Smt. I.swathi

CC. No. 109/2022 1 dt.28.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUINOR DIVISION)

CHILAKALURIPET

Present: Smt. I. SWATHI

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chilakaluripet.

Wednesday, 28th of April, 2026.

C.C.No.109/2022.

Between: State: Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban P.S.. … Complainant

-Vs-

1. Mettu Siva Nagaeswara Rao S/o. Raghavulu, 35 yrs, C/Telaga, R/o. Sugali Colony, Chilaklauripet Town. Driver cum owner of Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No.AP.07TJ.2475

2. Gunda Umakanth S/o. Narsing Rao, 40 yrs, C/Mudiraj, R/o. Dr.No.1-3-176/4/C/12/1, Kavadiguda, Padmasali Colony, VTC, Hyderabad. (Owner of Krishna Wines, Medchel, Telangana State).

3. Komirisetty Srinivasarao S/o. Tirupathaiah, 47 yrs, C/Telaga, R/o. Dr.No.360-2, 2nd Lane, Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet Owner of DCM Vehicle No.AP07 TD.9658.

4. Kavuri Venkata Siva Rao S/o. Koteswara Rao, 35 yrs, C/Rajaka, R/o.Dr.No.9-650, Rajaka Colony, Chilakaluripet.

Driver of DCM Vehicle No.AP07TK.9658 ... Accused A1 to A4.

This case came up on 24.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Chilakaluripet for Complainant and of Sri PVR learned Advocate for accused A1, A3 and A4 and of Sri SSK advocate for A4 upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following: :: JUDGMENT ::

The Sub-Inspector, Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. filed a charge sheet 1.

against the Accused alleging that he has been committed the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Amendment Act in

Cr.No.261/2020 of his Chilakaluripet Urban P.S.

CC. No. 109/2022 2 dt.28.04.2026

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(a). That on 30.08.2020 at 09:00 PM while PW5/Inspector of Police was at Chilakaluripet Urban P.S, he received credible information regarding illegal transportation of liquor from Telangana State. Then PW5 along with his staff PW1 and PW2 and mediators PW3 and PW4 rushed to near Global

School, 10th lane, Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet Town, there on cement road one Bolero Vehicle bearing No. AP.07TJ.2475 was stopped, one person stand beside the vehicle, on seeing them accused trying to escape from and on suspicious they caught hold of him and enquired him, then he replied that he is having liquor bottles with him and confessed about the offence by stating that accused A1 is selling liquor which were purchased from Accused A2, who is the owner of Krishna wines in Telangana state and to sell. Accused A1 further confessed that as usually on 27.08.2020 accused A3 who is the Owner of DCM Vehicle bearing No.AP07.TD.9658 was going to Hyderabad for hire, he gave Rs.15,000/- towards rent and also gave Rs.1 Lakh to accused A4 i.e.who is the Driver of DCM Van to purchase liquor, then accused A4 gave information of accused A2 and instructed to bring the liquor carefully. Then accused A4 loaded stock at Hyderabad and while returning he met accused

A2. On 30.08.2020 at 03:00 a.m. accused A4 vehicle at Kondrupadu, on

Narasaraopet road and informed the matter. Then Accused A1 went there along with his Bolero Vehicle bearing No.AP.07TJ.2475, shifted the load to his vehicle from DCM Van and covered Tarpaulin patta, accused A1 came to the above said place. On questioning A1 about that stock he shown the liquor bottles said Bolero vehicle. Then PW5 verified in the presence of mediators

CC. No. 109/2022 3 dt.28.04.2026

I.e. PW3 and PW4 and found 1). 12 cases each case contains 48 bottles(total bottles 576) of Mansion House of each worth of Rs.160/- 2). 4 cases each case contains 48 bottles(total bottles 192) of Old Admiral VSOP Brandy of each worth of Rs.120/- 3). 1 case contains 48 bottles of MC Dowells No.1

Luxury Whisky of each 180 ml of each worth of Rs.170/- . Total of 816 bottles were found. On each liquor bottles were printed Govt. Of Telangana

