Gorantla Swathi

1 CC 398-2020 date 01-02-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

RAJAM

PRESENT: Sri G.Swathi,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Monday, this the Ist day of February, 2021 01-02-2021)

CALENDAR CASE No. 398/2020 CALENDAR CASE No. 398/2020

B e t w e e n :- State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Rajam Police station.

... Complainant

A nd:-

A.1) Kinjarapu Eswararao S/o Murali, age 19 years, caste by SC (mala), Boddam village of Rajam Mandal.

A.2) Bingi Mahesh S/o Satyama, age 21 years, Caste by Velama, Boddam village of Rajam Mandal.

… Accused.

This case coming on 27-01-2021 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Ramana murthy, Advocate,

for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration on this day,

this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Inspector of Police, Rajam Police station laid charge heet against the accused for the offence punishable u/section 34(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act 2020 in Cr.No.686/2020 of

Rajam Police station.

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

On 16-08-2020 at about 19-15 hours, the LW.1/ K.Adivanna, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police station along with his staff conducted raids at Boddam village of Rajam Mandal found A.1 and A.2 in possession of polythene bag having 25 bottles of golden reserve prestige whisky each 180 ml, 15 bottles of golden reserve prestige whiskey each 180 ml. On further interrogation, the accused A.1 and A.2 revealed their identity and also stated that they purchased liquor from an unknown person. Then L.W.1 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police,

Rajam Police station asked about the license or bills for purchase of liquor bottles. The A.1 and

A.2 replied that they are not having any license or bills. Then he seized the liquor bottles drawn all bottles taken as samples, later affixed identity slips on the sample bottles and remaining property under the cover of occurrence report then and this itself. Later, L.W.1 handed over the case file and accused A.1 and A.2 to L.W.5/ P.Srinivasarao, Inspector of Police, Rajam police station. After receiving case file he took up further investigation arrested the accused A.1 and

A.2 and registered a case in Cr.No.686/2020 and sent them to the court for judicial remand.

2 CC 398-2020 date 01-02-2021

During the course of investigation the L.W.5/ the Inspector of Police, Rajam Police station, sent all the sample bottles to the Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample bottles contained 38.1 UP diluted Indian Liquor. On receipt of the analysis report, he laid charge sheet against the accused A.1 and A.2. Hence, this case.

3)Cognizance is taken U/Sec.190 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

4)On appearance of the accused A.1 and A.2 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5). Heard, the A.1 and A.2 were examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Charge under section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act was framed against them , read over and explained to them in Telugu language, having understood the same, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, it got examined

P.W.1 and Ex.P.2 and exhibited Exs.P1 to Ex.P.3 and M.Os 1 and 2 were marked.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, the A.1 and A.2 were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to them in Telugu language, having understood the same they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard both sides.

9)In view of the rival contentions now the points that require determination are:-

(i)Whether the accused A.1 and A.2 were in possession of 25 bottles of golden reserve prestige whisky each 180 ml, 15 bottles of golden reserve prestige whiskey each 180 ml for the purpose of resale?

(ii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence Punishable under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act ?

10. POINT No. (i):-

(i)In order to constitute an offence punishable under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, the prosecution must establish that the accused A.1 and A.2 were in possession of 25 bottles of golden reserve prestige whisky each 180 ml, 15 bottles of golden reserve prestige whiskey each 180 ml for the purpose of resale, without having license.

(ii) In order to determine the culpability of the accused A.1 and A.2, the evidence available

before this court is the oral testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, Exts.P.1 to Exts.P.3 and M.O1 and 2.

P.W.1 is the police official who participated in the raids on the date of occurrence, P.W.2 is who is the police official registered the case and filed charge sheet after conducting investigation.

3 CC 398-2020 date 01-02-2021

(iii) P.W.1 deposed that on 16-08-2020 he conducted route watch with the assistance of his staff members of Boddam village of Rajam Mandal. At about 19-15 hours while they were conducting route watch at Boddam village, they noticed, the A.1 and A.2 carrying polythene bag. On seeing them they perturbed. Out of suspicion they stopped them and verified the bag which was in their possession and found 25 bottles of golden reserve prestige whisky each 180 ml, 15 bottles of golden reserve prestige whiskey each 180 ml. As their efforts in securing the mediators were in vain, he verified the bag which was in possession of the accused A.1 and A.2 and found the liquor bottles. As such, he questioned the A.1 and A.2 about the same for which, they confessed that they were taking the liquor bottles to sell the same for higher price, by purchasing from one unknown person without having license. He verified the liquor bottles and found that there were no EAL numbers. As such, he seized the liquor bottles under Ex.P1. He has drawn samples from all the liquor bottles which were seized from the possession of accused for chemical analysis. Identification slips duly signed by him and the accused were affixed on the sample bottles. Thereafter, he handed over the case file to P.W.2.

P.W.2 deposed that, after receiving case file from P.W.1 took up further investigation and arrested the A.1 and A.2 and registered the case in Cr.No.686/2020 under Section 34 (1) of

A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and sent them to the court for judicial remand. During the course of investigation he sent all the sample bottles to the Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample bottles contained Indian Liquor.

(iv) In order to establish the possession and recovery of from the possession of the accused, the prosecution must establish it, either by adducing independent evidence or by offering plausible explanation showing the circumstances are such that it was an impossible task for them to secure the independent witness, as such seizure and drawing of samples i.e., M.O.1 and MO.2 by the police officials in the absence of independent witnesses is justifiable. The theory of the prosecution is that as the efforts of police persons in securing the independent witnesses were in vain, P.W.1 seized the liquor bottles, in the absence of independent witnesses. Though, he testified mechanically that they tried to secure independent witnesses and their efforts were in vain the same cannot be relied upon, due to the reason that there is no single whisper in his testimony about the details of the efforts made by the police officials to secure independent witnesses and the names of the persons whom they approached by requesting to act as mediators.

If, at all they had made efforts to secure independent witnesses, certainly he would have furnished the details of their efforts. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is situated near the village, as such, absolutely there was no difficulty for them to secure independent witnesses at the time of alleged seizure. On perusal of the evidence available on record, there is no iota of evidence to show the seizure of 25 bottles of golden reserve prestige whisky each 180 ml, 15 bottles of golden reserve prestige whiskey each 180 ml from the possession of the accused. In the absence of plausible explanation for not following the procedure contemplated under the sacrosanct provision of Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure, while seizing the M.O.1 and 4 CC 398-2020 date 01-02-2021

MO.2 it is not safe to base conviction by relying upon the testimonies of police official alone in the absence of independent witnesses.

(v) Apart from that the alleged date of Seizure and collection of sample i.e., M.O.1 and MO.2 was on 16-08-2020 but, the same were sent for analysis after one month 29 days i.e., on 14- 10-2020 There is no single whisper in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as to in whose custody M.O.1 and MO.2 were till such time. Even, the possibility of tampering of the same cannot be ruled out, as the batch numbers and EAL numbers of the liquor bottles said to have seized are not mentioned in Ext.P.1. In view of the above discussion, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to base conviction, by holding that the seizure and possession of 25 bottles of golden reserve prestige whisky each 180 ml, 15 bottles of golden reserve prestige whiskey each 180 ml was proved by prosecution by attaching weight to M.O.1 and

MO.2. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.

11. Point No. (ii):-

In view of the discussion under Point No (i), it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(1) of AP Excise

Amendment Act.

In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise amendment Act and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of the Criminal Procedure. MO.1 and MO.2 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of accused shall be continued up to six months under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer; corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 01st day of February, 2021.

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class,

Rajam.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For prosecution:- For Defence:- Nil

P.W.1: 25-01-2021:- K.Advanna, ASI of Police

P.W.2: 25-01-2021:- P.Srinivasarao, Inspector of Police.

Documents marked

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P.1:- 16-08-2020:- Occurrence report Ex.P.2:- 16-08-2020:- Original FIR in Cr.No.686/2020 Ex.P.3:- 14-10-2020:- Analysis report.

5 CC 398-2020 date 01-02-2021

Material objects Marked For Prosecution:-

MO.1:- sample bottle of golden reserve prestige whisky

MO.2:- Sample bottle of golden reserve prestige whiskey

For defence:- Nil.

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class

Rajam. .

1 CC.No.05-2021 date 27-01-2021 d

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

RAJAM

PRESENT: Sri G.Swathi,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Wednesday, this the 27 th day of January, 2021 (27­01­2021)

CALENDAR CASE No. 05/2021 CALENDAR CASE No. 05/2021

B e t w e e n :­ State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Santhakaviti Police station.

... Complainant

A nd:­

Yalamanchili Satyannarayana S/o late Suryanarayana, age 38 years, Naibrahmina, Gaddimudidam village, Rajam Mandal, R/o Vinayaka Nagar, Ner Sub­Registrar Officer, Pongutivalasa village, Santhakaviti Mandal. 

… Accused.

This case coming on 25­01­2021 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. A.Satyanarayana, Advocate, for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration on this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub Inspector of Santhakaviti Police station laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/section 34(1) of AP Excise

Amendment Act in Cr.No.239/2020.

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

On 13­08­2020 at about 6­30 hours, the LW.6/Ch. Ramarao, Sub­

Inspector Police, Santhakaviti Police station along with his staff conducted raids at Pongutivalasa village of Santhakaviti village, found accused in possession of polythene bag having 8­ bottles of 9 sea Horse whiskey bottles each 180 ml, 4 bottles of Old timer Deluxe Whiskey each 180 ml. On further interrogation, the accused revealed his identity and also stated that he purchased liquor from an unknown person. Then L.W.6 the Sub­Inspector of

Police, Santhakaviti Police station asked about the license or bills for purchase of liquor bottles. The accused replied that he is not having any license or bills.

Then he seized the liquor bottles drawn all bottles taken as samples, later affixed identity slips on the sample bottle and remaining property under the 2 CC.No.05-2021 date 27-01-2021 d cover of occurrence report then and there itself. On return from the raids he registered the case in Cr.No. 239/2020 under Section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, 1968 and arrested the accused and send him to the court for judicial remand and released on released the accused on court bail.

During the course of investigation the L.W.4/ the Sub­Inspector of

Police, Santhakaviti police station, sent all the sample bottles to the Regional

Proh.& Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample bottles contained 38.1 UP diluted Indian Liquor. On receipt of the analysis report, he laid charge sheet against the accused. Hence, this case.

3)Cognizance is taken U/Sec.190 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act.

4)On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 

5). Heard, the accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. Charge under section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, having understood the same, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, it got examined P.W.1 exhibited Exs.P1 to Ex.P.3 and M.Os.1 and

MO.2 were marked.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu language, having understood the same he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard both sides.

9)In view of the rival contentions now the points that require determination are:­

(i)Whether the accused was in possession of 8­ bottles of 9 sea Horse

whiskey bottles each 180 ml, 4 bottles of Old timer Deluxe Whiskey

each 180 ml for the purpose of resale?

 (ii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act ?

3 CC.No.05-2021 date 27-01-2021 d

10. POINT No. (i):­

(i)In order to constitute an offence punishable under section 34(1) of A.P.

Excise Amendment Act, the prosecution must establish that the accused was in possession of 8­ bottles of 9 sea Horse whiskey bottles each 180 ml, 4 bottles of Old timer Deluxe Whiskey each 180 ml for the purpose of resale, without having license.

(ii) In order to determine the culpability of the accused, the evidence available before this court is the oral testimonies of P.W.1, Exts.P.1 to Exts.P.3 and M.Os1 and MO.2 P.W.1 is the police official who participated in the raids on the date of occurrence and registered the case and filed charge sheet. 

(iii) P.W.1 deposed that on 13­08­2020 he conducted route watch with the assistance of other staff members of Ponugutivalasa village, Santhakaviti

Mandal. At about 6­30 hours, while they were conducting route watch at

Ponugutivalasa village they noticed, the accused carrying polythene bag. On seeing them he perturbed. Out of suspicion they stopped him and verified the bag which was in this possession and found 8­ bottles of 9 sea Horse

whiskey bottles each 180 ml, 4 bottles of Old timer Deluxe Whiskey each

180 ml. As their efforts in securing the mediators were in vain, he verified the bag which was in possession of the accused and found the liquor bottles. As such, he questioned the accused about the same for which, he confessed that he was taking the liquor bottles to sell the same for higher price, by purchasing from one unknown person without having license. He verified the liquor bottles and found that there were no EAL numbers. As such, he seized the liquor bottles under Ex.P1. He has drawn samples from all the liquor bottles which were seized from the possession of accused for chemical analysis.

Identification slips duly signed by him and the accused were affixed on the sample bottles. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and send him to the court for judicial remand. After returning from the raids, basing on occurrence report, he registered the case in Cr.No.239/2020 Under Section 34 (1) of A.P.

Excise Amendment Act. During the course of investigation he sent all the sample bottles to the Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample bottles contained Indian Liquor.

(iv) In order to establish the possession and recovery of 8­ bottles of 9 sea

Horse whiskey bottles each 180 ml, 4 bottles of Old timer Deluxe Whiskey

each 180 ml  from the possession of the accused, the prosecution must establish it, either by adducing independent evidence or by offering plausible 4 CC.No.05-2021 date 27-01-2021 d explanation showing the circumstances are such that it was an impossible task for them to secure the independent witness, as such seizure and drawing of samples i.e., M.Os.1 and MO.2 by the police officials in the absence of independent witnesses is justifiable. The theory of the prosecution is that as the efforts of police persons in securing the independent witnesses were in vain, P.W.1 seized the liquor bottles, in the absence of independent witnesses.

Though, he testified mechanically that they tried to secure independent witnesses and their efforts were in vain the same cannot be relied upon, due to the reason that there is no single whisper in his testimony about the details of the efforts made by the police officials to secure independent witnesses and the names of the persons whom they approached by requesting to act as mediators. If, at all they had made efforts to secure independent witnesses, certainly he would have furnished the details of their efforts. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is situated near the village, as such, absolutely there was no difficulty for them to secure independent witnesses at the time of alleged seizure. On perusal of the evidence available on record, there is no iota of evidence to show the seizure of  8­ bottles of 9 sea Horse whiskey bottles each 180 ml, 4 bottles of Old timer Deluxe Whiskey each 180 ml from the possession of the accused. In the absence of plausible explanation for not following the procedure contemplated under the sacrosanct provision of Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure, while seizing the M.Os.1 and MO.2 it is not safe to base conviction by relying upon the sole testimonies of police officials alone in the absence of independent witnesses. 

(v) Apart from that the alleged date of Seizure and collection of sample i.e.,

M.Os.1 and MO.2 was on 13­08­2020 but, the same was sent for analysis after two months three days i.e., on 19­10­2020. There is no single whisper in the testimony of P.W.1 as to in whose custody M.Os.1 and MO.2 were till such time. Even, the possibility of tampering of the same cannot be ruled out, as the batch numbers and EAL numbers of the liquor bottles said to have seized are not mentioned in Ext.P.1. In view of the above discussion, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to base conviction, by holding that the seizure and possession of 8­ bottles of 9 sea Horse whiskey bottles each 180 ml, 4 bottles of Old timer Deluxe Whiskey each 180 ml was proved by prosecution by attaching weight to M.Os.1 and MO.2. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly

11. Point No. (ii):­ 5 CC.No.05-2021 date 27-01-2021 d

In view of the discussion under Point No (i), it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34(1) of AP Excise amendment Act.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of the Criminal Procedure. MOs.1 and MO.2 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of accused shall be continued up to six months under Section 437­A of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer; corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 27th day of January, 2021.

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class,

Rajam.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For prosecution:­ For Defence:­ Nil

P.W.1: 21­01­2021:­ Ch. Ramarao, Sub­Inspector of Police.

Documents marked 

For Prosecution :­

Ex.P.1:­ 13­08­2020:­ Occurrence report Ex.P.2:­ 13­08­2020:­ Original FIR in Cr.No.243/2020 Ex.P.3:­ 19­10­2020:­ Analysis report. 

Material objects Marked For Prosecution:­

MO.1:­ sample bottle of 9 sea Horse whiskey 

MO.2:­ Sample bottle of Old timer Deluxe Whiskey 

For defence:­ Nil. 

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class

Rajam. .

6 CC.No.05-2021 date 27-01-2021 d

1 CC.No.184/2020 date 1.2.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

RAJAM

PRESENT: Sri G.Swathi,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Monday, this the 1 st day of February, 2021 (01­02­2021)

CALENDAR CASE No.184/2020 CALENDAR CASE No.184/2020

Between :­ State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, R.A.Valasa Police station.

... Complainant

A nd:­

A.1) Kodisa Venkata Ramana, S/o late Sriramulu, 35 years, Kapu, Balkavivalasa village, R.A.Valasa mandal. A.2) Botsa Laxmi, W/o Durgarao, 25 years, Relli, Avalangi village of Palakonda Mandal. A.3) Bommali Narasamha, W/o Adinarayana, 55 years, Relli, Avalagni village, Palakonda Mandal. A.4) Bommali Puvvulamma, W/o Kantharao, 45 years, Relli, Avalangi village, Palakonda Mandal. .

… Accused.

This case coming on 27­01­2021 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K.Ramanamurty, Advocate, for the accused/A.1 to A.4 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration on this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub Inspector of R.A.Valasa Police station laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 in Cr.No.96/2020.

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

On 02­04­2020 at about 8­30 hours, the LW.3/Smt. B.Revathi, Sub­

Inspector Police, R.A.Valasa Police station along with her staff conducted raids at Sankili Bridge, found accused in possession of plastic can containing 20 liters of ID arrack. On further interrogation, the accused A.1 revealed his identity and also stated that he purchased ID Arrack from A.2 to A.4 and selling the same for higher price. Then L.W.3 the Sub­Inspector of Police, arrested the accused seized the property under cover of occurrence report and taken as samples, later affixed identity slips on the sample bottle and remaining property under the cover of occurrence report then and there itself.

2 CC.No.184/2020 date 1.2.2021

On return from the raids he registered the case in Cr.No.96/2020 offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. She served

Section 41 A Cr.P.C notice to the accused A.1 to A.4.

During the course of investigation the L.W.3/ the Sub­Inspector of

Police, Regidi Amadalavalasa police station, sent the sample bottle to the

Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample contains Illicitly Distilled Liquor for human consumption injurious to health. On receipt of the analysis report, she laid charge sheet against the accused/A.1 to A.4. Hence, this case.

3)Cognizance is taken U/Sec.190 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

4)On appearance of the accused/A.1 to A.4 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. 

5). Heard, the accused/A.1 to A.4 were examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed against the accused/A.1 to A.4 read over and explained to them in Telugu language, having understood the same, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, it got examined P.W.1, exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 was marked.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused/A.1 to A.4 were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to them in Telugu language, having understood the same they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard both sides.

9)In view of the rival contentions now the points that require determination are:­

(i)Whether the accused A.1 purchased 20 liters of I.D. Arrack from A.2 to A.4 and A.1 was in possession of 20 liters of ID Arrack for the purpose of resale?

 (ii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

3 CC.No.184/2020 date 1.2.2021

10. POINT No. (i):­

(i)In order to constitute an offence punishable under Section u/section 7

(a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act­2020, the prosecution must establish that the A.1 was in possession of 20 liters of ID Arrack for the purpose of resale, without having license and the accused A.1 was purchased the said I.D. Arrack from A.2 to A.4.

(ii) In order to determine the culpability of the accused, the evidence available before this court is the oral testimony of P.W.1, Exts.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 P.W.1 is the police official who participated in the raids on the date of occurrence and registered the case and filed charge sheet. 

(iii) P.W.1 deposed that on 02­04­2020 she conducted route watch with the assistance of other staff members at Sankili bridge village of R.A.Valasa

Mandal. At about 18­30 hours, while they were conducting route watch at

Sankili Bridge they noticed, the accused carrying a gunny bag. On seeing them

A.1 perturbed. Out of suspicion they stopped A.1 and verified the bag which was in this possession and found 20 liters of ID arrack in plastic can.  As their efforts in securing the mediators were in vain, she verified the bag which was in possession of the accused/A.1 and found the ID Arrack. As such, she questioned the accused about the same for which, A.1 confessed that he was taking the ID arrack from A.2 to A.4 to sell the same for higher price. She tried to secure mediators, but no one came forward to act as mediator. Then she seized the sample from the ID Arrack and affixed identity slips duly signed by him and the accused A.1 on the sample and she prepared occurrence report on the spot. After returning from the raids, basing on occurrence report, she registered the case in Cr.No.96/2020 offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8

(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and served Section 41­A Cr.P.C notice to the accused A.1 to A.4. During the course of investigation she sent all the sample bottles to the Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample contains Illicitly Distilled Liquor for human consumption and injurious to health.

(iv) In order to establish the possession and recovery of 20 liters of I.D

Arrack from the possession of the accused A.1, the prosecution must establish it, either by adducing independent evidence or by offering plausible explanation showing the circumstances are such that it was an impossible task for them to 4 CC.No.184/2020 date 1.2.2021 secure the independent witness, as such seizure and drawing of samples i.e.,

MO.1 by the police officials in the absence of independent witnesses is justifiable. The theory of the prosecution is that as the efforts of police persons in securing the independent witnesses were in vain, P.W.1 seized the

ID arrack, in the absence of independent witnesses. Though, she testified mechanically that they tried to secure independent witnesses and their efforts were in vain the same cannot be relied upon, due to the reason that there is no single whisper in her testimony about the details of the efforts made by the police officials to secure independent witnesses and the names of the persons whom they approached by requesting to act as mediators. If, at all they had made efforts to secure independent witnesses, certainly she would have furnished the details of their efforts. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is situated near the village, as such, absolutely there was no difficulty for them to secure independent witnesses at the time of alleged seizure. On perusal of the evidence available on record, there is no iota of evidence to show the seizure of

ID arrack from the possession of the accused. In the absence of plausible explanation for not following the procedure contemplated under the sacrosanct provision of Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure, while seizing the MO.1 it is not safe to base conviction by relying upon the sole testimony of police official alone in the absence of independent witnesses. 

(v) Apart from that the alleged date of Seizure and collection of sample i.e.,

MO.1 was on 02­04­2020 but, the same was sent for analysis after three months twelve days i.e., on 14­07­2020. There is no single whisper in the testimony of P.W.1 as to in whose custody MO.1 was till such time. In view of the above discussion, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to base conviction, by holding that the seizure and possession of 20 liters of ID

Arrack was proved by prosecution by attaching weight to M.O1. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly

11. Point No. (ii):­

In view of the discussion under Point No (i), it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

In the result, the A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of the

Criminal Procedure. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

5 CC.No.184/2020 date 1.2.2021

The bail bonds of accused shall be continued up to six months under Section 437­A of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer; corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 1st day of February, 2021.

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Rajam.

.

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For prosecution:­ For Defence:­ Nil

P.W.1: 25­01­2021:­ Smt. B.Revathi, Sub­Inspector of Police.

Documents marked 

For Prosecution :­

Ex.P.1:­ 03­09­2020:­ Occurrence report Ex.P.2:­ 03­09­2020:­ Original FIR in Cr.No.96/2020. Ex.P.3:­ 07­11­2020:­ Analysis report. 

Material objects Marked For Prosecution:­

MO.1: sample bottle of ID arrack.

For defence:­ Nil. 

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class

Rajam. .

1 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

RAJAM

PRESENT: Sri G.Swathi,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Monday, this the 1 st day of February, 2021 (01­02­2021)

CALENDAR CASE No.186/2020 CALENDAR CASE No.186/2020

Between :­ State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, R.A.Valasa Police station.

... Complainant

A nd:­

Gunana Prakash, S/o late Chettya, 52 years, SC (Mala), Sarasanaplli village of R.A.Valasa Mandal.

… Accused.

This case coming on 27­01­2021 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. A.Satyanarayana, Advocate, for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration on this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub Inspector of R.A.Valasa Police station laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 in Cr.No.295/2020.

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

On 09­05­2020 at about 18­00 hours, the LW.3/Smt. B.Revathi, Sub­

Inspector Police, R.A.Valasa Police station along with her staff conducted raids at Sarasanapalli village, found accused in possession of plastic can containing 10 liters of ID arrack. On further interrogation, the accused revealed his identity and also stated that he purchased ID Arrack from an unknown person from Seethapeta village and selling the same for higher price. Then L.W.3 the

Sub­Inspector of Police, arrested the accused seized the property under cover of occurrence report and taken as samples, later affixed identity slips on the sample bottle and remaining property under the cover of occurrence report then and there itself. On return from the raids he registered the case in

Cr.No.295/2020 u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and released the accused after serving Section 41A Cr.P.C notice. 

2 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021

During the course of investigation the L.W.3/ the Sub­Inspector of

Police, Regidi Amadalavalasa police station, sent the sample bottle to the

Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample contains Illicitly Distilled Liquor for human consumption injurious to health. On receipt of the analysis report, she laid charge sheet against the accused. Hence, this case.

3)Cognizance is taken U/Sec.190 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 in Cr.No.295/2020.

4)On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 

5). Heard, the accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 in

Cr.No.295/2020 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, having understood the same, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, it got examined P.W.1, exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 was marked.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu language, having understood the same he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard both sides.

9)In view of the rival contentions now the points that require determination are:­

(i)Whether the accused was in possession of 10 liters of ID Arrack for the purpose of resale?

 (ii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 in Cr.No.295/2020.

10. POINT No. (i):­

(i)In order to constitute an offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 in Cr.No.295/2020 the prosecution must establish 3 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021 that the accused was in possession of 10 liters of ID Arrack for the purpose of resale, without having license and the accused was purchased the said I.D

Arrack from an unknown person at Seethampeta mandal.

(ii) In order to determine the culpability of the accused, the evidence available before this court is the oral testimony of P.W.1, Exts.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 P.W.1 is the police official who participated in the raids on the date of occurrence and registered the case and filed charge sheet. 

(iii) P.W.1 deposed that on 09­05­2020 she conducted route watch with the assistance of other staff members at Jodubandala village of R.A.Valasa Mandal.

At about 18­00 hours, while they were conducting route watch at Sarasanapalli village they noticed, the accused carrying a gunny bag. On seeing them he perturbed. Out of suspicion they stopped him and verified the bag which was in this possession and found 10 liters of ID arrack in plastic can.  As their efforts in securing the mediators were in vain, he verified the bag which was in possession of the accused and found the ID Arrack. As such, she questioned the accused about the same for which, he confessed that he was taking the ID arrack to sell the same for higher price by purchasing an unknown person. .

She tried to secure mediators, but no one came forward to act as mediator.

Then she seized the sample from the ID Arrack and affixed identity slips duly signed by him and the accused on the sample and she prepared occurrence report on the spot. Then she arrested the accused and she released the accused after serving the Section 41A Cr.P.C notice. Later, the accused was enlarged on court bail. After returning from the raids, basing on occurrence report, she registered the case in Cr.No.295/2020 u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995. During the course of investigation she sent all the sample bottles to the Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample contains Illicitly Distilled Liquor Unit for human consumption and injurious to health.

(iv) In order to establish the possession and recovery of 10 liters of I.D

Arrack from the possession of the accused, the prosecution must establish it, either by adducing independent evidence or by offering plausible explanation showing the circumstances are such that it was an impossible task for them to secure the independent witness, as such seizure and drawing of samples i.e.,

MO.1 by the police officials in the absence of independent witnesses is justifiable. The theory of the prosecution is that as the efforts of police persons in securing the independent witnesses were in vain, P.W.1 seized the

ID arrack, in the absence of independent witnesses. Though, she testified 4 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021 mechanically that they tried to secure independent witnesses and their efforts were in vain the same cannot be relied upon, due to the reason that there is no single whisper in her testimony about the details of the efforts made by the police officials to secure independent witnesses and the names of the persons whom they approached by requesting to act as mediators. If, at all they had made efforts to secure independent witnesses, certainly she would have furnished the details of their efforts. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is situated near the village, as such, absolutely there was no difficulty for them to secure independent witnesses at the time of alleged seizure. On perusal of the evidence available on record, there is no iota of evidence to show the seizure of

ID arrack from the possession of the accused. In the absence of plausible explanation for not following the procedure contemplated under the sacrosanct provision of Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure, while seizing the MO.1 it is not safe to base conviction by relying upon the sole testimony of police official alone in the absence of independent witnesses. 

(v) Apart from that the alleged date of Seizure and collection of sample i.e.,

MO.1 was on 09­05­2020 but, the same was sent for analysis after four months five days i.e., on 14­07­2020. There is no single whisper in the testimony of P.W.1 as to in whose custody MO.1 was till such time. In view of the above discussion, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to base conviction, by holding that the seizure and possession of 10 liters of ID

Arrack was proved by prosecution by attaching weight to M.O1. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly

11. Point No. (ii):­

In view of the discussion under Point No (i), it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of the Criminal

Procedure. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of accused shall be continued up to six months under Section 437­A of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer; corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 1st day of February, 2021.

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class,

Rajam

5 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For prosecution:­ For Defence:­ Nil

P.W.1: 25­01­2021:­ Smt. B.Revathi, Sub­Inspector of Police.

Documents marked 

For Prosecution :­

Ex.P.1:­ 09­05­2020:­ Occurrence report Ex.P.2:­ 09­05­2020:­ Original FIR in Cr.No.295/2020 Ex.P.3:­ 14­07­2020:­ Analysis report. 

Material objects Marked For Prosecution:­

MO.1: sample bottle of ID arrack.

For defence:­ Nil. 

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class

Rajam. .

1 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

RAJAM

PRESENT: Sri G.Swathi,

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Monday, this the 1 st day of February, 2021 (01­02­2021)

CALENDAR CASE No.183/2020 CALENDAR CASE No.183/2020

Between :­ State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, R.A.Valasa Police station.

... Complainant

A nd:­

Meesla Ramana S/o Raminaidu, age 43 years, Kapu by caste, Garikapadu village of Santhakaviti Mandal. .

… Accused.

This case coming on 27­01­2021 this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. A.Satyanarayana, Advocate, for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration on this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub Inspector of R.A.Valasa Police station laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 in Cr.No.101/2020.

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

On 04­04­2020 at about 8­30 hours, the LW.3/Smt. B.Revathi, Sub­

Inspector Police, R.A.Valasa Police station along with her staff conducted raids at Jodubandala village, found accused in possession of plastic can containing 10 liters of ID arrack. On further interrogation, the accused revealed his identity and also stated that he purchased ID Arrack from an unknown person from Seethapeta village and selling the same for higher price. Then L.W.3 the

Sub­Inspector of Police, arrested the accused seized the property under cover of occurrence report and taken as samples, later affixed identity slips on the sample bottle and remaining property under the cover of occurrence report then and there itself. On return from the raids he registered the case in

Cr.No.101/2020 u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act,1995 and released the accused after serving Section 41A Cr.P.C notice. 

2 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021

During the course of investigation the L.W.3/ the Sub­Inspector of

Police, Regidi Amadalavalasa police station, sent the sample bottle to the

Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample contains Illicitly Distilled Liquor for human consumption injurious to health. On receipt of the analysis report, she laid charge sheet against the accused. Hence, this case.

3)Cognizance is taken U/Sec.190 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act,1995. 

4)On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 

5). Heard, the accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure. u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act,1995 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, having understood the same, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6) During the course of trial, in order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, it got examined P.W.1, exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 was marked.

7) After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu language, having understood the same he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8) Heard both sides.

