated near toilets. He do not know in which year his father and his brothers 12 orally partitioned their joint family properties. In the year 1972, a building was constructed in which plaint schedule property was included.

He further deposed that “The document confronted to me i.e., partition agreement, dt.13.09.1986 contains my signature”. He do not know whether the said partition agreement contains the signatures of

J.Venkatramaiah, Basavaiah, Chinnabba and Krishnaiah. He denied the suggestion that as per the said partition agreement, the plaint schedule property was allotted to the father of 2nd plaintiff and the husband of 1st plaintiff and since then they are enjoying the said property. Witness adds that since six years they are enjoying the said property. He denied

Ex.A.4/notice issued by the plaintiffs. So also, Ex.A.3. He denied the suggestion that under Exs.A.1 and A.2, the plaintiff No.2 paid tax to the plaint schedule property. He denied the suggestion that though he received notice, did not give any reply. He further deposed that previously there are criminal cases against him and his sons and they are ended with acquittal. He denied the suggestion that they are harassing the plaintiffs to grab the suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that

O.S.No.94/2005 was filed against the plaintiffs by them and the same was

dismissed for default.

15.Perused the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and D.W.1.

16.The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff as per partition agreement, dt.13.09.1986 and since then the plaintiffs have been enjoying the same and though the said agreement was not marked, the evidence of D.W.1 is supporting the version of the plaintiff, hence prays to decree the suit.

13

Ex.A.1 is the house tax receipt, dt.08.02.2005. Ex.A.2 is house tax receipt, dt.18.10.2006. Ex.A.3 is certificate issued by the Sarpanch. The said house tax receipts stands in the name of plaintiff No.2. But Ex.A.3 was issued by the Sarpanch and not by Panchayat Secretary. Hence, it cannot be looked into. Ex.A.4 is office copy of notice issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant and Panchayat Secretary not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and to receive house taxes by the Panchayat Secretary on 31.01.2007.

There is no reply for the said notice by the defendants. Ex.A.5 is served acknowledgment for Ex.A.4. Ex.A.6/receipt for Rs.6,000/­ signed by the defendant for borewell. But from whom it was received was not mentioend in it but it was filed by the plaintiffs showing payment of Rs.6,000/­ for borewell. Ex.A.7 is the certified copy of registered will executed by Janjala

Basavaiah in favour of Mamatha, daughter of Venkataramaiah for one room in first floor in which the northern boundary is shown as “Peddareddeppa roomulu”. The contention of the plaintiffs is that while the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 i.e., by name

Chinnabba and his brothers were living jointly, Janjala Basavaiah purchased the property covered under Ex.B.1 with joint family funds and while enjoying jointly in the year 1986, there was a partition about the property covered under Ex.B.1 and in the said partition agreement ‘C’ schedule property which was plaint schedule property, allotted to the said

Chinnabba and since then he has been enjoyed the same and till 2004 there are no disputes in between Chinnabba and his brothers until the date of death of Basavaiah in the year 2004 and after the death of 14

Basavaiah disputes arose and defendant is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over suit schedule property.

17.The contention of the defendants is that plaintiffs never enjoyed the suit schedule property as the suit schedule property along with other property covered under Ex.B.1 was self­acquired property of his father and plaintiff have no right, title and possession over the same. But on perusal of Ex.B.1, the property covered udner it was purchased by

Basavaiah from one Rami Reddy. D.W.1 in his cross examination categorically deposed that his father managed the joint family as a kartha but the said property was self acquired property of his father. He deposed that there was a partition between joint family members long back but on perusal of the partition deed filed by the defendant, they were partitioned under registered partition deed, dt.29.05.2003 wherein it was mentioned that “

So, it is clear from Ex.B.2 that till 29.05.2003 they lived jointly and no partition was took place with regard to landed properties mentioned in

Ex.B.2. The crucial document in this case is certified copy of registered will executed by Basavaiah in favour of Mamatha on 29.05.2003 which was executed on 29.05.2003 i.e., as on the date of Ex.B.2. It is clear from the said will that a room was gifted to the said Mamatha by Janjala

Basavaiah on 29.05.2003. In the said will, the northern boundary of the 15 said room was mentioned as “Peddareddeppa roomulu (plaintiffs rooms).

D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that his father executed a will in favour of Mamatha and he was the attestor to said will. But the said fact was suppressed by the defendant in his written statement and filed subsequent will said to have been executed by Janjala Basavaiah in favour of the son of defendant and the son of Rangaiah (who is also the son of Basavaiah). The said will was also established by the plaintiffs through the cross examination of D.W.1 who is one of the attestor of will.

P.W.2 who is witness to the partition agreement deposed that the plaint schedule property was allotted to Janjala Peddabba who is father of plaintiff No.2 and husband of plaintiff No.1 and he admitted his signature when confronted the said partition agreement to him. D.W.1 in his cross examination categorically deposed that he along with his brother

Basavaiah signed as attestor in Ex.A.7. He further deposed in his cross examination that “The document confronted to me i.e., partition agreement, dt.13.09.1986 contains my signature” which clearly goes to show that there was some arrangement with regard to house property situated in Sy.No.285. He further deposed that he do not know whether the said partition agreement contains the signatures of Venkataramaiah,

Basavaiah, Chinnabba and Krishnaiah. The admission of D.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.7 correlated with each other with regard to allotment of suit schedule property to the plaintiff’s father. But the defendant by suppressing the will, dt.29.05.2003 filed another will stating that Basavaiah executed registered will on 08.08.2003 in favour of his son 16 and his brother’s son which was not proved as per Section 68 of Evidence

Act.

18.P.W.1 deposed in his cross examination that the door numbers mentioned in Exs.A.1 and A.2 are not related to suit schedule proeprty but the ward number is 11 and the old door number is 11/55.

There is no dispute about the said door number. There is no dispute about purchase of property by Basavaiah under Ex.B.1 but D.W.1 deposed in his cross examination that his father managed the joint family as a kartha and denied about Ex.B.2/registered partition deed among the joint family members which was filed by him. Ex.B.2 clearly goes to show that till 29.05.2003 they lived jointly and the property covered under

Ex.B.1 was purchased with joint family funds. When D.W.1 admitted about his signature on partition agreement, and northern boundary of

Ex.A.7 property clearly goes to show the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. When the defendant denying the possession of plaintiffs, it shows his interference and also it is clear from the evidence of

P.Ws and defendant, there are disputes in between them and criminal cases are pending.

19.In view of my foregoing discussion, plaintiff established his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and interference by the defendant. Defendant did not examine his brother or any other witnesses or attestors of Ex.B.3.

20.The defendant’s contention is that the suit is bad for non­ joinder of necessary parties.

17

21.This is a suit for permanent injunction and not for declaration or partition to implead all the parties. Hence, their contention is not believable.

22.The contention of the defendant is that injunction cannot be granted against co­owner as defendant is co­owner of the suit property and relied on a citation reported in 

1) 2007(5) RCR Civil Page No.441 Second Appeal No.425/94, dt.26.07.2004 in which his Lordship held that “Injunction against co­owner or true owner cannot be granted even if plaintiff is proved to be in possession on the date of filing of suit.”

But when the suit schedule property was allotted to plaintiff’s father, it becomes his exclusive property and hence this court can protect the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the above citation is not applicable to the present case.

2) The learned counsel for the defendant relied on a citation reported in AIR 1954 AP 17, in which his Lordship held that “Payment of tax afforded evidence of possession.”

But in the present suit, D.W.1 admitted that his father managed their joint family as a kartha and as per Ex.B.2, there is no partition till 2003 of their joint family property. Hence, the above citation is not applicable.

23.The learned counsel for plaintiff relied on the following citations :

1) 2013 AIAR (Civil) 562 between V.K.Surendra (appeallant) vs. V.K.Thimmaiah & others (Respondents) wherein his Lordship held that 18 “If a co­parcener of a joint family claiming that properties are the self­acquired properties, the burden is on him to prove that the same are his self­acquired properties. In that background, Hon’ble high Court has rightly held that Kunnaiah had no right to change the character of joint family properties by transferring the same either under a will or a gift to any party without the consent of the other co­ parceners”, which is aptly applicable to the present suit.

2) AIR 2015 SC 1236, between Zarif Ahmad (D) thr. LRs and Anr. vs. Mohd. Farooq, wherein his Lordship held that “However, in our view, Advocate Commissioner’s report, in the present case, is against the weight of the oral and documentary evidence on record which sufficiently proves that plaintiff was in possession over plot No.358, and for several years he was paying the house tax, as was found by the Trial Court on the basis of house tax receipts and extracts of house tax Assessment Register. It is not disputed that plot No.357 belonging to the defendnats was in south of plot No.358, and house of the defendants was situated over their plot. The Trial Court has decreed the suit only in respect of plot No.358.” which is aptly applicable to the plaintiff’s contention as plaintiffs also claimed plaint schedule property i.e., rooms and Northern boundary of

Ex.A.7 clearly goes to show that they are plaintiffs’ rooms.

3) AIR 2016 SC 3236 between Subraya M.N vs. Vittala M.N & others, wherein his Lordship held that “Since the grant of item No.1 in the name of the defendant is for the benefit of the family, trial court and the High Court rightly recorded the concurrent findings that the plaintiffs are entitled to the share in item No.3.”

In the present suit also, patta was granted in the name of

Basavaiah while he was kartha of joint family in the year 1986.

