Smt. Harika Ravuri

1

APAN040000802025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE):: ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. R. Harika

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu

FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Anantapuramu.

Wednesday, the Ninth day of July,

Two Thousand and Twenty Five

(09.07.2025)

Calendar Case No.28 of 2025

(Crime No.190 of 2024 U/s.118(2) of Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station)

Between:-

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Inspector of Police, Ananthapurmu III Town Police Station. …Complainant.

AND Dudekula Ismail, aged about 43 years S/o D. Asanappa, reesiding at behind Peerla Makhanam, Azad Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town … Accused.

* * * * * *

This case came on 30.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri. U. Mahesh,

Advocates for Accused and upon hearing on both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivers the following:

2

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.190 of 2024 of Ananthapuramu III Town Police

Station, for the offence punishable under section 118(2) of BNS

2. Brief facts of the charge sheet:

LW.6/ Shaik Munwar injured person he has been working as welder at LW.5/

Shaik Akram/ owner of the welding shop near HLC canal on Gooty Road. On 19.09.2024, after completion of work LW.5 informed to Lw.6 to close the shop and left from his shop. Lw.6 informed to LW.5, he intend to meet the accused at his shop. The Accused subsequently arrived the shop, where the accused and Lw.6 engaged in a discussion concerning personal matters. During this discussion an altercation arose between them, escalating into a physical confrontation. The accused, harboring animosity toward LW.6, picked up a stick and struck LW.6 on the head, resulting in a bleeding injury. At this juncture, LW.2 and LW.3 who are the elder brothers of LW.6 witnessed an altercation while proceeding through the HLC canal, intervened, and rescued LW.6 from the clutches of the accused. Immediately,

Lw.2 and 3 shifted the injured person/LW.6 to GGH, Ananthapuramu. Further he shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, Lw.1 approached the police and preferred a complaint.

(a)On the complaint of LW.1/ Shaik Shameem, LW.8/ K. Shanthilal registered a case in Cr.No.190 of 2024 punishable U/s 118(1) of BNS, 2023. Further basing on

Lw.8 obtained wound certificate the injury was grievous in nature section was altered to 118(2) of BNS of Ananthapuramu III Town Police station.

(c)During the course of investigation, LW.8 with credible information about accused was apprehended at More super Market near 6th Road, Ananthapuramu at 3 about 09:30 A.M. After completing the legal formalities the accused remanded to judicial custody.

Thus Accused has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 118(2) of BNS of

Ananthapuramu III Town P.S

3. The Court took cognizance of case for the offence punishable under section 118(2) of BNS against Accused.

4. Copies of documents was furnished to Accused as contemplated under

Section 230 of BNSS.

5.Accused was examined under section 262 of BNSS for which he denied.

After hearing both sides and on considering the entire record, the charges for the offence punishable under section 118(2) of BNS against Accused is framed. The said charges was read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined LW.1, LW.2 and

LW.6 to LW.8 as PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P4. The Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses i.e., Lws.3 to LW.5.

7.Accused was examined u/Sec.351 BNSS explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments on behalf of the prosecution and Accused.

9. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the PW.3 sustained grievous injury or not, if so?

4

2. Whether the accused beat PW.1 with stick and caused grievous injury or not?

3. Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilty of accused by all

reasonable doubts for the offence U/sec.180(2) of BNS or not ?

4. To what relief?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Among them, PW.1 is the Defacto Complainant/ Shaik

Shameem, PW.2/ Shaik Altaf who is said to be eye witness and PW.3 is the Shaik

Munwar/ Injured person, PW.4/Dr. D. Sowmya/ who issued wound certificate of

PW.3 and Pw.5/ K. Santhilal/ Investigation Officer. Ex.P1 is the report of PW.1,

dated: 19.09.2024, Ex.P2 is the wound certificate, dated: 16.11.2024 of PW.3,

Ex.P3 is the Original FIR and Ex.P4 is the rough sketch of scene of offence.

11.Heard both sides.

12.While advancing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution, the learned

Asst. Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW.3, who is injured person has categorically deposed that, how he sustained grievous injury in the hands of the accused which was corroborated with medical evidence that is PW.4. PW.1 and

PW.2 evidence was also corroborated and supported the case of the prosecution.

Further argued that, non seizure of the incriminating material and stick is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that, even though the Radiologist was not cited and examined the injured person/

PW.3 as grievous was clearly established by the prosecution with medical evidence and circumstantial evidence, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that even though there are minor commissions and contradictions, it will not help the case of the defence to the extent of the acquittal of the accused and as such the accused observed for conviction and also relied up on one citation which will be discussed in later and pray the Hon’ble court to convict the accused.

5

13.As per contra, the learned defence counsel for the accused argued that, the

FIR was as Ex.P3, it was registered against the accused by name Shaik Ismail after completion of investigation, the SHO laid charge sheet against the accused by name Dudekula Ismail but there is no whisper of SHO, whether said Shaik Ismail and one Dudekula Ismail is same person or not? The said ambiguity was not cleared by the prosecution by producing cogent and corroborated evidence or at least did not choose to file the documents to shows that, that shaik ismail and

Dudekula Ismail are one and same person. Defence counsel further argued that, as per the FIR, as per PW.1 and PW.2 and the case of the prosecution is that PW.3 and accused both are went to HLC canal to talk their personal issues where altercation arose and accused beat PW.3 but Pw.3 deposed totally contradictionary evidence in his evidence which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Defence counsel further argued that, PW.1 is hear say evidence which she clearly admitted that in his cross examination that she did not witnessed the incident. Further argued that, prosecution examined only PW.2 evidence and not examined remaining witnesses for the reasons best known to them. Radiologist was not examined and further argued that incriminating material stick was not seized by the prosecution.

Defence counsel further argued that there are so many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution. PW.3 who is injured, himself was not supported the case of the prosecution who deposed total contra to his 161

Cr.P.C Statements. Hence it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further defence counsel argued that, hence the evidence of all prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon. With these statements defence counsel saught acquittal of the accused.

14.P O I N T No.1:

As per the contents of Ex.P.1/ report and Ex.P.3/ FIR, it is noted that the said offence said to be occurred on 18.09.2024 at HLC canal, Gooty Road, 6

Ananthapuramu town and the criminal law was set into motion basing on the report given by PW.1 on 19.09.2024.

15. As per the Ex.P1 report, it was elicited that accused beat PW.3, then Lw.2 and

LW.3 rescued him and informed the same to the PW.1 and shifted him to

Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu. In support of Ex.P1/ Report, PW.1 deposed that in her evidence that on 18.09.2024 at about 08.30 PM while she was presented at her house she received a phone called from Pw.2 and LW.3 and informed to her that PW.3 was received bleeding injury in the hands of accused and they were shifted PW.3 to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu in an Auto then immediately herself along with her relatives went to said hospital and there she found her husband with injuries on head. On the advice of doctors, PW.3 shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment.