Prohibition and excise hologram was found on the lid, for sale in Telangana ony was printed. In order to sell the same at higher rates for his livelihood without any permission and license and therefore, they lifted the sample liquor bottles for chemical analysis, and seized 17 bottles from each case and also seized Bolero Maxi Truck Bearing No.AP07 TJ.2475 and the remaining liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of mediatornama duly attested by PW3 and PW4 and then PW5 arrested the A1 and send for remand.

b). That basing upon the mediatornama, the PW5/Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.261/2020 U/Sec.34(a)of AP Excise

Amendment Act, then he forwarded the original FIR along with mediatornama submitted to the all concerned officers. During the course of

Investigation, PW5/Inspector of Police have visited the scene of offence, examined PW1, PW2 and LW3 to LW6 and recorded their statements

U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C, then prepared rough sketch.

On 04.09.2020 at 08:30 p.m. at Gouri Sankar Hotel, NRT Center,

Chilakaluripet Town recorded their confession statement in the presence of

CC. No. 109/2022 4 dt.28.04.2026

PW3 and PW4 and brought them to Chilakauripet Urban P.S and then send them for remand.

During investigation, PW5/Inspector of Police sent sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Guntur through the Enforcement Superintendent,

Narasaraopet for analysis opined in RC.No.2127/2020 that the sample is

Indian Liquor. During the course of investigation, the seized property/vehicle have been send to SEB, Guntur Rural, as per the orders from Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural District, Guntur and handed over to A1 under proper acknowledgement on 30.07.2021. Then A2 approached the Hon’ble Court, on.19.01.2022 as per the order of Hon’ble High Court vide

Crl.P.No.6989/2021, dt.08.12.2021 PW5 was released Accused A2 on bail.

Then handed over the case file to LW10/Inspector of Police. Then, he filed charge sheet against the Accused A1 to A4. Hence, the charge.

3. After perusing the charge sheet filed under Sec.173(2) of

Cr.P.C. and connected documents thereon, this Court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a)of AP Excise

Amendment Act against the Accused A1 to A4 and issued summons to them.

4. On the appearance of the Accused A1 to A4, they were supplied

With the copies of the case documents as mandated under Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C. and they were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the allegations leveled against them in the charge sheet in Telugu, for which they denied their involvement in the commission of offence. As there is ground for presuming that they had committed an offence, a charge under

CC. No. 109/2022 5 dt.28.04.2026

Section.34(a)of AP Excise Amendment Act is framed against him , read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and MO1 to MO17. PW1 is Head Constable; PW2 is

Constable; PW3 and PW4 are said to be the mediator and PW5 is the

Inspector of Police and who conducted raids, Ex.P1 is the Signature of the

PW3 on Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020, Ex.P2 is the signature of PW3 on mediatornama dt.04.09.2020, Ex.P3 is the Signature of the PW4 on

Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020, Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on mediatornama dt.04.09.2020, Ex.P5 is the Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020,

Ex.P6 is the FIR, Ex.P7 is the Rough Sketch and Ex.P8 is the Analysis Report and MO1 to MO17 are sample liquor bottles.

6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in

Telugu, for which, they denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

CC. No. 109/2022 6 dt.28.04.2026

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence charged under Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Amendment Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

9. The gravamen of the allegations against the Accused A1 to A4 are that, PW5/Inspector of Police received credible information regarding illegal transportation of liquor from Telangana State. Then PW5 along with his staff PW1 and PW2 and mediators PW3 and PW4 rushed to near Global

School, 10th lane, Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet Town, there on cement road one Bolero Vehicle bearing No. AP.07TJ.2475 was stopped, one person stand beside the vehicle and on suspicious they caught hold of him and enquired him, then he replied that accused A1 is having liquor which were purchased from Accused A2, who is the owner of Krishna wines in Telangana state and to sell. Accused A1 further confessed that as usually on 27.08.2020 accused

A3 who is the Owner of DCM Vehicle bearing No.AP07.TD.9658 was going to

Hyderabad for hire, he gave Rs.15,000/- towards rent and also gave Rs.1

Lakh to accused A4 i.e.who is the Driver of DCM Van to purchase liquor, then accused A4 gave information of accused A2 and instructed to bring the liquor carefully. Then accused A4 loaded stock at Hyderabad and while returning he met accused A2. On 30.08.2020 at 03:00 a.m. accused A4 vehicle at Kondrupadu, on Narasaraopet road and informed the matter.