4) AIR 1995 SC 1728 between Digambar Adhar Patil (Appellant) vs. Devram Girdhar Patil (Died) and another (Respondent) wherein his Lordship held that 19 “The entries in the Record of Rights regarding the factum of partition is a relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence given by the respondent and his brother to prove the factum of partition. Even the evidence of Ram Chander, he clearly stated that there was a partition but he could not give the date and year in which the partition was effected nor the deed of the partition was produced. Under the Hindu Law, it is not necessary that the partition should be effected by a registered partition deed. Even a family arrangement is enough o effectuate the partition between co­parceners and to confer right to a separate share and enjoyment thereof. Under those circumstances, when the factum of partition was evidenced by entries in the record of Rights, which was maintained in official course of business, the correctness thereof was not questioned, it corroborates the oral evidence given by the brother and lends assurance to accept it.” which is aptly applicable to the present suit as there was family arrangement in between family members and Ex.A.7 northern boundary shown as plaintiff’s room and Exs.A.1 and A.2 shows they paid tax.

5) AIR 2017 SC 583 between Vishram @ Prasad Govekar and other vs. Sudesh Govekar (D) by Lrs. And others, wherein his Lordship held that

The facts and circumstances of the above case are different to this case.

6) 2012 AIAR (Civil) 716 between Shaik Ahmed, S/o SK. Mehtab (D) by Lrs vs. Moh. Ismail, S/o Syed Saheb wherein his Lordship held that “Admission of a party in the proceedings – Evidentiary value of – Admission of a party in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and the same does not need any further corroboration.”

In the present suit also, the defendant who is examined as D.W.1 admitted in his evidence that his father managed the family as a kartha and as per Ex.B.2, till 2003, there is no partition. Hence, it is aptly applicable to the present suit.

7) 2000(1) APLJ 6 (HC) between Seera Simhachalam & Another (Appellants) vs. Pediredla Simhachalam (Respondent) wherein his Lordship held that 20 “Suit for mere injunction basing on possession to resist the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property is maintainable and further prayer for a declaration of title is not necessary.”

8) 2017 AIAR SC 183 between Ramesh Verma (D) th. Lrs (Appellants) vs. Lajesh Saxena Verma & another (Respondents) wherein his Lordship held that “The will has to be proved in terms of the provisions of Section 68 of Indian evidence Act and the plaintiffs proved Ex.A.7 and without canceling first will, another will is not maintainable.”

23.In the result, suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property. 

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this, the 06 th day of February, 2018.

Sd/­ Smt.B.Baby Rani.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1 : Janjala Reddeppa P.W.2 : Janjala Srinivasulu P.W.3 : S.Venkatramaiah

FOR DEFENDANTS : 

D.W.1 : J.Narasimhulu 21

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A.1 : House tax receipt, dt.08.02.2005. Ex.A.2 : House tax receipt, dt.18.10.2006. Ex.A.3 : Certificate, dt.15.09.2004 issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Piler. Ex.A.4 : Office copy of notice, dt.31.01.2007. Ex.A.5 : Served acknowledgment. Ex.A.6 : Receipt for Rs.6,000/­ issued by the defendant. Ex.A.7 : Certified copy of will, dt.29.05.2003.

FOR DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B.1 : Registration extract of regd. Sale deed, dt.14.02.1952. Ex.B.2 : C.C of regd. Partition deed, dt.29.05.2003. Ex.B.3 : Registration copy of regd. Sale deed, dt.08.08.2003. Ex.B.4 : Served copy of notice, dt.27.09.1972 issued by the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Piler. Ex.B.5 : Proceeding of the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, Piler. Ex.B.6 : Miscellaneous receipts issued by the Executive Officer, Grampanchayat, dt.19.10.1972. Ex.B.7 : House tax receipts and demand notices – 6 in number stands in the name of Basavaiah. Ex.B.8 : Certificate issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O, Piler. Ex.B.9 : Electricity bill along with four receipts stands in the name of Basavaiah. Ex.B.10 : Valuation certificate issued by the Sub Registar, Piler for the suit schedule property. Ex.B.11 : Miscellaneous receipts in the name of Basavaiah. Ex.B.12 is the house tax receipts (2 in number) and water tax demand notice (1 in number). Ex.B.13 : House tax receipt for house number 11/106. Ex.B.14 : Death certificate Jangala Basavaiah. Ex.B.15 : Family member certificate.

Id/­ Smt.B.Baby Rani.

P.JCJ., Piler.

22

1 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

PILERU.

Present : Smt. R.M.Subhavalli, 

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pileru.

Monday, the Seventeenth (17 th ) day of December, 

Two thousand eighteen.

C.C.No. 222 of 2016

Between:­ Sub­Inspector of police, Yerravaripalem Police Station …… Complainant.

And:­ Mude Eswaramma, aged 32 years W/o.Shoba Naick, Chengadivandlapalle Village H/o.Kotakadapalle, YV Palem Mandal Chittor District. …… Accused.

This case coming on 11.12.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.R.Chandra Sekhar advocate for accused, having stood over for consideration, after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:­ :: JUDGMENT ::

Case is under Secs.177, 468, 471 & 417 of IPC and

Under sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967:

1] The Sub­Inspector of Police, Yerravaripalem Police Station has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 56/2012 for the offences punishable under sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967.

2.]The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows :

This is a case of “cheating the government by a person in getting

Indian Passport with false information” that was occurred prior on 2 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V 20.12.2012 and reported in the police station by the complainant

Y.Ramachandraiah, Sub Inspector of police, Special Branch, Piler who allotted to verify the antecedents of Passport applicants in Piler Circle, in which the accused Mude Eswarasmma, w/o.Shoba Naick, resident of

Chengadivandlapalle, H/o.Kotakadapalle, YV Palem Mandal, Chittoor District cheated the government by creating false documents on her name and address as S.Vasantha, w/o.Raja Reddy, Kotakadapalle village of YV Palem

Mandal and submitted application for Indian Passport and mislead the

Government officials viz., Passport office Officials and Police department.

While so during the course of investigation it found that the accused had an

Indian Passport bearing No.E5582447 which was issued by Regional Passport

Office authorities, Hyderabad on 11.06.2003 and it is valid up to 10.06.2013.

Thereafter the accused went to abroad for the purpose of job and returned to

India in the month of June, 2001. But her Indian Passport was deleted by the

Passport Officials, Ministry of External Affairs, Regional Passport office,

Hyderabad. Due to that the accused hatched a plan to get new Passport.

Accordingly, she created false documents in her name and address as

S.Vasantha, w/o.Raja Reddy, Kotakadapalle village of Y.V Palem Mandal and submitted a fresh application for Indian Passport. During the verification of the antecedents, the defacto complainant Y.Ramachandraiah, Sub Inspector of police, Special Branch, Piler who is Verification Officer of Indian Passport applications in Piler Circle jurisdiction was enquired and elicited the offence committed by the accused. Then he reported the same before Y.V Palem

Police Station for necessary legal action against the accused. On 13.12.2012 at 10.00 a.m B.Prasad, Sub Inspector of police arrested the accused and seized Xerox copies of documents in Sl.Nos.1 to 7 and original documents in

Sl.No.8 from the possession of accused in the presence of Maddileti 3 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V

Venkatarami Reddy and C.H.Maheswar Reddy under cover of arrest and seizure Mahazarnama dated 31.12.2012 at 10.00 a.m and basing on the complaint of Y.Ramachandraiah, SI of Police, Special Branch, Chittoor

B.Prasad, Sub Inspector of Police, Y.V Palem Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.56/2012 for the offences under sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of

Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 against accused and he examined the defacto complainant Y.Ramachandraiah,

Mekala Ramachandra Reddy, Maramreddy Reddeppa Reddy and recorded their statements. After completion of his investigation, M.Ravi Naik, S.I. of police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/Secs. 177, 468, 471 & 417 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967.

3]The Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offences under sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the

Passport Act, 1967 and issued summons to her.

4]On appearance of the accused all relevant case records are furnished to her as required under sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5]The accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against her as per the charge sheet contents and charges framed under sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of

Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 against her and the same was read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

6] During course of trial the prosecution to establish their case examined the PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 on its behalf. 

4 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V 7] After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C, as there is incriminating material found against her from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and same was read over to her in Teluge for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8]Defence side no one examined and no documents marked on its behalf. 

9] Heard both side arguments. 

10]Now the points for determination are :

1.Whether the accused created false documents by forging with false information to cheat the Government in getting Indian Passport in her name as enshrine in section 12(1)(b) of the Pass Port Act, 1967 with intention or not ?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences u/s. 177, 468, 471 & 417 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:­ 1.

11]It is a case of furnishing false, forged documents by the accused

before the Passport authorities for obtaining passport in her name by

mentioning as ‘S.Vasantha, W/o.Raja Reddy, Kotakadapalle village and Post,

YV Palem Mandal’. While so, during antecedents the defacto complainant

Y.Ramachandraiah, SI of Police, Special Branch, Chittoor on his antecedents enquiry found that the accused with malafide intention to cheat the

Government i.e. Passport Authorities produced forged, false documents. This is the contention of prosecution, for establishing the same the prosecution adduced the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 out of 8 listed witnesses and also marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.7.

12] Further the defacto complainant Y.Ramachandraiah, SI of Police, 5 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V

Special Branch, Chittoor examining as PW­1, who is deputed to do antecedents of applicant of Smt.S.Vasantha, W/o.Raja Reddy for issuing

Passport, PW­1 in his chief examination said that he does not know Mekala

Ramachandra Reddy, Maramreddy Reddeppa Reddy, Madithati Venkatrami

Reddy and C.H.Maheswar Reddy and said her know the accused who is resident of Chengadivandlapalle, H/o Kotakadapalli, Yerravaripalem Mandal and said during the period of 16­10­13 to 03­02­13 he used to attend passport antecedents verification work within the territorial jurisdiction.