16.PW.2 deposed that on 18.09.2024 at about 08.10 PM, himself along with

LW.3 proceeding motorcycle towards HLC canal, where they observed on going altercation in between accused and Pw.3, during altercation accused beat with stick on head of PW.3 and by causing bleeding injury. PW.3 who is injured deposed that on 18.09.2024, then he questioned about his high handedness of the accused, accused took a stick and beat over PW.3 head due to the acts of the accused, he sustained bleeding injuries over his head.

17.PW.4 deposed in her evidence that, on 18.09.2024 at about 10.20 PM, she examined PW.3 and found the following injuries.

1).Blunt injury on right forearm, back 2).Deep laceration of size 7x2 CM on right parietal region

Grade III liver injury with mild hemoperitoneum and moderate hemotothorx

USG abdomen continuation in right lobe of liver.

USG swelling: 1. Diffuse subcutaneous edema over back 7

2. Intra muscular hematoma in lateral aspect of right fore arm.

18.In examination of PW.1 and 2 by defence counsel nothing was elicited against prosecution with regard to the injuries sustained by PW.3. In cross examination of PW.3, the defence counsel posed a suggestion that in order to avoid the repayment of debt by taking the advantages of injuries which he has sustained due to falling on the ground in drunken stage. On his instructions PW.1 foisted a false case against the accused. The same was denied by the PW.3.

19.On perusing the Ex.P3/ wound certificate, PW.3 was sustained injuries which are grievous in nature. Even though the defence counsel argued that, PW.3 did not sustained any injuries on the date of incident. Indirectly in cross examination he posed suggestion to PW.3 by taking advantages of injuries, he foisted a false case against the accused. which seems he also admitted that sustaining of injuries by

PW.3.

20.On perusing the entire evidence of PWs.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.P2/ wound certificate. Which was elicited that PW.3 sustained grievous injury on 18.09.2024.

Accordingly point answered in favour of the prosecution against the accused.

Point Nos.2 and 3:

21.The case of the prosecution as per the Ex.P1 is on 18.09.2024, PW.3 along with accused went to HLC canal to talk together about their personal issues. Then at about 08.15 PM, PW.1 received a phone call from PW.2 and LW.3 and they informed to her that there is altercation between accused and PW.3. Then accused beat PW.3 with stick and PW.3 sustained with bleeding injury. Then they went to scene of offence accused fled away from the scene of offence and they were going to shift PW.3 to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu. Immediately PW.1 along with her relatives went to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu.

8

Later as per the advice of the doctors, they shifted PW.3 to Victoria Hospital,

Bangalore for better treatment. PW.1 in support of her contention she reiterated the contents of Ex.P1/ Report in her evidence.

22.PW.2 who is said to be eye witness in this case deposed that on 18.09.2024 at about 08.10 PM while himself along with LW.3 proceeding on motorcycle towards

HLC canal, at LW.5 welding shop they noticed on going altercation between accused and PW.3. During the altercation accused beat with stick on the head of

PW.3 and caused bleeding injury and fled away from that place. Immediately they shifted PW.2 to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu in auto for treatment. PW.3 who is injured and victim in this case was deposed in total contradiction to the version of the PW.1 and PW.2 and deposed that on 18.09.2024 at about 08.10 PM he went to welding shop of LW.5 for having conversation with him on personal issues. Then he noticed accused and enquired about the reason for his presence in his welding shop for which accused grew wild and started abusing him in filthy language without any reason. When he questioned about his high handedness behavior accused took a stick and beat him over his head due to the acts of the accused he sustained bleeding injury over his head.

23.On perusing the section 180(3) of BNSS statements, PW.3 along with accused both went together HLC canal, LW.5 welding shop to talk their personal issues then an altercation was happened in the meantime Pw.2 and LW.3 came to the spot then accused beat PW.3 with a stick and caused bleeding injury then PW.2 and LW.3 rescued PW.3 in the hands of the accused and shifted to Government

General hospital, Ananthapuramu in an auto and also informed same to the PW.1.

24.On perusing the entire evidence let in before this court, the version of the prosecution as per the PW.1 and 2 are:

9

The accused and PW.3 both together went to HLC canal, Lw.5 welding shop to talk their personal issues, there is wordy altercation raised in between them, then accused beat PW.3 with a stick and caused bleeding injury then PW.2 and LW.3 who witnessed the incident rescued him and shifted Government General Hospital,

Ananthapuramu and also informed the same to the PW.1. The injured who is PW.3 was totally deposed contradictory version of the prosecution that himself went to the LW.5 welding shop to talk with LW.5. As per the PW.3, he was not together went to the LW.5 welding shop along with accused. As per the PW.3 evidence, when he noticed the accused at the shop of LW.5 welding shop, he enquired about the reason of his presence in the welding shop for which accused grew wild and started abusing him in filthy language without any reasons then he questioned about his high handedness behavior accused took a stick and beat over his head. On hearing his screams PW.2, LW.3 came to the spot and rescued him from the hands of the accused. but as per the evidence of PW.2, he deposed he saw an altercation between accused and PW.3 and he also witnessed the accused beat PW.3 with a stick but on contra PW.3 who is injured deposed on hearing screams PW.2, Lw.3 came to the spot and rescued him from the hands of the accused. Hence as per the evidence of PW.3, PW.2 and LW.3 were not present at scene of offence and on hearing screams only they were went to the spot and rescued him.

Further as per the Ex.P1/ Report, Pw.3 and accused both together went to welding shop of Lw.5 to talk their personal issues. If it is the case, then why PW.3 questioned the presence of accused at LW.5 welding shop. Moreover PW.3 did not state that he along with accused together went to the shop of Lw.5 to talk their personal issues. Moreover in Cross examination he admitted that LW.5 is his relative only to meet him he went to welding shop on date of alleged incident. Then if it is the only real fact that he went to meet Lw.5 only, then the version of prosecution that both accused and PW.3 were together went to scene of offence to talk their personal issues is no way corroborated to the evidence of Pw.3.

25.PW.2 in his evidence did not state that he informed about the incident by

Phone call to PW.1, but PW.1 deposed that Pw.2, LW.3 were called her over phone 10 and informed about the altercation between PW.3 and accused. As per Ex.P3/ FIR, it was registered against Shaik Ismail, but SHO had laid the chargesheet against

Dudekula Ismail but prosecution did not state anything Shaik Ismail had another name as Dudekula Ismail and also not produced any sought of cogent evidence to show that Shaik Ismail and Dudekula Ismail are one and same person.

