Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Draft 1 (O.S.106/2012)

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PULIVENDULA.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. JFCM, for P. & E. Offences, Kadapa

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, the 28th day of July, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 106/2012

Between:

Avula Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Obula Reddy, age about 60 years, Residing at Thangedupalli village, V.N.Paloli Mandal, Kadapa District.

… Plaintiff. - And -

1) Avula Venkata Subbamma died by Lrs -Defendant nos. 3 to 5

2) Kallutla Sahadeva Reddy, S/o. K.Rami Reddy, aged about 32 years, Resident of D.No.13/349, Vempalli Village and Post, Vempalli Mandal, Kadapa District.

3) Avula Lakshmi Reddy, S/o. Late Obula Reddy, aged about 63 years, Resident of Thangedupalli Village, Veerapunayuni Palli Mandal, Now residing in D.No. 13/ 532, Bala Setty Street, Vempalli Town

4) Avula Ramakrishna Reddy,S/o. Late Obula Reddy, aged about 62 years, Resident of thangedupalli village, Veerapunayuni Palli Mandal, Now residing in Vempalli Town and Mandal, near Usha Kiran School

5) Avula China Narasimha Reddy, S/o. Late Obula Reddy, aged about 58 years, Resident of Thangedupalli Village, Veerapunyuni Palli mandal. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 14.07.2023 in the presence of Sri S.Karunakara Reddy and Sri D.Rama Mohan, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri A.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed for declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of suit schedule property, for cancellation of registered sale deed dt.14.11.2011 by declaring the same as null and void with consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 2 (O.S.106/2012) men etc from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property with costs.

The facts of the plaintiffs’ case in brief is that :-

2. Originally the suit schedule property belongs to one Avula

Obula Reddy who is father of plaintiff, defendants 3 to 5 and husband of deceased 1st defendant. The said Obula Reddy has purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed dt.05.11.2003 from its rightful owners. Since the date of his purchase, the father of plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

About two years ago from the date of filing of this suit, due to some misunderstandings, the father of plaintiff and deceased 1st defendant started living separately. At that time the plaintiff was look after the welfare of his father. On 18.02.2004, the father of plaintiff has voluntarily executed a Will in favour of plaintiff bequeathing the schedule property to the plaintiff. The said Will came into force on the death of his father. Since then the plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property without any interference.

While so, due to hike in land values, the deceased 1st defendant with a malafide intention to knock away the schedule property has executed a nominal sale deed dt. 14.11.2011 in favour of 2nd defendant. Infact the deceased 1st defendant has no manner of right over the schedule property. However, by virtue of the said sale deed, the 2nd defendant was trying to dispossess the plaintiff highhandedly. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

** During the pendency of the suit, the deceased 1st defendant demised as such defendant nos. 3 to 5 are impleaded vide orders in

IA.No.626/2019 dt. 29.10.2019. **

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 3 (O.S.106/2012)

Written statement contentions :- 3 (a) Defendant nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying all the plaint averments except the relationship between deceased 1st defendant and plaintiff. The deceased 1st defendant submits that during the life time of her husband, their joint family properties were partitioned between her husband, plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 herein in the year 1982. Later, while the deceased 1st defendant and her husband were living separately, her husband has purchased the suit schedule property. She further contended that after his death she has succeeded to the schedule property as she lived with her husband till his death. She has strongly denied the averment of the plaintiff that she lived separately from her husband. The deceased 1st defendant admits that she has sold the schedule property to 2nd defendant to meet her needs and for her maintenance. According to her Avula Obula Reddy never executed any Will in favour of plaintiff and the alleged will is a forged document. Hence defendant nos.1 and 2 prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

(b) Defendant nos. 3 and 4 filed their written statement denying all the plaint averments except their relationship with plaintiff and deceased 1st defendant. Their written statement contentions is also on the same lines with the contentions of deceased 1st defendant that during the life time of their father, their joint family properties were partitioned, their mother never got separated from their father, no Will was executed in favour of plaintiff and as deceased 1st defendant lived with their father till his death, she is having absolute rights over the suit schedule property. Hence prays to dismiss the suit.

c) Defendant no.5 was set exparte.

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 4 (O.S.106/2012)

4. Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by my learned per-decessor in my office:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right, title to the schedule property ?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the registered

sale deed dt. 14.11.2011 bearing number 3679/2011

executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant is

liable to be declared as null and void ?

3) Whether the plaintiff was in actual possession and

enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of

filing of the suit ?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?

5) To what relief?

Evidence adduced on both sides :

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got himself examined as

P.W.1, examined the attestors of Will as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A4 documents.

Ex.A1 - Original unregistered Will dt. 18.02.2004 Ex.A2 – Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.14.11.2011 Ex.A3– Original registered sale deed dt. 05.11.2003 Ex.A4 – Death certificate of father of plaintiff dt. 27.08.2012.

6.On behalf of defendant nos.3 to 5, the third defendant got examined as D.W1 and the 2nd defendant was examined as DW2.

Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

Ex.B1 – Office copy of the application for information to Sub

Registrar, Kadapa dt. 29.09.2018

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 5 (O.S.106/2012) Ex.B2 - Information furnished by District Registrar, Kadapa dt.

19.10.2018

7.Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of registered Will. Whereas, the learned counsel for defendant strenuously argued that the alleged Will i.e., Ex.A1 was executed with active participation of plaintiff and hence Ex.A1 was executed under suspicious circumstances.

8. On thorough scrutiny and analysis of both oral and documentary submissions, the issues settled were taken up for discussion as under -

ISSUE NO.1

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his

right, title to the schedule property ?”

9. The plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the plaint averments that the schedule property is self acquired property of his father having purchased the same under Ex.A3 – Registered Sale deed dt. 05.11.2003. Since the date of purchase the father of P.W1 was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property. The father of P.W1 demised on 03.07.2004. During his lifetime he has executed an unregistered Will dt. 18.02.2004 under

Ex.A1 in favour of P.W1. The agony of P.W1 is that, the deceased 1st defendant who is his mother during her lifetime has executed Ex.A2 –

Registered Sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of the property under Ex.A3 without any manner of right even though there was a Will in favour of P.W1. P.W1 further deposed that Ex.A2 is a

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 6 (O.S.106/2012)

Sham and nominal document executed by the defendants in collusion with each other to knock away the schedule property. In this cross examination the defendants were successful in eliciting about earlier partition in the year, 1983 in respect of joint family properties. With

regard to the present suit schedule property, the crucial

evidence elicited from the cross examination of P.W1 is that,

the father of P.W1 has executed Will in the year, 2012. P.W1 do

not know the date of execution but the same was three

months prior to death of his father. He further deposed that

after executing the Will, the same was handed over to him.

P.W1 was present at the time of execution of Ex.A1 – Will but

he do not know the scribe of Ex.A1. He further testified that at

the time of execution of Ex.A1, himself along with P.Ws.2 and 3

and scribe, needless to say, the father of P.W1 were present.

According to P.W1, Ex.A1 was executed outside Sub-Registrar

officer, Vempalli. It is further elicited that P.W2 is his co-

brother and P.W3 is his relative. P.W1 admitted the suggestion that all their joint family properties were partitioned in the year, 1982 and all of them were living separately since then, his father and mother also lived separately from their children and the suit schedule property was purchased by his father after separation and his mother i.e., deceased 1st defendant is entitled for the suit schedule property after death of his father. Though P.W1 has filed death certificate of his father vide Ex.A4 which discloses the date of death is 03.07.2004, he denied the suggestion that as his father demised in the year, 2004 it is not possible to execute Will in the year, 2011.

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 7 (O.S.106/2012)

10.P.Ws.2 and 3 - V.Subba Reddy and V.Prathap Reddy are alleged to be attestors to Ex.A1. They file their chief examination affidavits supporting the version of P.W1 in letter and spirit. In the cross examination of P.W2 with regard to alleged suspicious circumstances in execution of Ex.A1, it is elicited that he do not know the exact

date of execution of Ex.A1 but the same was executed in the

year 2004, he do not know who has drafted the Will and the

same was executed at Sub-Registrar Office, Vempalli. At the

time of execution of Ex.A1, P.Ws.1 to 3 were present and he

went there at the request of P.W1. He further deposed that at

the time he reached there, the will was already executed and

he has signed the Will at the request of P.W1 without knowing

whether the testator has signed the same. On the other hand the

cross examination of P.W3 reveals that the schedule property

was purchased about seven years ago from the date of his

evidence (20.02.2019) by father of P.W1 and he do not know

the date of execution of Ex.A1, at the time of execution of

Ex.A1 PWs1 to 3 along with father of P.W1 were present, he do

not know who has scribed Ex.A1 and the same was scribed in

the compound of Sub-Registrar Office, Vempalli.

11. In order to answer this issue, at first it has to be seen whether the unregistered Will under Ex.A1 is a valid document and binding in favour of plaintiff. In this regard if the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 were perused, there evidence is on different lines with regard to the circumstances or situations at the time of alleged execution of Ex.A1.

Firstly, according to P.W1, Ex.A1 was executed in the year, 2012 whereas, P.Ws.2 and 3 says that the same was executed in the year,

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 8 (O.S.106/2012) 2004. Even though P.W1 has filed Ex.A4 – Death Certificate of his father showing that his father demised on 03.07.2004, his oral evidence

before this court is that his father demised in the year 2012 i.e., the

year of institution of this suit. Infact he do not know the date of death of his father but with regard to Ex.A1 he says that his father has executed Ex.A1 three months prior to his death. In such case, his father should have demised either in the year, 2012 or 2011. There is no clarification from the side of plaintiff on this point which raises a suspicion that whether Ex.A1 was brought into existence in the year, 2012 due to which P.W1 who is aged 67 years at the time of recording his evidence has deposed so. Secondly, the other crucial aspect is presence of P.W1 at the time of execution of Ex.A1. In this regard this court is of the opinion that it is beneficial to go through the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in -

H.Venkatachalam Iyegar

V/s

B.N.Thimmajamma and others,

AIR, 1959 Supreme Court 443 (1)

Wherein it is held in para No.21 that “if it is shown that

the propounder has taken a prominent part in execution of Will

and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is

generally treated as suspicious circumstance attending the

execution of the Will and the propounder is required to remove

the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence”.

In the present case, undisputedly, P.W1 was present and he too participated in the process of execution of Ex.A1 as P.W2 has testified that he went there to attest Ex.A1 at the request of P.W1.

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 9 (O.S.106/2012)

Thirdly, P.Ws.1 to 3 has deposed alike with regard to place of execution of the Will with little variations. According to P.W1, Ex.A1was executed outside the Sub-Registrar Office where as according to P.W2 it was at Sub-Registrar Office and according to P.W3 it was in the compound of Sub-Registrar Office. P.W.1 did not endeavor to explain the reasons for executing Ex.A1 at sub Registrar Office when it was not a registered document and when it is not the case that the same was scribed by a document writer. Lastly, neither P.W2 nor P.W3 has testified that they have attested Ex.A1 at the request of the testator.

Hence this Court is of the opinion that P.W.1 has failed to explain the alleged suspicious circumstance. In this regard this Court has also gone through another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Kavita Kanwar

V/s

Mrs. Pameela Mehta

Civil Appeal No.3688/2017 dated 19-05-2020

Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to observations which were mentioned in supra Venkatachala Iyengar case about propounder accompanying testator for execution of Will and consequences of suspicious circumstance unanswered by the propounder. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “If

propounder of the Will takes an active part in execution of Will

and receives substantial benefit under it, then such a

circumstance is generally treated as suspicion one”.

Hence in view of the supra discussion, in the light of the above observations of Hon’ble Apex Court and present set of facts this court has no hesitation to sail along with contention of defendants that

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 10 (O.S.106/2012)

P.W.1 has failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will and hence has failed to establish the genuinity of the

Will. As P.W1 has claimed his title over the schedule property basing on the alleged Will under Ex.A1 and as P.W1 failed to establish the genuinty of the said document, this issue is answered against plaintiff.

Issue No.2 :

“Whether the plaintiff proves that the registered sale deed dt.

14.11.2011 bearing number 3679/2011 executed by 1 st

defendant in favour of 2 nd defendant is liable to be declared as

null and void ?”

12. The 3rd defendant has filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating his written statement contentions. In his cross examination the plaintiff has made all the efforts to elicit that the deceased 1st defendant was healthy at that time but did not gave her evidence in this case and DW1 is not a party to the suit. DW1 has denied the suggestion that his father and mother were separated and living separately. He was suggested that Ex.A2 executed by deceased 1st defendant is not a valid document. DW1 denied the said suggestion.

The plaintiff has endeavored to elicit from DW1 that a document was handed over to plaintiff and P.W1 has admitted that the document was with the plaintiff and possession of property is also with plaintiff.

However, the evidence of DW1 is not clear as to which property was in possession of plaintiff. Likewise, 2nd defendant also filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating his written statement contents. In his cross examination it is elicited that there was no document to show that deceased 1st defendant has got absolute rights over the schedule property to execute Ex.A2 in his favour. Though the learned counsel

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 11 (O.S.106/2012) for plaintiff has endeavored at length to elicit from Dws.1 and 2 that deceased 1st defendant has no manner of right to execute Ex.A2 in favour of 2nd defendant, in the absence of support of Ex.A1 – Will in favour of plaintiff, all the evidence elicited from Dws.1 and 2 will not help the plaintiff to discharge his initial burden of establishing right and title over the schedule property. As the plaintiff has knocked the doors of this court alleging that he has got absolute rights over the schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1, an obligation is cast upon the plaintiff to establish the genunity of Ex.A1 which in turn enables him to hold Ex.A2 – Sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant as null and void. The plaintiff has to stand on his own strength and he cannot take resort under the weakness of defendants that deceased 1st defendant has no manner of right to execute Ex.A2 in favour of 2nd defendant. If in case the plaintiff wants to cancel Ex.A2 averring that deceased 1st defendant alone has no manner of right to execute the same, the plaintiff should have chosen a different form of suit for that purpose and a suit in this form would not serve the purpose of the plaintiff. DW1 has also filed Exs.B1 and B2. Needless to say, the defendants are not burdensome to establish their contentions as the plaintiff himself failed to discharge his initial burden. Accordingly this point is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue Nos.3 and 4 :

“Whether the plaintiff was in actual possession and

enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of

filing of the suit ?

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of

permanent injunction as prayed for ?”

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

Draft 12 (O.S.106/2012)

13. In view of discussion and finding to issue nos.1 and 2 these issues are answered against plaintiff.

Issue No. 5 :

To what relief?

Resultantly, Suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. JFCM for P. & E. Offences, Kdp FAC Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs :-For Defendants :-

P.W.1 : Avula Narasimha Reddy D.W.1 : Avula Lakshmi Reddy P.W.2: V.Subba Reddy D.W.2 : K.Sahadeva Reddy P.W.3: V.Prathap Reddy

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A1 - Original unregistered Will dt. 18.02.2004 Ex.A2 – Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.14.11.2011 Ex.A3– Original registered sale deed dt. 05.11.2003 Ex.A4 – Death certificate of father of plaintiff dt. 27.08.2012. For Defendant :- Ex.B1 – Office copy of the application for information to Sub Registrar, Kadapa dt. 29.09.2018 Ex.B2 - Information furnished by District Registrar, Kadapa dt. 19.10.2018

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. JFCM for P. & E. Offences, Kdp FAC Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula

Dt. 28.07.2023 JCJ, PVLD

1

APKD020005062021

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) : KADAPA.

Present : Smt. G. Vijaya Lakshmi, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

Monday, this the 28th day of April, 2025.

Original Suit No.248/2021

Between :-

Pidathala Parvathamma @ Parwathamma W/o. P. Radha

Krishnaiah@ Radha Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 64 years, House wife, Residing at D.NO.42/254-4, NGO Colony, Aravinda Nagar,

Kadapa City, Kadapa YSR District.

...Plaintiff.

AND

Kesarla Bala Mallikarjuna Chetty S/o. K. Subramanyam Chetty,

Hindu, aged about 72 years, retired Govt. Employee, Running society named and styled as The State Bank of India Retired

Employees Mutually Aided Co-operative Thrift Society, residing at

D.No. 4-445, Aravinda Nagar, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa District.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming on 16.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.N.

Praveen Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

2

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

01. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.13,73,333/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the

principal sum of Rs.8,00,000 from the date of filing of the suit till the date of

realization and for costs of the suit.

02. Case of the Plaintiff :-

The plaintiff submits that, the defendant is working in the society established by him in the capacity of a Director from 01.04.2016 and hence the plaintiff is acquainted with the defendant. On dt.01.03.2018 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business necessities of the society, and executed a promissory note dt. 01.03.2018 in favour of the plaintiff at her residence agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not discharge the suit promissory note debt. Even though plaintiff tried and requested the defendant, in presence of Elders, to clear the suit promissory note debt, the defendant did not discharged the said pronote debt. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file this suit for recovery of money from the defendant.

03. Case of the Defendant :-

The defendant filed his written statement by denying the allegations made by the plaintiff and further submitted that, he is not a retired Government employee, he retired as Accounts Officer from APSRTC and he is not running any society as alleged by the plaintiff . He further submits that, since several 3 years, the defendant functioned as President of The State Bank of India Retired

Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society, Kadapa, and during that time, the plaintiff also functioned as a Director of the said Society and as such they are known to each other. Further the husband of the plaintiff is a money lender and he used to lend money in his name, in the name of his wife

Smt.Parvathamma. He submits that he was conducting chits and in those chits, the plaintiff and her husband were also participating as members and in one of the chits, the plaintiff bid the chit for Rs. 8,00,000/- and asked the defendant to invest the same with him, so that she would earn the interest. Hence the defendant executed the promissory note. Again the plaintiff approached the defendant and stated that she was foregoing the bid in favour of another person, who offered her a premium to leave the bid amount in his favour. As such, there was no amount of the plaintiff with the defendant to invest with him.

Hence, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the promissory note and the plaintiff promised that she would return the same and thereafter the defendant forgot to collect the suit promissory note from the plaintiff, owing to his old age and loss of memory. Hence for this reason the plaintiff did not issue any notice prior to filing of the suit. Hence the defendant prays the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

04.Basing on above factual matrix, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1: Whether the suit promissory note dt. 01.03.2018 for

Rs.8,00,000/- is true, valid, supported by consideration

and binding on the defendant?

4 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim

amount of Rs.13,73,333/- being the principal and

interest from the defendant as prayed for?

3: To what relief ?

05.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as

PW1/P.Parvathamma and Ex.A1 is marked on her behalf. Sri S.Chakrapani, witness to the transaction under Ex.A1 has examined as PW2 on behalf of plaintiff. On the other hand, though this court has given sufficient time to the defendant, he fails to enter into witness box to adduce his evidence. In the said circumstances, the defendant side evidence is closed.

06.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant.

07. Issues No.1 to 3 : As Issue No.1 to 3 are inter-related to each other and in-order to avoid repetition of evidence, Issue No.1 to 3 are taken-up jointly to answer them.

Evidence on record :

08.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1/Pidathala Parvathamma @ Parwathamma by filing her chief affidavit which are nothing but replica of the plaint averments. Hence, the same are not reiterated to avoid repetition. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed documentary evidence viz., Ex.A.1: Original Promissory Note, dt.

01.03.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.8,00,000/-.

During her cross examination, PW.1 admitted that, herself, her husband and her daughter along with the defendant and his wife were used to run the 5

State Bank of India Retired Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift

Society, Kadapa for about 10 years till 2021. She admitted that, the said society has been registered in the name of her husband as a President and the defendant's wife is the Director of said Society. She admitted that, herself and her daughter were also the Directors in the said Society. She admitted that, the defendant had mortgaged the petition schedule property in the above said society and obtained some loan from the society and the said property has been attached in this suit in I.A. No.215/2021, dt.26.07.2021. She admitted that she do not know whether the defendant used to run a chits business and that, all the financial transactions of the above said society were looked after by her husband and she is no way concerned with the said transactions. She admitted that, one Vijaya Bhaskar has been filed a Case against herself, her husband and the defendant along with his wife, for committal of fraud in their society and the said case has been pending before Hon'ble Principal District Judge Kadapa

She denied the suggestion that, herself, and her husband were used to run a finance business. She denied the suggestion that, the defendant never borrowed any amount from her as alleged in her plaint for his personal use, and that he never executed any promissory note under Ex.A.1 in his personal capacity and that, they had obtained the said promissory note towards security purpose for the welfare of said society and for unlawful gain, she filed this false case against the defendant. She denied the suggestion that, since the defendant never borrowed the alleged amount under Ex.A.1 promissory note on his personal capacity and that, he is not liable to pay the said amount and that, 6 the present suit is not maintainable against the defendant.

To support the contention of the plaintiff one S. Chakrapani was examined as PW.2 and he deposed in his chief examination that he is the witness to the suit promissory note and further he corroborated with the evidence of the plaintiff in all aspects. During his cross examination, he admitted that, the plaintiff is his relative and he do not have any close acquaintance with the defendant but he have seen him for 01 or 02 times during the time of execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note. He admitted that the plaintiff is a house wife and he do not know whether the plaintiff along with her family members and the wife of defendant including others were running a society in the name and style of 'State Bank of India Retired Employee's Mutual Aided Co-

Operative Society' or not. He admitted that he do not know whether the defendant had filed a Criminal Case against the plaintiff and her family members with regard to a fraud committed in the society duly running by them.

He denied the suggestion that, there is a difference in the writing and the contents of Ex.A.1 while comparing with his signature and that, after preparation of said promissory note by the plaintiff only, he scribed his signature as an attestor recently. PW.2 adds that, he scribed his signature as an attestor to

Ex.A.1 on dt.01.08.2018. He denied the suggestion that, after preparation of

Ex.A.1 promissory note by the plaintiff only, he scribed his signature as an attestor just prior to filing of the suit, and in order to help the plaintiff as she is his relative he is deposing false evidence and the plaintiff is not having such financial capacity to lent such due amount to the defendant. He denied the 7 suggestion that, no transaction has taken place in his presence, and due to the difference between the plaintiff and defendant in their society, the plaintiff filed the false case against the defendant and that, the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff.

09.On the other hand, the defendant did not adduced any evidence on his behalf except filing his written statement and contended that, since several years, the defendant functioned as President of The State Bank of India Retired

Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society, Kadapa and during that time the plaintiff also functioned as a Director of the said Society and as such they are known to each other. Further the husband of the plaintiff is a money lender and he used to lend money in his name, in the name of his wife

Smt.Parvathamma. He submits that he was conducting chits and in those chits, the plaintiff and her husband were also participating as members and in one of the chits, the plaintiff bid the chit for Rs. 8,00,000/- and asked the defendant to invest the same with him, so that she would earn the interest. Hence the defendant executed the promissory note. Again the plaintiff approached the defendant and stated that she was foregoing the bid in favour of another person, who offered her a premium to leave the bid amount in his favour. As such, there was no amount of the plaintiff with the defendant to invest with him.

Hence, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the promissory note and the plaintiff promised that she would return the same and thereafter the defendant forgot to collect the suit promissory from the plaintiff, owing to his old age and loss of memory.

8

Discussion, Decision and reasons thereon :

10.After careful perusal of entire evidence lead by both parties, it is to be noted that, though the defendant denies the execution of Ex.A.1 and also he contends that, he never borrowed any amount under Ex.A1 and the said pronote was obtained by the plaintiff in a chits transaction run by him, and that, the defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A1 in favor of plaintiff. But neither the defendant nor his counsel made any efforts to prove their contention that, the said promissory note is not supported by any consideration. Moreover he did not take any steps to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. At this stage, the learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that, it can be presumed that the defendant had put his signature on

Ex.A.1 pronote after receiving cash consideration mentioned thereon, and that there is a presumption Under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration.

The counsel for defendant submitted that Ex.A.1 pronote is not supported by consideration. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention the section 118 of

The Negotiable Instrument Act,1881.

11.Sec.118 of N.I.Act : The Presumptions as to negotiable instruments: Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made :— (a) of consideration — that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Therefore, presumption Under Section 118 of The 9

Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 is in-favour of plaintiff that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration unless contrary is proved.

Further more, Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act empowers the courts to presume the existence of certain facts taking into consideration the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business with relation to the facts of the case at hand. The presumption is an important legal tool that allows the judges to draw out inferences from the shreds of evidence and facts available unless they can be disproved.

12. In the instant case, the defendant admitted the execution of promissory note, and further contends that the plaintiff bid the chit for Rs. 8,00,000/- and asked the defendant to invest the same with him, so that she would earn the interest and hence the defendant executed the promissory note. Thereafter the plaintiff approached the defendant and stated that she was foregoing the bid in favour of another person, and as such, there was no amount of the plaintiff with the defendant to invest with him. Hence, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the promissory note and the plaintiff promised that she would return the same and thereafter the defendant forgot to collect the suit promissory from the plaintiff. Therefore to prove the contention of the defendant that the promissory note was not supported by any consideration and it was executed for chits purpose only, he never takes any steps to rebut the presumption U/Sec.118 of

N.I. Act to prove the same. Hence, it can be presumed that, the defendant had executed Ex.A.1 pronote after receiving cash consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff in view of presumption Under Section 118 of the Negotiable 10

Instrument Act and Under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act. When, the defendant has taken plea that Ex.A.1 does not supported by any consideration, the burden is on the shoulder of the defendant to prove the same. But, no satisfactory evidence has been adduced by the defendant to prove his contention. Hence it is impossible to believe the version of the defendant that the plaintiff did not return the pronote in the said chits. The defendant has every right to rebut the presumption drawn against him by producing relevant and believable evidence. If really the defendant had never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, the defendant might have lodged a complaint against the plaintiff for return of his original promissory note. Further more, the defendant did not made any efforts to enter into witness box to prove his contentions that he never executed the alleged promissory note infavour of plaintiff. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion and held that Ex.A.1 promissory note is executed by the defendant in-favour of plaintiff for the amount thereon, and subsequently he failed to repay the same to the plaintiff. Hence, certainly the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount due under Ex.A.1 from the defendant together with interest and the said pronote is binding on the defendant. Hence,

Issue No.1 to 3 are answered in-favour of Plaintiff.

13. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs13,73,333/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs seventy three thousand , three

hundred and thirty three Only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum

on the principal sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Only) from the

date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at 6%

11

per annum on the principal sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs

Only) from the date of decree till realization.

(Typed corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/- Smt.G.Vijaya Lakshmi

III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), KADAPA.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of witnesses examined for

Plaintiff :- Defendant :-

P.W.1 : P. Parvathamma @ Parwathamma -NIL-

P.W.2 : S.Chakrapani

No. of Exhibits Marked for

Plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1: Original Promissory Note, dt. 01.03.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.8,00,000/-.

Defendants : NIL.

Sd/- Smt.G.Vijaya Lakshmi

III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), KADAPA.

1 C.C.No.2116/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES, KADAPA

Present: Smt Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa.

Monday, the 21st day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.2116/2024

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne PS

...Complainant

And

Siddigalla Veeranna, aged about 60 years, S/o. Bheemanna, Resident of Bhagathsingh Nagar, Kadapa City, Kadapa District. …Accused

This case came before me on 16.04.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S.Lakshmi Sai Ramakrishna, Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Smt D.Varamma, Advocate for the accused upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise

Act.

The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:-

2. On 17.02.2024, at about 6.15 AM, LW7 – S.D.Siva Sankar Naik,

Inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne U/G PS along with L.W3 – N.Konda Reddy, ASI of

Police, C.K.Dinne U/G PS secured the presence of L.Ws.1 and 2 namely

Madanapuri Surya Narayana, Balagani Venkata subbaiah found the accused got perturbed and admitted the possession of 29 nips of HD Hearts Desire Whiskey and 15 nips of Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy without license and reached the scene of offence i.e., Open place located near Utukuru Circle, C.K.Dinne Mandal.

LW7 has picked up one bottle from each variety as sample, arrested the accused and seized the crime property under the cover of Confession, Arrest cum seizure

Panchanama. It is further alleged that LW7 brought the accused to Police Station

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

2 C.C.No.2116/2024 and registered a case in crime No.42/2024 under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise

Act. The sample was also sent to analyst for examination. The analyst issued a report opining that the sample is Indian made liquor. After completion of his investigation, LW7 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 (here-in-after referred as “BNSS” for brevity) (Corresponding provision to section 207 of Cr.P.C).

5. Accused was examined under Section 262 of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 239 of Cr.P.C) and the charge under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, Mos.1 and 2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.Ws.4 to 6.

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 in Confession, Arrest cum seizure 

Panchanama dt. 17.02.2024

Ex.P2 - Signature of PW2 in Confession, Arrest cum seizure 

Panchanama dt. 17.02.2024

Ex.P3 - Confession, Arrest cum seizure Panchanama 

Ex.P4 - First Information Report 

Ex.P5 – Letter of Advice 

Ex.P6 – Analysis Report 

MO1 - one nip of HD Hearts desire whiskey bottle 

MO2 – one nip of VSOP Brandy bottles 

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

3 C.C.No.2116/2024

7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 313 of Cr.P.C) explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in oral and documentary evidence, he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P

Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4.

11. P.Ws.1 and 2 namely M.Surya Narayana and B.Venkata Subbaiah alleged to be mediators turned hostile to the case of prosecution saying that they do not know the accused. One day they went to Police station on their personal work. At the time police obtained their signatures on confession, arrest cum seizure Panchanama vide Exs.P.1 and P.2.

12. P.W3 – N.Konda Reddy, ASI Of Police, C.K.Dinne PS deposed that on 17.02.2024, at about 6.15 am., himself along with L.Ws.4 and 5 accompanied

PW4 started from Police station and were conducting raids. At about 6.30 am they reached the scene of offence situated at Utukuru Circle. They found the accused with a white plastic bag suspiciously. On seeing them the accused who was in possession of a white plastic bag tried to skulk away but they caught hold of him. PW4 secured P.Ws.1 and 2 for acting as mediators. On enquiry by PW4, the accused revealed identity and confessed that he in possession of illicit liquor without valid license for selling the same at higher rates. PW4 seized the bag containing 29 nips of HD Hearts dezire whiskey bottles and 15 nipsof VSOP

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

4 C.C.No.2116/2024

Brandy bottles under the cover of Ex.P3 – Confession, Arrest cum Seizure

Panchanama. PW4 also drew one sample for sending the same to chemical analysis. PW4 arrested the accused and brought him to police station along with crime property and registered a case.

13. PW4 – S.D.Siva Sankar Naik, Inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne PS deposed that on 17.02.2024 at about 6.15 am himself along with PW1, Lws.4 and 5 were conducting vehicle checking at the scene of offene at Utukuru cirlce. They found the accused with a white plastic bag suspiciously. On seeing them the accused who was in possession of a white plastic bag tried to skulk away but they caught hold of him. He secured P.Ws.1 and 2 for acting as mediators. On enquiry by PW4, the accused revealed identity and confessed that he in possession of illicit liquor without valid license for selling the same at higher rates.

He seized the bag containing 29 nips of HD Hearts desire whiskey bottles and 15 nips of VSOP Brandy bottles under the cover of Ex.P3 – Confession, Arrest cum

Seizure Panchanama. He also drew one sample for sending the same to chemical analysis. He arrested the accused and brought him to police station along with crime property and registered a case in Cr.No.42/2024 for the offence under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act vide Ex.P4. He issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He forwarded Mos.1 and 2 through court to Chemical Analysis and received report vide Exs.P5 and P6 that Mos.1 and 2 are Indian Made liquor. He addressed letter to Superintendent of Police, Kadapa for confiscation of crime property and received proceedings.

14.Section 34 of Act connotes:

“Penalties for illegal import, etc.:-

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act.--

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

5 C.C.No.2116/2024

Section 34 (a) speaks for speaks for imports, exports, transports, manufacturers, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

(i) removes any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery or ware house licensed, established or continued under this Act...

15.In order to bring the case within the ambit of section 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, it is necessary for prosecution to prove that accused was in possession of illicit liquor without any permit. It is also the duty of prosecution to probe by sending the seized sample to chemical analysis to find out as to whether the bottles contained illicit liquor.

16.The evidence of Pws.3 and 4 who are Police officials is that on 17.02.2024, they he along with other staff reached the scene of offence i.e.,

Utukuru circle, they noticed the accused with plastic bag, he seized the crime property and got prepared Confession, arrest cum seizure Panchanama.

17. Section 103(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 connotes :

(Corresponding provision to section 100(4) of Cr.P.C) “Before making a search under this Chapter, 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 situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is 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.”

18. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is manifest that the place of offence is situated in busy area. But PW4 did not make any efforts to secure

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

6 C.C.No.2116/2024 independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to act as mediators.

Hence, it is clear from the evidence of PW4 that he did not try to secure the presence of local inhabitants to establish the genuinity of seizure process.

Though P.Ws.1 and 2 are cited as mediators present at the time of arrest and seizure, he was secured by Investigating Officer to Police station. No satisfactory reasons has been assigned by Investigating Officer for not securing local inhabitants. Even if it is assumed that inhabitants has refused, it is not the version of P.W4 that P.Ws.1 and 2 has issued notices to local inhabitants requesting them to act as mediators. On perusal of Confession, arrest cum seizure Panchanama, it does not reveal about the venture of PW4 in securing independent local inhabitants. Therefore the evidence of PW4 is not reliable and conviction cannot be based on his testimony.

19.In S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The state of A.P., reported in 2009 (4) A.P.L.J., 57 (HC), it was held that :

“ The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediator in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, the Court below did not consider the importance of taking local respectable independent mediators, hence their judgments resulted in miscarriage of justice and liable to be set a side.”

20. No receipt was issued to the accused to show that Confession, arrest cum seizure Panchanama was prepared at the place of arrest and the property was seized in his presence. As Confession, arrest cum seizure Panchanama is silent about efforts of investigating agency to secure independent witnesses, it gives raise to a doubt about the very presence of accused at the place of arrest and the seizure of property from the accused.

21. Further PW4 who is Police official deposed with regard to procedural aspects only and the prosecution has failed to examine any of the local inhabitants in support of its case. Except the oral evidence of official witnesses,

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

7 C.C.No.2116/2024 there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968. The learned defence counsel also argued that there is no corroboration.

22. The investigation does not disclose that P.W.4 has made honest efforts to secure presence of mediators as held in Pradeep vs. State, (1995) 4 SCC 255.

If PW4 has put his efforts to secure mediators, he would have stated so in

Confession cum arrest Panchanama. P.W.4 did not do so, but has cited P.W3 who did not witness either arrest of accused or seizure of crime property.

Therefore, the failure of investigating officer in making any efforts for securing a mediator is an incurable defect to this case. This Court places reliance on the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in supra case.

23. Hence, in view of the above decision, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

24. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and thereby, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 248(1) of Cr.P.C) of the said offence. Bail bond of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

MO1 - one nip of HD Hearts desire whiskey and MO2 – one nip of VSOP Brandy bottles vide C.P.R.No.301/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Jankiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : M.Surya Narayana -None- P.W.2 : B.Venkata Subbaiah P.W.3 : N.Konda Reddy, ASI of Police, C.K.Dinne PS P.W.4 : S.D.Siva Sankar Naik, Inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne PS

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

8 C.C.No.2116/2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 in Confession, Arrest cum seizure 

Panchanama

Ex.P2 - Signature of PW2 in Confession, Arrest cum seizure 

Panchanama

Ex.P3 - Confession, Arrest cum seizure Panchanama 

Ex.P4 - First Information Report 

Ex.P5 – Letter of Advice 

Ex.P6 – Analysis Report 

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1 - one nip of HD Hearts desire whiskey

MO2 – one nip of VSOP brandy bottles

Intld/-HSJR Spl. JFCM, for P & E, KDP

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

9 C.C.No.2116/2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : KADAPA

Calendar and Judgment tried by Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa

Date of

Apprehen- ReleaseCommence-Close of OffenceReportsion ofJudgment on bailment of trialtrial accused 41 – A41 – A 17-02-’2417-02-’24Cr.P.CCr.P.C30-01-'2516-04-'2521-04-'25 Notice Notice

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.2116/2024 on the file of the Special Judl.

Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa.

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K.Dinne P.S., Cr.No.42/2024

Name of the accused with AgeCallingResident father’s name

Siddigalla Veeranna Resident of Bhagathsingh 60 S/o. Bheemanna-Nagar, Kadapa City, Kadapa yrs District. Offence : U/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act and thereby, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of

BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 248(1) of Cr.P.C) of the said offence.

Bail bond of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. MO1 - one nip of HD Hearts desire whiskey and MO2 – one nip of VSOP Brandy bottles vide C.P.R.No.301/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay : The case is taken on file and numbered as

C.C.No.2116/2024. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him. On 20.01.2025 the accused was examined u/s.262 of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 239 of Cr.P.C) read over and explained to him in Telugu and that the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

10 C.C.No.2116/2024

The prosecution evidence commenced from 30.01.2025 and closed the trial on 03.04.2025. On 11.04.2025 the accused was examined under section 351 of

BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 313 of Cr.P.C). Heard both sides on 16.04.2025. Judgment is pronounced on this day. Hence, the delay.

Remarks : NIL

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

dt. 21.04.2025 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise Offences, Kdp

Draft 1 C.C.No.255/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PULIVENDULA

Present: Smt Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa.

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula

Friday, the twenty eight (28th ) day of July, 2023.

C.CNo.255/2017

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli P.S.,

...Complainant

And

1.Borugula Ravi, aged about 43 years, S/o. Subbaiah, Imam Nagar,Vempalli Town and Mandal

2.Bollarapu Suresh, aged about 25 years, S/o. Ravi, Imam Nagar, Vempalli Town and Mandal.

3.Bollarapu Prashanth Kumar @ Chinna, S/o. Ravi, Imam Nagar, Vempalli Town and Mandal.

4.Bollarapu Gangisetty, aged about 46 years, S/o. Subbaiah, Rajeevanagar Colony, Vempalli Town and Mandal.

5.Bollarapu Madhu @ Mahadeva, aged about 21 years, S/o. Gangisetty, Rajeevnagar Colony, Vempalli town and Mandal.

…Accused nos.1 to 5

This case came before on 21.07.2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri P.P.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for accused nos.1 to 5 upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempali Police Station has filed the

Charge Sheet in Crime Number 130/2017 against accused nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (here in after referred to as I.P.C. for brevity).

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

Draft 2 C.C.No.255/2017

The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:-

2. L.W1/ defacto complainant – Vallepu Santenna is a resident of Rajeev Nagar Colony, Vempali. On 26.06.2017 at about 12.00 pm, L.W5 –

A.Subbarayudu and one Aadinarayana has quarreled with each other on some issues. Later, L.W5 came to L.W1 and informed that he was beaten up by accused no.1. L.W1 has informed to his neighbors that accused no.1 has beat L.W5. On the same day at 8.00 pm while, L.W1 was proceeding to his house and when he reached the scene of offence situated at Rajeev nagar colony, accused no.1 questioned L.W1 as too why he is supporting L.W5.

When L.W1 questioned accused no.1 as to why he has beat L.W5, accused no.1 grew wild and beat L.W1 with hands and legs. On seeing the same L.W2 – B.Ravi Kumar who is son of L.W1 came to his rescue but accused nos.2 and 3 has beat him with sticks over his back due to which he sustained swelling injury. On seeing the same L.W3 – Shaik Ghouse Lazan came there to rescue them but accused nos.4 and 5 beat L.W3 over his left chest and casued swelling injury. As L.W1 raised huge cries, all the accused left the place.

Later L.Ws.1 and 2 went to Vempalli P.S, and lodged complaint. Basing on the complaint, L.W7 – N.Nagaraja the then Head Constable, Vempalli P.S, has registered a case in Cr.No. 130/2017 under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of his investigation L.W7 has arrested the accused persons and enlarged them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. L.W8 – N.Narendra

Kumar, the then SI of Police, Vempalli P.S, took up further examination and examined L.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements under section 161

Cr.P.C, he also received wound certificates of L.Ws.1 to 3 from medial officer i.e., L.W6 who opined that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of his investigation L.W8 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused nos.1 to 5.

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

Draft 3 C.C.No.255/2017

4. On appearance of accused nos.1 to 5 copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Criminal

Procedure code, 1972 ( herein after referred to as Cr.P.C., for brevity).

5. Accused nos.1 to 5 were examined under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C., and the charge under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed, read over and explained to accused nos.1 to 5, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence let in by state:

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The evidence of LW.3 closed as he was no more and also the evidence of L.Ws.6 and 8 were closed.

Ex.P1 – Complaint of P.W1 Ex.P2 – First Information Report Ex.P3 – Rough Sketch Ex.P4 – Wound Certificate of P.W1 Ex.P5 – Wound Certificate of P.W2 Ex.P6 – Wound Certificate of L.W3 – Shaik ghouse Lazam

7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused nos.1 to 5 were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure code, 1973 explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in oral and documentary evidence, they denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution was fruitful in

establishing the guilt of accused nos.1 to 5 under

Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all

reasonable doubt? POINT:

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

Draft 4 C.C.No.255/2017

10. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as much as five witnesses. P.W1 / defacto complainant – V.Santganna deposed in his chief examination that about five years ago from the date of his evidence

before this court, accused has beat P.W4 namely Subbarayudu and there was

an altercation at that time. On seeing the same P.W1 has questioned all the accused about altercation. On that accused no.1 along his three sons and son of his brother has beat him with stick on his back. When P.W2 came to his rescue, all the accused has beat P.W2 with stick later P.Ws.1 and 2 were rescued from the hands of accused with the help of L.W3 and P.3. There after

P.W1 went to Vempalli P.S, and lodged Ex.P1 – Complaint. In his cross examination it is elicited that there are 200 houses in Rajeev Nagar and the distance between his house and house of P.W4 is 100 meters. It is also elicited that P.W4 did not lodge any complaint against the accused. According to P.W1, at first they went to Government hospital, Kadapa and then they went to Vempalli Police station.

11. P.W2 – V.Ravi Kumar, is son of P.W1 and his evidence in chief is that on 26.06.2017 in between 7.45 pm to 8.00 pm, he has found some altercation between accused and P.W1. At that time the accused beat P.W1 with sticks. When P.W2 intervened the accused beat him also with sticks.

According to P.W2, P.W3 has tried to pacify the issue, but the accuse has beat

PW3 also, thereafter P.Ws.1 to 3 went to Vempalli P.S, and lodged complaint.

After lodging complaint they went to the Government hospital Vempalli, from where they were shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. In his cross examination he also admitted that there are nearly 2000 houses in Rajeev Nagar.

12. P.W3 – Jamal Valli deposed in his chief that on 26.06.2017 while he was in his house at about 8.00 pm, there was an altercation between P.W1 and the accused party. Where the accused beat P.W1.

According to P.W3, LW3 who has tried to pacify the issue but the accused has

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

Draft 5 C.C.No.255/2017 beat L.W3. Whereas the evidence of P.W2 is that P.W3 has tried to pacify the issue and the accused beat P.W3. P.W3 further deposed in chief that the accused has also beat P.W2 and P.W4 which was not spoken by P.Ws.1 and 2.

In his cross examination it is elicited that at the time of alleged incident he was in his house and he did not witness the incident.

13. The evidence of P.W4 attracts more importance. Because the entire case was standing on the issue between accused and L.W5 –

A.Subbarayudu. The case of the prosecution is that P.W1 has found accused no.1 beating L.W5 - A.Subbarayudu and the alleged incident took place as

P.W1 has questioned the accused about why he has beat L.W5. Thought the evidence of L.W5 is very crucial. Moreover, P.W3 has testified that the accused has also beat L.W5 – A.Subbarayudu. In this regard the memo evidence in hand says that the said L.W5 – A.Subbarayudu was examined as

P.W4. On perusal of the record it is found that P.W4 is one Venkata Subbaiah who is not cited as a witness in this case. Hence the evidence of P.W4 cannot be considered and his evidence was discarded from the record.

14. P.W5 – N.Nagaraja, the then Head Constable of Vempalli P.S, deposed in chief about receiving Ex.P1 from P.W1, registration of Ex.P2 – FIR, forwarding P.Ws.1 and 2 to government hospital Vemaplli, recording the statement of material witnesses, visiting the scene of offence and preparing

Ex.P3 – Rough Sketch. P.W5 has arrested the accused and enlarged them on station bail. He also claims himself as if received wound certificates of P.Ws.1 to 3 vide Exs.P4 to P6. In his cross examination it is elicited that he has referred P.Ws.1 and 2 to hospital and later he has sent police personal to the hospital.

15. On thorough reading of oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 coupled with contents in Exs.P1 to P.6, no doubt Exs.P.4 to P.6 reveals that P.Ws.1 to 3 has sustained injuries but it has to be seen about the efforts of investigating

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

Draft 6 C.C.No.255/2017 officer to connect the said injuries to the accused. In this regard when the evidence of investigating officer is compared with oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.Ws.1 to 3 was very clear that at first they went to hospital and there after they went to Vempali P.S, for lodging complaint. Whereas, P.W5 –

Investigating Officer claims that he has referred P.Ws.1 to 3 to hospital.

Further the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 though says that the accused has beat them and caused injuries, the prosecution has failed to elicit from them the specific overt acts on the part of each accused from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to

3. All the three witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 says that the accused party has beat them with sticks. But no one has testified that what was actually committed by each of the accused. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to attribute any specific overt act to any accused. Further the prosecution has failed to examine the person who root cause for the alleged incident i.e., L.W5 – A.Subbarayudu. On other hand P.W1 says that the accused has beat himself and P.W2, PW2 says that the accused beat himself,

P.W1 and L.W4, wheres as P.W3 (LW4) says that the accused has beat himself, P.W2, L.Ws.3 and 5 the evidence of each witness differs from the other witness as there is no corroboration with regard to any one of the aspect. Infact none of he witnesses has testified alike in any manner except saying that accused party has beat them. Needless to say, none of the witness has testified about the specific overt acts of the accused. The more crucial point is, the investigating officer though says that he has visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, he did not seize any sticks or stones from the scene of offence or the rough sketch does not disclose the presence of any sticks or stones. Hence as seen from any angle the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

Draft 7 C.C.No.255/2017

16. IN THE RESULT, accused nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC, and thereby, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. Bail bonds shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the day of 28 th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. JFCM for P. & E. Offences, Kdp, FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pulivendula.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

DEFENCE: PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: V.Santanna -None- P.W.2: V.Ravi Kumar P.W.3: Jamal Valli P.W.4: Venkata Subbaiah (evidence discarded) P.W.5: N.Nagaraja, the then Head Constable of Vempalli P.S

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – Complaint of P.W1

Ex.P2 – First Information Report

Ex.P3 – Rough Sketch

Ex.P4 – Wound Certificate of P.W1

Ex.P5 – Wound Certificate of P.W2

Ex.P6 – Wound Certificate of L.W3 – Shaik ghouse Lazam

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-Intld/-HSJR

Spl. JFCM, for P & E, KDP

FAC JFCM,

PVLD. // True Copy //

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

Draft 8 C.C.No.255/2017

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : KADAPA

Calendar and Judgment tried by Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula.

Date of

Apprehen- Release onCommence-Close of OffenceReportsion ofJudgment bailment of trialtrial accused 26-06-’1726-06-’1707-07-’1707-07-’1729-12-'2221-07-'2328-07-'23

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.255/2017 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pulivendula Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemula P.S., Cr.No.130/2017

Name of the accused with AgeCallingReligionResident father’s name

1. Borugula RaviImam Nagar,Vempalli 43 -Hindu S/o. Subbaiah, Town and Mandal yrs

2. Bollarapu Suresh Imam Nagar Vempalli 25 -Hindu S/o. RaviTown and Mandal. yrs

3. Bollarapu Prashanth 20 Imam Nagar, Vempalli Kumar @ Chinna,-Hindu yrsTown and Mandal. S/o. Ravi

4. Bollarapu Gangisetty Rajeevanagar Colony, 46 S/o. Subbaiah-Hindu Vempalli Town and yrs Mandal.

5. Bollarapu Madhu @ Rajeevnagar Colony, 21 Mahadeva, S/o. Gangisetty-Hindu Vempalli town and yrs Mandal. Offence : U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding : Accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty.

Sentence : Accused nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC, and thereby, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. Bail bonds shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

Draft 9 C.C.No.255/2017

Explanation for the delay : The case is taken on file and numbered as

C.C.255/2017. On appearance of accused nos.1 to 5, copies of documents were furnished to them. Accused nos.1 to 5 were examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained to them in Telugu and that accused nos.1 to 5 are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence commenced from 29.11.2019 and closed the trial on 06.03.2023. On 16.03.2023 accused nos.1 to 5 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Heard both sides on 21.07.2023. Judgment is pronounced on this day. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Spl. JFCM for P. & E. Offences, Kdp, FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pulivendula.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble 1 st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis. No.

dt. 28.07.2023 Spl.J.F.C.M.for Proh.& Excise

1 C.C.No.1380/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES, KADAPA

Present: Smt Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa.

Wednesday, 23rd day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.1380/2024

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G PS

...Complainant

And

Nethi Kanakaiah, aged about 65 years, S/o. Late Pedda Narasaiah, D.No.8/335A, Industrial Estate, Kadapa town. …Accused

This case came before me on 17.04.2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S.Lakshmi Sai Ramakrishna, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri Y.S.Rayudu, Advocate for the accused upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub – Inspector, RIMS U/G PS, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995.

The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:-

2. On 04.01.2024 at about 8.30 AM, LWs.1 and 2 namely J.Prasad, Police

Constable, RIMS U/G PS and K.Sunil Kumar, Police Constable, RIMS U/G PS along with LW5 – K.Ramachandra, the then Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G PS found the accused transporting the illicit liquor i.e., 11 nips of Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy, 1 – 150 ml sample bottle of Daaru house XO Brandy, one 750 ML Malabar House VSOP

Brandy at D.No.8/335A, Industrial Estate, Kadapa Town. On enquiry, the accused got perturbed and admitted the possession of liquor bottles without license. LW5 has pick up one bottle as sample, arrested the accused and seized the crime property under the cover of Police proceedings. It is further alleged that LW5 brought the accused to Police

StationandregisteredacaseincrimeNo.6/2024 dt.23.04.2025 Spl. J.F.C.M for Proh. & Excise offences, Kadapa.

2 C.C.No.1380/2024 under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995. The sample was also sent to analyst for examination. The analysts issued a report opining that the sample is Indian made liquor. After completion of investigation LW6 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024 (here-in- after referred as “BNSS” for brevity) (Corresponding provision to section 207 of Cr.P.C).

5. Accused was examined under Section 262 of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 239 of Cr.P.C), and the charge under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition

Act, 1995 was framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Evidence let in by state :

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5, Mos.1 to 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lws.2 to 4 and 6.

 Ex.P1 - Confession, Arrest cum seizure police proceedings  Ex.P2 - First Information Report.

 Ex.P3 - Letter of Advice.

 Ex.P.4 - Analysis Report.

 Ex.P.5 – Destruction proceedings  M.O.1 - One Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy  M.O.2 – One 150 ml Daaru House XO brandy  M.O.3 – One 750 ml Malabar House VSOP Brandy bottle

7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 313 of Cr.P.C), explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in oral and documentary evidence, he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the

offence punishable under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act,

1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

dt.23.04.2025 Spl. J.F.C.M for Proh. & Excise offences, Kadapa.

3 C.C.No.1380/2024

POINT:-

10. To bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2.

11. PW1 – J.Prasad, Constable, RIMS U/G PS deposed that on 04.01.2024 at about 8.40 am, himself along with PW2 started from police station and were conducting raids. At about 9.00 am they reached the scene of offence situated infront of the house of accused bearing D.No.8/335A, Industrial Estate, Kadapa. They found the accused with a White plastic bag suspiciously. On seeing them the accused who was in possession of a white plastic bag tried to skulk away from the scene but they caught hold of him. On enquiry the accused revealed identity and confessed that he is in possession of illicit liquor without any valid license for selling the same at higher rates.

PW2 seized the bag containing 11 nips of Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy bottles, 1 – 150 ml Daaru House XO brandy, 1 – 750 ml Malabar House VSOP brandy bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 – Confession, Arrest cum seizure police proceedings. He also drew for sending the same to Chemical Analysis. He arrested the accused, brought him to police station along with crime property and registered a case.

12. PW2 – K.Ramachandra, the then Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G PS deposed that on 04.01.2024 at about 8.40 pm, himself along with PW1 started from police station and were conducting raids. At about 9.00 am they reached the scene of offence situated infront of the house of accused bearing D.No.8/335A, Industrial Estate,

Kadapa. They found the accused with a White plastic bag suspiciously. On seeing them the accused who was in possession of a white plastic bag tried to skulk away from the scene but they caught hold of him. On enquiry the accused revealed identity and confessed that he is in possession of illicit liquor without any valid license for selling the same at higher rates. He seized the bag containing 11 nips of Old Admiral Fine VSOP brandy bottles, 1 – 150 ml of Daaru House XO brandy, 1 – 750 ml Malabar House VSOP brandy bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 – Confession, Arrest cum seizure police proceedings. He also drew for sending the same to Chemical Analysis. He arrested the accused, brought him to police station along with crime property and registered a case in Cr.No.6/2024 under 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of APP Act vide Ex.P2 – FIR. He issued 41-A Cr.P.C dt.23.04.2025 Spl. J.F.C.M for Proh. & Excise offences, Kadapa.

4 C.C.No.1380/2024 notice to accused. His inspector has forwarded MO1 through court to Chemical Analysis and received report vide Exs.P3 and P4 – Letter of Advise and Analysis Report that

MO1 is Indian Made liquor. His inspector has addressed letter to Superintendent of

Police, Kadapa for confiscation of crime property and received Ex.P5 - Destruction proceedings.

13.Section 34 of Act connotes:

“Penalties for illegal import, etc.:-

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act -

Section 34 (a) speaks for speaks for imports, exports, transports, manufacturers, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

(i) removes any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery or ware house licensed, established or continued under this Act...

14. In order to bring the case within the ambit of section 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, it is necessary for prosecution to prove that accused was in possession of crime property without any permit. It is also the duty of prosecution to probe by sending the seized sample to chemical analysis to find out as to whether the bottles contain Indian made liquor.

15. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are Police officials is that on 04.01.2024, they along with other staff reached the scene of offence which is situated infront of the house of accused bearing D.No.8/335A, Industrial Estate, Kadapa there they noticed the accused with liquor, they seized the crime property and got prepared Ex.P1 -

Confession, Arrest cum seizure police proceedings.

16. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is manifest that the place of offence is situated in busy area, but P.Ws.1 and 2 did not make any efforts to secure independent persons to act as mediators. Hence, it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they did not try to secure the presence of local inhabitants of scene of offence locality.

On perusal of Ex.P1- Confession, Arrest cum seizure police proceedings, it does not reveal about the venture of Pws.1 and 2 in securing the mediators .

dt.23.04.2025 Spl. J.F.C.M for Proh. & Excise offences, Kadapa.

5 C.C.No.1380/2024

17. In S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The state of A.P., reported in 2009 (4)

A.P.L.J., 57 (HC), it was held that :

“The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediator in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, the Court below did not consider the importance of taking local respectable independent mediators, hence their judgments resulted in miscarriage of justice and liable to be set a side.”

18. No receipt was issued to the accused to show that Ex.P1 – Confession, Arrest cum seizure police proceedings was prepared at the place of arrest and the property was seized in his presence. As Ex.P1 is silent about efforts of investigating agency to secure independent witnesses, it gives raise to a doubt about the very presence of accused at the place of arrest and the seizure of property from the accused.

19. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the Police personals deposed with regard to procedural aspects only and the prosecution has failed to examine any of the local inhabitants in support of its case. Except the oral evidence of official witnesses, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence punishable under

Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995. The learned defence counsel also argued that there is no corroboration.

20. In Karolla Chinnaiah and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2014(2) ALD (Crl.) 641, it was held that :

“When the evidence of PW2 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his search, both trial Court and appellate Court have grossly erred in accepting the evidence of PW2, without any corroboration. In fact, this objection was raised

before the trial Court, but the learned Trial Judge referring to Section 134 of

Evidence Act observed that as there is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony should be free from all doubts highly trustworthy and convincing. But here this PW2 being the complainant and Investigating Officer is naturally interested in getting a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness.”

21. Hence, in view of the above decisions, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

dt.23.04.2025 Spl. J.F.C.M for Proh. & Excise offences, Kadapa.

6 C.C.No.1380/2024

22. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and thereby, he is acquitted under0 Section 271(1) of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 248(1) of Cr.P.C) of the said offence. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time.

M.O.1 - One nip of Old Admiral Fine VSOP brandy bottle, MO2 - One 150 ml of Daaru

House XO Brandy, 1 750 ml Malabar House VSOP brandy bottle vide

CPR.No.182/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: J.Prasad, Constable, RIMS U/G PS-None- PW2: K.Ramachandra, the then Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G PS

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 - Confession, Arrest cum seizure police proceedings Ex.P2 - First Information Report. Ex.P3 - Letter of Advice. Ex.P.4 - Analysis Report. Ex.P.5 – Destruction Proceedings

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 - One nip of Old Admiral Fine VSOP brandy M.O.2 – One 150 ml of Daaru House XO brandy M.O.3 – One 750 ml Malabar House VSOP Brandy Intld/- HSJR, Spl. JFCM, for P & E, Offences KDP dt.23.04.2025 Spl. J.F.C.M for Proh. & Excise offences, Kadapa.

7 C.C.No.1380/2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : KADAPA

Calendar and Judgment tried by Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa

Date of

Apprehen- Release onCommence-Close of OffenceReportsion ofJudgment bailment of trialtrial accused 41-A 41-A Cr.P.C., 04-01-’24 04-01-’24Cr.P.C.,26-09-'2417-04-'2523-04-'25 notice notice

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1380/2024 on the file of the Special Judl. Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa. Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, RIMS U/G PS Cr.No.6/2024 Name of the accused with AgeCallingResident father’s name

Nethi Kanakaiah D.No.8/335A, Industrial Estate, Kadapa 65 - S/o. Late Pedda Narasaiahtown. yrs Offence : U/s. 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w 8(b)(i) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 and thereby, he is acquitted under0 Section 271(1) of

BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 248(1) of Cr.P.C) of the said offence. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled after lapse of appeal time. M.O.1 - One nip of

Old Admiral Fine VSOP brandy bottle, MO2 - One 150 ml of Daaru House XO Brandy, 1 750 ml Malabar House VSOP brandy bottle vide CPR.No.182/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay : The case is taken on file and numbered as

C.C.No.1380/2024. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him. On 19.09.2024 the accused was examined u/s.262 of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 239 of Cr.P.C) read over and explained to him in Telugu and that accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence commenced from 26.09.2024 and closed the trial on 16.04.2025. On 17.04.2025 the accused was examined u/s.351 of BNSS (Corresponding provision to section 313 of

Cr.P.C). Heard both sides on 17.04.2025. Judgment is pronounced on this day. Hence, the delay.

dt.23.04.2025 Spl. J.F.C.M for Proh. & Excise offences, Kadapa.

8 C.C.No.1380/2024

Remarks : - NIL -

Sd/-Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class for prohibition and Excise offences, Kadapa.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa dt.23.04.2025 Spl. J.F.C.M for Proh. & Excise offences, Kadapa.