Then Accused A1 went there along with his Bolero Vehicle bearing

No.AP.07TJ.2475, shifted the load to his vehicle from DCM Van and covered

Tarpaulin patta, accused A1 came to the above said place. Then PW5 verified in the presence of

CC. No. 109/2022 7 dt.28.04.2026

mediators I.e. PW3 and PW4 and found 1). 12 cases each case contains 48 bottles(total bottles 576) of Mansion House of each worth of Rs.160/- 2). 4 cases each case contains 48 bottles(total bottles 192) of Old Admiral VSOP

Brandy of each worth of Rs.120/- 3). 1 case contains 48 bottles of MC Dowells

No.1 Luxury Whisky of each 180 ml of each worth of Rs.170/- . Total of 816 bottles were found In order to sell the same at higher rates for lively hood without any permission and license and therefore, PW5 lifted the MO1 to

MO17/sample liquor bottles for chemical analysis, arrested the accused A1 to

A4 and seized the remaining liquor bottles from his possession in the presence of mediators under the cover of Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020. On 19.01.2022 as per the order of Hon’ble High Court vide Crl.P.No.6989/2021, dt.08.12.2021 PW5 was released Accused A2 on bail. On the other hand, the case of defense is total denial and he submitted that he was falsely implicated in the above case. Therefore, the burden lies upon the prosecution to establish its case against the Accused A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. To bring home the guilt of Accused for the said charge, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and placed reliance on Ex. P1 to P8 and MO1 to MO17.

POINT:

11.The PW3 and PW4 who are said to be the mediators for the arrest of Accused and seizure of liquor bottles, have stated in their evidence in

CC. No. 109/2022 8 dt.28.04.2026

voice that they reveal acted as mediator stated that they do not know anything about this case facts, and they never acted as mediator in any case, and they went to Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. on some work and the police obtained their signature on blank paper. Police never examined them. As they did not support the case of prosecution, they were declared as hostile by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor after obtaining permission from this Court. PW3 and PW4 did not supported the case of prosecution.

Hence, reliance cannot be placed on their evidence.

CC. No. 109/2022 9 dt.28.04.2026

12. A perusal of the evidence of PW5/Inspector of Police, he has stated in his evidence that On 30.08.2020 at 09:00 PM while he was at PS and he received credible information regarding illegal transportation of liquor from

Telangana State, So he along with PW1 to PW4 and LW3 to LW6 rushed to near Global School, 10th lane, Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet Town, there on cement road one Bolero Vehicle bearing No.AP.07TJ.2475 was stopped, one person stand beside the vehicle and on suspicious caught hold of him and enquired him, then he replied that he is having liquor bottles with him and confessed about the offence by stating that hei.e. accused A1 is selling liquor which were purchased from Accused A2, who is the owner of Krishna wines in

Telangana state and to sell. Accused A1 further confessed that as usually on 27.08.2020 accused A3 van was going to Hyderabad for hire, he gave

Rs.15,000/- towards rent and also gave Rs.1 Lakh to accused A4 i.e. DCM

Van driver to purchase liquor, then accused A4 gave information of accused

A2 and instructed to bring the liquor carefully. Then accused A4 loaded stock at Hyderabad and while returning he met accused A2. On 30.08.2020 at 03:00 a.m. accused A4 van at Kondrupadu, on Narasaraopet road and

CC. No. 109/2022 10 dt.28.04.2026

informed the matter. Then Accused A1 went there along with his Bolero

Vehicle bearing No.AP.07TJ.2475, shifted the load to his vehicle from DCM

Van and covered Tarpaulin patta, accused A1 came to the above said place.

On questioning A1 about that stock he shown the liquor bottles said Bolero vehicle. I verified and observed 1). 12 cases each case contains 48 bottles(total bottles 576) of Mansion House of each worth of Rs.160/- 2). 4 cases each case contains 48 bottles(total bottles 192) of Old Admiral VSOP

Brandy of each worth of Rs.120/- 3). 1 case contains 48 bottles of MC Dowells

No.1 Luxury Whisky of each 180 ml of each worth of Rs.170/- were found.

Total of 816 bottles were found. On interrogation Accused A1 revealed his identity and particulars and above said bottles. Then he asked A1 whether he is having any license or permit from the Govt. to purchase and sell the liquor bottles and A1 stated do not have any license or permit. seized all the liquor bottles and Bolero Maxi Vehicle bearing No.AP.07TJ.2475 under cover of Mediatornama Dt.30.08.2020. Ex.P5 is the Mediatornama Dt.30.08.2020.

Then after, drawing 17 bottles as sample from each case for sending to

Excise laboratory, Guntur for chemical analysis and got the signatures. MO1 to MO17 are the sample bottles. He registered a case Cr.No.261/2020 U/s 34(a) AP Excise Amendment Act-2020 of Chilakaluripet Urban P.S on dt.30.08.2020 Ex.P6 is the FIR. He also prepared the rough sketch/Ex.P7. He arrested A1 and send for remand. On 03.09.2020 he send the letter to

Inspector of Motor Vehicles for getting details of vehicle and a letter to S.P.

Office, Guntur Rural District for confisication of Vehicle. During the investigation he arrested A3 and A4 on 04.09.2020 at 08:30 P.M. at Gowri

CC. No. 109/2022 11 dt.28.04.2026

Sankar Hotel, NRT Center, Chilakaluripet Town and recorded confessional

Statement of A3 and A4, in the presence of PW3 and PW4. Later, he sent samples for chemical examination to excise laboratory, Guntur. On 25.09.2020 he have send a letter to RTO, Narasaropet for getting the price of seized vehicle. On 27.09.2020 he received reply from the RTO by quotating the price of vehicle as Rs.4 lakhs. During the course of Investigation A2 approached Hon’ble Court, as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court vide

Crl.P.No.6989/2021, dt.08.12.2021 the accused A2 was released on bail on 19.01.2022. On receipt of analysis report/Ex.P8 and after completion of investigation, LW10 filed charge sheet against A1 to A4.

13. The PW1 and PW2, Who are said to be the Head constable and Constable at Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. and they have been accompanied PW5 and he corroborated the evidence in material particulars, such as conducting of raids, finding of liquor bottles in the possession of the accused, arrest of the accused and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused under the cover of

Ex.P5/mediatornama dt.30.08.2020.

14. A perusal of Ex.P5/mediatornama dt.30.08.2020, it discloses that on interrogation, the Accused confessed the offence before the

PW5/Inspector of Police. During the cross-examination, the PW5 has admitted that the alleged place of seizure is situated in busy locality and the Govt. offices are located in the scene of offence. He has further admitted that he did not serve the summons at the place of alleged seizure

CC. No. 109/2022 12 dt.28.04.2026

requesting them to come and act as mediators. He has further admitted that he did not prepare scene observation report in this case. He has further admitted that he did not examine and record the statement of the wine shop owners from whom the accused alleged to have purchased the said liquor bottles. He has further admitted that he did not examine and record the statements of the persons at the alleged place of seizure.

15. As can be seen from the records and from the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5 that the alleged place of seizure is located in busy area. It appears from the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5 that the mediators/PW3 and PW4 were present during the arrest of accused but said mediators did not support the case of the prosecution. Even, the PW5/Inspector of Police has admitted that he did not examine and record the statements of the persons at the alleged place of seizure. When the alleged mediators/PW3 and PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PW5/Inspector of Police that he was arrested accused in the presence of PW3 and PW4 and their evidence is not inspiring confidence of this court in the matter of seizing said liquor bottles as they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

16. As can be seen from the Ex.P5/Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020, it is nothing but confessional statement of the accused made before the Police officials about admitting the offence as the prosecution failed to follow the procedure. It is not the case of prosecution that the disclosure statement being made by the Accused while he was in the custody of PW5/Inspector of

CC. No. 109/2022 13 dt.28.04.2026

Police. In Mudavath Mothia Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2002(1) ALT

(CRL) 437, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para

No.5 that:

“The offence under Section 34 of the A.P Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the Excise Officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become Police Officials and the Excise Officials can never say that they are not the Police Officials. When once they become Police Officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, Ex.P5 Panchanama is hit by Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P5 Panchanama is hit by Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C and when the Independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt” .

17. In view of the laid down above, the Ex.P5/Mediatornama dt.

30.08.2020 cannot be used against the Accused, since the same is hit by

Secs.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Though the prosecution could

CC. No. 109/2022 14 dt.28.04.2026

establish that the MO1 to MO17/sample liquor bottles are Indian Liquor with the aid of Ex.P8/Analysis Report, but it is of no avail to the case of prosecution, as it failed to establish with cogent and convincing evidence that the same liquor bottles were seized from the possession of Accused.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the contents of Ex.P5/

Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020 and it cannot be taken into consideration as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel.

18. In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the Accused

A1 to A4 for the offence charged Under Section.34 (a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the Accused is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the

Accused A1 to A4 and against the prosecution.

19. IN THE RESULT, the Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Amendment Act.

Accordingly, the Accused A1 to A4 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of Accused and their sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this

Court and same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 28.04.2026.

MO1 to MO17 vide CPR No.42/2026 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal

CC. No. 109/2022 15 dt.28.04.2026

time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court, on this 28th of April, 2026.

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1: M. Amar Babu, Head Constable None PW.2: B. Siva Sankar, Constable PW.3: Shaik Nasuruddin, Mediator. PW.4: Shaik Abdul Azeez, Mediator PW.5: T. Venkateswarlu, Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban P.S.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1 is the Signature of the PW3 on Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020, Ex.P2 is the signature of PW3 on mediatornama dt.04.09.2020, Ex.P3 is the Signature of the PW4 on Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020, Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on mediatornama dt.04.09.2020, Ex.P5 is the Mediatornama dt.30.08.2020, Ex.P6 is the FIR, Ex.P7 is the Rough Sketch and Ex.P8 is the Analysis Report and

FOR DEFENCE : -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : MO1 to MO17 are sample liquor bottles of Mansion House, Old Admiral VSOP Brandyand MC Dowells No.1 Luxury Whisky of each 180 ml.

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Chilakaluripet.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

CHILAKALURIPET

CC.NO.109/2022

CC. No. 109/2022 16 dt.28.04.2026

Date of occurrence::30.08.2020 Date of complaint::30.08.2020 Date of taken on file::15.02.2022 Date of commencement of trial::13.02.2024 Date of closure of trial::21.04.2026 Date of sentence or order::28.04.2026 Name of the Complainant::The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. (Cr.No.261/2020). Name of Accused1. Mettu Siva Nagaeswara Rao S/o. Raghavulu, 35 yrs, C/Telaga, R/o. Sugali Colony, Chilaklauripet Town. Driver cum owner of Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck bearing No.AP.07TJ.2475.

2. Gunda Umakanth S/o. Narsing Rao, 40 yrs, C/Mudiraj, R/o.Dr.No.1-3-176/4/C/12/1, Kavadiguda, Padmasali Colony, VTC, Hyderabad.(Owner of Krishna Wines, Medchel, Telangana State).

3. Komirisetty Srinivasarao S/o.Tirupathaiah,47yrs,C/Telaga, R/o.Dr.No.360-2, 2nd Lane, Pandaripuram, Chilakaluripet. (Owner of DCM Vehicle No.AP07 TD.9658).