K.V.Palli Mandal, Yerravaripalem Mandal, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Piler mandal and Rompicherla Mandals are comes under his territorial and official jurisdiction. Further PW­.1 said that on 18­12­12 he received passport antecedents verification particular form No.HY 5061358805712 Dt.17­1­12 from Superintendent of police office, Chittoor in applicant name of Singam

Vasantha, W/o Raja Reddy, Resident of Boddireddigaripalle H/o

Kotakadapalle, Yerravaripalem Mandal along with Xerox copy of notary affidavit, Syndicate Bank account Pass Book Xerox copy stands in the name of Singam Vasantha, W/o Raja Reddy for antecedents verification and submit report and said, thereafter in order to verify the antecedents of the applicant shown in the proformas received by him on 19­12­12 at about 10.00 am he visited the Boddireddygaripalle village to verify the antecedents of the applicant as per the address mentioned in the proformas, then he enquired about the applicant address particulars and name person mentioned in the proformas in Boddireddygaripalle, during his enquiry the villagers revealed that no such address named woman is available in their village, then immediately he shown the photograph affixed to the application to villagers.

Then immediately after showing the said photo the villagers identified the woman the woman who is in the photo is by name Muddae. Eswaramma, 6 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V

W/o.Shoba Naik, Resident of Chengadavandlapalle, H/o Kotakadapalle,

Yerravaripalem Mandal but not Singam.Vasantha. Further PW­1 said immediately he went to Chengadavandlapalle village and enquired about the

Eswaramma by showing her photograph but she is not available on that day, then immediately he informed about this material fact to his superior officials concerned through his official messengers and his superior officers orally instructed him to lodge report against said woman as she furnished false information and fabricated records to obtain passport with a false information and she is intended to cheat the public officials. As per the instructions of his superior officers on 20­12­12 at about 7.00 pm he went to

Y.V. Palem Police Station and presented written report as in Ex.P.1 to S.I of police Y.V. Palem along with Xerox copy of passport personal particulars of applicant form, Xerox copy of notary affidavit of applicant and Xerox copy of savings bank account Pass book of Syndicate Bank belongs to applicant to take necessary action against accused in according to law. 

13] To substantiate the version of PW­1, prosecution adduced PW­2 evidence, PW­2 who is villager of accused, and through PW­2 it reveals that the accused never applied for passport with furnishing false information at any point of time and PW­2 disclosed that accused name is ‘Eswaramma’ and said that he does not know which accused has got another name and PW­2 also said that he do not know the accused went to Kuwait and also said he does not know anything about the case facts and PW­2 also not supported prosecution version and also denied his earlier version as in Ex.P.2. 

 14] Further prosecution on seeing PW­2 evidence, adduced the PW­3 evidence who is resident of Kotakadapalle, PW­3 also said on same lines of

PW­2 and said that he do not know the accused and as per his knowledge accused never applied for Passport with furnishing false information at any 7 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V point of time and PW­3 said that he do not know whether accused went to

Kuwait or not and PW­3 specifically said that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. PW­3 also not supported prosecution version and also denied his earlier version as in Ex.P.3 the reason best known to him. 

15] On seeing PW­2 and PW­3 evidence, prosecution adduced PW­4 evidence who is mediator of arrest and seizure mahazarnama dated 31.12.2012 at 10.00 a.m. But PW­4 said that he do not know the accused and said he do not know anything about the case facts and PW­4 specifically said that police never arrested accused in his presence at any point of time and said that in the year 2012 one day he went to YV Palem police station on his personal work at that time police obtained his signature on some written papers and PW­4 identified his signature in arrest seizure mahazarnama as in

Ex.P.4. But PW­4 said that he do not know the contents of arrest, confession seizure mahazarnama.

16] Further the prosecution adduced PW­5 to PW­7 evidence who are investigating officers who registered the case and arrest of accused and filed charge sheet. Their evidence discussed wherever required in forthcoming discussion. 

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution by producing Exs.P.1 to P.7 proved the guilty of accused for the alleged offence and prayed to convict the accused as per Law. 

The learned defence counsel relied the citations:

1)1999(1) ALT (Crl.) SC 2371 (DB)

2) 2004(2) ALT (Crl.) 462 A.P.

3)2010(2) ALT (Crl.) A.P. 140 (SB) 8 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V 17] As per Section 117 Indian Penal Code:

177. Furnishing false information:­ Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

18] To establish the guilt of accused prosecution first and foremost has to establish that the accused produced the false documents for obtaining passport in which legal duty has to cast upon the applicant who ever want passport shall produce relevant documents. But case in hand the PW­.1 who deputed for antecedents of the accused, PW­1 visited Bodireddigaripalle village on 19.12.2012 at about 10.00 a.m to verify the applicant details mentioned in her application, as PW.1 stated that he visited to attend passport antecedents within the territorial jurisdiction K.V.Palle Mandal,

Yerravaripalem, Mandal, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Piler Mandal and

Rompicherla (Mandal) are comes under his territorial jurisdiction. The prosecution to prove that the PW­.1 deputed for antecedents as stated above single document not produced before court and PW.1 said that on 18.12.2012 he received passport antecedents verification particular Form

No.HY5061358805712 dated 17.01.2012 from SP office, Chittoor and said in application the applicant name mentioned as “Singam Vasantha w/o.Raja

Reddy, Resident of Bodireddigaripalle, H/o.Kotakadapalle, Yerravaripalem

Mandal” along Xerox copy of Notary affidavit, Syndicate Bank account 9 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V passbook, Xerox copy stands in the name of Singam Vasantha, w/o.Raja

Reddy. 

19] As seen from the evidence of PW­1, he visited Boddireddi­garipalle and said during his enquiry some of the villagers informed that no such address named woman is not available in their village. Then PW­.1 showed the photo, then the villagers on seeing photo identified the woman and said her name is ‘MuddeEswarammaw/o.ShobaNaik,R/o.Chengadavandlapalle,

H/o.Kotakadapalle, Yerravaipalem (Mandal) but not ‘Singam Vasantha’.

Except PW­1 saying that he visited the Bodireddigaripalle and enquired villagers, they disclosed her name is M.Eswaramma, but not Vasantha. For proving the same prosecution not produced any proof whether PW­1 not approached Village Panchayat Secretary and PW­1 not disclosed the details of which person he enquired and the said person details. But PW­1 in his cross said that he is unable to say the particulars of the persons who revealed the name of applicant as Eswaramma after seeing photo, and PW­1 also fails to disclose that about the neighbours of the address shown in the applicant particulars form in Bodireddigaripalle. Further PW­1 denied that he did not stated before police as the woman available in the photo is by name ofEswarammaw/o.ShobaNaki,R/o.Chengadavandlapalle,

H/o.Kotakadapalle of YV Palem Mandal and PW­1 denied that when he visited

Chengadavandlapalle the said Eswaramma was not available. 

20] But the prosecution not produced the photograph shown to the villagers of Boddireddigaripalle in turn they informed to him that photo visible person is M.Eswaramma.

21] When we observe the evidence of PW­2 and PW­3 who are the villagers of Chengadavandlapalle, but not the villagers of Bodireddigaripalle (Village).

10 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V

The PW­2 and PW­3 were examined by PW­5 who is investigating officer, who received case records along with seized documents as per seizure, arrest and confession mahazarnama dated 31.12.2012.

22] PW­5 said in his chief examination that on 20­12­12 at about 7.00 pm when he was present in the Police Station PW.1 by name Sri

Ramachandraiah the then S.I of police, Special branch Piler came to Police

Station and presented written report to him, then he verified the same and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.56/12 for the offences U/Sec.177, 468, 471, 417 IPC and Sec.12(1) (b) of Passport Act 1967 and issued FIR. Ex.P5 is the original FIR in Cr.No.56/12, then he sent the original FIR to this Court and copies to concerned officials. Then he took up investigation into the matter. During the course of investigation he examined PW.1 in the Police

Station and recorded his detailed statement in his part­II CD. Then he left the

Police Station and visited the house of the accused situated at

Changadivandlapalle, H/o Kotakadapalle, Y.V. Palem Mandal, then he secured the presence of PW.3, PW­2 and examined them and recorded their detailed statements in his part­II CD. By showing photo and voter ID card which were furnished by PW.1 at the time of examination and enquired about the name and address particulars of the person by showing the photo and

Voter ID Card, PW.2 and PW­3 revealed that her name is Mude Eshwaramma, but not Singam Vasantha and such named person by name Vasantha is not available in their village. Then he tried securing some more witnesses in that village, but nobody came forward to give evidence, then he tried to apprehend the accused but she is not available in her house.

23] As alleged by PW­1 he also went to Chengadavandlapalle village to enquire about the Eswaramma by showing her photo, but she is not available 11 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V and PW­1 said then he immediately informed the fact to his higher officials concerned through messenger and his superior officers orally instructed him to lodge report against said woman as she furnished false information by fabricating records to obtain passport with a false information by cheating the public officers and PW­1 said as per the instructions of his superior officers on 20.12.2012 at about 7.00 p.m he went to YV Palem police station and gave complaint as in Ex.P.1 along with Xerox copy of passport personal particulars of applicant form, Xerox copy of Notary affidavit of applicant and

Xerox copy of Savings Bank account pass book of Syndicate Bank pertaining to applicant. 

24] When we observe the above said Xerox copies, the Xerox copy of

Notary not visible, further the PW­5 not enquired the Notary nor shown him as a witness to prove that the accused approached to him for preparing the said affidavit in turn notarized the same, then with regard to Xerox copy of account book of the applicant, for that the PW­5 not examined the Bank authorities, nor produced the photo of account holder. Generally account bank book affixed photo, but in Xerox copy of account book not contains the applicant photo and also the account book issued on 12.12.2011. As contended by PW­5 he seized the above said Xerox copies as he received credible information on 31.12.2012 at 9.00 a.m about the presence of accused at YV Palem bus stop and he proceeded along with women PC and arrested accused as she committed offences under sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and PW­ 5 said that the accused confessed her guilty as mentioned in Ex.P.6 (Arrest, seizure and confession panchanama). 