26.Even though prosecution had examined Pw.1 to 4, PW.1 is a hear say witness, she clearly admitted that in cross examination that she did not witness the incident. Hence her evidence has to be considered to corroborated with the other witnesses evidence. PW.2 said to be eye witness but he did not state in his evidence that he made a phone call to Pw.1 and informed about he incident. Apart from informing of incident to PW.1 as per version of PW.2 himself along with LW.3 witnessed the altercation, and also saw the accused beat PW.3. On contra PW.3 deposed, on hearing the screams only PW.2 and Lw.3 came to the welding shop of

LW.5 and rescued them. Then the presence and witnessing the alleged incident as stated as stated by Pw.2 is doubtful. Moreover, PW.3 deposed a total contradictory statement with 180(3) BNSS statement, the version of Ex.P1/ Report and prosecution. As discussed supra, if really the accused along with Pw.3 went to talk their personal issues at HLC canal, again questioning of the accused about his presence at welding shop of LW.5 could not be occurred.

27.Moreover no evidence was placed before this court by the prosecution against accused to prove the charges leveled against accused. Prosecution did not choose to take steps to produce the incriminating material before this court. Except the oral statements of the witnesses, nothing was properly established before this

Court with cogent and corroborative evidence. It is the primary duty of the prosecution to establish their case as the accused clearly taken defence that accused beat to Pw.1 with a stick. Admittedly, incriminating weapon i.e., Stick was not placed before this court to prove the case of prosecution.

11

P oint No.4: Therefore, in view of the clear material discrepancies elicited in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is not held sufficient to substantiate believe the charges leveled against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

28.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.118(2) BNS. Hence, he is acquitted under section 278(1) of BNSS for thesaid ofences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of parents and sureties of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 481 of BNSS. Property if any shall be made absolute after expirty of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 09th day of July, 2025.

Sd/- R.Harika

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution

PW1: Shaik Shameem

PW.2: Shaik Altaf

PW.3: Shaik Munwar

PW.4: Dr.D. Sowmya

PW.5: K. Shanthilal

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

12

Ex.P1: Report of Pw.1, dated:19.09.2024

Ex.P2: Wound certificate of Pw.3, dted:16.01.2024.

Ex.P3: Original First Information Report.

Ex.P4: Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence

NILNIL

Sd/- R.Harika

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. FAC Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile),

Ananthapuramu.

//True Copy//

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu.

FAC Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile),

Ananthapuramu.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE)

ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar Case No.28 of 2025

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station. Crime No.190 of 2024 of Ananthapuramu III Town Police Station.

Accused: Dudekula Ismail, aged about 43 years S/o D. Asanappa, reesiding at behind Peerla Makhanam, Azad Nagar, Ananthapuramu Town.

Report or Apprehension Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Complaint of accused on bail ement of trial Order

trial 19.09.2024No detentionNo detention 20.02.2025 19.06.202509.07.2025

Offences :-Under sections 118(2) of BNS, 2023. Finding :- Found not guilty. Sentence of Order:-

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.118(2) BNS. Hence, he is acquitted under section 278(1) of BNSS for thesaid ofences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of parents and sureties of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 481 of BNSS. Property if any shall be made absolute after expirty of appeal time.

Sd/- R.Harika

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. FAC Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile),

Ananthapuramu.

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Dis.No. , Dt. . .2025.

//True Copy//

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu.

FAC Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile),

Ananthapuramu.

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Present: Smt.R.Harika

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class,

FAC-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Thursday, the 09 th Day of October, 2025

Calendar Case No.591 of 2023

Between:-

State Represented through Enforcement Inspector,

SEB Station, Ananthapuramu. ...Complainant.

AND

Gujjala Nagaraju, age 55 years, S/o.Late G.Nallappa,

R/o.D.No.28/2/624, Navodaya Colony, Anantapuramu Town. ...Accused

***

This case came before me on 08.10.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri S.Madhusudana and Sri.Ravi Narayana Advocates for accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The State represented by Enforcement Inspector, Ananthapuramu SEB

Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.278/2020 for the offences punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act-2020.

2)The case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.2020 at about 10.00PM, on credible information raids conducted by the LW.4 along with the staff raided at infront of H.No.28/2/624, Navodaya Colony, Ananthapuramu and fund the accused person left the bag and escape, then the LW.4 tried to detain him with the help of staff but in vain. LW.4 verified the bag, it containing 41 Nips of Radico 8PM Rare 2 Blended of Indian Whiksy tetra packets Non duty paid liquor, Karnataka state and also find his Aadhar card number and found name Gujjala Nagaraju. LW.4 seized the property under the cover of special report. LW.4 registered a case in

Cr.No.278/2020, U/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, of Ananthapuramu SEB P.S and accused was sent to judicial custody.

Further, during the course of invetigation on 30.11.2020 at about 8.00AM during the raids conducted by the LW.4 along with staff raided at H.No.28/2/624,

Navodaya Colony, Ananthapuramu for excise offence, LW.4 identified one male person i.e., Gujjala Nagaraju who is involved in Cr.No.278/2020 of SEB Station,

Ananthapuramu. LW.4 arrested the accused and sent to judicial custody.

LW.4 drawn samples and sent for chemical analysis report Chemical

Examiner, Govt., Regional Excise Laboratory, Chittoor vide CE.No.182/2021 in

S.No. 1779, dated 02.2.2021 and opined that "the sample is Indian Made Liquor".

Further, the contraband which was seized in this case was destroyed on 18.6.2022 vide RC.No.49/SEB-ATP/2021, dated 30.4.2021. After completion of investigation

LW.5 filed charge sheet in this case.

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

4)On appearance of accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required u/s.230 BNSS.

5) On 03.07.2024, accused was examined under Sec.263 of BNSS by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied. Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against 3 accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language. For which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6)In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined Pws.1 & 2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4 on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW.2, 3 & 5/D.Anil Kumar, J.Raghunath, R.Ravichandra, Inspector, hence their evidene is closed. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

7)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 08.10.2025, accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8)Heard arguments of prosecution and defence. Perused the entire record.

9)The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 & 2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence 34(a) of AP

Excise Act and that without having any license, the accused was in possession of the liquor bottles which were seized by PW.2, that no inconsistent statement were made by

PW2 and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise Act.

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused was falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose and nothing else and the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11)Now the point arose for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences

punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

4

12)POINT:-

i).P.W.1 and 2 who are police officials at the time of arresting the accused and seizing the contraband deposed that no mediators were present at the time of seizure and arrest.

ii).PW.1-D.Geetha, Excise Constable, deposed that on 28.11.2020, while conducting raids herself along with Lws 2 to 4 and staff Enforcement inspector got credible information about the accused having possesion of liquor. On the instructions of inspector they all proceeded to Navodaya Colony, Ananthapuramu and found the accused infront of his house D.No,28/2/624 having possession of one white polythene bag. On seeing them, he skulk away by leaving the bag. On verifing the bag they found 41 Nips of Radico 8PM per Rare Blended of Indian whiksy and Malts. They also found Aadhar card of the person who escape from the place. LW.2 identified the person as G.Nagaraju(Accused). LW.4 drawn sample for chemical analyisis purpose duly sealed and labelled and seized the reamining property which was drafted by her upon the dictation of LW.4. Ex.P1 is the Special

Report.

iii)PW.2-S.Zakeer Hussain, Sub-Inspector, deposed that on 28.11.2020, while conducting raids himself along with PW1, Lws 2 and 3 and staff, upon the instructions of Enfoprcement inspector, as he got credible information about the accused having possesion of liquor. On the instructions of inspector they all proceeded to Navodaya Colony, Ananthapuramu and found the accused infront of his house D.No,28/2/624 having possession of one white polythene bag. On seeing them, he skulk away by leaving the bag. LW2 identified the person who fle away 5 from the spot as G.Nagaraju/accused. On verifing the bag they found 41 Nips of

Radico 8PM per RARE Blended of Indian whiksy and Malts and one aadar. He verified the aadar and found that the aadar belongs to the accused whom LW.2 identified the person as G.Nagaraju(Accused). He drawn sample for chemical analyisis purpose duly sealed and labelled and seized the reamining property which was drafted upon his dictation under Ex.P1.

Basing on Ex.P.1 he registered a case in Cr.No.278/2020U/sec.34(a) of AP

Excise Act.Ex.P2 is FIR. Submitted copies of FIR to the court concerned and forwarded the samples to Chemical examiner, Chittoor under letter advise Ex.P3 is letter of advise. On 30-11-2020 at 8-00AM during raids conducted by him, he found the accused and identified him as G.Nagaraju/accused whom Lw.2 identified in Cr.No.278/2020 and he confronted his identity with LW2. He arrested the accused after informing the grounds of arrest to him and also given information to his family members about his arrest. They brought him to the police station. on the same day he Produced the accused before the court for remand. He handed over the CD file to LW5 R.Ravichandra, P&E Sub-Inspector for further investigation. After verifing the investigating and after receipt of analysis report filed charge sheet.

Ex.P4 Analysis report.

13)To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused was found in possession of 41 Nips of Radico 8PM per RARE Blended of Indian whiksy and Malt for sale purpose.

6

14)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witness, it is necessary to have a look at section 42 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 which deals with regard to the presumption as to the commission of the offence in certain cases. The said Section reads as follows; “Sec.42 : Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases:-

In prosecutions U/s.34, [Sec.37 and 37-A], it shall be

presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the

accused person has committed the offence punishable

under that section in respect of -

(a) any intoxicant, or

(b) any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever

in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy, or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process

towards the manufacture of an for the possession of

which he is unable to account satisfactorily”.

The above said section would make it clear that there shall be a presumption stood in favour of the prosecution for the offences U/s.34, 37, 37-A, which mandates that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of any intoxicant, any utensil, implement or apparatus in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy or any materials which have undergone any process to the manufacture of an intoxicant and from which intoxicant has been manufactured when the accused is unable to account satisfactorily. To avail the said presumption, it is initially for the prosecution to establish that the accused was possession of liquor bottles. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 & 2.

7

15) On reading of the testimony of P.W.2, this Court does not find any inconsistent statement made by him with regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.4 and as such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden and as such, the prosecution is entitled to the presumption under Section 42 of the A.P. Excise Act.

16) The burden of rebutting the presumption by the accused is not as high as that of the burden of proving the case by the prosecution. If the accused succeeds in placing positive evidence, the presumption will be disappeared and again the prosecution is not entitled to the said presumption and it has to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17) Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section Sec.103 of

BNSS, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating

Officer.

18) In the present case P.W.1 and PW.2 who are police officials deposed that except them no independent mediators participated in the raid creates a doubt in very case of the prosecution and the same would be sufficient to rebut the 8 presumption stood in favour of the prosecution and as such the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution. Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of PW.1 & P.W.2 are silent as to from which shop the accused person purchased the liquor bottles and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offencea U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Admittedly no identity slips were affixed on the seized property and no explanation has been offered to that effect. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution with regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused persons creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the prosecution.

19) At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl.

P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,Vizianagaram

Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

20) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and and he is acquitted U/s.271 (1) of BNSS and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 481 BNSS. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

9 Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 09th day of October, 2025.

Sd/-Smt.R.Harika,

I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC-Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : D.Geetha Nil

PW2 : S.Zakeer Hussain

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Special report. Ex.P2 : First information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report

Exhibits marked for Delfence:Nil

Mos marked on behalf of :NIL

I/d-R.H., FAC- Spl. J.F.C.M, P&E/ATP.

//True Copy//

I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC-Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU.

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence OffenceComplaintof accused on bailment of trialtrialOrder 28.11.202029.11.202030.11.20202.12.202020.02.20257.10.20259.10.2025

Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.591/2023 on the file of Special Judicia First Class

Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Enforcement Inspector, Ananthapuramu SEB Police Station.

Crime No: 278/2020

Father's or Name of the Age Religion Calling Residence Mandal Name Accused

G.Nagaraju55 yrsLate G.NallappaHIndu---Navodaya ColonyAnantapur

Offence: U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and and he is acquitted U/s.271 (1) of BNSS and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 481 BNSS. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt.R.Harika,

I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC-Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC-Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Dis.No. Dt.

CC No.554 of 2019

1 APAN040022182019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE): ANANTHAPURAMU

Present:- Smt. R. Harika,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu FAC Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, this the 22nd day of July, 2025

CC No.554/2019

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III town P.S. ….Complainant

Vs.

Chintakayala Balaraju, aged about 28 years S/o Sunkanna, Marthadu Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. ….Accused

This case is coming on 22.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri. N. Jagadeesh, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu III town P.S. has filed charge sheet against the sole accused herein in Cr.No.10/2018 for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).

CC No.554 of 2019

2

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 17.01.2018, Lw.1/

Melakunta Sreenivasa Nikhil boarded APSRTC Bus Service No.6666 at Chennai to Ananthapuramu. He kept his bag on the bus rack, the next day morning i.e., 18.01.2018 at about 04.30 AM, he found his was missing, in that bag LW.1 kept his belongings i.e., 1) White color Apple Tab, its serial No.SF9FQKOFQCM8, worth

Rs.19,762 2) Black berry mobile phone, its IMEI no.351852064893182, worth

Rs.24,990 3) Blue tooth, worth Rs.6,000/- and Cash of Rs.1,000/- and entire worth is Rs.51,752/-. He searched bus surroundings but in vain and same was informed to the Lw.3 and Lw.4 who are RTC Staff. LW.1 informed to the LW.2/ M. Yugandhar about the incident. On 18.01.2018 at about 9 PM, Lw1 and LW.2 went to Police

Station and preferred a complaint.

(a)Basing on the complaint of LW.1, LW.8/ B. Kranthi Kumar registered a

Cr.No.10/2018 u/sec.379 of IPC. During the course of investigation, Lw.8 recorded

Lws.1 to 4 statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. Basing on the information about accused Lw.7/ Bala maddileti, Lws.5 and 6 reached the Market Yard, Gooty Road, Ananthapuramu and found two persons under suspicious and possessed with two bags by noticing police vehicles they tried to skulk away but police apprehended them under cover of mahazarnama.

They disclosed their identity as Chintakayala Balaraju and Jallipogu Venkateswarlu and confessed that they both had committed the offences in different places and shared the booty among them. On enquiry Accused/ Chintakayala balaraju voluntarily confessed that his offence in the month of January, 2018 with regard to this crime before the LW.7 and his staff. On this confession, LW.7 got confirmation that was the property concerned in Cr.No.10/2018 u/sec.379 of IPC of

Ananthapuramu III Town PS and arrested both the accused in Cr.No.190/2017 u/sec.457-380 of IPC of Ananthapuramu III town P.S and sent for remand. But

Accused No.1 had confessed about offence and the entire booty was disposed off by him to new person and no property was recovered from him.

CC No.554 of 2019

3

(b)On the confession of Accused No.1, LW.8 filed P.T Warrant against accused No.1 in the Hon’ble Court of SJFCM(mobile), Ananthapuramu causing his production in this case. The hon’ble court was kind enough to grant remand to the

Accused in P.T Warrant.

Hence, the Accused had committed the offence punishable u/sec.379 of IPC and liable for punishment.

3.The case is taken into cognizance against sole accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Sec.207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’).

5.The accused is examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. charges are framed for the offences punishable u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC agianst accused and its contents were explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In pursuance of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

Lws.2, LW.5, Lw.7 and LW.8 as PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. As the material witness did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses LWs.1,

LW.3, LW.4 and LW.6.

7.Accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

CC No.554 of 2019

4

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

9.Now the point that arise for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.379 or 411 of IPC ?”

10.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor, has chosen to examine four witnesses out of eight cited in the charge sheet. PW.1/ M. Yugandhar who is cousin of LW.1. PW.2/ Y. Subramanyam who is

Mahazar witness. PW.3/ B. Bala Maddilety who is Inspector of Police and PW.4/ B.

Kranthi Kumar Inspector of Police who registered the case, investigation and examination of witnesses and filing PT Warrant against the accused. Learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State has given up the remaining cited witnesses in this case.

Apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the following documents and material object got marked. Ex.P1 is the report of LW.1/ M.

Sreenivasa Nikil, dated:18.01.2018, Ex.P.2 is the Red marked relevant portion in certified copy of mediatornama, dated:10.11.2018, Ex.P.3 is the First Information

Report and Ex.P.4 is the Rough sketch of scene of offence.

11.While advancing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution, learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section 379 or 411of IPC and that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.P1 to P4 proves that the accused had committed theft of white color Apple Tab, Black Blackberry Mobile and Bluetooth

Speaker intending to take dishonestly which belongs to the LW.1, as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence Under Section 379 or 411 of IPC.

CC No.554 of 2019

5 On the other hand, the learned defence counsel submitted that the accused is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case. The further argument of the defence counsel is that there is no corroboration between the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 as they stated that one of the theft property was white color apple phone but in the complaint Lw.1 stated that white color apple tab and also property was not recovered from the possession of the Accused. With these submissions the defence counsel finally sought to acquit the accused from this case.

12.POINT:

According to prosecution, on 17.01.2018, Lw.1/ Melakunta Sreenivasa

Nikhil boarded APSRTC Bus Service No.6666 at Chennai to Ananthapuramu. He kept his bag on the bus rack, the next day morning i.e., 18.01.2018 at about 04.30

AM, he found his was missing, in that bag LW.1 kept his belongings i.e., 1) White color Apple Tab, its serial No.SF9FQKOFQCM8, worth Rs.19,762 2) Black berry mobile phone, its IMEI no.351852064893182, worth Rs.24,990 3) Blue tooth, worth

Rs.6,000/- and Cash of Rs.1,000/- and entire worth is Rs.51,752/-. on that on 18.01.2018 at about 9 Pm, Lw.1/ M. sreenivasa Nikil along with PW.1/ M.

yugandhar filed a report under Ex.P1 before Ananthapuramu III Town Police station, Pw4/ Inspector of police registered a crime No. 10 of 2018 u/sec 379 of

IPC of Ananthapuramu III Town police station under Ex.P3. During the investigation, PW.3 received information about the accused and arrested in crime

No. 190 of 2017 under section 457-380 of IPC. On enquiry accused confessed that committing theft of electronic devices in this offence i.e., Cr.10/2018 under section 379 IPC and there by accused was arrested and produced before the court.

13.The prosecution in order to prove its' case got examined the de facto complainant as PW.1, who is guardian of LW.1 and he deposed that on 17.01.2018, Lw.1 came from Chennai to Ananthapuramu in APSRTC bus and lost

CC No.554 of 2019

6 (1) White colour Apple Tab 2) black berry Mobile Phone and 3) Bluetooth device the same was informed to him. Both lodged a report that some unknown offenders committed theft of LW.1 Electronoc devices in Ananthapuramu III Town Police

Station in Cr.NO.10/2018 offence u/sec.379 of IPC. Hence there is no evidence to show that who committed theft of electronic devices of LW.1. Even though the prosecution relied upon the Red marked relevant portion in certified copy of mediatornama/ Ex.P2 to prove the evidence U/Sec.379, it was hit by U/Sec.25 of

Indian Evidence Act. Hence section 379 not attracted to the case.

14.As per the version of the prosecution is that, the police did not seize the stolen properties from the possession of accused. To prove the same, the prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of Pw.2, who is mediator in this case. On 10.11.2018 at about 09.30 Am while he was in his house, he received a phone call from constable and requested him to act as a mediator in this case. He and along with other staff went to Market Yard, Ananthapuramu there they found two suspicious persons. The accused/ C. Balaraju voluntarily stated before him that, he has committed theft of Apple Cell phone, Black Berry cell phone and ear phones and sold the same to unknown persons. But police seized the gold ornaments from the possession of other accused but not as electronic devices from the accused/ C. balaraju with regard to this case. In Cross examination by counsel for accused also stated that, no property was not seized from accused/ C.

Balaraju possession by police.

15.on seeing the evidence of Pw.3 it similary goes shows that as PW.2, no property was seized from accused possession by police in his presence. To prove the same, prosecution is mainly relying upon the evidence of PW.3/ Inspector of

CC No.554 of 2019

7 Police in Cr.No.190/2017 shows that, the stolen property pertaining to the present case was not seized from the possession of the accused.

16.The evidence of PW4 goes to show that, on 18.01.2018 at 09.00 PM while he was present in the police station he received a complaint against accused in

Cr.no.10/2018 u/sec.379 of IPC. On the next day he visited scene of offence and drawn rough sketch. Further investigation took up by PW.3. He produced the accused before the Hon’ble court after executing the P.T.Warrant after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

17.In view of the above discussion, the Court finds no convincing and cogent evidence to hold that Accused has committed the above said offence as alleged.

As per PW.2 and PW.3 evidence shows that, the property was not recovered from the possession of the Accused. Hence, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Accused for the offences punishable under sections 379 of

Indian Penal Code and failed to produce the stolen property from the possession of the accused offence punishable under section 411 of IPC beyond the reasonable doubts. Hence, Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

18.In the result,the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted in terms of Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No property is produced. Hence no order is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer and typed by him, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of July, 2025.

Sd/- R. Harika

CC No.554 of 2019

8

I ADDITIONAL JUDL. MAGISTATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1 : M. Yugandhar -None- PW.2 : Y. subramanyam PW.3 : B. Bala Maddilety PW.4 : B. Kranthi Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Ex.P1:Report of complaint of LW.1/ M. Sreenivasa Nikil -NIL- Ex.P2:Red marked relevant portion n certified copy of mediatorname,

dated:10.11.2018

Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Rough sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

-Nil-

Sd/- R. Harika

FAC. S.J.M.F.C (Mobile),

Ananthapuramu.

// True Copy//

I ADDITIONAL JUDL. MAGISTATE OF I CLASS,

CC No.554 of 2019

9

ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ANANTHAPURAMU.

CC No.554 of 2019

10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the FAC Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensionRelease onCommencemClose of trial Judgment of accusedbailent of trial In between 17.01.2018 to 18.01.201818.01.201810.11.201824.8.202022.07.2025

Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.554/2019 on the file of SPL. Judicial

Magistrate of I Class (Mobile), Ananthapuramu

COMPLAINANT: The SHO of Ananthapuramu III town P.S. Name of the accused with Age Religion Residence father's Name.

1234

Marthadu Village, Garladinne Chintakayala Balaraju, S/o 28HinduMandal,Ananthapuramu Sunkanna, District. Offence : u/Sec.379 of IPC Finding : Accused is found not guilty. Sentence: In the result,the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted in terms of Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No property is produced. Hence no order is passed.

Sd/- R. Harika

FAC Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ananthapuramu Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. The Supt. Of Police, Ananthapuramu.

Dis. No. Dt.

// True Copy//

FAC Specail Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Ananthapuramu

1

In the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Prohibition and Excise Cases), Anantapuramu

Present: Smt.R.Harika

I Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu

FAC-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(Excise Court), Anantapuramu

Thursday, the 26 th Day of March, 2026

Calendar Case No.1055 of 2023

Between:-

Enforcement Inspector, Spl.Enforcement Bureau,

B.K.Samudram ...Complainant.

AND

Golla Chinna Ramu, age 43 years, S/o.Late G.Krishtappa,

R/o.D.No.10/8/B.Kalluru RS Village, Garladinne Mandal....Accused

This case came before me on 25.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri A.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate, for accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The State represented by Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station,

B.K.Samudram filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.54/2023 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2)The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.202223 at 3.00PM, during the raids conducted by DTF Inspector, Ananthapuramu and LW.2 along with their staff reached and raided at Ananthapuramu to Gooty bus road at Kalluru RS Village outskirts of Garladinne Mandal and found one male person, while he was in possession of one white polythene bag, on seeing excise officials in uniform he tried to eacape from that place, they caught hold that person. On enquiry of

LW.2/Proh & Excise Inspector the accused disclosed his identity particulars. LW3 tried to secure mediators in that locality, but in vain. On equiry by LW.2 the said 2 person revealed his identity particulars as Golla Chinna Ramu/accused, and he is having liquor bottles. Then the LW.2 verified the polythene bag and found 1) 93

Nips of Daaru House XO Brandy, 2) 35 Nips of Kingswell Select Indian Brandy and

3) 16 Nips of Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy bottles of DPL without HEALs, total 144 Nips of DPL without HEALs. The accused failed to produce any valid license or permission for the possession of liquor bottles. LW.2 arrested the accused and seized the property under the cover of special report. LW.3 registered a case in

Cr.No.54/2023, U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act of B.K.Samudram P.S., and issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused. LW.2 sent material objects i.e., sample liquor which was separately drawn from illicit liquor. Lw.3 sent sample to the

Chemical Examiner, Govt., Regional Excise Laboratory and he obtained RPEL report vide C.E.No.820/2023, dated 21.09.2023 opined that the sample

S.No's.8187, 8188 and 8189 are Indian Liquor. Further during the course of investigation the contraband which was seized in this case was destroyed in vide

RC.No.247/2021/A1-DPL, dated 19.10.2023. After completion of investigation, LW.2

filed charge sheet in this case.

3) After filing charge sheet and required documents, the cognizance was taken for the offence U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

4)On appearance of accused, copies of case record was furnished to him as required u/s.230 BNSS.

5) On 04.09.2024, accused was examined under Sec.263 BNSS by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet, for which, he denied. Having considered the submissions of both sides and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court. Charge was framed against 3 accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6)In order to prove the case, prosecution got examined Pws.1 & 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MO.1 to MO.3 on behalf of the prosecution. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of LW.3 to 5/P.Kesavaiah, S.Pushpalatha,

C.Rajeswari, hence their evidene is closed. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

7)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 25.03.2026, accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked by the defence.

8)Heard arguments of prosecution and defence. Perused the entire record.

9)The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1 & 2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act and that the accused was in possession of the illicit liquor which was seized by PW.2, that no inconsistent statement was made by PW2 and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

10) Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused was falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes and nothing else and the entire proceedings were drafted in the Police Station itself and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11)Now the point arose for determination is:

4 "Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt"?

12)POINT:-

i).P.W.1 and 2 who are police officials at the time of arresting the accused and seizing the contraband, deposed that no mediators were present as none of them came forward.

ii).PW.1-B.Shiva Kumari, Excise Constable, deposed that on 15.08.2023 at 3.00PM, during the raids conducted by DTF Inspector, Ananthapuramu, LW.2/Proh.

& Excise Inspector, herself along with their staff reached and raided at

Ananthapuram to Gooty bus road at Kallluru RS Village outskirts of Garladinne

Mandal and found one male person was in possession of one white polythene bag,

On seeing excise officials in uniform he tried to eacape from that place. Then LW.2 detained him with the help of staff. On enquiry, he revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he is having liquor bottles. Then the LW.2/Proh & Excise

Inspector verified the Polythene bag and found 1) 93 Nips of Daaru House XO

Brandy, 2) 35 Nips Kingswell Select Indian Brandy and 3) 16 Nips of Old Admiral

Fine VSOP Brandy bottles of DPL without HEALs, total 144 Nips of DPL without

HEALs.

LW.2/Proh & Excise Inspector, drawn the 180ml as sample from each variety for chemical analysis purpose and seized the reamining contraband duly sealed and labeled and arrested the accused under the cover of Special report. Ex.P.1 is

Special report, dated 15.08.2023. Then the LW.2/Proh & Excise Inspector brought the seized property along with accused to the excise PS, B.K.Samudram for investigation.

5 iii)PW.2-S.Md.Haseena Banu. Proh & Excise Inspector, deposed that, on 15.08.2023 at 3.00PM, during the raids conducted by herself along with PW.1, and other staff reached and raided at Ananthapuram to Gooty bus road at Kallluru RS

Village outskirts of Garladinne Mandal and found one male person was in possession of one white polythene bag, On seeing excise officials in uniform he tried to eacape from that place. Then she detained him with the help of staff. She tried to secure mediators in that locality, but in vain. On her equiry the said person revealed his identity particulars as Golla Chinna Ramu/accused, and confessed that he is having liquor bottles. Then she verified the Polythene bag and found 1) 93 Nips of Daaru House XO Brandy, 2) 35 Nips Kingswell Select Indian Brandy and

3) 16 Nips of Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy bottles of DPL without HEALs, total 144 Nips of DPL without HEALs. The accused failed to produce any valid license or permission for the possession of liquor bottles.

Basing on Ex-P1, he registered a case in Cr.No 54/2023 U/sec 7 r/w 8(b) (i) of APP Act, Ex-P2 is FIR submitted copies of FIR to the court concerned and after obtaining sufficient sureties she released the accused on bail. She forwarded the sample to Chemical Examiner Chittor for analysis under Letter of Advice, Ex-P3 is

Letter of advice. After verifying the investigation and after receipt of Analysis Report

Lw-2 filed charge Sheet. Ex-P4 is Analysis Report. MO.1 to MO.3 are samples.

13)To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act, the prosecution shall prove that the accused found in possession of 1) 93 Nips of Daaru House XO Brandy, 2) 35 Nips Kingswell Select

Indian Brandy and 3) 16 Nips of Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy bottles of DPL without

HEALs, total 144 Nips of DPL without HEALs 6 14). On reading of the testimony of P.W.1 and 2, this court does not find any inconsistent statement made by them in regard to seizure of the property from the possession of accused and the ocular evidence of PW.2 is corroborated by the documentary evidence under Exs.P1 to P4 and as such the prosecution has successfully discharged the initial burden.

15). Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of Section Sec.103 of

BNSS, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating

Officer.

16).In the present case P.W.1 and 2 who are the police officials deposed that except them no mediators participated in the raid and the above evidence would be sufficient to rebut the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution and as such the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption stood in favour of the prosecution. Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The entire testimony of P.W.1 and 2 is silent as to from whom the accused purchased the material to manufacture illicit liquor and no investigation was done to that effect to drag the accused into the offence under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Admittedly no identity slips were affixed on the seized 7 property and no explanation has been offered to that effect. The reasonable doubt left by the prosecution in regard to the very seizure of the bottles from the possession of the accused persons creates doubt in the mind of the court as to the entire case of the prosecution.

17)In this case except P.W.1 and 2 witness none deposed against accused. At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in 1994 (2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP)

Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,Vizianagaram Rural

Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses.

Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons for the offence under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is acquitted U/s.271 (1) of BNSS.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 481 BNSS. MO.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.R.Harika,

I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC-Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

8

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 : B.Shiva Kumari Nil PW2 : S.Md.Haseena Banu

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2 : First information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Analysis Report

Exhibits marked for Delfence:Nil

Mos marked on behalf of Prosecution

MO.1 to 3 are Samples

I/d-R.H., Spl. J.F.C.M,P&E.,/ATP //True Copy//

I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC-Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTHAPURAMU.

CALENDAR CASES TRIED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU.

Date ofReport orApprehensionReleasedCommencemClose ofSentence OffenceComplaintof accused on bailent of trialtrialOrder 15.8.202316.8.202315.8.202315.8.202324.3.202624.3.202626.3.2026

Calendar and Judgement in C.C.No.1055/2023 on the file of Special Judicial First

Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Complainant: The Enforcement Insepector, B.K.Samudaram SEB Police Station.

Crime No: 54/2023

Name of the Age Father's Name Religion Calling Residence Mandal Accused

G.Chinna 43 yrsLate G.KrishtappaHindu---Kalluru RS VillageGarladinne Ramu

Offence: U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Finding: Accused is found not guilty. Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act and he is acquitted U/s.271 (1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 481 BNSS. MO.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. R.Harika,

I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC-Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

//True Copy//

I Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, FAC-Special Judl Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise Cases, Ananthapuramu.

Dis. No. Dt.

1

APAN030031342023

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. R. Harika

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of February, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 1696 of 2023

Gudipati Vengamanaidu, S/o. g. Venkatesulu, Hindu, Age.38 years, Business,

Residing at D.No.42-19-3, Bellary Road, Sri Krishna Nagar, 3rd Cross,

Ananthapuram.

… Plaintiff

Vs.

S. Sunil George, S/o G. Surya Babu, Christian, Age.34 yrs, Junior Assistant, O/o Commercial Tax office, Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuram. … Defendant

This suit is coming on 18.02.2026 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Learned Advocate Sri. N.P. Sreenivasulu, for plaintiff and

Learned Advocate Sri. S.K. Chandrasekhar for defendant and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.2,56,500/- being the

principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 15.11.2020 for

2

Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs.

2. The contents of the plaint in brief is as follows:

The defendant borrowed sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 15-11-2020 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note at

Ananthapuram in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on the same day i.e. on 15-11-2020. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount either towards principal or towards interest. Hence the suit.

The defendant is an employee , hence he is not entitled any debt relief laws. Interest is claimed at 24% p.a. at contract rate.

3. The defendant filed his written statement by denying all the plaint averments and submitted that the contents of para 1 of the plaint are denied.

The suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant submits that the plaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The defendant denies all the allegations, averments and contentions made in the plaint except those that are specifically and expressly admitted herein. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of each and every allegation. The contents of para 3 of the plaint are wholly false and denied. The defendant specifically denies having borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 15-11-2020 or on any other date.

The defendant further denies having executed any demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the alleged amount with interest at 24% per annum. No such transaction ever took place. The contents of para 4 3 of the plaint are denied. The defendant submits that as no amount was ever borrowed, the question of making any demand for repayment does not arise.

The contents of para 5 of the plaint are denied. There was no cash transaction whatsoever between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant never executed any demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant had no necessity to borrow such a huge amount as alleged. The contents of para 6 of the plaint are emphatically denied. The defendant submits that the alleged promissory note is a rank forgery. The signature appearing on the suit promissory note does not belong to the defendant. The plaintiff has fabricated and forged the alleged document with an intention to gain unlawful benefit and to harass the defendant. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed. The contents of para 7 of the plaint are denied. The defendant submits that no demand was ever made by the plaintiff as alleged. The defendant further submits that this Hon’ble Court has no territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The contents of para 8 of the plaint are denied. There was no consideration or transaction between the parties. The defendant further submits that the suit is barred by limitation (if applicable — modify as per case facts). There is no cause of action whatsoever for filing the present suit. The defendant reserves his right to file an additional written statement, if necessary, in case new facts or circumstances arise, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

4

4. Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 15-11-2020 for Rs.1,50,000/- is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined PW1, one of the attestor of suit promissory notes as PW.2 and got marked Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself was examined as DW1 and no documents marked on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

07. Issues No.1 and 2:- To prove the complicity of the case of the plaintiff, himself examined as PW.1 and re-iterated his pleadings in his chief affidavit and during the cross-examination, The defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from plaintiff on 15-11-2020 for his family business necessities and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day and later on repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant have not paid and thereafter he did not pay any amount as such the plaintiff filed the suit. In the cross- examination, he stated that he is not an income tax assessee. He denied the 5 suggestion that the signature in Ex.A1 did not belong to him and that the document was created for the purpose of the suit. He further denied the suggestion that, as he never lent any amount to the defendant, Ex.A1 is not maintainable in law.

8.In support of the case of the plaintiff, the attestor of the suit promissory note was examined and PW.2. PW.2, Singamaneni Nagarjuna, claimed to have scribed the promissory note and stated that the plaintiff gave Rs. 1,50,000/- to the defendant in his presence. He identified that both attestors signed after the defendant signed on the revenue stamp. In cross examination, PW2 admitted he is a real-estate businessman, knows both parties, and that the transaction took place at the plaintiff’s house. He denied that the plaintiff and he fabricated Ex.A1.

09. On the other hand the defendant himself is examined as DW.1 and re- iterated his pleadings in his chief affidavit. The defendant denied execution of the promissory note and the loan transaction, contending that the suit is false, frivolous, and vexatious. He stated that he had no necessity to borrow the alleged amount and that the promissory note was fabricated. In cross examination, DW1 admitted that his signature in the written statement is his, but denied that his signature on Ex.A1 belongs to him and denied all suggestions relating to the loan and promissory note.

6

10.Though the defendant took a plea that the defendant denied the borrowal of any amount and denied execution of the promissory note. He contended that the suit document is forged and fabricated. If really the suit promissory note are forged by the plaintiff, what prevented the defendant to take appropriate steps. Hence, the defendant have failed to prove the motive of the plaintiff to forge the suit promissory note. For all these circumstances, the claim of the plaintiff is true, valid and the suit promissory note is supported by consideration. Moreover, the defendant alone himself examined as DW.1 and he did not place any other oral or documentary evidence to prove his plea of forgery. His defence should be supported by other cogent evidence.

11. The plaintiff, by examining himself as PW.1 and attestor of suit promissory note as PW.2 coupled with the recitals of Ex.A1, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is able to prove his case and discharged his initial burden in respect of heis case and the burden shifts to defendant to prove his plea but as already the defendant failed to discharge his burden regarding claim of the plaintiff.

12. When the plaintiff proved the execution the suit promissory note, it is well established law that the initial burden of the plaintiff is proved that the execution of the suit promissory note and passing of consideration, then the burden will shifts to the defendant to prove his contention against the plaintiff. Once, execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption 7 under Section 118(g) of Negotiable instrument Act would arise that it is supposed by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. Once execution of the instrument is admitted or proved that it was made for consideration the presumption comes into play. Then the burden shifted to the defendant and he has to establish that the promissory note or hand note is not supported by consideration and this burden can be discharged by adducing direct evidence, circumstances evidence or relying upon presumptions of fact under Section 114 of the Evidence Act or other similar provisions of law raising presumption of fact in his favour but in this case already stated that the defendant failed to establish his case against the plaintiff. In a case reported in AIR 1983, Orissa page 238, it was held that:

“Under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act if execution of document is admitted a presumption can be drawn that the document was executed for consideration”.

13. On perusal of the record that it clearly shows that the consideration of the promissory note is passed and it is proved by the plaintiff but the defendant did not place any cogent and convincing evidence of his defence never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the suit promissory note. In the above foregoing discussions leads this court to hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Accordingly, these issues are answered in faovur of the plaintiff against the defendant.

14. Issue No.3:- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the 8 defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,56,500/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% P.A. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the Principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- .

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 24th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- R. Harika,

I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT : P.W.1 : Gudipati Vegamanaidu DW.1: S. Sunil George P.W.2 : S. Nagarjuna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory Note dated 15-11-2020 for Rs.1,50,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT:

N I L -

Sd/- R. Harika,

I AJCJ/ATP.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present: Smt. R. Harika

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of February, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 1696 of 2023

Gudipati Vengamanaidu, S/o. g. Venkatesulu, Hindu, Age.38 years, Business,

Residing at D.No.42-19-3, Bellary Road, Sri Krishna Nagar, 3rd Cross,

Ananthapuram.

… Plaintiff

Vs.

S. Sunil George, S/o G. Surya Babu, Christian, Age.34 yrs, Junior Assistant, O/o Commercial Tax office, Tadipatri Town, Ananthapuram. … Defendant

* * *

Plaint presented on: 02.11.2023 Numbered on: 02.11.2023

This suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.2,56,500/- being the principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 15.11.2020 for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs.

Total suit valued is Rs.2,56,500/- and a court fee of Rs.5,026/- is paid under section 20 of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- in cash from the plaintiff on 15-11-2020, when executed suit promissory note at Ananthapuram on the same day i.e. on 15-11-2020 in favour of the plaintiff, when the plaintiff made demand for repayment of the amount and on all subsequent dates demands made by the plaintiff all are at Ananthapuram within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble court.

This suit is coming on 18.02.2026 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Learned Advocate Sri. N.P. Sreenivasulu, for plaintiff and Learned Advocate 10

Sri. S.K. Chandrasekhar for defendant and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: this Court doth order and Decree:

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;

2.that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff an amount of

Rs.2,56,500/-, to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6 percent per annum till the date of realization on Principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under suit Promissory note and

3.that the defendant be and is hereby do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.14,523/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs towards the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- R. Harika,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

TABLE OF COSTS

Description of Costs For plaintiff For Defendant

Vakalat2.002.00 Court Fee 5,026.000.00 Process Fee100.000.00 Typing charges0.000.00 Advocate Fee 9395.000.00 Writing charges0.000.00 Total 14,523.00 2.00 (Fee and cost memo filed)

Sd/- R. Harika,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu .