Sri G. Suresh Babu

C.C.347 of 2017 1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAPETA KOTHAPETA

Present: Present: Sri G Suresh Babu, Sri G Suresh Babu,

Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, RazoleJunior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole FAC/Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta FAC/Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta 

Tuesday, this the 22ndTuesday, this the 22nd day of December, 2020 day of December, 2020

CC.No.347/2017 CC.No.347/2017

Cr.No. 63/2017 of Kothapeta Police Station Cr.No. 63/2017 of Kothapeta Police Station Between:

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kothapeta P.S.,...Complainant

And

Bonu Ramesh S/o Narayana, 31 years, SC Mala,

Kothapeta, Kapavaram village of Kovvur mandal,...Accused

Driver of Lorry AP07 TU 6148.

This case is coming on 18.12.2020 before me for Arguments in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri.SY Ratnam and Sri S Kasi Visweswara Rao, Advocates for the accused and upon hearing the arguments having stood over to this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Kothapeta Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.63/2017 for the offence Under Sec.337, 304­A Indian Penal Code (in short herein after called “IPC”) alleging as follows: 

That on 27.03.2017 at about 10.00 p.m., after completion of duty of PW.1, his brother/deceased Sunkara Bulli Raja Rao came to the shop of PW.1, both left on the motorcycle of deceased to his house and the vehicle was ridden by deceased, when both reached to

Golakotivaripalem village a lorry which was infront of them applied sudden breaks rashly and negligently without observing any traffic rules and signals and resulting PW.1 sustained injuries over his neck, chest, etc and deceased sustained severe head injury and shifted them in 108

Ambulance to KIMS Hospital, Amalapuram for treatment and doctors declared Sunkara Bulli

Raja Rao has died. Basing on the statement of PW.1(LW.1) , LW.15 (PW.4) registered the case in

Cr. No.63/2017 under section 337, 304­A of IPC and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he examined witnesses and recorded their statements, examined scene of offence and drafted scene observation report, prepared rough sketch and held inquest over the dead body of deceased at KIMS hospital, Amalapuram. LW.12 (Sri.V.S.S. Bogendra), Motor

Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport office, Amalapuram who inspected the crime vehicle i.e.

lorry bearing Registration No.AP07 TU 6148 issued his report and opined that the accident was

C.C.347 of 2017 2 occurred not due to any mechanical defects. LW.13 Dr V Narayana Raju, Causality Medical

Officer, KIMS Hospital, Amalapuram issued wound certificate of PW.1, LW.14 Dr SS Amarendra

Baby, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Amalapuram issued Post Mortem Examination report of deceased, opining the deceased appears to have died due to internal cerebral bleeding with hem­peritoneum with liver injuries. After completion of investigation, LW.15 i.e. Pw.4 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under section 337, 304­A of IPC. Hence the charge.

2.The case was taken on file for the offence U/s.304­A, 337 IPC against the accused. 

3.When the accused appeared before the Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.304­A, 337 IPC and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claims for trial.

5. In support of its case the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

( On 29.10.2020 the learned APP filed a petition under Sec. 311 of Cr PC vide Crl.M.P. 649/2020 to recall the witnesses LWs 4 to 14 and the same was allowed, examining LWs 4, 7,9,13, 12 as

PWs 5 to 9 respectively and marked Ex.P.9 – Scene observation Report through PW.7). The remaining list of witnesses were given up by the learned APP.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence. 

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

8. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on considering the entire material on record, now the point for determination before the court is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the case against accused for the offences under section 337 and 304­A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

C.C.347 of 2017 3

9. POINT: PW.1 (LW.1) Sunkara Subrahmaneswara Rao @ Subrahmanyam is injured cum pillion rider of deceased’s vehicle basing on whose statement the present crime was registered in

Cr No.63/2017, his statement was marked as Ex.P.1, stating the facts of the above case that he along with deceased while proceeding on motorcycle, hit the back side of lorry due to application of sudden breaks by the lorry driver with rash and negligent manner and sustained injuries on his person and death of deceased was occurred. LW.2 and LW.3 namely Golakoti Satyanarayana and Kata Sheshu Rao were examined as PWs 2 and 3 who are nearer to the scene of offence on the alleged date of offence who deposed in favour of the prosecution and corroborated with the evidence of PW.1. PW.4 (LW15) Sri KM Joshi, SI of Police who registered the case, received

Hospital Intimation (Ex.P.3), prepared Rough sketch (Ex.P4), recorded statement of the witnesses, conducted Inquest over the dead body of deceased (Ex.P5), received Post Mortem

Examination Report (Ex.P6), Wound Certificate (Ex.P7) and Motor Vehicle Inspector Report (Ex.P8) and laid charge sheet. 

10.LW.1 Sunkara Subrahmaneswara Rao was examined as PW.1 who deposed that the accident in this case took place about two years back at 10.30 a.m., at Golakotivaripalem. While himself and deceased were proceeding on motorcycle towards Amalapuram and when they reached near Golakotivaripalem a lorry which was proceeding infront of them suddenly applied break, due to which deceased hit the said lorry on the back side, and sustained injuries on his person and also sustained injuries of PW.1 on the back side of the neck and right shoulder. PW.1 further deposed that they were shifted to KIMS hospital in 108 Ambulance and on the next day he came to know that the deceased succumbed to the injuries and he deposed that lorry number is APTU6148 and also stated that the accident took place due to the negligent act of the driver of the above said lorry but he cannot see the driver of the said lorry. Further he deposed that the police recorded his statement and later he was examined and his statement was recorded.

During the course of cross examination, he admitted that near the accident spot there are some shopping establishments and generally people getting down from the bridge used to apply sudden break. He denied that the deceased hit the lorry on its back side in a drunken state and only due to the negligence of the deceased the accident took place and but not due to applying of sudden break by the driver of the lorry and the rest of the cross examination was focused on denials.

C.C.347 of 2017 4

11.LW.2 Golakoti Satyanarayana was examined as PW.2 who deposed that the accident took place on 23.07.2017 at about 10.30 p.m., infront of his house. The driver of the crime vehicle applied sudden break due to which the two wheeler motorcycle hit the said lorry. But he did not stated the registration number of the said lorry but he identified the driver of the lorry and deposed that the accident in this case took place due to the negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle. In his cross examination, PW.2 admitted that there was a Vantena (bridge) situated in Golakotivaripalem which is abutting the road and he denied the suggestion that he was sleeping by the time of accident. He also denied that he is deposing false evidence and only due to negligence of PW.1 and deceased the accident took place but not due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle, the rest of the cross examination was focused on denials.

12.LW.3 Kata Shesha Rao was examined as PW.3 who corroborated the evidence of PW.2 by stating that accident was occurred on 27.03.2017 at about 10.00 p.m., infront of his shop. The driver has applied sudden breaks in turn the persons who were travelling on motorcycle hit the lorry on the back side of the lorry and fell down on the ground and also stated that the persons who were travelling on the two wheeler sustained injuries on their persons. When he telephoned to 108 ambulance, injured were shifted to hospital in the said Ambulance but he did not stated the number of the lorry. During the cross examination of PW.3, he stated that police have not seized any document relating to his shop. He admitted that at the time of accident no vehicles were coming opposite to the lorry and the road is very wider at the accident spot. He denied that due to self negligence of the Pw.1 and deceased the accident took place but not by negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle.

13.PW.4 Sri K.M.Joshi i.e., LW.15, SI of Police deposed that on 28.03.2017 on receipt of information he went to KIMS hospital Amalapuram, recorded the statement of PW.1 and basing on the said statement he registered the present case in Cr.No.63/2017 for the offences under section 337, 304­A of IPC and he deposed about his part of investigation, namely, he recorded the statements of witnesses, held Inquest over the deceased, secured Post Mortem Examination report, Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, prepared Rough Sketch at the scene of offence and laying of charge sheet. During the course of cross examination of PW.4, he admitted that witnesses did not state the exact place of accident, he did not took photographs of scene of

C.C.347 of 2017 5 offence, he did not find any skid marks of the crime vehicle at the accident spot, one has to drive the vehicle slowly near Golakotipalem Vantena as it is very curve and accident spot the road is very wider and also he admitted that he did not seize any document from PW3 that PW.3 owned a shop by the side of the scene of offence. He also admitted that he did not mentioned any directions of the road on his Rough Sketch (Ex.P4) and the accident spot is shown in the canal in

Ex.P.4 Rough Sketch and he denied that the accused is nothing to do with the accident in this case.

14.PW.5 Sunkara Nagendra has deposed that while he was at Ambajipeta which is about 15

Kms from the scene of offence, he came to know about the accident at Golakotivaripalem and visited scene of offence and found PW.1 and deceased who were shifted to KIMS hospital and he do not know the number of lorry. On the same lines, PW.6 K Venkat Naidu has deposed and corroborated with PW.5.

15.PW.7 K Bulli Abbai @ Thammaiah, VRO through whom scene observation report (Ex.P.9) was marked. He deposed that at the time of inquest relatives of the deceased were present and he admitted in his cross examined they did not obtained signatures of Ex.P.9 from the persons who were present at the scene of offence and the rest of the cross examination was focused on the denials.

16. PW.8, Dr V Narayana Raju, who treated PW.1 and issued ExP.7 wound certificate and opined injuries sustained by PW.1 were of simple in nature and it came to know through PW.1 the accident took place due to collusion between Bike and Lorry. Further he deposed that deceased was brought dead and referred to the concerned doctor.

17.PW9 B Satya Sri Bogendra, Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle

AP07TU 6148 inspected the vehicle at Kothapeta police station and he opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects and to that effect he issued Ex.P,.8 M.V.I Report and in his cross examination he stated that maximum permissible speed limit is 60 km per hour and it should be maintained 50 feet distance between two vehicles.

C.C.347 of 2017 6

18.To proceed further, this court considers, following have to be proved by the prosecution to establish its case:

i) There must be some accident causing injury or death; ii) Such injury or death should have been caused by the accused iii) Such act should amount to rashness or negligence.

From the evidence of PW.2 the accused was identified as the driver of crime vehicle in his chief examination, and also during the cross examination of PW.1 the learned counsel suggested “it is not true to suggest that the accident in this case took place only due to the negligence of deceased only and not on applying sudden break by the driver of the lorry”, and also during the cross examination of PW.2 the learned counsel suggested “It is true to suggest that due to negligence of

PW.1 and deceased only the accident in this case took place and not the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle”, which infers from the above that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence the prosecution has proved that the accused was the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of the offence. 

PW.1 has proved that he sustained injuries in the accident and the same was corroborated by wound certificate which was marked as Ex.P.7 . Further the death of the deceased was proved through Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 viz., Inquest Report and Post Mortem Certificate which were marked through PW.4.

19.To prove the act of rashness of negligence this court found that through the evidence of

PW.1, PW.2 , PW.3 the driver of lorry have applied sudden breaks and due to which victims have hit on the back side of the lorry. Further during the cross examination of PW.1, he admitted that generally the people getting down from bridge used to apply sudden break and a danger light on the back side will glow when sudden breaks were applied. Further, through PW.3 learned counsel for accused elicited that at the time of the accident no vehicles are coming opposite to the lorry and road is also wider at the accident spot and also through PW.4 it was elicited that no skid marks of the crime vehicle were found at the accident spot which if it were the act of rash or negligent driving would have occurred if breaks were applied suddenly and as there were no vehicles coming on opposite direction of the crime vehicle there would be no application of breaks suddenly on the part of the accused. So the accused, as contended by learned defence

C.C.347 of 2017 7 counsel that the accused has not driven his vehicle not either in rash or negligent manner, inclined by this court.