25] To establish the Ex.P.6 the prosecution adduced PW­4 evidence who is 12 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V mediator of Ex.P.6, but PW4 not supported the prosecution version and specifically said that in his presence police never arrested, never seized any records from the possession of the accused, but PW­4 admitted his signature in Ex.P.6, but PW­4 said that he do not know the contents of Ex.P.6. Except

PW­4 evidence there is no evidence to prove the contents of Ex.P.6. 

 26] From the evidence of PWs.1 to 7, there is evidence as PW­1 deputed for conducting enquiry with regard to A.Vasantha, W/o.Raja Reddy and she falsely gave information by showing her name as ‘A.Vasantha’ instead of ‘Eswaramma’. In the above discussion, the prosecution utterly fails to prove section 177 of IPC. If section 117 of IPC fails to prove the cheating by the accused allegedly done does not arise. Hence in the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of Indian Penal 

Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and the accused is entitled for acquittal. 

27] As per Section 420 Indian Penal Code:

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:­

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Cheating has to be defined in Section 415 of Indian Penal Code:

415. Cheating:­ Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any 13 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

28] With regard to prove cheating, prosecution has to prove the two ingredients deception and an intention to defraud the public authorities, in cheating, misrepresentation inducing belief by an out of omission mensrea on the part of accused has to established and the accused made believable her version, for that no document produced before the court except Ex.P.8 and

Ex.P.8 also not tallied with the alleged Xerox copies which were not marked.

Hence cheating does not proved by the prosecution.

 In the above facts and circumstances the prosecution miserably fails to prove the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence accused is entitled for acquittal. 

22] In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and she is acquitted for the said offence under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Typed by me and pronounced by me in open court this the 17th day of December, 2018. Sd/­R.M.Subhavalli

 PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­cum­

ADDL.,JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF Ist CLASS, PILERU. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PROSECUTION:­ FOR ACCUSED: NIL 

P.W.1 : Y.Ramachandraiah P.W.2 : M.Reddeppa Reddy P.W.3 : M.Ramachandra Reddy 14 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V

P.W.4 : M.Venkatrami Reddy P.W.5 : D.Prasad P.W.6 : M.Ravi Naik P.W.7 : S.Rahimullah, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED 

 FOR PROSECUTION:­ FOR ACCUSED:­ NIL­ 

Ex.P.1 : Report given by PW­.1 to the police. Ex.P.2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.4 : Dt.31.12.2012: Signature of PW­4 in the arrest, confession and seizure mahazar

Ex.P.5 : Original FIR in Cr.No.56/2012 of YV Palem Police Station. Ex.P.6 : Dt.31.12.2012: Arrest, confession and seizure mahazar Ex.P.7 : Original Passport of accused. 

 Material Objected marked PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: ­ NIL ­ Id/­RMSV

P.D.M­cum­AJMFC PILERU. //True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

15 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PILER 

Calendar in C.C.No. 222 of 2016

Date of offence:Prior to 20.12.2012 Date of complaint:20.12.2012 Date of taken on file:27.09.2016 31.12.2012 Date of apprehension of accused: Date of commencement of trial:24.10.2017 Date of close of trial:11.12.2018 Date of sentence or order:17.12.2018 The Sub Inspector of Police, YV Palem Complainant: Police Station [Cr.No.56/2012)

Name of the AccusedFather'/ Husband'sAge Name Mude Eswaramma Shoba Naik32 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling

Chengadivandla YV PalemHindu Coolie. Palle village H/o.Kotakadapal le

Nature of offence:Under Sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967.

Finding of the court:Found not guilty. 

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 177, 468, 471 & 417 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and she is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and sureties of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Sd/­ R.M.Subhavalli,

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Piler. //True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

16 C.C.222/2016 R.M.S.V

 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PILER.

Present:­ Smt R.M.Subhavalli, 

Pri.Junior civil Judge, Piler.

 FAC, Addl. Judl I Class Magistrate, 

Piler.

 Tuesday this the 11 th day of December, 2018

 C.C.No.53/2018

BETWEEN:

State Rep. The Station House Officer, Proh., & Excise Station, Piler. …Complainant.

AND

Kummari Reddeppa, S/o Siddaiah, Kummara by caste, age 40 years, Siddugaripalli, H/o Chinthagunta, 

Y.V.Palem Mandal. ... Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri G.Sivakumar Reddy, Advocate

for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on

record, this court delivered the following: 

:: JUDGMENT ::

Case is U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act 1995.

1.The Inspector of Proh., & Excise, Piler Police, has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.479/2014­15 for the offence punishable Under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act, 1995 of Proh. & Excise Act.

2.The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

On 21.08.2014 at about 2.00 P.M., during the rides, the Sub Inspector of Police, Y.V.Palem conducted raid along with staff at Bodevandlapalli cross road, detected a case, found one person, arrested him and seized 10 lts of ID arrack under cover of police proceedings vide in Cr.No.83/2014, and during the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police drawn sample in bottle and send it for chemical analysis and the above accused was produced before the Hon’ble Court for remand and subsequently released on bail, and received chemical analysis report as it disclosed that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide Analysis report C.E.No.461/14­15,

Sl.No.8178, dt.18.11.2014 and further on 05.03.2015 at about 8.30 A.M., forwarded the case records along with property to Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Piler for further action. Then the Prohibition & Excise Inspector P.Sujatha received the same and re­registered the case in Cr.No.479/14­15 U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act, 1995 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Piler and after completion of her investigation she filed charge sheet against the accused U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act, 1995.

Hence the charge sheet contents.

3. The Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence u/s.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act 1995 and numbered as C.C.53/2018 and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused all relevant case records were furnished to him, as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5.The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him as per the charge sheet contents and a charge u/s.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act 1995 is framed against him and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

6.During the trial the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P­1 to P­6 on its behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C as there is incriminating material evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and same was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported no evidence. 

8.Defence side no one examined and no documents marked on its behalf. 

9.Heard both side arguments . 

10.Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the accused was having possession of 10 lts of ID arrack with out having any valied licence as alleged by prosecution or not ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.Point Nos.1 and 2:­

It is a case of allegedly having illegal possession of arrack. To prove the same, the prosecution adduced the P.W.1 and P.W.2 evidence out of three listed witnesses. P.W.1 who is the Sub Inspector of Police, Y.V.Palem. PW­.1 in chief examination stated that on 21.08.2014 at about 1.30 P.M., while he was present in police station he received credible information about the transportation of ID arrack.

Then, immediastely he along with his staff PC 2969, 3759, 3873 left the police station and reached Bodevandlapalli cross road, H/o Bodevandlapalli, there they found one person carrying one plastic cover. On suspicion they stopped him and he tried to run away on seeing them, then they surrounded and caught hold the said person and P.W.1 said that he can identify the said person if shown to him and

P.W.1 identified the person/accused who is present in the court hall , he is the person who arrested by him on 21.08.2014. P.W.1 further said that he verified the plastic cover. On verification he found 10 liters of ID arack in the polethene cover, then he tried to secure mediators but nobody came forward. PW­.1 said then, he decided and again enquired the accused and he disclosed his name and address and also said that he carried ID arrack for sale at higher price for his livelihood, then he arrested the accused and lifted one sample in 180 ml bottle to chemical analysis under the cover of police proceedings and PW­.1 said he dradfted the polie proceedings at scene of offence and in it accused put his thumb impression in the police proceedings and said he know the contents of police proceedings as in Ex.P.1

dated 21.8.14 at 2.00 p.m and along with the accused and seized property brought

to Y.V.Palem police station. Basing on Ex.P.1 he registered case in crime

No.83/2014 for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and issued F.I.R as in Ex.P.2 and P.W.1 said that after completion of formalities, he produced the accused before Hon’ble JFCM Court, Piler and said he sent the sample bottle for analysis to Chemical laboratory and received analysis report as in Ex.P.3 and in it opined that the sample is ID arrack and unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. Therefore, further he handed over C.D file to P.W.2 on the point of jurisdiction. This is the contention of PW­.1 as well as prosecution case.

12. To substantiate his version, prosecution adduced P.W.2 evidence who has received case file from P.W.1 PW­.2 said in his chief examination that on 05.03.2015 at about 8.30 A.M., while he was present in Police Station one PC from

KV Palle Police Station and handed over CD file along with seized contraband in

Cr.No.83/14.Basing on Exs.P.1 to P.3, he registered case in crime No.479/2014­15 for the offence under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and issued First

Information Report to all concerned as in Ex.P.4. PW­.2 said that during course of his investigation he made requisition to Deputy Commissioner of PRO and Excise

Chittoor for destruction of seized contraband i.e 10 liters of ID arrack and PW­.2 said then he handed over CD file to P.Sujatha Prohibition and excise SI and PW­.2 said that she verified the investigation and found it on correct lines and PW­.2 said that P.Sujatha SI of prohibition and excise received destruction orders as in Ex.P.5 and destroyed the seized contraband through destruction panchanama as in Ex.P.6.

But on 21.08.2014 and seized the contraband but the said seized property sent to

P.W.2 on 05.03.2015 after lapse of six months 12 days , the reason for sending not explained by prosecution, and that too the seized property not produced before court and during pendency of case the seized property other than sample bottle destroyed as per Ex.P.5 and there is no any evidence to show that the P.W.1 seized the property from the possession of accused in one and the same and P.W.1 failed to record the confession statement of accused if he really disclosed that he is having possession the property except PW­1 evidence there is no other evidence to corroborate his evidence. As per analysis report, the contraband having sediment measures 178 ml in a bottle in Cr.No.83/2014 is there but P.W.1 and P.W.2 not tried to do any investigation on those lines, illegally possessing of ID arrack as well as illegal selling of ID arrack is an offence as per law. But prosecution simply alleging that the accused having in possession of 7 litres of ID arrack. For that there is no proof except P.W.1 evidence. P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that he has not recorded the statements of raid party staff who were accompanied him in the raid and scene of offence is not a busy locality and denied that scene of offence is a busy locality. P.W.1 admitted that vehicles are plying round the clock at the scene of offence. P.W.1 denied that accused is an agriculturist and the accused has not committed any offence as mentioned in case records. He also denied that he did not conducted any raid in Bodevandlapalli cross at any point of time he denied that he never arrested accused and he never seized any contraband from the possession of accused at any point of time and accused never committed any offence and accused is no way connected to this case. P.W.1 further denied that he has foisted this case against accused for statistical purpose and accused is no way connected to this case, he is deposing false but PW­.1 admitted that Bodevandlapalli cross petty shops are situated, there are no residential houses nearby scene of offence as seen from the evidence fo PW­.1 is not gospel truth to strengthen his version there is no corroboration and P.W.2 done only issuing second F.I.R and afterwards he handed over C.D file to P.Sujatha, Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise, Piler and

P.Sujatha done further investigation and destructed the seized property. As per

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C, the P.W.1 has to follow mandatory rules at the time of seizing property.

13.Here in the present case, the P.W.1 not followed mandatory rules and not produced the seized contraband to prove prosecution version as they seized 120 lityers of ID arrack and appreciation of the evidence of pw1 and pw2 there is lot of indifferences and each one version is not corroborated with the other witness evidence. First and foremost point is that PW1 visited Bodevandlapalle alone PW2 received only Ex..P1 and P2, but prosecution not examined the crucial witness who done further investigation that is P.Sujatha S.I of P&E Piler as she received the

Ex.s.P5 and destroyed the seized contraband as per Ex.s.P6 . When we see PW1 evidence why pw1 not called any person to stood as mediators at scene of offence as raiding done by him at 2.00 P.M., who prevented pw1 for non drafting the arrest, seizure, and confession panchanama of accused as the accused disclosed that "as he was not having any valied license "and pw1 also not followed the arrest and seizer procedure and not prepared the sized list of property and pw1 not called the inhabitants of the said locality, nor secured the presence of village elders or VRO,

Secretary and Sarpanch who are available in the said village, but prosecution not produced the said Seized 10 liters ID arrack and only produced destruction proceedings as in Ex.P5 and done destruction as per EX..P6. Further in police proceedings dt.21.08.2014 specifically mentoned as “pai thedi, pai gantalaku, paid sthalam vaddaku vellaga okaru (okaru maga vyakthi), athani chethilo oka thellani plastic sanchilo moota kaligine athanu polisulu aying mammalni chuchi paaripovutaku prayathninchaga nenu nee sibbandi sahayamtho athanini chuttu mutti pattukoni naa vadda vunchukoni athani peru, chirunama mariyu plastic sanchilo yemunnadi, mammulanu chuchi yenduku paaripothunnavu ani athanini vicharinchaga, athanu thanaku thabyga evvaru prodbalam lekunda ee vidhanga cheppinaadu,but prosecution not examined any one to supported his version and to fill up the lacunas by way of producing the Ex.sP6, the said point discussed later. 

15. Pw1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not recorded statement of raiding party staff and scene of offence is busy locality, but pw1 denied the suggestion that he never conducted raides at Bodevandlapalli at any point of time and denied that the accused is agriculturist and he he did not commited any offence as mentioned in Ex.P1 and he is no way connected to this case and he falsly filed this case against the accused for statistical purpose.

16. Actually pw1 seized the property from the accused on 21.08.2014 at 2.00

P.M., due to non producing valid license pw1 apprehended the accused inturn pw1 produced the accused along with the seized property along with special report before pw2 on 05.03.2015 at 8.30 A.M., pw2 inturn registered a case in Cr.No.479/14­15 and issued FIR as Ex.s.P4, basing on police proceeding as in Ex.s.P1 and P2 , further pw1 handed over the accused, along with seized property, Ex.P1 to P3. The pw1 said in his chief examination he drawn the sample of ID arrack from seized property for sending chemical anylasis and after that he send the accused to Hon'ble court and also he sent the seized samples to chemical anylasis without producing the seized property before court and not send the property through court of law, but prosecution through PW1 send the seized property for analysis, here PW1 is the detector of the case and the complainant of the case and done entire investigation upto sending file to PW2 , P.W2 received the seized property from pw1 on 05.03.2015 at 8.30 A.M., but pw1 really seized the property from the alleged possesssion of accused is on21.08.2014 at 2.00 P.M., from there to, there is gap from 6 months 12 days. Why neither pw1 not drawn the samples near scene of offence ,nor pw2 drawn the samples immediately when pw1 brought the seized property before him on 21­08­2014 at 2.00p.m.

17. As per sec 100cl(5)Cr.P., the search shall be made as mentioned in sec.100cl (4)Cr.P.C.and a list of all things in the course of such search found shall be prepared and obtained the mediators signatures and witneeses signatures along with the person signature from whose possession seized the suspect property, and copy of the list of seized property has to delivered to the person from whose possession seized the suspected property. But in the present case in hand the pw1

drawn the samples in Prohibition and Excise police station, Piler without the

presence of pw2 and accused for identifying the property whether he seized

the same property in which pw1 drawn samples, for confrontation, there is no evidence to prove that whether pw1 drawn the samples from the property which was produced by pw1 before PW2 or not and pw1 also not followed the mandatory procedure as enshirned in Sec.165 cl (5)CrP.C. Here, we have to observe the cross examination of pw2 , pw2 in his cross examination said that  the seized propery was not seized when it was handed over to him and pw1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not drawn the samples and PW1 again admitted that he did not sealed the seized samples which was handed over to Prohibition and

Excise Police Station, Piler [PW2] and PW1 also admitted that he did not called surrounding neighbours as mediators, but pw1 voluntarily adds that all the persons went to near accused house, and admitted that he did not obtained any seperate particulars of seized property from pw2 and said on the said date he received only case file along with seized property and accused no other persons, here pw2 fails to disclosed about the giving of special report (Ex.s.P6) to him by pw1. But

Pw1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not taken any

acknowledgement from Prohibition and Excise police station, Piler as he

handed over the seized property and pw1 clearly admitted that he did not

sealed the seized samples which was handed over to Prohibition and Excise

police station, Piler. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that in the said

special report which was given to him by pw2 , PW2 signature was not there in

the said special report and in the said special report no independent mediators

were not signed and pw1 said he did not obtained any separate particulars of

seized property from pw2. " From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 there is discrepancy with regard to seizing property and that too PW1 drawn samples at

Police Station in absence of accused why PW1 not drawn samples immediately, at scene of ofence if PW1 was in Prohibition & Excise police station as per police standing order Prohibiton and Excise police can apprehended accused without having any valid powers. This may be the reason for PW1 as he was hesitate to drawn samples, this itself clearly established in Ex.P6 same was mentioned in Ex.P6 by PW1. 

18) As the accused is not having any valid licence ,the same was not proved by prosecution. And even not done proper investigation from which shop the accused purchased ID arrack and not note down the batch numbers of seized contraband 

19) To established the same the pw1 was not specifically mentioned the accused name in Ex.s.P6 and also pw1 admitted that if he seized property really seized from the possession of accused or after words whether the accused name was added, this dormant position was not cleared by prosecution, Further pw1

admitted that he did not taken any acknowledgement from Prohibition and

Excise police as he handed over the seized property and also admitted that he

did not sealed the seized samples when he handed over the property to

Prohibition and Excise P.S. why who prevented pw1 not sealed the seized property and not to take receipt from pw2 as he handed over the seized property and also handing over accused to pw2 and pw2 also not tried to reduced in to writing with regard to taking over the seized property from pw1 along with accused ,but pw1 with carelessly he handed over the eized property to PW­2 through Ex.s.P1 why PW2 not followed when he received property from PW1, but prosecution wrongly marked the special report of handing over property pw2 through pw1 instead of pw2 and prosecution even also not tried to extracted with regard to Ex.P1 from PW2, but pw2 in his cross examination that "On 05.03.2015 at about 8.30 A.M., he received police proceedings", after duly verification of Ex.s.P1 in it mentioned the date and time as 21.08.2014 at 2.00.P.M. To established the case of prosecution, P.W.2 after receiving Ex.s.P1, pw2 re­registered the case and issued FIR as Ex.s.P2 and he drawn the samples and said samples sent to chemical anylasis and pw2 said he sent eight seized samples ,but when we compare with the Ex.s.P6 was not tallied with pw2 evidence ,as in Ex.s.P6 mentioned 33 items seized the list was mentioned in it which item was belongs to this case not specifically extracted through PW­.2 and prosecution not examined the Investigation Officer P.Sujatha SI of police who received the same and Analysis report discloses one item only and "the opinion is

the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and

injurious to health. There is in consistency as which prosecution sent to analysis and sample which was allegedly seized from accused possession not produced

before court and there is doubt about genuineness of PW­.1 evidence. 

20) Further prosecution not produced any documentary proof showing that the accused is having license. Here prosecution fails to extract the person name, who is present in court hall on the date of pw1 deposing before court, as thereis dispute with regard to name of the person found possessing the ID arrack and on not having valid licence pw1 apprehended the said person along with the seized property, so, at the time of seizing of property which was mentioned in Ex.P6 not followed the procedure by PW1 and PW2 and fails to prove that accused is possessing the seized property on the alleged date, which was allegedly seized by pw1 was not produced before court, basing on the police officials evidence alone, can not reliable, as there is no relative evidence to believe the genuineness of the pw1 and pw2 are doubtful and pw2 not followed the seizure procedure, and he was not first found the property how he drawn the sample in police station in absence of accused and after handing over the seized property along with accused by PW2, so the seizure procedure not followed by pw1 and PW2 drawing the samples in police station by pw1, there is highly irregularly done by entire investigation done by PW2 being a Sub Inspector of Police. So entire investigation done by PW1 and PW2 not proved their version and so, prosecution fails to bring home the accused under purview of sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995

21) In the above facts and circumstances the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence accused is entitled for acquittal.

22]In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P Act, 1995 and the accused is acquitted U/s. 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed by Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of December, 2018.)

Sd/­RM Subhavalli 

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,PILER.

FAC, ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PILER. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence 

PW.1: S.Raheemullah NIL PW.2: V.Munaiah

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Defence

Ex:P1: Police proceedings, dt.21.08.2014. NIL Ex.P2: F.I.R in Cr.No.83/2014. Ex:P3: Analysis report. Ex:P4: First Information Report. Ex.P5: Attested copy of destruction orders, dt.13.05.2015. Ex.P6: Destruction panchanama, dt.26.05.2015.

MOs marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence 

Nil Nil 

ID RMSV

PJCJ, Piler.

 FAC, Addl. JFCM, Piler. 

//true copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PILER 

Calendar in C.C.No.53 of 2018

Date of offence:21.08.2014 Date of complaint:21.08.2014 Date of taken on file:­02.11.2018 21.08.2014 Date of apprehension of accused: Date of commencement of trial:14.11.2018 Date of close of trial:10.12.2018 Date of sentence or order:11.12.2018 The Prohibition and Excise Sub Complainant: Inspector Piler [Cr.No.479/2014­15)

Name of the AccusedFather'/ Husband'sAge Name Kummari ReddeppaSiddaiah40 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling

SiddugaripalleChinthagunta,Hindu Coolie. YV Palem

Nature of offence:U/Sec.7­A r/w 8(e) of AP. Prohibition Act 1995

Finding of the court:Found not guilty. 

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Punishable U/Sec.7­A r/w 8(e) of AP. Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted U/S.248(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after 6 months. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over. 

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Piler. //true copy//

1 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Present:- Smt R.M.subhavalli, Pri.Junior civil Judge cum Judl I Class Magistrate, Piler.

Tuesday this the 11 th day of December, 2018

C.C.No.126/2018

BETWEEN:

State Rep. The Station House Officer, Proh., & Excise Station, Piler. …Complainant. AND

K.Yerram Reddy, Age 33 years, S/o.Chinnappa Reddy, R/o.Cherukuvari palli Y.V.Palem, ( Mandal).

... Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for the state and of Sri T.Niranjan, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

Case is U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise Act 1968 1]The Inspector of Proh., & Excise, Piler Police, has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.208/2014-15 for the offence punishable Under section 34 (A) of AP Excise

Act 1968.

2]The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

On 17.03.2014 at 7.30.A.M. during the rides the Sub-Inspector of Y.V.palem police along with his staff raided at Yerrram Reddy house at Cherukuvaripalli detected a case and found one person arrested , seized one card board box with 40 Nips of Honey bee under cover of police proceedings vide in Cr.No.33/14 ,during the course of investigation the S.I.of police drawn sample in bottle and send it for chemical analysis and the above accused was produced

before the Hon'ble court for remand and subsequently released on bail, then intern opined that

the sample is Indian made Liquor vide analysis report C.E.No.543/13-14 Sl.No.9116 dated 25.03.2014 ,further on 23.09.2014 send the case property along with case record to Proh &

Excise, Piler for further action and basing on that Proh & Excise S.i of police re-registered the case in Cr.no.208/14-15 U/S.34(a) of A.P.E.Act and after completion of his evidence he filed 2 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V charge sheet against the accused u/s.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968. Hence the charge sheet contents.

3] The Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence u/s.34 (a) of A.P.Excise

Act, 1968 and numbered as C.C.126/2012 and issued summons to the accused.

4]On appearance of the accused all relevant case records were furnished to him, as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5]The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him as per the charge sheet contents and a charge u/s.34

(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 is framed against him and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

6]The prosecution examined PW.1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 on its behalf.

7]After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C as there is incriminating material evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and same was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported no evidence.

8]Defence side no one examined and no documents marked on its behalf.

9] Heard both side arguments .

10]Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the accused was having possession of 40 Nips of Haneebee liquor bottles without having any valid licence as alleged by prosecution or not ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused u/s.34(A) of Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11]Point Nos.1 and 2:-

Prosecution to established its case adduced PW1 and PW2 evidence out of three listed witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P6 are marked on its behalf, The S.Rahimulla S.I.

of police conducting rides and detected this case is examined as pw1, pw1 in his chief examination said that on 17.03.2014 while he was present in police station he received credible 3 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V information regarding liquor possession and sale of liquor bottles at Cherkuvaripalli village ,then immediately he along with his staff P.C.1855,3759 AND H.G.308 left the P.Sand visited cherukurivaripalli village and observed few persons consuming alcohol at the house of accused ,then on seeing them they tried to escape from there then immediately they surrounded them and caught hold one person and PW1 said he can identified the said if shown to him and

PW1 identified the accused who is present in court hall as the said person arrested by him on 17.03.2014 and PW1 said he enquired him about his address particulars and he stated that his identity particulars and showed 40 Honey bee 180 ml liquor bottles, then he verified the same and asked about the authorisation for possessing liquor bottles, then he immediately replied he has no authorisation for possessing the same, PW1 said that he tried to secure the mediators but no body came forward, then he arrested the accused and seized 40 liquor bottles and lifted one bottles for chemical analysis under the cover of police proceedings and PW1 said the accused stated that he brought said bottles at lower price for sale at higher price, then at scene of offence he drafted police proceedings as in Ex.P1 and he know the contents of the same and he arrested the accused and PW1 said that thereafter accrued along with case property was brought to

YV Palem Police station, Basing on Ex.P.1 he registered the case in Cr.No.33 of 2014 of YV

Palem Police station for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P Excise Act and issued FIR, then sent original FIR to this court and copies to concerned officials, after complying legal formalities he produced accused before this court on same day for judicial remand and thereafter during the course of investigation, he sent sample bottles for analysis to laboratory, after analysis report was received and opined the same as Indian made liquor and thereafter he sent the entire case records along with said contraband to PW-2 on the point of jurisdiction for further investigation and finalization of case. PW-1 again voluntarily adds special report as Ex.P.1 and PW-1 further said the accused and seized property along with special report handed over to Narpal A.S.I. of police, it is the version of PW1 as well as the case of prosecution.

12) To substantiate pw1 evidence prosecution adduced the evidence of pw2 who is the then

Pro & Excise S.I. of Piler police, pw2 said in his chief examination said that on 23.09.2013 at about 09.00 A.M. when he was in police station one head constable from Y.V.Palem came to 4 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V their Excise police station and handed over case file along with seized property and accused in

Cr.No.33/2014-15 U/s 34(a) of AP.Excise Act on the point of jurisdiction , PW2 said then he verify the case file and basing on the police proceedings as well as FIR 33/14 he re-registered the case in CR.no 208 /14-15 FOR THE OFFENCE u/n sec u/s 34(a)of AP.Excise Act and he issued FIR as in Ex.P.4 took up further investigation he made requisition to deputy commissioner of P&E Chittoor for destruction of seized property, then he handed over the investigation to P.Sujatha, Prohibition and Excise, Piler, and received Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 and

PW2 said as per excise rules he drawn the samples from each seized property for sending chemical analysis and send the accused to Hon'ble court for judicial remand. Further PW2 said he sent the drawn samples after duly sealed to chemical analysis at Chittoor received analysis report as EX.P4 and PW-2 said the remaining property he produced before Deputy

Commissioner for confiscation and after completion of investigation P.Sujatha SI of Prohibition and Excise filed charge sheet against the accused u/s 34(a)Excise Act.

13) Before going to appreciation of evidence once again we observe the provision of law.

Section 34(a) of AP. Excise Act:

34. Penalties for illegal import etc.:- Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,_

(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or in the case of an offence other than an offence falling under clause (a) with imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend upto rupees ten thousand.

14) The appreciation of the evidence of pw1 and pw2 there is lot of indifferences and each one version is not corroborated with the other witnesses evidence , First and foremost point is that PW1 visited Cherukumanipalli alone PW2 received only Ex.S.P1 and P2 ,but prosecution not examined the crucial witness who done further investigation that is P.Sujatha, S.I of P& E

Piler as she received the Ex.P5 and destroyed the seized contraband except sample as per

Ex.P6. When we see PW1 evidence why PW-1 not called any person to stood as mediators at scene of offence as riding done by him at 7.00 A.M., who prevented pw1 for non drafting the arrest, seizure, and confession panchanama of accused as the accused disclosed that "as he was not having any valid license "and pw1 also not followed the arrest and seizer procedure and 5 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V not prepared the sized list of property and pw1 not called the inhabitants of the said locality, nor secured the presence of village elders or VRO,Secretary and Sarpanch who are available in the said village ,but prosecution not produced the said Seized 40 Honey bee 180 ml licquior bottles and destructed as per Ex.s.P5 and done destruction as per EX.S.P6. Further in police proceedings dt.17.03.2014 specifically mentioned as “Pai thedi pai gantalaku paid stalamu vaddaku vallaga achchata oka inti vadda janulu gumpuga vundi thraaguchundiri. Anthata naa sibbandi sahaayamutho aa intilo vunna maga vyaktini naa swadheenamu chesukoni intini soda cheyaga 40 mandu bottles dorikinadi. Vaatini pariseelinchaga vaati meeda HONEY BEE anu vratha kalgi 180 ML kalgi vundinadi. Daani oka daani vilula Rs.75/- gaanu vundi moththamu 40 bottles ga vunnadi. Daani mothamu viluva Rs.3,000/- lu kaladu. As per PW-.1 there are mob sitting in front of the accused house, but prosecution not examined any one person to support his version.

15) But Pw1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not recorded statement of riding party staff and scene of offence is busy locality , but pw1 denied the suggestion that he never conducted rides at Cherukumanipalli at any point of time as there are 50 to 100 residential houses situated and denied that the accused is agriculturist and denied that the accused not committed any offence as mentioned in Ex.P1 and he is no way connected to this case and he falsified this case against the accused for statistical purpose .

16) Actually pw1 seized the property from the accused on 17.03.14 at 7.00A.M., due to non producing valid licence pw1 apprehended the accused in turn pw1 produced the accused along with the seized property along with special report before pw2 on 23.09.13 at 9.00A.M., pw2 in turn registered a case in Cr.No.208/14-15 and issued FIR as Ex.P4, basing on police proceeding as in Exs.P1 and P2 , further pw1 handed over the accused, along with seized property, Ex.P1 to P3. The pw1 said in his chief examination he drawn the sample of one bottle from seized property for sending chemical analysis and after that he send the accused to

Hon'ble court and also he sent the seized samples to chemical analysis without producing the

seized property before court and not send the property through court of law , but prosecution through PW1 send the seized property for analysis, here PW1 is the detector of the case and 6 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V the complainant of the case and done entire investigation up to sending file to PW2, PW2 received the seized property from PW1 on 23.09.13 at 9.00 A.M. but PW1 really seized the property from the alleged possession of accused is 17.03.2014 at 7.00 am from there to, there is gap from 5 months 25 days. Why neither PW1 not drawn the samples near scene of offence ,nor PW2 drawn the samples immediately when property seized from accused on 17.3.2014.

17) As per sec 100cl(5)Cr.P.C The search shall be made as mentioned in sec.100 cl (4)Cr.P.C. and a list of all things in the course of such search found shall be prepared and obtained the mediators signatures and witnesses signatures along with the person signature from whose possession seized the suspect property, and copy of the list of seized property has to delivered to the person from whose possession seized the suspected property. But in the present case in hand the pw1 drawn the samples in Singanamala police station with out the presence of pw2 and accused for identifying the property whether he seized the same property in which pw1 drawn samples, for confrontation, there is no evidence to prove that whether pw1 drawn the samples from the property which was produced by pw1 before PW2 or not and pw1 also not followed the mandatory procedure as enshrined in Sec.165 cl (5)CrP.C.

Here we have to observe the cross examination of pw2 , pw2 in his cross examination admitted that he did not record any panchanama during receiving of case file from YV Palem Police

Station and PW-.1 did not call surrounding neighbours as mediator. PW-.2 said on the said date he received only case file along with seized property and accused no other persons, here PW2 fails to disclosed about the giving of special report (Ex.s.P6)to him by pw1. But Pw1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not taken any acknowledgement from YV Palem police as he handed over the seized property and pw1 clearly admitted that he did not sealed the seized samples which was handed over to Prohibition and Excise station, Piler police station . PW1 in his cross examination admitted that in the said special report which was given to him by pw2 PW2 signature was not there in the said special report and pw3 admitted that in the said special report no independent mediators were not signed and pw1 said he did not obtain any separate particulars of seized property from pw2. " From the evidence of PW1 and PW-2 there is discrepancy with regard to seizing 7 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V property and that too PW1 drawn samples and sent to chemical analysis before handing over case file to PW-.2. If PW1 was in YV Palem as per police standing order YV palem police can apprehended accused without having any valid powers. This may be the reason for PW1 as he was hesitate to drawn samples, this itself clearly established in Ex.P6 same was mentioned in

Ex.P6 by PW1.

18) As the accused is not having any valid licence ,the same was not proved by prosecution.

To establish the same the pw1 was not specifically mentioned the accused name in

Ex.P6 and also pw1 admitted that he seized property really seized from the possession of accused or after words whether the accused name was added, this dormant position was not cleared by prosecution. Further pw1 admitted that he did not taken any acknowledgement from Narpala police as he handed over the seized property and also admitted that he did not sealed the seized samples when he handed over the property to Narpala P.S. why who prevented pw1 not sealed the seized property and not to take receipt from pw2 as he handed over the seized property and also handing over accused to pw2 and pw2 also not tried to reduced in to writing with regard to taking over the seized property from pw1 along with accused ,but pw2 with at most care he handed over the taken seized property to through Ex.s.P1 why PW2 not followed when he received property from PW1, To establish the case of prosecution, PW.2 after receiving Exs.P.1 and P.2 PW.2 re-registered the case and issued FIR as Ex.P3 and P.4a nd drawn samples sent to chemical analysis but when we compare with the

Ex.P.6 was not tallied with PWs.1 and PW.2 evidence. As in Ex.P.6 mentioned 11 items seized the list was mentioned in it, but PW.1 deposed before court as he seized 40 Honeybee bottles.

But the items mentioned in Ex.P.6 mentioned 40 nips of Honey bee bottles and in Ex.P.6 the other crime properties also mentioned, all items not sent to chemical analysis and same was proved through Ex.p.5 seized property sent to Deputy Commissioner for confiscation and in that Ex.P.5 in IInd column in Cr.No.208/14-15.

19) Further prosecution not produced any documentary proof showing that the accused is the owner of the house in which pw1 seized property , but pw1 in his cross examination 8 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V admitted that "he did not mentioned the door number of the said house" as per charge sheet contents discloses the accused is selling the liquor with out having valid licence "if it so why pw1 not produced the documents whether the accused is residing in the house about the surrounding neighbours names also not mentioned and pw1 clearly admitted that " in both sides of accused house there are houses " and pw1 not mentioned the surname of the accused and his father surname in Ex.P6, so, there is no independent witness evidence was not adduced by prosecution to established that the accused is the same person allegedly selling liquor the resembling accused, pw1 even not tried to enquiry with the concerned VRO or MRO or Village

Revenue officials with regard to house number of accused or about accused father's name, house number etc., sand pw1 admitted in his cross examination that he had no personal knowledge about the houses of individuals, if it so, how he came to know the said house belongs to accused, further the pw1 not drafted the rough sketch of scene of offence , but surprisingly the pw2 admitted in his chief examination that PW.1 seized the property basing on

Ex.P.1 and P.2 he issued FIR, basing on that he registered case ,pw2 is not having any knowledge about the property who seized whether pw2 or pw1, but pw2 in his cross examination clearly said that pw1 gave special report basing on that he registered the case and issued FIR and the prosecution fails to extract through PW.1 the person who is present in court hall is the same person he arrested on the said date, here prosecution fails to extract the person name ,who is present in court hall on the date of pw1 deposing before court, as there is dispute with regard to seizing contrabdn from the possession of accused and selling the liquor bottles and not having valid licence pw1 apprehended the said person along with, so, at the time of seizing of property and other items which was mentioned in Ex.P1 not followed the procedure by PW1 and prosecution fails to prove that accused is selling liquor on the alleged date, there is three items which was allegedly seized by pw1 was not produced before court, basing on the police officials evidence alone, cannot reliable, as there is no evidence, the genuineness of the pw1 to pw2 are doubt full as there is PW.1 not followed the seizure procedure, and he was not first found the property and drawn the samples and after handing over the seized property along with accused by PW2, so the seizure procedure not followed by pw1 and PW1 drawing the samples without following procedure there is highly irregularly done by entire investigation 9 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V done by PW1 being a Sub Inspector of Police. So entire investigation done by PW1 there is no corroboration and prosecution fails to establish from which shop the alleged accused purchased the seized property, leaving the main culprit adding the name of accused, the same was deposed by accused at the time of his 313 Cr.P.C examination, so, prosecution fails to bring home the accused under purview of sec.34(a) of AP. Excise Act.

20)In the above facts and circumstances the prosecution miserably fails to prove the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

21)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.

34(a)of A.P.Excise Act and the accused is acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months. In case if there is any un marked property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed by Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of December, 2018 R.M.Subhavalli

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Piler.

FAC, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW.1: S.Raheemullah NIL PW.2: V.Munaiah Exhibits marked for Prosecution Defence

Ex:P1: Police proceedings. NIL Ex.P2: F.I.R in Cr.No.33/2014 Ex:P3: Analysis Report. Ex:P4: Original F.I.R in Cr.No.208/14-15. Ex.P5: Destruction proceedings, dt.24.05.2017. Ex.P6: Attested copy of destruction panchanama, dt.27.07.2017.

MOs marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence

Nil Nil

Sd/-R.M.Subhavalli

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Piler.

FAC, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler //True copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class,PLR

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PILER

10 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V

Calendar in C.C.No. 126 of 2018

Date of offence:17.03.2014 Date of complaint:17.03.2014 Date of taken on file:-10.05.2018 17.03.2014 Date of apprehension of accused: Date of commencement of trial:15.11.2018 Date of close of trial:10.12.2018 Date of sentence or order:11.12.2018 The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector Piler Complainant: [Cr.No.208/14-15)

Name of the AccusedFather'/ Husband's NameAge K.Yerram ReddyChinnappa Reddy33 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling

CherukuvaripalleYV PalemHindu Coolie.

Nature of offence:u/s. 34(a)of A.P.Excise Act.

Finding of the court:Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 34(a)of A.P.Excise Act and the accused is acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months. In case if there is any un marked property shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum

Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

//true copy//

11 C.C.126/2018 R.M.S.V

C.C.351/2018 R.M.S.V

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Present:- Smt R.M.subhavalli,

Pri.Junior civil Judge cum

Judl I Class Magistrate, Piler.

Thursday this the 20 th day of December, 2018

C.C.No. 351 /2018

BETWEEN:

State Rep. by Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Piler. …Complainant.

AND

Syed Musthafa, S/o S.Mahaboob Sahib, Muslim by caste, age 60 years,

R/o Thimmapuram of K.V.Palli Mandal. ... Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosector for the state and of Sri R.Chandrasekhar,

Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

Case is U/Sec.34 (a) of

AP Excise Act 1968.

1]The Inspector of Proh., & Excise, Piler Police, has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.47/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 34

(a) of AP Excise Act 1968.

2]The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

On 03.03.2017, at about 8.45 A.M., as per the instructions of Assistant

Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise (Enft), Chittoor during the raids conducted by Sri B.Jayasankar, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector along with their staff and panchayatdars proceeded and conducted raids at about 10.45 A.M., raided at

Thimmapuram cross situated on Piler – Kalakada bus road of K.V.Palli Mandal, found one male person sitting at a cross along with one gunny bag in front of him.

C.C.351/2018 R.M.S.V

On seeing the officials in uniform, he tried to escape, but the raid party surrounded and detained him, then Sri B.Jayasankar, Prohibition & Excise Sub

Inspector in presence of Sri M.Ananda Naidu and Sri G.Lakshmipathi verified the gunny bag and found that containing about 11 quarts of knock out beer without having HEAL’s bill and permit, then Sri M.V.Raghavaiah, Prohibition and Excise

Constable verified the card box which containing 10 quarts of knock out beers each bottle 650 ml, the person is not produced bill and permit, then the Sri

B.Jayasankar, Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector drawn one 650 ml sample bottle of knock out beer from the gunny bag for chemical analysis purpose duly sealed and labelled, after informing the grounds of arrest and after completion of formalities, arrested the accused and seized the remaining property, under the cover of a special report, drafted ont he spot, then left the place and returned to the Prohibition and Excise Station, Piler at about 12.10 P.M., and the Prohibiton &

Excise Sub Inspector registered the case vide Cr.No.47/2018 under Sec.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Piler. Hence the charge sheet conents.

3] The Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence u/s.34

(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and numbered as C.C.351/2018 and issued summons to the accused.

4]On appearance of the accused all relevant case records were furnished to him, as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5]The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him as per the charge sheet contents and a charge u/s.34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 is framed against him and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

C.C.351/2018 R.M.S.V 6]The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 7 on its behalf.

7]After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C as there is incriminating material evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and same was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported no evidence.

8]Defence side no one examined and no documents marked on its behalf.

9] Heard both side arguments .

10]Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the accused was having possession of 10 quarters of knock out beers each bottle 650 ml with out having any valid licence as alleged by prosecution or not ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused u/s.34(A) of Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11]Point Nos.1 and 2:-

Prosecution to establish its case adduced PW1 to PW3 evidence out of three listed witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P7 are marked on its behalf. The

Investigating Officer B.Jayashankar examined as P.W.1. In his chief examination

P.W.1 deposed that on 03.03.2017, at about 8.45 P.M., he along with M.Anand

Naidu, G.Lakshimpathi and P.S.S.V.Prasad and other staff started at Piler Excise police station as per the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor and he along with Prohibition & Excise Constables by name

P.S.S.V.Prasad and M.V.Raghavaiah, mediators M.Anand Naidu and G.Lakshmipathi

C.C.351/2018 R.M.S.V and other staff have been conducted excise raids by proceeding on government hired vehicle and reached Thimmapuram cross on Piler – Kalakada road, at about 10.45 A.M., they found one male person keeping white gunny bag in front of him, on suspision he stopped their vehciel on seeing their uniform, he tried to escape from there but with the active assistance of their staff they surrounded him and detained him and enquired him, and further contended that on enquiry he revealed his identity and replied that the said bag containing some liquor bottles, for that she further asked any receipt or for the possession of the said but he replied that he has no such proofs, then in their presence of mediators have verified the siad bag thoroughly and found 11 quarters of knock their beer without heels and permit, then she enquired the accused about the source of said bottles, for that he revealed that he purchased the said bottles in livelihood, thereafter he stated his name as Syed Mastaffa, S/o Mahaboob Saheb, r/o Thimmapuram of

K.V.Palle Mandal, then he explain to accused that possession of liquor bottles in an offene, then lifted one sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused after explaining the reasons under the cover of panchanama, then P.S.S.V.Prasad drafted arrest confession seizure panchanama to his dictation in the scene of offence, then he along with mediators and accused were attested him, thereafter accused along with seized contraband along with samples were brought to the

Piler police station, then he registered the case and produced the accused before this court.

12) To substaniate pw1 evidence prosecution addused the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who is the then Pro & Excise S.I. of Piler police. P.W.2 is the mediator for arrest of accused, and he said in his chief examination said that he do not know anything aboutt he facts of the case and that Excise police never arrested any person and never seized any contraband in his presene at any point of time and that int he month of March 2017 when he went to Excise police station on his personal work, some of the police officials requested him to sign on some written

C.C.351/2018 R.M.S.V papers, at their request he signed on some written papers without going through the contents and said the signature shown to him on panchanama, dt.03.03.2017 belongs to him, and he do not know the contents of the same and Ex.P.6 is the signature of P.W.2 on panchanama, except that he do not know anything about the facts of the case.

13)To substantiate P.W.1 evidence, the prosecution adduced P.W.3 evidence.

P.W.3 is the Constable who accompanied the Investigation Officer at the time of arresting the accused. He said in his chief examination that on 03.03.2017 at about 9.30 A.M., he along with his station staff P.W.1 and other staff and

M.V.Raghavaiah and his staff and Excise Commissioner as per the instructions of

Superintendent of Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor proceeded in their jeep and took the mediators M.Ananda Naidu and G.Lakshmipathi and reached Thimmapuram cross on Piler – Kalakada road, at about 10.45 A.M., there they saw one person sitting in front of him by keeping one white gunny bag and on seeing them the said person tried to ran away, then they caught hold of him on enquiry, they found 11 knock out beer bottles and that the accused is having the possession of the same for selling the smae with higher price, and further said that Sri

B.Jayasankar, Prohibition & Excise Sub inspector seized the property under the cover of panchanama and arrested the accused.

14) The appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 there is lot of indifferences and each one version is not corrobarated with the other witnessess evidence, but prosecution not examined the other listed witnesses who done further invsetigation.

15) Pw1 said in his cross examination admitted that he has not recorded statements of persons who participated int he raid separately and admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. P.W.1 further denied the suggestion that they

C.C.351/2018 R.M.S.V have not conducted excise raids at Thimmapuram cross at any point of time and they never seized any contraband from accused at any point of time and they never arrested the accused at Thimmapuram cross. P.W.3 in his cross examination admitted that Sri B.Jayashankar, Sub Inspector not recorded his statement as he participated in raids and admitted that the scene of offence is national highway and that the distance from cross road to village is 200 meters and there also existing shops and admitted that they have not called any mediators near local inhabitants.

16) Actually pw1 seized the property from the accused on 03.03.2017 at 8.45 A.M., due to non producing valid licence pw1 apprehended the accused inturn pw1 produced the accused along with the seized property, further pw1 handed over the accused, along with seized property. The pw1 said in his chief examination he drawn the sample of one bottle from seized property for sending chemical anylasis and after that he send the accused to Hon'ble court and also he sent the seized samples to chmical anylasis without producing the seized property

before court and not send the property through court of law, but prosecution

through PW1 send the seized property for analysis, here PW1 is the detector of the case and the complainant of the case and done entire investigation

17) As per sec 100cl(5)Cr.P.C The search shall be made as mentioned in sec.100cl(4)Cr.P.C.and a list of all things in the course of such search found shall be prepared and obtained the mediators signatures and witneese signatures along with the person signature from whose possession seized the suspect property, and copy of the list of seized property has to delivered to the person from whose possession seized the suspected property. But in the present case in hand the

pw1 drawn the samples in Prohibiton & Excise police station, Piler

without the presence of pw2 and accused for identifying the property

whether he seized the same property in which pw1 drawn samples, for

C.C.351/2018 R.M.S.V confrontation, there is no evidence to prove that whether pw1 drawn the samples from the property which was produced by pw1 or not and pw1 also not followed the mandatory procedure as enshrined in Sec.165 cl (5)CrP.C.

18) As the accused is not having any valid licence ,the same was not proved by prosecution.

To establish the prosecution case, the prosecution adduced the evidene of P.Ws 1 to P.W.3 among them P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the official witnesses and P.W.2 is the mediator for arrest and seizure mahazarnama. Except P.W.1 and P.W.3 evidence, nothing was elicited from the evidence of P.W.2 for the offence alleged against the accused under Section 34(a) of A.P Prohibition & Excise Act, 1968 and hence the prosecution fails to prove the offence alleged against the accused with cogent and corroborative evidence. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

18]In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 34(a)of A.P.Excise Act and the accused is acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed by Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of December, 2018.)

Junior Civil Judge, Piler. FAC, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW.1: B.Jayashankar, Sub Inspector of Police. NIL PW.2: G.Lakshmipathy P.W.3: P.S.S.V.Prasad, Constable.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Defence

C.C.351/2018 R.M.S.V

Ex:P1: Panchanama, dt.03.03.2017. NIL Ex.P2: F.I.R in Cr.No.47/2017. Ex:P3: Analysis report. Ex:P4: Attested copy of destruction proceedings. Ex.P5: Attested copy of destruction panchanama. Ex.P6: Signature of P.W.2 on panchanama, dt.03.03.2017. Ex.P.7: Signature of P.w.3 on Ex.P.1.

MOs marked on behalf of

Prosecution Defence

Nil Nil

Junior Civil Judge, Piler. FAC, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler.