Hari Priya Chandaka AJCJ

C.C.66 of 2019 1 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

HINDUPUR

PRESENT: Miss. Ch.Haripriya,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur. Monday, this the 29th day of April, 2019

C.C.No:66/2019

Between:

Station House Officer, Proh&Excise Station, Hindupur.……Complainant.

And

S.Fracruddin, age 52 years, S/o Late S.Ibraheem sab, Demaketepalli village, Chilamathur Mandal,

Anantapur District........Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.04.2019 in the presence of Lr. APP for the complainant and Sri. A.Kalavathi, advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of police, Hindupur in Cr.No:233/2018 u/s 34(a)(i) of A.P. Excise Act,1968 against the accused.

2.In a nut shell the facts of the case are that:-

On 14-11-2018 at 6:15 P.M. as per the instructions of the Proh. &

Excise Superintendent, Penukonda the LW.5 along with LW.3 and 4 other staff of Hindupur station, ESTF, Penukonda and in the presence of LWs sd1 and 2 panchayahdars during the raids conducted at old house, situated on Lepakshi to Demaketepalli bus road, Chilamathur Mandal

C.C.66 of 2019 2 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR and found that the accused transacting the toddy business. And the accused was in illicit possession of four Black plastic cans each with 50 ltrs., capacity containing each about 25 ltrs., of Toddy (Total 100 ltrs).

and on seeing the raid party he tried to skulk away On suspicion LW.5 along with the staff detained him and on enquiry the accused disclosed that the plastic cans containing toddy. On interrogation he confessed that he did not have any relevant records to possess the toddy. LW.5 arrested the accused on informing the grounds of arrest under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. Thereafter he registered a case in

Cr.No.233/2018 u/s. 34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968. During the course of investigation Lw.5 draw the three 650 ml bottles (each containing 400 ml of toddy) and sent the sample of the toddy to the chemical examiner,

Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner examined the sample and opined that, "The sample is toddy was free from chloral Hydrate and Diazepam" vide

C.E.No.559/2018, dt:29-11-2018. Thus the accused was in illicit possession of unauthorized toddy is contrary to Sec.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise

Act,1968 without permit or license is an offence and liable to be punished under Sec.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act against the accused. On appearance of accused copies of case papers are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act the accused denied the allegation. After hearing both sides, charge u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act framed against them read over and explained in Telugu language the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.66 of 2019 3 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

4.In order to drive home the guilt of the accused and to unfold its case, the prosecution in all examined P.W.1 to 4 and got marked Ex. P.1 to P.3.

5.After the conclusion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the material evidence available on record against the accused. So as to enable him to explain any of the circumstances looking against him on record. Accused denied the entire evidence, and not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is that:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

for the offences u/s 34(a) A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable

doubt or not?

8.In order to prove the case u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act it must be unfolded before this court that all the accused illegally had huge quantity of Indian Made liquor transporting the same without having valid license or permit.

9.PW1 is independent witness and he deposed that he does not know anything about this case and police obtained his signature on a written paper but he does not know its contents.

10.P.W.2 is the Proh. & Excise SI and PW3 is Prob.& Excise constable they deposed more or less the same and their evidence in brief is that on 14-11-2018 at about 06:15 PM PW2 along with his staff proceeded to the scene of offence and they found a person containing one white polythene bag and on seeing the police the said person tried to skulk away. Then they nabbed him and on enquiry before the mediators he

C.C.66 of 2019 4 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR revealed that the possession of four Black plastic cans each with 50 ltrs., capacity containing each about 25 ltrs., of Toddy (Total 100 ltrs). They further submits that when asked about relevant records with respect to the toddy, he could not produce any permit nor the license for the possession of toddy.

Thereafter PW2 collected three 650 ml bottles (each containing 400 ml of toddy) and sent the sample of the toddy to the chemical examiner, Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner examined the sample and opined that, "The sample is toddy was free from chloral Hydrate and

Diazepam" vide C.E.No.559/2018, dt:29-11-2018 and poured remaining toddy. Thereafter basing on the Panchanama he registered a case in

Cr.No.297/201 U/S.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968. PW1 later sent the sample to chemical examiner, Govt. Regional Prho. & Excise laboratory,

Chittoor for chemical analysis and they opined that the sample is Indian made liquor vide C.E.No.27/2019 dt.22-01-2019.