20.Now leaned APP contends that it has established its case through PW.1 which was corroborated by evidence of PW.2 and PW.3. Hence prayed to convict the accused. It was the contention of the learned defence counsel that there is no dispute with regard to death of deceased and sustaining of injuries of PW.1 there is no part of negligence or rashness on the part of accused as there is knowledge in people getting down from the bridge used to apply sudden breaks and there is indication of danger light on the back side of the vehicle if breaks were applied. Further, that the accident was took place at 10.30 a.m., from the evidence of PW.1 but from Ex,P.1, Ex.P.2 and evidence of PW.2 and Pw.3 its found that the accident was took place at 10.30 p.m., on 27.03.2017 and PW2 deposed that the accident was took place on 23.07.2017 in his chief examination. Hence as contended by defence counsel that prosecution has failed its case in proving the death of deceased Sunkara Bulli Raja rao and sustained injuries of PW.1 through the act of rashness or negligence on the part of accused. Further he contended that as there was no skid marks of crime vehicle at the scene of offence which was elicited from cross examination of PW.4 and also Ex.P.4 Rough Sketch, there is no negligent part of the accused that he applied breaks suddenly which occurred injuries on the death of deceased which proves that there was negligence on the part of deceased and victim. Though this court is not inclined to find about the negligence or rashness on the part of victims, this court only inclines to consider the act of accused at this stage. After perusing the complete record and evidence of witnesses, this court found that on 27.03.2017 while PW.1 and deceased proceeding to their house to

Amalapuram at Golakotivaripalem, they hit the lorry on back side and sustained severe injuries on their persons and sustained injury of PW.1 and deceased succumbed to injuries. There is no dispute with regard to death of deceased and sustaining injuries of PW.1, and also established that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle while denying the accused was the driver of crime vehicle the learned defence counsel through his suggestions elicited that the driver of the crime vehicle was accused. Further nothing was elicited by the prosecution through PW.5 to 9 though they were recalled by learned APP as contended by defence counsel and also the same is found by this court except sustaining injuries of PW.1 and proving of death of deceased which is not disputed by learned counsel for defence. From the above discussion this court inclines to the

C.C.347 of 2017 8 contentions of the learned defence counsel that accused has not drove his vehicle rashly or negligently as from the evidence of PW.4 has admitted in his cross examination that there was no skid marks of the crime vehicle on the scene of offence which infers that there was no application of sudden breaks of lorry in the scene of offence and on the alleged date victims were proceeding on two wheeler and hit the lorry on the back side and sustained injuries were not amounts to act of negligence or rashness on the part of the accused. Further, the contradictions with regard to date of offence and time of offence i.e., 10.00 a.m., as deposed by PW.1, 23.07.2017 as deposed by PW.2 which touches the core case of the prosecution which follows benefit of doubt can be extended to accused.

21.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offences U/sec.304­A, 337 IPC.

Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this date.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of December, 2020. Sd/G Suresh Babu FAC/Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution : For Defence : PW.1: S Subrahmanyeswara Rao (LW1)None PW.2: G Satyanarayana ((LW2) PW.3: K Sesha Rao (LW3) PW.4: K.M.Joshi (LW15) PW.5: Sunkara Nagendra (LW.4) (Witness recalled vide Crl.M.P.649/2020 dt 19.11.2020) PW.6: K Venkata naidu (LW.7) (Witness recalled vide Crl.M.P.649/2020 dt 19.11.2020) PW.7: K Bulli Abbai @ Thammaiah (Witness recalled vide Crl.M.P.649/2020 dt 19.11.2020) PW.8 Dr V Narayana Raju (LW.13) (Witness recalled vide Crl.M.P.649/2020 dt 19.11.2020) PW.9 B Sathya Sri Bogendra (LW.12) (Witness recalled vide Crl.M.P.649/2020 dt 19.11.2020)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 : Statement of PW.1 dt 28.03.2017 Ex.P2 : First Information Report dt 28.03.2017 Ex.P3 : Hospital Intimation dt 28.03.2017 Ex.P4 : Rough sketch dt 28.03.2017

C.C.347 of 2017 9

Ex.P5 : Inquest Report dt 28.03.2017 Ex.P6 : Post Mortem Examination Report dt 12.04.2017 Ex.P7 : Wound Certificate of PW.1 dt 13.04.2017 Ex.P8 : Motor Vehicle Inspector Report dt 31.03.2017 Ex.P9 : Scene observation report dt 03.12.2020

For defence : ­ NIL ­

Sd/G Suresh Babu FAC/Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta.

//True copy // (FAC) J.F.C.M Kothapeta

C.C.347 of 2017 10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Razole, FAC/Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, KothapetaJunior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta 

CC.No.347/2017

Date of offence:27.03.2017 Complaint:28.03.2017 Apprehension/release of :30.03.2017 accused Commencement of trial:30.01.2020 Closing of trial :12.03.2020 Sentence or order:22­12­2020 Reasons for delay:Due to COVID­19 Name of the complainant:Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapeta Police Station.

Name of the accused :Bonu Ramesh S/o Narayana, 31 years, SC Mala, Kothapeta, Kapavaram village of Kovvur mandal, Driver of Lorry AP07 TU 6148.

Offence:Sec.304­A, 337 IPC Plea of the Accused :Not guilty Finding:Not guilty

 : J U D G M E N T :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for offences U/sec.304­A, 337 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this date. Sd/G Suresh Babu FAC/Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate (Prl. Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry. 

//True copy // (FAC)J.F.C.M Kothapeta

1C.C. 746/2023

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE.

Present: Sri G Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

CC.No.746/2023CC.No.746/2023

Cr.No.122/2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Razole.Cr.No.122/2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Razole. Between:

State : Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Razole....Complainant

And

Ponnamanda Ramaswamy, S/o Gangaraju, A/41 Yrs., R/o Srirampeta, Pasarlapudi village, Mamidikuduru Mandal.