9)In view of the rival contentions now the points that require determination are:­

(i)Whether the accused was in possession of 10 liters of ID Arrack for the purpose of resale?

 (ii) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act­2020.

10. POINT No. (i):­

(i)In order to constitute an offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act,1995, the prosecution must establish that the accused was in possession of 10 liters of ID Arrack for the purpose of resale, without having license and the accused purchased the said I.D. Arrack from an unknown person at Seethampeta.

3 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021

(ii) In order to determine the culpability of the accused, the evidence available before this court is the oral testimony of P.W.1, Exts.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 P.W.1 is the police official who participated in the raids on the date of occurrence and registered the case and filed charge sheet. 

(iii) P.W.1 deposed that on 04­04­2020 she conducted route watch with the assistance of other staff members at Jodubandala village of R.A.Valasa Mandal.

At about 18­00 hours, while they were conducting route watch at Jodubandala village they noticed, the accused carrying a gunny bag. On seeing them he perturbed. Out of suspicion they stopped her and verified the bag which was in this possession and found 10 liters of ID arrack in plastic can.  As their efforts in securing the mediators were in vain, he verified the bag which was in possession of the accused and found the ID Arrack. As such, she questioned the accused about the same for which, he confessed that he was taking the ID arrack to sell the same for higher price by purchasing an unknown person. .

She tried to secure mediators, but no one came forward to act as mediator.

Then she seized the sample from the ID Arrack and affixed identity slips duly signed by him and the accused on the sample and she prepared occurrence report on the spot. Then she arrested the accused and released him after serving section 41A Cr.P.C notice. After returning from the raids, basing on occurrence report, she registered the case in Cr.No.101/2020 u/section 7 (a)

R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act,1995. During the course of investigation she sent all the sample bottles to the Regional Proh.& Excise Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis under the cover of letter of advice. After thorough analysis the analyst opined that the sample contains Illicitly Distilled

Liquor Unit for human consumption and injurious to health.

(iv) In order to establish the possession and recovery of 10 liters of I.D

Arrack from the possession of the accused, the prosecution must establish it, either by adducing independent evidence or by offering plausible explanation showing the circumstances are such that it was an impossible task for them to secure the independent witness, as such seizure and drawing of samples i.e.,

MO.1 by the police officials in the absence of independent witnesses is justifiable. The theory of the prosecution is that as the efforts of police persons in securing the independent witnesses were in vain, P.W.1 seized the

ID arrack, in the absence of independent witnesses. Though, she testified mechanically that they tried to secure independent witnesses and their efforts were in vain the same cannot be relied upon, due to the reason that there is no single whisper in his testimony about the details of the efforts made by the police officials to secure independent witnesses and the names of the persons 4 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021 whom they approached by requesting to act as mediators. If, at all they had made efforts to secure independent witnesses, certainly she would have furnished the details of their efforts. Admittedly, the place of occurrence is situated near the village, as such, absolutely there was no difficulty for them to secure independent witnesses at the time of alleged seizure. On perusal of the evidence available on record, there is no iota of evidence to show the seizure of

ID arrack from the possession of the accused. In the absence of plausible explanation for not following the procedure contemplated under the sacrosanct provision of Section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure, while seizing the MO.1 it is not safe to base conviction by relying upon the sole testimony of police official alone in the absence of independent witnesses. 

(v) Apart from that the alleged date of Seizure and collection of sample i.e.,

MO.1 was on 04­04­2020 but, the same was sent for analysis after three months ten days i.e., on 14­07­2020. There is no single whisper in the testimony of P.W.1 as to in whose custody MO.1 was till such time. In view of the above discussion, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to base conviction, by holding that the seizure and possession of 10 liters of ID

Arrack was proved by prosecution by attaching weight to M.O1. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly

11. Point No. (ii):­

In view of the discussion under Point No (i), it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act,1995. 

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/section 7 (a) R/W 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of the Criminal

Procedure. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of accused shall be continued up to six months under Section 437A of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to dictation by the Typist on computer; corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this, the 1st day of February, 2021.

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class,

Rajam.

Appendix of evidence

5 CC.No.183/2020 date 01-02-2021

Witness examined

For prosecution:­ For Defence:­ Nil

P.W.1: 25­01­2021:­ Smt. B.Revathi, Sub­Inspector of Police.

Documents marked 

For Prosecution :­

Ex.P.1:­ 04­04­2020:­ Occurrence report Ex.P.2:­ 04­04­2020:­ Original FIR in Cr.No.101/2020 Ex.P.3:­ 14­07­2020:­ Analysis report. 

Material objects Marked For Prosecution:­

MO.1: sample bottle of ID arrack.

For defence:­ Nil. 

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class

Rajam. .