11.PW4 is another independent witness and he deposed that he proceeded to the toddy shop of the accused along with the police to act as a mediator and the police found that the accused was doing business of toddy without having license then police seized the afore mentioned amount of toddy in his presence and prepared panchanama and obtained his signature.

Though VRO have deposed in support of the case of prosecution his evidence did not inspire the mind of the court as his evidence is vague.

12.From the evidence on record it is clear that except the police who conducted the raid and who filed the charge sheet, none other has

C.C.66 of 2019 5 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR supported the case of prosecution. No independent witness who were examined by the prosecution did not inspire the mind of the court.

Now the point for the consideration is, can the accused be convicted only on the sole testimony of the police who are interested witness.

13.The law is well settled in cases of this nature where in The

Hon’ble High court of A.P. held in a case between Gajamkar Narayana

Vs. State of A.P. reported in ALD Crl. 2006(1) page 255 his lordship, Sri.

Justice Venkateswara Reddy observes that “both the Courts below relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, the

Excise Sub-Inspector and P.W.3, the Excise Inspector and found the accused guilty. If the evidence of mediator (P.W.2) who turned hostile is excluded, there remains the evidence of P.W.1 and 3, the Excise

Officials, who are certainly interested witnesses. Their evidence runs in a routine manner”.

In view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., without corroborating independent evidence, the sole evidence of police official is not sufficient to base conviction against the accused. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution could not prove the charge by way of plausible, tenable and legal evidence against the accused.

14.IN THE RESULT, Accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and his bail bonds if any shall stand canceled. Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 29th day of April, 2019.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate I Class, Hindupur.

C.C.66 of 2019 6 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused

P.W.1: D.Bharatamma

PW.2:S.Anijenuyulu -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

Prosecution Accused

Ex.P.1: Signature of Panchanama -NIL-

Ex.P.2: FIR

Ex.P3:Panchanama

M.O.’S MARKED :

-NIL-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate I Class, Hindupur.

C.C.66 of 2019 7 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT HINDUPUR

Date ofDate ofApprehenDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orsion ofreleasedcommenclose ofsentence complainaccusedon bailcementtrial of order tof trial 1234567 14/11/1814/11/1814/11/1831/12/1812/04/1922/04/1929/04/19

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 66/2019 IN CRIME NUMBER 233/2018 OF HINDUPUR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION

ON THE FILE OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

HINDUPUR.

COMPLAINANTS.H.O Prohibition & Excise Station, Hindupur.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name

S.Fracruddin, age 52 years, S/o Late S.Ibraheem sab, Demaketepalli village, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCEu/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968

FINDINGAccused found not guilty.

SENTENCEIN THE RESULT, Accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and his bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled. Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

SEAL: ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HINDUPUR.

C.C.66 of 2019 8 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur .

CALENDAR CASE NUMBER66/2019

DATE OF JUDGMENT 29-04-2019

DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 29-04-2019

C.C.66 of 2019 1 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

HINDUPUR

PRESENT: Miss. Ch.Haripriya,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur. Monday, this the 29th day of April, 2019

C.C.No:66/2019

Between:

Station House Officer, Proh&Excise Station, Hindupur.……Complainant.

And

S.Fracruddin, age 52 years, S/o Late S.Ibraheem sab, Demaketepalli village, Chilamathur Mandal,

Anantapur District........Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.04.2019 in the presence of Lr. APP for the complainant and Sri. A.Kalavathi, advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of police, Hindupur in Cr.No:233/2018 u/s 34(a)(i) of A.P. Excise Act,1968 against the accused.

2.In a nut shell the facts of the case are that:-

On 14-11-2018 at 6:15 P.M. as per the instructions of the Proh. &

Excise Superintendent, Penukonda the LW.5 along with LW.3 and 4 other staff of Hindupur station, ESTF, Penukonda and in the presence of LWs sd1 and 2 panchayahdars during the raids conducted at old house, situated on Lepakshi to Demaketepalli bus road, Chilamathur Mandal

C.C.66 of 2019 2 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR and found that the accused transacting the toddy business. And the accused was in illicit possession of four Black plastic cans each with 50 ltrs., capacity containing each about 25 ltrs., of Toddy (Total 100 ltrs).

and on seeing the raid party he tried to skulk away On suspicion LW.5 along with the staff detained him and on enquiry the accused disclosed that the plastic cans containing toddy. On interrogation he confessed that he did not have any relevant records to possess the toddy. LW.5 arrested the accused on informing the grounds of arrest under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. Thereafter he registered a case in

Cr.No.233/2018 u/s. 34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968. During the course of investigation Lw.5 draw the three 650 ml bottles (each containing 400 ml of toddy) and sent the sample of the toddy to the chemical examiner,

Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner examined the sample and opined that, "The sample is toddy was free from chloral Hydrate and Diazepam" vide

C.E.No.559/2018, dt:29-11-2018. Thus the accused was in illicit possession of unauthorized toddy is contrary to Sec.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise

Act,1968 without permit or license is an offence and liable to be punished under Sec.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act against the accused. On appearance of accused copies of case papers are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act the accused denied the allegation. After hearing both sides, charge u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act framed against them read over and explained in Telugu language the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.66 of 2019 3 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

4.In order to drive home the guilt of the accused and to unfold its case, the prosecution in all examined P.W.1 to 4 and got marked Ex. P.1 to P.3.

5.After the conclusion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the material evidence available on record against the accused. So as to enable him to explain any of the circumstances looking against him on record. Accused denied the entire evidence, and not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is that:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

for the offences u/s 34(a) A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable

doubt or not?

8.In order to prove the case u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act it must be unfolded before this court that all the accused illegally had huge quantity of Indian Made liquor transporting the same without having valid license or permit.

9.PW1 is independent witness and he deposed that he does not know anything about this case and police obtained his signature on a written paper but he does not know its contents.

10.P.W.2 is the Proh. & Excise SI and PW3 is Prob.& Excise constable they deposed more or less the same and their evidence in brief is that on 14-11-2018 at about 06:15 PM PW2 along with his staff proceeded to the scene of offence and they found a person containing one white polythene bag and on seeing the police the said person tried to skulk away. Then they nabbed him and on enquiry before the mediators he

C.C.66 of 2019 4 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR revealed that the possession of four Black plastic cans each with 50 ltrs., capacity containing each about 25 ltrs., of Toddy (Total 100 ltrs). They further submits that when asked about relevant records with respect to the toddy, he could not produce any permit nor the license for the possession of toddy.

Thereafter PW2 collected three 650 ml bottles (each containing 400 ml of toddy) and sent the sample of the toddy to the chemical examiner, Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner examined the sample and opined that, "The sample is toddy was free from chloral Hydrate and

Diazepam" vide C.E.No.559/2018, dt:29-11-2018 and poured remaining toddy. Thereafter basing on the Panchanama he registered a case in

Cr.No.297/201 U/S.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968. PW1 later sent the sample to chemical examiner, Govt. Regional Prho. & Excise laboratory,

Chittoor for chemical analysis and they opined that the sample is Indian made liquor vide C.E.No.27/2019 dt.22-01-2019.

11.PW4 is another independent witness and he deposed that he proceeded to the toddy shop of the accused along with the police to act as a mediator and the police found that the accused was doing business of toddy without having license then police seized the afore mentioned amount of toddy in his presence and prepared panchanama and obtained his signature.

Though VRO have deposed in support of the case of prosecution his evidence did not inspire the mind of the court as his evidence is vague.

12.From the evidence on record it is clear that except the police who conducted the raid and who filed the charge sheet, none other has

C.C.66 of 2019 5 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR supported the case of prosecution. No independent witness who were examined by the prosecution did not inspire the mind of the court.

Now the point for the consideration is, can the accused be convicted only on the sole testimony of the police who are interested witness.

13.The law is well settled in cases of this nature where in The

Hon’ble High court of A.P. held in a case between Gajamkar Narayana

Vs. State of A.P. reported in ALD Crl. 2006(1) page 255 his lordship, Sri.

Justice Venkateswara Reddy observes that “both the Courts below relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, the

Excise Sub-Inspector and P.W.3, the Excise Inspector and found the accused guilty. If the evidence of mediator (P.W.2) who turned hostile is excluded, there remains the evidence of P.W.1 and 3, the Excise

Officials, who are certainly interested witnesses. Their evidence runs in a routine manner”.

In view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., without corroborating independent evidence, the sole evidence of police official is not sufficient to base conviction against the accused. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution could not prove the charge by way of plausible, tenable and legal evidence against the accused.

14.IN THE RESULT, Accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and his bail bonds if any shall stand canceled. Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 29th day of April, 2019.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate I Class, Hindupur.

C.C.66 of 2019 6 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused

P.W.1: D.Bharatamma

PW.2:S.Anijenuyulu -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

Prosecution Accused

Ex.P.1: Signature of Panchanama -NIL-

Ex.P.2: FIR

Ex.P3:Panchanama

M.O.’S MARKED :

-NIL-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate I Class, Hindupur.

C.C.66 of 2019 7 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT HINDUPUR

Date ofDate ofApprehenDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orsion ofreleasedcommenclose ofsentence complainaccusedon bailcementtrial of order tof trial 1234567 14/11/1814/11/1814/11/1831/12/1812/04/1922/04/1929/04/19

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 66/2019 IN CRIME NUMBER 233/2018 OF HINDUPUR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION

ON THE FILE OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

HINDUPUR.

COMPLAINANTS.H.O Prohibition & Excise Station, Hindupur.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name

S.Fracruddin, age 52 years, S/o Late S.Ibraheem sab, Demaketepalli village, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCEu/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968

FINDINGAccused found not guilty.

SENTENCEIN THE RESULT, Accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and his bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled. Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

SEAL: ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HINDUPUR.

C.C.66 of 2019 8 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur .

CALENDAR CASE NUMBER66/2019

DATE OF JUDGMENT 29-04-2019

DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 29-04-2019

C.C.64 of 2019 1 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

HINDUPUR

PRESENT: Miss. Ch.Haripriya,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur. Tuesday, this the 30th day of April, 2019

C.C.No:64/2019

Between:

Station House Officer, Proh&Excise Station, Hindupur.……Complainant.

And

Gopalappagari Chandrasekhar Reddy, Age 54 years, S/o Gopal Reddy, Gollapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal,

Anantapur District........Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 30.04.2019 in the presence of Lr. APP for the complainant and Sri. A.Kalavathi, advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of police, Hindupur in Cr.No:229/2018 u/s 34(a)(i) of A.P. Excise Act,1968 against the accused.

2.In a nut shell the facts of the case are that:-

On 09-11-2018 at 12:30 P.M. as per the instructions of the Proh. &

Inspector, Hindupur LW.3 along with LWs1, Lw2 and other staff of

Hindupupr station during the raids conducted by Gollapuram Busstand,

Gollapuram village, Hindupur Mandal and found that the accused was in illicit possession of plastic pot possession of the was containing 15 ltrs of

C.C.64 of 2019 2 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR toddy and on seeing the raid party he tried to skulk away. On suspicion

LW.3 along with the staff detained him and on enquiry the accused disclosed that the plastic pot containing toddy. On interrogation he confessed that he did not have any relevant records to possess the toddy. LW.3 arrested the accused on informing the grounds of arrest under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot. Thereafter he registered a case in Cr.No.229/2018 u/s. 34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968.

During the course of investigation Lw.3 sent the sample of the toddy with the help of mini kit and found that the toddy is free from Chloral

Hydrate. LW.3 drew three samples of the toddy 650 ml bottles (each containing 400 ml of toddy) to the chemical examiner, Govt. Regional

Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis. The chemical examiner examined the sample and opined that, the toddy is free from chloral hydrate vide C.E.No.559/2018 dt:29-11-2018. Thus the accused was in illicit possession of unauthorized liquor is contrary to

Sec.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968 without permit or license is an offence and liable to be punished under Sec.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act against the accused. On appearance of accused copies of case papers are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act the accused denied the allegation. After hearing both sides, charge u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act framed against them read over and explained in Telugu language the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to drive home the guilt of the accused and to unfold its case, the prosecution in all examined P.W.1 & 2 and got marked Ex. P.1

C.C.64 of 2019 3 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR to P.3.

5.After the conclusion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the material evidence available on record against the accused. So as to enable him to explain any of the circumstances looking against him on record. Accused denied the entire evidence, and not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is that:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

for the offences u/s 34(a) A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable

doubt or not?

8.In order to prove the case u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act it must be unfolded before this court that all the accused illegally had huge quantity of Indian Made liquor transporting the same without having valid license or permit.

9.P.W.1 is the Proh. & Excise Si of police and PW2 is Prob.& Excise constable they deposed more or less the same and their evidence in brief is that on 09-11-2018 at about 12:30 PM PW2 along with his staff proceeded to the scene of offence and they found a person containing one plastic pot and on seeing the police the said person tried to skulk away. Then they nabbed him and on enquiry before the mediators he revealed that the pot contains toddy. They further submits that when asked about relevant records with respect to the toddy, he could not produce any permit nor the license for the possession of whiskey.

Thereafter PW1 collected three samples 650 ml bottles (each containing 400 ml of toddy) and and poured remaining toddy. Thereafter

C.C.64 of 2019 4 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR basing on the Panchanama he registered a case in Cr.No.229/2018

U/S.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act,1968. PW1 later sent the sample to chemical examiner, Govt. Regional Prho. & Excise laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis and they opined that the sample is Indian made liquor vide C.E.No.559/2018 dt.29-11-2018.

10.From the evidence on record it is clear that except the police who conducted the raid and who filed the charge sheet, none other has supported the case of prosecution. No independent witness was secured by the police at the time of seizure of case property and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Now the point for the consideration is, can the accused be convicted only on the sole testimony of the police who are interested witness.

11.The law is well settled in cases of this nature where in The

Hon’ble High court of A.P. held in a case between Gajamkar Narayana

Vs. State of A.P. reported in ALD Crl. 2006(1) page 255 his lordship, Sri.

Justice Venkateswara Reddy observes that “both the Courts below relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, the

Excise Sub-Inspector and P.W.3, the Excise Inspector and found the accused guilty. If the evidence of mediator (P.W.2) who turned hostile is excluded, there remains the evidence of P.W.1 and 3, the Excise

Officials, who are certainly interested witnesses. Their evidence runs in a routine manner”.

In view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., without corroborating independent evidence, the sole evidence of police official is not sufficient to base conviction against the accused. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution could not prove the charge by way of plausible, tenable and legal evidence against the accused.

C.C.64 of 2019 5 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

12.IN THE RESULT, Accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and his bail bonds if any shall stand canceled. Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 30th day of April, 2019.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate I Class, Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused

P.W.1: J.Satish Kumar

PW.2:S.Anijenuyulu -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

Prosecution Accused

Ex.P.1: FIR -NIL-

Ex.P.2: Special Report

Ex.P3: Analysis Report.

M.O.’S MARKED :

-NIL-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate I Class, Hindupur.

C.C.64 of 2019 6 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT HINDUPUR

Date ofDate ofApprehenDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orsion ofreleasedcommenclose ofsentence complainaccusedon bailcementtrial of order tof trial 1234567 09/11/1809/11/1809/11/1811/11/1812/04/1922/04/1930/04/19

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 64/2019 IN CRIME NUMBER 229/2018 OF HINDUPUR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE STATION

ON THE FILE OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

HINDUPUR.

COMPLAINANTS.H.O Prohibition & Excise Station, Hindupur.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name

Gopalappagari Chandrasekhar Reddy, Age 54 years, S/o Gopal Reddy, Gollapuram Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapur District.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFENCEu/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968

FINDINGAccused found not guilty.

SENTENCEIN THE RESULT, Accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and his bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled. Accused is set at liberty forthwith. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

SEAL: ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

HINDUPUR.

C.C.64 of 2019 7 AJFCM COURT, HINDUPUR Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur .

CALENDAR CASE NUMBER64/2019

DATE OF JUDGMENT 30-04-2019

DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 30-04-2019