...Accused

This case is presented before me on 25.04.2023 for arguments in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri K.Sudhakar, Advocates for accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Razole Station has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.122/2021 for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 02.11.2021 at about 5.00 p.m., P.W.1/L.W.1-Enforcement Sub-Inspector i/c along with his staff proceeded about the enforcement offences at River bund,

Way of Srirampeta, Pasarlapudi village, Mamidikuduru Mandal found accused is having a bag on his right hand, on suspicion, stopped the person with the help of staff. When P.W.1/L.W.1 asked the person about the bag and he told liquor bottles are in it. Then P.W.1/L.W.1 deputed one of the staff members to secure mediators and after few minutes he came back and he told nobody came forward to act as mediators. Then P.W.1/L.W.1 asked the person to open the bag in the presence of staff, found in possession of liquor bottles. On observing the bottles 2C.C. 746/2023 the HEAls are tearing up. Those belong to (1) Green Choice Superior whisky 180 ml., bottles 5, (2) Hyderabad Blue superior whisky 180 ml., bottles 5, (3) Classic

Blue Finest whisky 180 ml., bottles-3 (Duty Paid Liquor) then asked about the person he revealed his particulars as noted charge sheet and P.W.1/L.W.1 explained to him as he committed an offence for having more than three bottles duty paid liquor bottles and selling more than MRP rates, u/s 34(a) of AP Excise

Act and arrested the accused, seized the property and took sample bottles from the above property for chemical analysis purposes under cover of special report.

Then P.W.1/L.W.1 registered a case in Cr.No.122/2021 for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and accused was remanded to judicial custody.

Later P.W.1/LW.1 sent a sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and on analyzing the same, the Examiner opined the sample is Indian Made Liquor and P.W.2/L.W.3 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”)

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act framed against the accused read over and explained to accused in Telugu

U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.Os.1 to 3.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which accused denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents were marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

3C.C. 746/2023

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

Prosecution examined LW.1 and LW.3 as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and also marked M.Os.1 to 3.

11. The evidence of PW.1 deposed that on 02.11.2021 at about 5-00 PM while himself along with staff members reached Pasarlapudi village, Godavari bank, there they found one person with one bag in his right hand and in suspicious circumstances they stopped him and on questioning he opened the bag and found liquor bottles. Then he deputed his staff i.e. LW.2-M.Sreelakshmi for securing mediators but in vain. Then he opened the bag and found liquor bottles- 13 on verification he found Green choice superior whiskey 180 ml bottles-5,

Hyderabad blue superior whiskey 180 ml bottles-5, Classic blue finest whiskey 180 ml bottles-3. Then on questioning him, accused reveled his particulars as in charge sheet. Then he arrested the accused. As there are no mediators his staff i.e. LW.2 drafted the special report to his dictation. Later he drawn one sample bottles from each variety and affixed slips having signatures of himself, LW.2 and accused.

Ex.P-1 is Special report having signatures of himself, LW.2 and accused. MO.1 is

Green choice superior whiskey 180 ml bottle-1, MO.2 is Hyderabad blue superior whiskey 180 ml bottle-1, MO.3 is Classic blue finest whiskey 180 ml bottle-1. Then they left the scene of offence along with accused, contraband and went to SEB police Station, Razole. Basing on the Ex.P-1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.122/2021 U/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Ex.P-2 is the FIR. He forwarded the original FIR to the Hon'ble Court and copies to all his superior officers. He forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand. Witness identified the accused who is standing in the dock of the court hall.

12. PW.2 in his evidence deposed that he took up further investigation from

P.W.1 and verified the same. He forwarded the sample for chemical analysis through Ex.P.3 letter of advice and received Ex.P.4 analysis report. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against accused for the offence under Section 34-A of AP Excise Act.

4C.C. 746/2023

13. Now the learned APP contended basing on the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused it proved case against the accused and hence may convict the accused. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that except seizure of contraband nothing was elicited by the prosecution which ought to have been proved by complying the provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C., when the alleged scene of offence is having more public movement and police did not try to secure VRO or VRA to act as mediators as such the prosecution had miserably failed to comply the statutory provision hence, prays to acquit the accused.

14. In the light of evidence on hand, the contentions of both counsels, this

Court found that though the alleged scene of offence is having more public movement and police did not try to secure VRO or VRA to act as mediators and failed to comply the mandatory provision of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., as such this court is of firm opinion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case and now learned counsel for accused prays to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused, which this Court inclines to the contentions of learned defence counsel.

At this juncture, learned counsel for accused relied upon Karolla Chinnaiah and another Vs State of Andhra Pradesh decided in Andhra pradesh High Court, reported in 2014(2) ALD (Crl.) 641, wherein his lordship Sri Justice S Ravi

Kumar Garu, held at para No.6:

“....Here this P.W.1 is the complainant himself and also investigating officer. P.W.3 has not conducted any investigation, he simply filed charge sheet, after receipt of analyst report. So as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, convicting the revision petitioners for a grave offence, which has got minimum sentence, on the sole self- serving testimony of defacto-complainant-cum- investigating officer is not at all correct. Particularly, when the evidence of P.W.1 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his search on 05-07-2002, both trial Court and appellate Court have grossly erred in accepting the evidence of P.W.1, without any corroboration. In fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court, but the learned trial Judge referring to Section 134 of Evidence Act observed that as there is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony should be free from all doubts highly trustworthy and convincing. But here this P.W.1 being the complainant and investigating officer is naturally interested in getting a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness and he cannot be compared on par with a proseuctorix in a rape case or a 5C.C. 746/2023 victim in an offence of outraging the modesty of woman. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate Court have committed error in relying on solitary testimony of P.W.1 for convicting the revision petitioners and therefore, the judgments of Courts below are liable to be set aside.”

15.For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the opinion that as the investigating officer has not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed U/s.100 of Cr.P.C., by not securing any independent witness to act as Mediator for the above purpose, when the when the alleged scene of offence is having public movement, and police did not try to secure VRO or VRA to act as mediators, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. More over, the evidence of

P.W.2 clearly shows that there is no incriminating evidence available except filing the charge sheet. Hence, this Court inclined to the contentions of defence counsel that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt except the sample consists of Indian Made Liquor. Accordingly, the POINT is determined in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. MO.1 is

Green choice superior whiskey 180 ml bottle-1, MO.2 is Hyderabad blue superior whiskey 180 ml bottle-1, MO.3 is Classic blue finest whiskey 180 ml bottle-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

6C.C. 746/2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : 25-04-2023: V.Sivaramaraju, in-charge SHO, SEB, Razole. P.W.2 : 25-04-2023: G.Raghu, Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Razole.

DEFENCE: -None- EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF: PROSECUTION : Ex.P1: 02.11.2021:Special Report Ex.P2: 02.11.2021:First Information Report in Cr.No.122/2021 Ex.P3: 02.11.2021: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: 01.02.2022: Analysis report

DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Green choice superior whiskey 180 ml bottle-1

MO.2: Hyderabad blue superior whiskey 180 ml bottle-1

MO.3: Classic blue finest whiskey 180 ml bottle-1

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole. // True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

7C.C. 746/2023

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge– Cum–Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

CC.No.746/2023

Date of offence:02.11.2021

Complaint:02.11.2021

Apprehension of accused:02.11.2021

Commencement of trial:25.04.2023

Closing of trial :25.04.2023

Sentence or order:25.04.2023

Reasons for delay:No Delay

Name of the complainant:Special Enforcement Bureau Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Razole.

Name of the accused :Ponnamanda Ramaswamy, S/o Gangaraju, A/41 Yrs., R/o Srirampeta, Pasarlapudi village, Mamidikuduru Mandal. Offence:Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act

Plea of the Accused :Not guilty

Finding:Not guilty ::J U D G M E N T::

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. MO.1 is Green choice superior whiskey 180 ml bottle-1, MO.2 is Hyderabad blue superior whiskey 180 ml bottle-1, MO.3 is Classic blue finest whisky 180 ml bottle-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate (Prl. Asst Sessions Judge), Rajahmahendravaram.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

1 C.C. 756/2023

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE.

Present: Sri G Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

CC.No.756/2023CC.No.756/2023

Cr.No.224/2020 in Sakhinetipalli Police StationCr.No.224/2020 in Sakhinetipalli Police Station Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Sakhinetipalli Police Station....Complainant

And

Sunkara Gangabhavani, W/o Bala Raju, Near Vinayaka temple, Sakhinetipalli Lanka (v)

Sakhinetipalli (M)....Accused

This case is presented before me on 25.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Ch.Prasada Rao, Advocate for accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sakhinetipalli Police Station has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.224/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 15.10.2020 at about 7.00 PM, on receipt of credible information,

P.W.2/L.W.6 along with his staff and mediators went to Vinayaka Temple,

Sakhinetipalli Lanka village, Sakhinetipalli Mandal, there one person tried to skulk away from the place but the said person was detained and on questioning, he voluntarily confessed his details and further confessed that he is purchasing and selling the IMFL liquor bottles for his illicit gain. On verification of the bag, they found liquor bottles i.e. (1) SNJ Super Strong Beer 650 ml., bottles-10 (10xRs.190/-), (2) SNJ Lion No.1 whisky 180 ml., 10 bottles (10xRs.150/-), (3) 9

Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottles-6 (10xRs.180/-), total worth of Rs.4480/- and seized the same from the possession of accused and arrested him under cover of 2 C.C. 756/2023 mediators report. Basing on mediators report, a case in Cr.No.224/2020 for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act by P.W.2/L.W.6 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.2/L.W.6 examined L.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements and produced the accused before the Court for remand and later accused was enlarged on bail. P.W.2/L.W.6 sent sample bottles to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis and received analysis report, the Examiner opined the sample is Indian Made Liquor and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”)

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act framed against the accused read over and explained to accused in Telugu

U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.Os.1 to 3.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which accused denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents were marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:- 3 C.C. 756/2023

Prosecution examined LW.4 and L.W.6 as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and also marked M.Os.1 to 3. P.W.1 deposed that on 15.10.2020 at about 7.00 PM, himself, L.W.5-VRA and L.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.2/L.W.6 and staff proceeded to Vinayaka Temple, Sakhinetipalli Lanka there they found one woman with hand bag and P.W.2/L.W.6 questioned her she revealed her particulars and found liquor bottles-26 i.e. (1) SNJ Super Strong Beer 650 ml., bottles-10, (2) SNJ Lion NO.1 whisky 180 ml., 10 bottles, (3) 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottles-6 and seized the contraband. He drafted Ex.P.1 mediators report.

M.O.1 is SNJ Super Strong Beer 650 ml., bottle-1, M.O.2 is SNJ Lion No.1 whisky 180 ml., bottle-1, M.O.3 is 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottle-1.

11. The evidence of P.W.2 deposed that on 15.10.2020 at about 6.30 PM, he received credible information about the illegal sale of liquor near Vinayaka temple,

Three road junction, Sakhinetipalli Lanka village, then he secured LWs.1 to 3 and mediators i.e. PW.1 and LW.5-Thenneti Dasu at his police station and they all were proceeded to above said place in our jeep. There they found one female person having one bag, then on questioning she gave her identity particulars as in charge sheet and replied that the bag contains liquor bottles, on verification he found in her bag liquor bottles i.e. (1) SNJ Super Strong Beer 650 ml., bottles-10, (2) SNJ Lion NO.1 whisky 180 ml., 10 bottles, (3) 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottles-6. Thereafter he drawn one sample bottles from each variety for chemical analysis purpose and affixed slips having signatures of himself, mediators, and accused on the seized contraband. PW.1 drafted mediator report was already marked. MO.1 to 3 were already marked. Thereafter they returned to Sakhinetipalli police station along with accused and contraband. Basing on the Ex.P-1, he registered a case in Cr.No.224/2020 U/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Ex.P-2 is the

FIR. He forwarded the original FIR to the Hon'ble Court and copies to all his superior officers. Later he examined my staff i.e. LW.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. Later he forwarded the accused for judicial remand. Thereafter, he forwarded the lifted samples to the analyst under the letter of advice. Ex.P-3 is the letter of advice. He received analysis report opining it contains Indian Made

Liquor. Ex.P-4 is analysis report, after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet. Witness identified the accused who is standing in the dock of the court hall.

4 C.C. 756/2023

12. Now, the learned APP contended that the prosecution has proved their case through evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on 15.10.2020 the accused was arrested having in possession of liquor bottles and mediators report has been drafted through independent witness i.e. P.W.1 and as such accused is liable for conviction having in possession of liquor bottles beyond permissible limits without any license. Per contra, learned counsel for accused contended that the scene of offence is situated near Vinayakaswamy temple is busy locality and surrounded with residential houses and hotels and police did not secure any local persons to act as mediators as such the prosecution failed to secure local inhabitants and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby he would be entitled for acquittal.

13. On perusing the entire evidence on record apart from Exhibits marked on prosecution side and considering the contentions of learned counsels on both the sides, this court found that on 15.10.2020 P.W.2/SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli PS received information and secured his staff along with P.W.1 and L.W.4 mediators proceeded to Sakhinetipallilanka village and found liquor bottles in the possession of accused, P.W.1 drafted mediators report on the spot, which was mostly corroborated by the P.W.1 who accompanied P.W.2 for the alleged raid and who drafted Ex.P.1 mediators report and identified the accused in the court hall.

14. However, on further perusing the record from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, as rightly contended by learned counsel for accused, it is found in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, except to cover the latches in the investigation police did not obtain or secure the local inhabitants to act as mediators when it was admitted by the witnesses that the alleged scene of offence is busy locality.

Hence it can be concluded that the police did not comply the provisions of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., which are mandatory.

15. From the above discussion, after considering the contentions of both sides, there is no other go to this court except enlarging benefit of doubt to the accused, as prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the contention of counsel for accused seems to be proper to enlarge benefit of doubt to the accused when the police ought to have comply the mandatory provisions of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the POINT is determined in 5 C.C. 756/2023 favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and she is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. (1) SNJ

Super Strong Beer 650 ml., bottles-10, (2) SNJ Lion NO.1 whisky 180 ml., bottle-1, (3) 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottle-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF : PROSECUTION :DEFENCE: P.W.1 : 21-02-2023: Gorla Raju -None- P.W.2 : 25-04-2023: Ch.Gopala Krishna, SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli PS.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF: PROSECUTION : Ex.P1: 15.10.2020:Mediators Report Ex.P2: 15.10.2020:First Information Report in Cr.No.224/2020 Ex.P3: 15.10.2020:Letter of Advice Ex.P4: 29.11.2020:Analysis report

DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: SNJ Super Strong Beer 650 ml., bottle-1 M.O.2: SNJ Lion NO.1 whisky 180 ml., bottles-1 M.O.3: 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottles-1

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole. // True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

6 C.C. 756/2023

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge– Cum–Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

CC.No.756/2023

Date of offence:15.10.2020

Complaint:15.10.2020

Apprehension of accused:15.10.2020

Commencement of trial:21.02.2023

Closing of trial :25.04.2023

Sentence or order:25.04.2023

Reasons for delay:No Delay

Name of the complainant:SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli Police Station

Name of the accused :Sunkara Gangabhavani, W/o Balaraju, 36 Yrs., C/Kapu, Near Vinayaka temple, Sakhinetipalli Lanka, Sakhinetipalli Mandal. Offence:Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act

Plea of the Accused :Not guilty

Finding:Not guilty ::J U D G M E N T::

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and she is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. (1) SNJ Super Strong Beer 650 ml., bottle-1, (2) SNJ Lion NO.1 whisky 180 ml., bottle-1, (3) 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottle-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate (Prl. Asst Sessions Judge), Rajahmahendravaram.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

1 C.C. 435/2022

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE.

Present: Sri G Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

CC.No.435/2022CC.No.435/2022

Cr.No.125/2021 in Sakhinetipalli Police StationCr.No.125/2021 in Sakhinetipalli Police Station Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Sakhinetipalli Police Station....Complainant

And

Sunkara Gangabhavani, W/o Balaraju, 36 Yrs., Near Vinayaka temple, Sakhinetipalli Lanka, Sakhinetipalli Mandal.

...Accused

This case is presented before me on 25.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Ch.Prasada Rao, Advocate for accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sakhinetipalli Police Station has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.125/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 31.05.2021 at about 8.00 AM, on receipt of credible information,

P.W.2/L.W.5 along with his staff and mediators went to Vinayaka Temple,

Sakhinetipalli Lanka village, Sakhinetipalli Mandal, there one person tried to skulk away from the place but the said person was detained and on questioning, he voluntarily confessed his details and further confessed that he is purchasing and selling the IMFL liquor bottles for his illicit gain. On verification of the bag, they found liquor bottles i.e. (1) Green Choice Superior whisky 180 ml. bottles-7, (2)

Old Timer Deluxe whisky 180 ml., bottle-1, total worth Rs.1,200/- and seized the same from the possession of accused and arrested him under cover of mediators report. Basing on mediators report, a case in Cr.No.125/2021 for the offence 2 C.C. 435/2022 under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act by P.W.2/L.W.5 and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, P.W.2/L.W.5 examined L.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements and produced the accused before the Court for remand and later accused was enlarged on bail. P.W.2/L.W.5 sent sample bottles to the

Chemical Examiner for analysis and received analysis report, the Examiner opined the sample is Indian Made Liquor and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”)

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act framed against the accused read over and explained to accused in Telugu

U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.Os.1 and 2.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which accused denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents were marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

Prosecution examined LW.3 and L.W.5 as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and 3 C.C. 435/2022 marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and also marked M.Os.1 and 2. P.W.1 deposed that on 31.05.2021 at about 8.00 AM, himself, L.W.4-VRA and L.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.2/L.W.5 and staff proceeded to Vinayaka Temple, Sakhinetipalli Lanka there they found one woman with hand bag and P.W.2/L.W.5 questioned her she revealed her particulars and found liquor bottles-8 i.e. (1) Green Choice Superior whisky 180 ml. bottles-7, (2) Old Timer Deluxe whisky 180 ml., bottle-1, seized the contraband. He drafted Ex.P.1 mediators report. M.O.1 is Green Choice Superior whisky 180 ml. bottle-1, M.O.2 is Old Timer Deluxe whisky 180 ml., bottle-1.

11. The evidence of P.W.2 deposed that on 31.05.2021 at about 8.00 AM, he received credible information about the illegal sale of liquor near Vinayaka temple,

Three road junction, Sakhinetipalli Lanka village, then he secured LW.1 and 2 and mediators i.e. PW.1 and LW.4-Thenneti Dasu at his police station and they all were proceeded to above said place in their jeep. There they found one female person having one bag, then on questioning she gave her identity particulars as in charge sheet and replied that the bag contains liquor bottles, on verification he found in her bag liquor bottles i.e. Green choice superior whiskey 180 ml bottles- 7, Old Timer deluxe whiskey 180 ml bottle-1. Total bottles-8. Thereafter he drawn one sample bottles from each variety for chemical analysis purpose and affixed slips having signatures of himself, mediators, and accused on the seized contraband. PW.1 drafted mediator report was already marked. MO.1 and 2 were already marked. Thereafter they returned to Sakhinetipalli police station along with accused and contraband. Basing on the Ex.P-1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.125/2021 U/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Ex.P-2 is the FIR. He forwarded the original FIR to the Hon'ble Court and copies to all his superior officers. Later he examined my staff i.e. LW.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. Later he forwarded the accused for judicial remand. Thereafter, he forwarded the lifted samples to the analyst under the letter of advice. Ex.P-3 is the letter of advice.

He received analysis report opining it contains Indian Made Liquor. Ex.P-4 is analysis report, after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet. Witness identified the accused who is standing in the dock of the court hall.

12. Now, the learned APP contended that the prosecution has proved their case through evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on 31.05.2021 the accused was 4 C.C. 435/2022 arrested having in possession of liquor bottles and mediators report has been drafted through independent witness i.e. P.W.1 and as such accused is liable for conviction having in possession of liquor bottles beyond permissible limits without any license. Per contra, learned counsel for accused contended that the scene of offence is situated near Vinayakaswamy temple is busy locality and surrounded with residential houses and hotels and police did not secure any local persons to act as mediators as such the prosecution failed to secure local inhabitants and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby he would be entitled for acquittal.

13. On perusing the entire evidence on record apart from Exhibits marked on prosecution side and considering the contentions of learned counsels on both the sides, this court found that on 31.05.2021 P.W.2/SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli PS received information and secured his staff along with P.W.1 and L.W.4 mediators proceeded to Sakhinetipallilanka village and found liquor bottles in the possession of accused, P.W.1 drafted mediators report on the spot, which was mostly corroborated by the P.W.1 who accompanied P.W.2 for the alleged raid and who drafted Ex.P.1 mediators report and identified the accused in the court hall.

14. However, on further perusing the record from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, as rightly contended by learned counsel for accused, it is found in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, except to cover the latches in the investigation police did not obtain or secure the local inhabitants to act as mediators when it was admitted by the witnesses that the alleged scene of offence is busy locality.

Hence it can be concluded that the police did not comply the provisions of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., which are mandatory.

15. From the above discussion, after considering the contentions of both sides, there is no other go to this court except enlarging benefit of doubt to the accused, as prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the contention of counsel for accused seems to be proper to enlarge benefit of doubt to the accused when the police ought to have comply the mandatory provisions of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the POINT is determined in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 5 C.C. 435/2022 34(a) of AP Excise Act and she is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. M.O.1 is

Green Choice Superior whisky 180 ml. bottle-1, M.O.2 is Old Timer Deluxe whisky 180 ml., bottle-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF : PROSECUTION :DEFENCE: P.W.1 : 21-02-2023: Gorla Raju -None- P.W.2 : 25-04-2023: Ch.Gopala Krishna, SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli PS.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF: PROSECUTION : Ex.P1: 31.05.2021:Mediators Report Ex.P2: 31.05.2021:First Information Report in Cr.No.125/2021 Ex.P3: 31.05.2021:Letter of Advice Ex.P4: 11.06.2021:Analysis report

DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Green Choice Superior whisky 180 ml. bottle-1 M.O.2: Old Timer Deluxe whisky 180 ml., bottle-1

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

6 C.C. 435/2022

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge– Cum–Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

CC.No.435/2022

Date of offence:31.05.2021

Complaint:31.05.2021

Apprehension of accused:31.05.2021

Commencement of trial:21.02.2023

Closing of trial :25.04.2023

Sentence or order:25.04.2023

Reasons for delay:No Delay

Name of the complainant:SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli Police Station

Name of the accused :Sunkara Gangabhavani, W/o Balaraju, 36 Yrs., C/Kapu, Near Vinayaka temple, Sakhinetipalli Lanka, Sakhinetipalli Mandal. Offence:Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act

Plea of the Accused :Not guilty

Finding:Not guilty ::J U D G M E N T::

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and she is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. M.O.1 is Green Choice Superior whisky 180 ml. bottle-1, M.O.2 is Old Timer Deluxe whisky 180 ml., bottle-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate (Prl. Asst Sessions Judge), Rajahmahendravaram.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

1 C.C. 434/2022

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE.

Present: Sri G Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

CC.No.434/2022CC.No.434/2022

Cr.No.109/2021 in Sakhinetipalli Police StationCr.No.109/2021 in Sakhinetipalli Police Station Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Sakhinetipalli Police Station....Complainant

And

Bellamkonda Satyanarayana, S/o Venkanna (late), 60 Years, Antharvedhikara village,

Sakhinetipalli Mandal....Accused

This case is presented before me on 25.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri G.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sakhinetipalli Police Station has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.109/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 19.04.2021 at about 7.00 AM, on receipt of credible information,

P.W.2/L.W.5 along with his staff and mediators went to cycle shop centre,

Antharvedhikara village, there one person tried to skulk away from the place but the said person was detained and on questioning, he voluntarily confessed his details and further confessed that he is purchasing and selling the IMFL liquor bottles for his illicit gain. On verification of the bag, they found liquor bottles i.e. 9 Sea Horses whisky 150 ml., bottles-15 (each Rs.150/-) total worth of

Rs.2,100/- and seized the same from the possession of accused and arrested him under cover of mediators report. Basing on mediators report, a case in

Cr.No.109/2021 for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act by 2 C.C. 434/2022

P.W.2/L.W.5 and investigated into. During the course of investigation,

P.W.2/L.W.5 examined L.Ws.1 and 2 and recorded their statements and produced the accused before the Court for remand and later accused was enlarged on bail.

P.W.2/L.W.5 sent sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and received analysis report, the Examiner opined the sample is Indian Made Liquor and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to him in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”)

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act framed against the accused read over and explained to accused in Telugu

U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which accused denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents were marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

Prosecution examined LW.3 and L.W.5 as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and 3 C.C. 434/2022 marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and also marked M.O.1. P.W.1 deposed that on 19.04.2021 at about 9.00 AM, himself, L.W.4-VRA and L.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.2/L.W.5 and staff proceeded to cycle shop centre, Antharvedhikara village, there they found one woman with hand bag and P.W.2/L.W.5 questioned her she revealed her particulars and found liquor bottles-8 i.e. 9 Sea Horses liquor bottles-14, seized the contraband. He drafted Ex.P.1 mediators report. M.O.1 is 9 Sea Horses whisky bottle-1.

11. The evidence of P.W.2 deposed that on 19.04.2021 at about 9.00 AM, he received credible information about the illegal sale of liquor near cycle shop centre, four road junction, Antharvedhikara village, then he secured LW.1 and 2 and mediators i.e. PW.1 and LW.4-Gubbala Padmavathi at his police station and they all were proceeded to above said place in our jeep. There they found one female person having one bag, then on questioning she gave her identity particulars as in charge sheet and replied that the bag contains liquor bottles, on verification he found in her bag liquor bottles i.e. 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottles-14. Thereafter he drawn one sample bottles from each variety for chemical analysis purpose and affixed slips having signatures of himself, mediators, and accused on the seized contraband. PW.1 drafted mediator report was already marked. MO.1 and 2 were already marked. Thereafter they returned to

Sakhinetipalli police station along with accused and contraband. Basing on the

Ex.P-1, he registered a case in Cr.No.109/2021 U/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Ex.P-2 is the FIR. He forwarded the original FIR to the Hon'ble Court and copies to all his superior officers. Later he examined my staff i.e. LW.1 and 2 and recorded their statements. Later he forwarded the accused for judicial remand. Thereafter, he forwarded the lifted samples to the analyst under the letter of advice. Ex.P-3 is the letter of advice. He received analysis report opining it contains Indian Made

Liquor. Ex.P-4 is analysis report, after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet. Witness identified the accused who is standing in the dock of the court hall.

12. Now, the learned APP contended that the prosecution has proved their case through evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on 19.04.2021 the accused was arrested having in possession of liquor bottles and mediators report has been drafted through independent witness i.e. P.W.1 and as such accused is liable for 4 C.C. 434/2022 conviction having in possession of liquor bottles beyond permissible limits without any license. Per contra, learned counsel for accused contended that the alleged scene of offence is busy locality having residential houses and shops with public movement and police did not secure any local persons to act as mediators as such the prosecution failed to secure local inhabitants and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby he would be entitled for acquittal.

13. On perusing the entire evidence on record apart from Exhibits marked on prosecution side and considering the contentions of learned counsels on both the sides, this court found that on 19.04.2021 P.W.2/SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli PS received information and secured his staff along with P.W.1 and L.W.4 mediators proceeded to Antervedikara village and found liquor bottles in the possession of accused, P.W.1 drafted mediators report on the spot, which was mostly corroborated by the P.W.1 who accompanied P.W.2 for the alleged raid and who drafted Ex.P.1 mediators report and identified the accused in the court hall.

14. However, on further perusing the record from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, as rightly contended by learned counsel for accused, it is found in the cross examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, except to cover the latches in the investigation police did not obtain or secure the local inhabitants to act as mediators when it was admitted by the witnesses that the alleged scene of offence is busy locality.

Hence it can be concluded that the police did not comply the provisions of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., which are mandatory.

15. From the above discussion, after considering the contentions of both sides, there is no other go to this court except enlarging benefit of doubt to the accused, as prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the contention of counsel for accused seems to be proper to enlarge benefit of doubt to the accused when the police ought to have comply the mandatory provisions of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the POINT is determined in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. M.O.1 is 9 5 C.C. 434/2022

Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottle-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF : PROSECUTION :DEFENCE: P.W.1 : 28-02-2023: B.V.Seetharamarao -None- P.W.2 : 25-04-2023: Ch.Gopala Krishna, SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli PS.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF: PROSECUTION : Ex.P1: 19.04.2021:Mediators Report Ex.P2: 19.04.2021:First Information Report in Cr.No.109/2021 Ex.P3: 19.04.2021:Letter of Advice Ex.P4: 20.05.2021:Analysis report

DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottle-1

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

6 C.C. 434/2022

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Sri G.Suresh Babu, Junior Civil Judge– Cum–Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

CC.No.434/2022

Date of offence:19.04.2021

Complaint:19.04.2021

Apprehension of accused:19.04.2021

Commencement of trial:21.02.2023

Closing of trial :25.04.2023

Sentence or order:25.04.2023

Reasons for delay:No Delay

Name of the complainant:SI of Police, Sakhinetipalli Police Station

Name of the accused :Bellamkonda Satyanarayana, S/o Venkanna (late), 60 Years, C/Kapu, Antharvedhikara village, Sakhinetipalli Mandal. Offence:Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act

Plea of the Accused :Not guilty

Finding:Not guilty ::J U D G M E N T::

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. M.O.1 is 9 Sea Horses whisky 180 ml., bottle-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- G.Suresh Babu

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate (Prl. Asst Sessions Judge), Rajahmahendravaram.

// True Copy //

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Razole.