MS G Vandana

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 321 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G.Vandana,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 321 of 202 6

(Cr.No. 71of 2023 of Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama)

Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Rudrapogu Sobha Rani, W/o. Yesuratnam, 38 years, R/o. Nandigama town and mandal. … Accused

This case presented before me on 14.05.2026 for hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Md.Ameen, Advocate for accused, and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No. 71 /2023 for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “Excise Act”) registered by Sub-Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama, with the following allegations:-

2.The case of prosecution is that:

(a) On 06.06.2023, at about 6-30 AM, on receipt of credible information about selling of liquor bottles, PW1(B.Lakshmi) Sub-Inspector, SEB, Nandigama, secured mediator LW1(P.Sailaja - MSK) and his staff LW3 (M.Ramakrishna- Head

Constable) and after reaching near new bus stand, Nandigama town and mandal, they noticed Accused standing with a mica bag. On enquiry Accused confessed that, the bag consists of liquor bottles. Thereupon, she searched the bag in the presence of

LW1 and LW3, and found 7 bottles of Epic Reserve Classic whisky 180ml each, 2 bottles of Andhra Gold whisky 180ml each and 1 bottle of Haywards Fine whisky 180ml each, without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, and identified as Non duty paid liquor, when questioned, accused has stated that, she had no valid bills for having in possession of the liquor, she purchased the same from

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 321 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.2 nearest Government liquor shops in order to sell it for higher rates. Thereupon, PW1 drawn sample bottles from the property found in possession of accused, sealed it, for sending it to analysis, and also sealed the remaining property, and kept it for safe custody. Then, she prepared a mediator report, and brought the accused along with property under seizure to SEB, Nandigama police station, for further enquiries.

(b) Further basing on the mediator report, PW1 registered a case in

Cr.No. 71/ 2023 U/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act, issued FIR, arrested the accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. Later, she sent samples to FSL examination, and obtained report, later she sent proposals for confiscation of the remaining property, and on receipt of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, the remaining property was destroyed. Having completed the entire investigation, LW.4/

J.Yugandhar Rao, S.I. of Police charge sheeted the accused, for the offence indicated above.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment Act).

4.Accused made her appearance before the Court, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to her.

5.Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment Act)2000, has been framed, read over and explained to her, in Telugu, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Pw.1 and marked

Exs.P1 to P4 and Mos.1 to 3. The contention of the accused is that she was falsely implicated in this case and the police failed to follow the prescribed procedure under

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

7. Accused is examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.Now, the points that arise for determination are:-

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 321 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.3

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediator at the time of seizure?

10. POINT:-

Accused has been charged on the allegation that, she was found in possession of property in question, namely, 7 bottles of Epic Reserve Classic whisky 180ml each, 2 bottles of Andhra Gold whisky 180ml each and 1 bottle of Haywards Fine whisky 180ml each, without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, without any valid license or permit, in violation of the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act, and having noticed the same, PW1 Sub-Inspector, SEB, Nandigama, seized the property, conducted enquiries, along with her team, and registered crime, basing on mediator report, and later, arrested accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused.

Thereafter PW1, sent the samples for chemical examination, and on receipt of the report, she filed final report, and basing on the material gathered by prosecution, accused was put to a questionnaire, explaining the contents of charge, however, her plea is one of total denial.

11. As could be seen from Ex.P1 mediator report, where under, it appears that,

PW1 along with her team said to have noticed the accused with possession of a bag, and on enquiry, it was revealed that, the bag containing liquor bottles, and when enquired, accused has voluntarily confessed that, she purchased the same from the nearest Government shops for her personal gain, for sale in open market at higher price, which made PW1 to seize the property, affected her arrest, for further investigation. It is also evident from the testimony of PW1 that, she conducted the entire enquiries in the presence of LW1, Mahila Police of Anasagaram village, who testifies that, accused was arrested basing on her confession, admitting the offence in her presence, and seized the property in question under Ex.P1, where under she signed. Ex.P2 is FIR. Ex.P3 is Letter of Advice and Ex.P4 is Analysis report. The evidence of LW1, LW3 and LW4 is given up by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor.

12.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that only for statistical purpose, to satisfy their superiors, accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It is

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 321 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.4 also submitted that the scene of offence is a busy area, but despite availability of number of persons at the place of offence, the police team for the obvious reasons known to it, could not secure any independent mediators. It is also her case that the

Excise Sub Inspector (PW-1) did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. Her main submission is that, while making search, the local mediators ought to have been taken, and therefore the evidence on record cannot be acted upon.

13. It is evident from the material on record that, certain contraband/ liquor was seized by PW1 from the alleged possession of accused, on the ground that, she was selling the liquor bottles without any valid license. When the scene of offence is surrounded by residential houses, at the time of enquiries as was admitted by PW1, who detected the crime, should have examined some independent witnesses at the place of offence, however, she did not do so and further has admitted that, she did not issue any notice to LW.1 to act as mediator. That apart, non examination of mediators, certainly would fatal to the case and also rises any amount of suspicion about the enquiries conducted by PW1. Therefore the investigation claimed to be carried out by

Pw1 does not inspire confidence, apart from the fact that no efforts were made by her to secure independent witnesses, which arises a doubt as to the incident in question.

Therefore, this court feels that, when there is no independent mediator, examined, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon basing on the evidence of PW1, who is an Investigating officer.

14.Apparently, the Investigating Agency failed to comply the provisions of section 55 of AP Excise Act, and section 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of search and seizure of the property in question from the possession of accused, and therefore, the entire exercise of enquiries claimed to have been carried out by the investigating agency is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of State v. Arun 2003 (2) SCC 202, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“Where there is no independent witness from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery, the selection of an outsider as a seizure witness necessarily castes doubts.”

15. Admittedly no efforts were made to secure local mediators near new bus

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 321 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.5 stand, Anasagaram, Nandigama town and mandal, where the seizure was made. PW-1 deposed the scene of offence is a busy locality. This statement itself creates a doubt as to whether PW-1 in fact intercepted the accused near the scene of offence, and seized the contraband, because if at all seizure proceedings were conducted there, PW-1 would have been served summons on independent witnesses. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that PW1 did not tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by

Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, this Court bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr. P.C are not followed by the

Excise Officials while seizing the mica bag containing liquor bottles. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal. In the instant case, admittedly, no independent witnesses are figured as mediators, for appreciating the raids conducted by PW1 and his team, and therefore, the interested testimony of PW1 being police officials cannot be acted upon.

16. Furthermore, admittedly, though there were one other excise official who accompanied PW-1, was not examined in this case. The prosecution has not assigned specific reasons for not examining those witnesses and for not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediators. Thus the evidence of PW-1 loses it's credibility.

17. In the case of Mudavath Mothia v. State of A.P 2002 1 ALT Crl. 437 A.P,

Hon’ble Apex court observed that:

the seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It was also observed that when the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become equal to the police officials. When once they become equal to police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings become inadmissible. Therefore, Ex.P-1, seizure panchanama, is hit by Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr. P.C. In the given case excise officials failed to follow the procedure contemplated, as is referred above, therefore the proceedings undertaken by the said agency, do not stand for judicial scrutiny. The special report drafted by PW1 is nothing but the confessional statement

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 321 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.6 of accused, and as such, it is hit by section 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

18.The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. In the case on hand, except the interested testimony of Police Officials, no independent witnesses are examined and the alleged confession of accused, is not based on sound principle of law. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediators in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of PW.1. for want of legal and acceptable evidence.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

MOs.1 to 3 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 : B.Lakshmi (Investigating Officer) - None -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P1 : Mediator Report dt 06.06.2023 - Nil - Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report Material Objects Marked

MO.1 : One sample bottle of Epic Reserve Classic whisky. MO.2 : One sample bottle of Andhra Gold whisky. MO.3 : One sample bottle of Haywards Fine whisky.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 321 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G. Vandana

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 321 of 202 6

(Cr.No. 71of 2023 of Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama)

Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Rudrapogu Sobha Rani, W/o. Yesuratnam, 38 years, R/o. Nandigama town and mandal. ….Accused

Charges under section(s) : 34(a) of A.P Excise Act

Date of occurrence :06.06.2023

Date of report:06.06.2023

Date of appearance:04.05.2026

Date of commencement of trial:14.05.2026

Date of closure of trial:14.05.2026

Date of Judgment :15.05.2026

Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Accused :Found not guilty

Result of the Case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. Mos.1 to 3 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 302 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G.Vandana,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 302 of 202 6

(Cr.No. 178of 2023 of Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama)

Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Gandepalli Satish, S/o. Anjaneyulu, 39 years, C/Rajaka, R/o. Gampalagudem village and mandal. … Accused

This case presented before me on 14.05.2026 for hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Phani Kumar, Advocate for accused, and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No. 178 /2023 for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “Excise Act”) registered by Sub-Inspector of

Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama, with the following allegations:-

2.The case of prosecution is that:

(a) On 02.11.2023, at about 9.30 a.m., on receipt of credible information about selling of liquor bottles, PW1(A.V.V.Srinivasa Rao) Sub-Inspector of Police,

SEB, Nandigama, secured LW1(G.Sujatha -MSK) as mediator and his staff LW3 (M.Yesupadam- Head Constable) and after reaching near Madhira bus stop,

Nandigama town and mandal, they noticed Accused standing with a mica bag. On enquiry Accused confessed that, the bag consists of liquor bottles. Thereupon, he searched the bag in the presence of LW1 and LW3, and found total 4 bottles of Old

Admiral Spl. VSOP brandy 180ml each, 1 bottle of Officers Choice Reserve whisky 180ml each and 1 bottle of Kingfisher strong premium beer 650ml, without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, and identified as Non duty paid liquor, when questioned, accused has stated that, he had no valid bills for having in possession of the liquor, he purchased the same from nearest liquor shops in order to

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 302 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.2 sell it for higher rates. Thereupon, PW1 drawn sample bottles from the property found in possession of accused, sealed it, for sending it to analysis, and also sealed the remaining property, and kept it for safe custody. Then, he prepared a mediator report, and brought the accused along with property under seizure to SEB, Nandigama police station, for further enquiries.

(b) Further basing on the mediator report, PW1 registered a case in

Cr.No. 178 /2023 U/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act, issued FIR, arrested the accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. Later, he sent samples to FSL examination, and obtained report, later he sent proposals for confiscation of the remaining property, and on receipt of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, the remaining property was destroyed. Having completed the entire investigation, he charge sheeted the accused, for the offence indicated above.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment Act).

4.Accused made his appearance before the Court, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to him.

5.Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge U/sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment Act)2000, has been framed, read over and explained to him, in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Pw.1 and marked

Exs.P-1 to P-4 and MOs1 to 3. The contention of the accused is that he was falsely implicated in this case and the police failed to follow the prescribed procedure under

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

7.Accused is examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.Now, the points that arise for determination are:-

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 302 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.3

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediator at the time of seizure?

POINT:-

10. Accused has been charged on the allegation that, he was found in possession of property in question, namely, bottles of Good Day Prestige whisky and 4 bottles of Old

Admiral Spl. VSOP brandy 180ml each, 1 bottle of Officers Choice Reserve whisky 180ml each and 1 bottle of Kingfisher strong premium beer 650ml,without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, without any valid license or permit, in violation of the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act, and having noticed the same,

PW1 Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB, Nandigama, seized the property, conducted enquiries, along with his team, and registered crime, basing on mediator report, and later, arrested accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. Thereafter

PW1, sent the samples for chemical examination, and on receipt of the report, he filed final report, and basing on the material gathered by prosecution, accused was put to a questionnaire, explaining the contents of charge, however, his plea is one of total denial.

11.As could be seen from Ex.P1 mediators report, where under, it appears that, PW1 along with his team said to have noticed the accused with possession of a bag, and on enquiry, it was revealed that, the bag containing liquor bottles, and when enquired, accused has voluntarily confessed that, he purchased the same from nearest liquor shops for his personal gain, for sale in open market at higher price, which made PW1 to seize the property, affected his arrest, for further investigation. It is also evident from the testimony of PW1 that, he conducted the entire enquiries in the presence of LW1, Mahila Police of Nandigama, but she was not examined by the prosecution. The evidence of LW1, LW3 and LW4 is given up by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

12.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that only for statistical purpose, to satisfy their superiors, accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the scene of offence is a busy area, but despite availability of number of persons at the place of offence, the police team for the obvious reasons

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 302 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.4 known to it, could not secure any independent mediators. It is also his case that the

Excise Sub Inspector (PW-1) did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. His main submission is that, while making search, the local mediators ought to have been taken, and therefore the evidence on record cannot be acted upon.

13. It is evident from the material on record that, certain contraband/ liquor was seized by PW1 from the alleged possession of accused, on the ground that, he was selling the liquor bottles without any valid license. When the scene of offence is surrounded by residential houses, at the time of enquiries as was admitted by PW1, who detected the crime, should have examined some independent witnesses at the place of offence, however, he did not do so and further has admitted that, he did not issue any notice to LW.1 to act as mediator. That apart, non examination of mediators, certainly would fatal to the case and also rises any amount of suspicion about the enquiries conducted by PW1. Therefore the investigation claimed to be carried out by

Pw1 does not inspire confidence, apart from the fact that no efforts were made by him to secure independent witnesses, which arises a doubt as to the incident in question.

Therefore, this court feels that, when there is no independent mediator, examined, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon basing on the evidence of PW1, who is an Investigating officer.

14.Apparently, the investigating agency failed to comply the provisions of section 55 of AP Excise Act, and section 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of search and seizure of the property in question from the possession of accused, and therefore, the entire exercise of enquiries claimed to have been carried out by the investigating agency is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of State v. Arun 2003 (2) SCC 202, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“Where there is no independent witness from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery, the selection of an outsider as a seizure witness necessarily castes doubts.”

15. Admittedly no efforts were made to secure local mediators near Madhira bus stop, Nandigama town and mandal, where the seizure was made. PW-1 deposed the scene of offence is a busy locality. This statement itself creates a doubt as to whether PW-1 in fact intercepted the accused near the scene of offence, and seized

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 302 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.5 the contraband, because if at all seizure proceedings were conducted there, PW-1 would have been served summons on independent witnesses. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that PW1 did not tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by

Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr.P.C are not followed by the

Excise Officials while seizing the mica bag containing liquor bottles. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal. In the instant case, admittedly, no independent witnesses are figured as mediators, for appreciating the raids conducted by PW1 and his team, and therefore, the interested testimony of PW1 being police officials cannot be acted upon.

16. Furthermore, admittedly, though there were one other excise official who accompanied PW-1, was not examined in this case. The prosecution has not assigned specific reasons for not examining those witnesses and for not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediators. Thus the evidence of PW-1 loses it's credibility.

17. In the case of Mudavath Mothia v. State of A.P 2002 1 ALT Crl. 437 A.P,

Hon’ble Apex court observed that :

the seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It was also observed that when the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become equal to the police officials. When once they become equal to police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings become inadmissible. Therefore, Ex.P-1, seizure panchanama, is hit by Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr. P.C. In the given case excise officials failed to follow the procedure contemplated, as is referred above, therefore the proceedings undertaken by the said agency, do not stand for judicial scrutiny. The special report drafted by PW1 is nothing but the confessional statement of accused, and as such, it is hit by section 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

18.The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 302 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.6 be reliable. In the case on hand, except the interested testimony of Police Officials, no independent witnesses are examined and the alleged confession of accused, is not based on sound principle of law. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediators in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of PW.1. for want of legal and acceptable evidence.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

MOs.1 to 3 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 : A.V.V.Srinivasa Rao (Investigating Officer) - None -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P1 : Mediator Report dt 02.11.2023 - Nil - Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report Material Objects Marked

MO.1 : One sample bottle of Old Admiral Spl. VSOP brandy. MO.2 : One sample bottle of Officers Choice Reserve whisky. MO.3 : One sample bottle of Kingfisher strong premium beer.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 302 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G. Vandana

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 302 of 202 6

(Cr.No. 178of 2023 of Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama)

Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Gandepalli Satish, S/o. Anjaneyulu, 39 years, C/Rajaka, R/o. Gampalagudem village and mandal. ….Accused

Charges under section(s) : 34(a) of A.P Excise Act

Date of occurrence:02.11.2023

Date of report:02.11.2023

Date of appearance:05.05.2026

Date of commencement of trial:13.05.2026

Date of closure of trial:13.05.2026

Date of Judgment :15.05.2026

Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Accused :Found not guilty

Result of the Case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. MOs.1 to 3 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 1752 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G.Vandana,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 1752 of 202 5

(Cr.No. 288of 2024 of Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama)

Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Kalva Sridhar, S/o. Satyanarayana, 43 years, R/o. Penuganchiprolu village and mandal. … Accused

This case presented before me on 14.05.2026 for hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Gopi Prasad, Advocate for accused, and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No. 288 /2024 for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “Excise Act”) registered by Sub-Inspector of

Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama, with the following allegations:-

2.The case of prosecution is that:

(a) On 31.07.2024, at about 4.30 p.m., on receipt of credible information about selling of liquor bottles, LW.2(Y.Phani Bhaskara Rao) Sub-Inspector of Police,

SEB, Nandigama, secured LW1(M.Madhavi Kumar -MSK) as mediator and his staff

LW3 (M.Yesupadam- Head Constable) and after reaching near Shirdi Saibaba temple,

Anasagaram village, Nandigama mandal, they noticed Accused standing with a mica bag. On enquiry Accused confessed that, the bag consists of liquor bottles.

Thereupon, he searched the bag in the presence of LW1 and LW3, and found total 24 bottles of Mc.Dowels No.1 Luxury whisky and 12 bottles of Old Admiral Spl. VSOP brandy 180ml each, without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, and identified as Non duty paid liquor, when questioned, accused has stated that, he had no valid bills for having in possession of the liquor, he purchased the same from nearest liquor shops in order to sell it for higher rates. Thereupon, LW2 drawn sample

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 1752 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.2 bottles from the property found in possession of accused, sealed it, for sending it to analysis, and also sealed the remaining property, and kept it for safe custody. Then, he prepared a mediator report, and brought the accused along with property under seizure to SEB, Nandigama police station, for further enquiries.

(b) Further basing on the mediator report, LW2 registered a case in

Cr.No. 288 /2024 U/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act, issued FIR, arrested the accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. Later, PW.1 sent samples to FSL examination, and obtained report, later he sent proposals for confiscation of the remaining property, and on receipt of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, the remaining property was destroyed. Having completed the entire investigation, he charge sheeted the accused, for the offence indicated above.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment Act).

4.Accused made his appearance before the Court, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to him.

5.Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge U/sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment Act)2000, has been framed, read over and explained to him, in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Pw.1 and marked

Exs.P-1 to P-4 and Mos.1 and 2. The contention of the accused is that he was falsely implicated in this case and the police failed to follow the prescribed procedure under

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

7.Accused is examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.Now, the points that arise for determination are:-

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 1752 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.3 doubt?

2. Whether it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediator at the time of seizure?

POINT:-

10. Accused has been charged on the allegation that, he was found in possession of property in question, namely, 24 bottles of Mc.Dowels No.1 Luxury whisky and 12 bottles of Old Admiral Spl. VSOP brandy 180ml each,without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, without any valid license or permit, in violation of the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act, and having noticed the same, LW.2 Sub-

Inspector of Police, SEB, Nandigama, seized the property, conducted enquiries, along with his team, and registered crime, basing on mediator report, arrested accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. Thereafter PW1, sent the samples for chemical examination, and on receipt of the report, he filed final report, and basing on the material gathered by prosecution, accused was put to a questionnaire, explaining the contents of charge, however, his plea is one of total denial.

11. As could be seen from Ex.P1 mediators report, where under, it appears that,

PW1 along with his team said to have noticed the accused with possession of a bag, and on enquiry, it was revealed that, the bag containing liquor bottles, and when enquired, accused has voluntarily confessed that, he purchased the same from nearest liquor shops for his personal gain, for sale in open market at higher price, which made PW1 to seize the property, affected his arrest, for further investigation. It is also evident from the testimony of PW1 that, he conducted the entire enquiries in the presence of LW1, Mahila Police of Nandigama, but she was not examined by the prosecution. The evidence of LW1, LW3 and LW4 is given up by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

12.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that only for statistical purpose, to satisfy their superiors, accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the scene of offence is a busy area, but despite availability of number of persons at the place of offence, the police team for the obvious reasons known to it, could not secure any independent mediators. It is also his case that the

Excise Sub Inspector (PW-1) did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 1752 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.4 100(4) of Cr.P.C. His main submission is that, while making search, the local mediators ought to have been taken, and therefore the evidence on record cannot be acted upon.

13. It is evident from the material on record that, certain contraband/ liquor was seized by PW1 from the alleged possession of accused, on the ground that, he was selling the liquor bottles without any valid license. When the scene of offence is surrounded by residential houses, at the time of enquiries as was admitted by PW1, who detected the crime, should have examined some independent witnesses at the place of offence, however, he did not do so and further has admitted that, he did not issue any notice to LW.1 to act as mediator. That apart, non examination of mediators, certainly would fatal to the case and also rises any amount of suspicion about the enquiries conducted by PW1. Therefore the investigation claimed to be carried out by

Pw1 does not inspire confidence, apart from the fact that no efforts were made by him to secure independent witnesses, which arises a doubt as to the incident in question.

Therefore, this court feels that, when there is no independent mediator, examined, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon basing on the evidence of PW1, who is an Investigating officer.

14.Apparently, the investigating agency failed to comply the provisions of section 55 of AP Excise Act, and section 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of search and seizure of the property in question from the possession of accused, and therefore, the entire exercise of enquiries claimed to have been carried out by the investigating agency is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of State v. Arun 2003 (2) SCC 202, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“Where there is no independent witness from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery, the selection of an outsider as a seizure witness necessarily castes doubts.”

15. Admittedly no efforts were made to secure local mediators near Shirdi

Saibaba temple, Anasagaram village, Nandigama mandal, where the seizure was made. PW-1 deposed the scene of offence is a busy locality. This statement itself creates a doubt as to whether PW-1 in fact intercepted the accused near the scene of offence, and seized the contraband, because if at all seizure proceedings were conducted there, PW-1 would have been served summons on independent witnesses.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 1752 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.5

Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that PW1 did not tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr.P.C are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the mica bag containing liquor bottles. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal. In the instant case, admittedly, no independent witnesses are figured as mediators, for appreciating the raids conducted by PW1 and his team, and therefore, the interested testimony of PW1 being police officials cannot be acted upon.

16. Furthermore, admittedly, though there were one other excise official who accompanied PW-1, was not examined in this case. The prosecution has not assigned specific reasons for not examining those witnesses and for not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediators. Thus the evidence of PW-1 loses it's credibility.

17. In the case of Mudavath Mothia v. State of A.P 2002 1 ALT Crl. 437 A.P,

Hon’ble Apex court observed that :

the seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It was also observed that when the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become equal to the police officials. When once they become equal to police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings become inadmissible. Therefore, Ex.P-1, seizure panchanama, is hit by Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr. P.C. In the given case excise officials failed to follow the procedure contemplated, as is referred above, therefore the proceedings undertaken by the said agency, do not stand for judicial scrutiny. The special report drafted by PW1 is nothing but the confessional statement of accused, and as such, it is hit by section 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

18.The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. In the case on hand, except the interested testimony of Police Officials, no independent witnesses are examined and the alleged confession of accused, is not

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 1752 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.6 based on sound principle of law. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediators in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of PW.1. for want of legal and acceptable evidence.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Mos.1 and 2 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1 : J.Yugandhara Rao (Investigating Officer) - None -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1 : Mediator Report dt 31.07.2024 - Nil - Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report Material Objects Marked

MO.1 : One sample bottle of Mc.Dowels No.1 Luxury whisky. MO.2 : One sample bottle of Old Admiral Spl. VSOP brandy.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 1752 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G. Vandana

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 1752 of 202 5

(Cr.No. 288of 2024 of Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama)

Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Kalva Sridhar, S/o. Satyanarayana, 43 years, R/o. Penuganchiprolu village and mandal. ….Accused

Charges under section(s) : 34(a) of A.P Excise Act

Date of occurrence:31.07.2024

Date of report:31.07.2024

Date of appearance:27.02.2026

Date of commencement of trial:13.05.2026

Date of closure of trial:13.05.2026

Date of Judgment :15.05.2026

Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Accused :Found not guilty

Result of the Case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. Mos.1 and 2 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 318 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G.Vandana,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 318 of 202 6

(Cr.No. 2of 2023 of Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama)

Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Ramala Govinda Swamy, S/o. Pakeeraiah, 40 years, C/Mala, R/o. Thotaravulapadu village, Chandarlapadu mandal. … Accused

This case presented before me on 14.05.2026 for hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Stalin Babu, Advocate for accused, and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No. 2 /2023 for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “Excise Act”) registered by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama, with the following allegations:-

2.The case of prosecution is that:

(a) On 04.01.2023, at about 6.30 a.m., on receipt of credible information about selling of liquor bottles, PW1(A.V.V.Srinivasa Rao) Sub-Inspector of Police,

SEB, Nandigama, secured LW1(K.Satyavathi -MSK) as mediator and his staff LW3 (M.Yesupadam- Head Constable) and after reaching near Ambedkar statue,

Thotaravulapadu village, Chandarlapadu mandal, they noticed Accused standing with a mica bag. On enquiry Accused confessed that, the bag consists of liquor bottles.

Thereupon, he searched the bag in the presence of LW1 and LW3, and found total 21 bottles of Malabar House VSOP brandy 180ml each, without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, and identified as Non duty paid liquor, when questioned, accused has stated that, he had no valid bills for having in possession of the liquor, he purchased the same from nearest liquor shops in order to sell it for higher rates. Thereupon, PW1 drawn sample bottle from the property found in

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 318 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.2 possession of accused, sealed it, for sending it to analysis, and also sealed the remaining property, and kept it for safe custody. Then, he prepared a mediator report, and brought the accused along with property under seizure to SEB, Nandigama police station, for further enquiries.

(b) Further basing on the mediator report, PW1 registered a case in

Cr.No. 2 /2023 U/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act, issued FIR, arrested the accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. Later, he sent sample to FSL examination, and obtained report, later he sent proposals for confiscation of the remaining property, and on receipt of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, the remaining property was destroyed. Having completed the entire investigation, he charge sheeted the accused, for the offence indicated above.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment Act).

4.Accused made his appearance before the Court, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to him.

5.Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge U/sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment Act)2000, has been framed, read over and explained to him, in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Pw.1 and marked

Exs.P-1 to P-4 and MO1. The contention of the accused is that he was falsely implicated in this case and the police failed to follow the prescribed procedure under

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

7.Accused is examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.Now, the points that arise for determination are:-

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 318 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.3 doubt?

2. Whether it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediator at the time of seizure?

POINT:-

10. Accused has been charged on the allegation that, he was found in possession of property in question, namely, 21 bottles of Malabar House VSOP brandy 180ml each, without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, without any valid license or permit, in violation of the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act, and having noticed the same, PW1 Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB, Nandigama, seized the property, conducted enquiries, along with his team, and registered crime, basing on mediator report, and later, arrested accused and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused.

Thereafter PW1, sent the samples for chemical examination, and on receipt of the report, he filed final report, and basing on the material gathered by prosecution, accused was put to a questionnaire, explaining the contents of charge, however, his plea is one of total denial.

11.As could be seen from Ex.P1 mediators report, where under, it appears that, PW1 along with his team said to have noticed the accused with possession of a bag, and on enquiry, it was revealed that, the bag containing liquor bottles, and when enquired, accused has voluntarily confessed that, he purchased the same from nearest liquor shops for his personal gain, for sale in open market at higher price, which made PW1 to seize the property, affected his arrest, for further investigation. It is also evident from the testimony of PW1 that, he conducted the entire enquiries in the presence of LW1, Mahila Police of Nandigama, but she was not examined by the prosecution. The evidence of LW1, LW3 and LW4 is given up by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

12.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that only for statistical purpose, to satisfy their superiors, accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the scene of offence is a busy area, but despite availability of number of persons at the place of offence, the police team for the obvious reasons known to it, could not secure any independent mediators. It is also his case that the

Excise Sub Inspector (PW-1) did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 318 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.4 100(4) of Cr.P.C. His main submission is that, while making search, the local mediators ought to have been taken, and therefore the evidence on record cannot be acted upon.

13. It is evident from the material on record that, certain contraband/ liquor was seized by PW1 from the alleged possession of accused, on the ground that, he was selling the liquor bottles without any valid license. When the scene of offence is surrounded by residential houses, at the time of enquiries as was admitted by PW1, who detected the crime, should have examined some independent witnesses at the place of offence, however, he did not do so and further has admitted that, he did not issue any notice to LW.1 to act as mediator. That apart, non examination of mediators, certainly would fatal to the case and also rises any amount of suspicion about the enquiries conducted by PW1. Therefore the investigation claimed to be carried out by

Pw1 does not inspire confidence, apart from the fact that no efforts were made by him to secure independent witnesses, which arises a doubt as to the incident in question.

Therefore, this court feels that, when there is no independent mediator, examined, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon basing on the evidence of PW1, who is an Investigating officer.

14.Apparently, the investigating agency failed to comply the provisions of section 55 of AP Excise Act, and section 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of search and seizure of the property in question from the possession of accused, and therefore, the entire exercise of enquiries claimed to have been carried out by the investigating agency is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of State v. Arun 2003 (2) SCC 202, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“Where there is no independent witness from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery, the selection of an outsider as a seizure witness necessarily castes doubts.”

15. Admittedly no efforts were made to secure local mediators near Ambedkar statue, Thotaravulapadu village, Chandarlapadu mandal, where the seizure was made.

PW-1 deposed the scene of offence is a busy locality. This statement itself creates a doubt as to whether PW-1 in fact intercepted the accused near the scene of offence, and seized the contraband, because if at all seizure proceedings were conducted there,

PW-1 would have been served summons on independent witnesses. Thus, from the

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 318 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.5 evidence on record, it is clear that PW1 did not tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by

Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr.P.C are not followed by the

Excise Officials while seizing the mica bag containing liquor bottles. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal. In the instant case, admittedly, no independent witnesses are figured as mediators, for appreciating the raids conducted by PW1 and his team, and therefore, the interested testimony of PW1 being police officials cannot be acted upon.

16. Furthermore, admittedly, though there were one other excise official who accompanied PW-1, was not examined in this case. The prosecution has not assigned specific reasons for not examining those witnesses and for not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediators. Thus the evidence of PW-1 loses it's credibility.

17. In the case of Mudavath Mothia v. State of A.P 2002 1 ALT Crl. 437 A.P,

Hon’ble Apex court observed that :

the seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It was also observed that when the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become equal to the police officials. When once they become equal to police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings become inadmissible. Therefore, Ex.P-1, seizure panchanama, is hit by Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr. P.C. In the given case excise officials failed to follow the procedure contemplated, as is referred above, therefore the proceedings undertaken by the said agency, do not stand for judicial scrutiny. The special report drafted by PW1 is nothing but the confessional statement of accused, and as such, it is hit by section 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

18.The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. In the case on hand, except the interested testimony of Police Officials, no independent witnesses are examined and the alleged confession of accused, is not

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 318 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.6 based on sound principle of law. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediators in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of PW.1. for want of legal and acceptable evidence.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

MO.1 sample bottle, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1 : A.V.V.Srinivasa Rao (Investigating Officer) - None -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1 : Mediator Report dt 04.01.2023 - Nil - Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report Material Objects Marked

MO.1 : One sample bottle of Malabar House VSOP brandy.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No. 318 of 2026 15 th May, 2026. Page No.7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G. Vandana

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 318 of 202 6

(Cr.No. 2of 2023 of Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama)

Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Ramala Govinda Swamy, S/o. Pakeeraiah, 40 years, C/Mala, R/o. Thotaravulapadu village, Chandarlapadu mandal. ….Accused

Charges under section(s) : 34(a) of A.P Excise Act

Date of occurrence:04.01.2023

Date of report:04.01.2023

Date of appearance:04.05.2026

Date of commencement of trial:14.05.2026

Date of closure of trial:14.05.2026

Date of Judgment :15.05.2026

Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Accused :Found not guilty

Result of the Case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 sample bottle, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No.189 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G.Vandana,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 189 of 202 5

(Cr.No. 165of 2024 of SEB Station, Nandigama ) Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Baluguri Kotamma, W/o. Aadam, 38 years, C/ Madiga, R/o. Ambarupet village, nandigama mandal. …. Accused

This case presented before me on 14.05.2026 for hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Sk.Dada Hussain, Advocate for accused, and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No. 165 /2024 for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short “Excise Act”) registered by Sub-Inspector, Spl.

Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama, with the following allegations:-

2.The case of prosecution is that:

(a) On 23.04.2024, at about 4.00 P.M, on receipt of credible information about selling of liquor bottles, PW1(Y.Phani Bhaskarji), Sub-Inspector, secured his staff LW.3/ M.Ramakrishna, Head constable and mediator LW.1/ P.Triveni, MSK and after reaching near CSI Church, Ambarupet village, Nandigama mandal, they noticed

Accused standing with a mica bag. On enquiry Accused confessed that, the bag consists of liquor bottles. Thereupon, he searched the bag in the presence of LW2, and found 16 bottles of HD Ultra Deluxe whisky and 4 bottles of SNJ 10000 Gold

Strong beer 650ml each, without HEALS, which are meant for sale in Andhra Pradesh only, and identified as Non duty paid liquor, when questioned, accused has stated that, she had no valid bills for having in possession of the liquor and she purchased the same from nearest liquor shops in order to sell it for higher rates. Thereupon, PW1 drawn sample bottles from the property found in possession of accused, sealed it, for sending it to analysis, and also sealed the remaining property, and kept it for safe

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No.189 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.2 custody. Then, he prepared occurrence report, and brought the accused along with property under seizure to station, for further enquiries.

(b) Further basing on the occurrence report, PW1 registered a case in Cr.No.

165 /2024 U/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act, issued FIR, arrested the accused and issued

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. Later, he sent samples to FSL examination, and obtained report, later he sent proposals for confiscation of the remaining property, and on receipt of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner, the remaining property was destroyed. Having completed the entire investigation, LW.4 charge sheeted the accused, for the offence indicated above.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment Act).

4.Accused made her appearance before the Court, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to her.

5.Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge U/sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment Act)2000, has been framed, read over and explained to her, in Telugu, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Pw.1 and marked Exs.

P-1 to P-4 and Mos.1 and 2. The contention of the accused is that she was falsely implicated in this case and the police failed to follow the prescribed procedure under

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

7. Accused is examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.Now, the points that arise for determination are:-

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether it is necessary to take independent respectable local mediator at the time of seizure?

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No.189 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.3

POINT:-

10. Accused has been charged on the allegation that, she was found in possession of property in question, total 16 bottles of HD Ultra Deluxe whisky and 4 bottles of SNJ 10000 Gold Strong beer 650ml each,without HEALS, which are meant for sale in

Andhra Pradesh only, without any valid license or permit, in violation of the provisions of Section 34(a) of the Act, and having noticed the same, PW1 Sub-Inspector, SEB station, Nandigama, seized the property, conducted enquiries, along with his team, and registered crime, basing on occurrence report, and later, arrested accused and issued

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. Thereafter PW1, sent the samples for chemical examination, and on receipt of the report, he filed final report, and basing on the material gathered by prosecution, accused was put to a questionnaire, explaining the contents of charge, however, her plea is one of total denial.

11. As could be seen from Ex.P1 Occurrence report, where under, it appears that, PW1 along with his team said to have noticed the accused with possession of a bag, and on enquiry, it was revealed that, the bag containing liquor bottles, and when enquired, accused has voluntarily confessed that, she purchased the same from nearest liquor shops for her personal gain, for sale in open market at higher price, which made PW1 to seize the property, affected her arrest, for further investigation. It is also evident from the testimony of PW1 that, he conducted the entire enquiries in the presence of his staff, but prosecution did not examine the witnesses. Ex.P2 is FIR.

Ex.P3 is Letter of Advice and Ex.P4 is Analysis report. The evidence of LW1 and LW2 is given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

12. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that only for statistical purpose, to satisfy their superiors, accused has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the scene of offence is a busy area, but despite availability of number of persons at the place of offence, the police team for the obvious reasons known to it, could not secure any independent mediators. It is also his case that the

Sub Inspector of Police (PW-1) did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. His main submission is that, while making search, the local mediators ought to have been taken, and therefore the evidence on record cannot be acted upon.

13. It is evident from the material on record that, certain contraband/ liquor was

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No.189 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.4 seized by PW1 from the alleged possession of accused, on the ground that, she was selling the liquor bottles without any valid license. When the scene of offence is surrounded by residential houses, at the time of enquiries as was admitted by PW1, who detected the crime, should have examined some independent witnesses at the place of offence, however, he did not do so. That apart, non examination of mediators, certainly would fatal to the case and also rises any amount of suspicion about the enquiries conducted by PW1. Therefore the investigation claimed to be carried out by

Pw1 does not inspire confidence, apart from the fact that no efforts were made by him to secure independent witnesses, which arises a doubt as to the incident in question.

Therefore, this court feels that, when there is no independent mediator, examined, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied upon basing on the evidence of PW1, who is an Investigating officer.

14. Apparently, the investigating agency failed to comply the provisions of section 55 of AP Excise Act, and section 100(4) Cr.P.C, at the time of search and seizure of the property in question from the possession of accused, and therefore, the entire exercise of enquiries claimed to have been carried out by the investigating agency is not in accordance with the law laid down in the case of State v. Arun 2003 (2) SCC 202, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

“Where there is no independent witness from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery, the selection of an outsider as a seizure witness necessarily castes doubts.”

15. Admittedly no efforts were made to secure local mediators near CSI

Church, Ambarupet village, Nandigama mandal, where the seizure was made. PW-1 deposed the scene of offence is a busy locality. This statement itself creates a doubt as to whether PW-1 in fact intercepted the accused near the scene of offence, and seized the contraband, because if at all seizure proceedings were conducted there, PW1 would have been served summons on independent witnesses. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that PW1 did not tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No.189 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.5

Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, this Court bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr.P.C are not followed by the

Excise Officials while seizing the mica bag containing liquor bottles. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal. In the instant case, admittedly, no independent witnesses are figured as mediators, for appreciating the raids conducted by PW1 and his team, and therefore, the interested testimony of PW1 being police officials cannot be acted upon.

16. In the case of Mudavath Mothia v. State of A.P 2002 1 ALT Crl. 437 A.P,

Hon’ble Apex court observed that :

the seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It was also observed that when the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become equal to the police officials. When once they become equal to police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings become inadmissible. Therefore, Ex.P-1, seizure panchanama, is hit by Sections 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr. P.C. In the given case excise officials failed to follow the procedure contemplated, as is referred above, therefore the proceedings undertaken by the said agency, do not stand for judicial scrutiny. The special report drafted by PW1 is nothing but the confessional statement of accused, and as such, it is hit by section 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

17.The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. In the case on hand, except the interested testimony of Police Officials, no independent witnesses are examined and the alleged confession of accused, is not based on sound principle of law. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediators in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of PW.1 for want of legal and acceptable evidence.

18. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No.189 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.6

MOs.1 and 2 sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Nandigama.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence PW.1 : Y.Phani Bhaskarji (Investigating Officer) - None -

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P1 : Occurrence Report dt. 23.04.2024 - Nil - Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report

Material Objects Marked

MO.1 : One sample bottle of HD Ultra Deluxe whisky. MO.2 : One sample bottle of SNJ 10000 Gold Strong beer.

Sd/-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

AJFCM, Nandigama. CC No.189 of 2025 15 th May, 2026. Page No.7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

NANDIGAMA.

Present: Smt. G. Vandana

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

C.C.No. 189 of 202 5

(Cr.No. 165of 2024 of SEB Station, Nandigama ) Between: The Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Spl. Enforcement Bureau Station, Nandigama. ... Complainant

And

Baluguri Kotamma, W/o. Aadam, 38 years, C/ Madiga, R/o. Ambarupet village, nandigama mandal. ….Accused

Charges under section(s) : 34(a) of A.P Excise Act

Date of occurrence:23.04.2024

Date of report:23.04.2024

Date of appearance:16.04.2025

Date of commencement of trial:13.05.2026

Date of closure of trial:13.05.2026

Date of Judgment :15.05.2026

Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Accused :Found not guilty

Result of the Case: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force, for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. Mos.1 and 2, sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama. Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.