4. Kavuri Venkata Siva Rao S/o. Koteswara Rao, 35 yrs, C/Rajaka,R/o.Dr.No.9-650, Rajaka Colony, Chilakaluripet. Driver of DCM Vehicle No.AP07TK.9658 Nature of offence : 34(A) of AP Excise Amendment Act Finding of the Court : Not guilty Explanation for delay : This case is taken on file on 15.02.2022 and on 14.03.2022,copies furnished to Accused A1 to A4. On 23.01.2024, They had been examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty. On 11.02.2025 PW1 was examined, On 17.02.2025 PW2 was Examined On 17.09.2025 PW3 and PW4 are examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 are marked, On 16.04.2026 PW5 was examined and Ex.P5 to P8 were marked and MO1 to MO17 were marked. On 24.04.2026, examination of Accused A1 to A4 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was done and on the same day, heard arguments from both sides and on 28.04.2026,Judgmentpronounced(Vide Separate Judgment). Hence the delay. Sentence or Order : IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the9 offence punishable Under Section.34(a) of AP Excise Amendment Act. Accordingly, the Accused A1 to A4 are

CC. No. 109/2022 17 dt.28.04.2026

acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of Accused and their sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 28.04.2026. MO1 to MO17 vide CPR No.42/2026 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHILAKALURIPET.

Present: Smt. I. SWATHI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Friday, the 14th day of July, 2023.

C.C.No.166/2022.

State: Rep. by the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chilakaluripet. … Complainant -Vs-

Kancherla Joseph, S/o. Souri, Aged 35 years, Caste: Mala, R/o. Kondaveedu village,

Edlapadu Mandal,... Accused

This case came up on 13.07.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. K.Jyothi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Chilakaluripet for Complainant and of Sri Poluru Purushottama Rao, learned Advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The EnforcementSub-Inspector/PW4/LW5,Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Chilakaluripet filed a charge sheet against the Accused alleging that he has been committed the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r.w.8 (e) of APP Act in Cr.No.75/2020 of his Special

Enforcement Bureau Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(a)That on 08.08.2020 at about 8:15 PM, at Community Hall,

Malapalli of Kondaveedu Village, Edlapadu Mandal the Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5, Chilakaluripet along with her staff while conducting raids at the said place, caught hold of the Accused while he was in possession of White Plastic Bottle filled with I.D. arrack and two cartoon boxes containing 0.08 20 liters of I.D. arrack and each cartoon box contains 10 pieces of Black Jaggery, each piece weighing about 1 kg i.e.

total 20 kgs of Black Jaggery without having bills or permission, in order

AJCJ, CH.PET 2/12 C.C.No.166/2022 to sell the same at higher rates for his livelihood and therefore, they lifted the sample I.D. arrack from each brand for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and seized the remaining I.D. arrack from his possession in the presence of mediators i.e. LW2/PW2 and LW3/PW3 under the cover of Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020.

(b)That basing upon the strength of Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020, the Enforcement Sub-Inspector/PW4/LW5 registered a case in Cr.No.75/2020 under Section 7 (A) r.w.8 (e) of APP Act, submitted First

Information Report to Court and copies to all concerned. The

Enforcement Sub-Inspector/PW4/LW5 sent the accused along with case record to Court, also sent the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner,

Guntur through Court for analysis, received the Report stating that “sample bottles are Indian liquor” and addressed to the Deputy

Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Nellore for issuing confiscation/destruction orders with regard to the remaining case property and after completion of investigation, the Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5 filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.After perusing the charge sheet filed under Sec.173(2) of

Cr.P.C. and connected documents thereon, this Court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 7 (A) r.w.8 (e) of APP

Act against the Accused and issued summons to him.

4.On appearance of the Accused, he was supplied with copies of case documents as mandated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet in Telugu, for which he denied his involvement in the commission of offence. As there is ground for presuming that he had committed an offence, a charge under Section 7 (A) r.w. 8 (e) of APP Act is framed against him, read over and explained

AJCJ, CH.PET 3/12 C.C.No.166/2022 to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6, MO1 and MO2. PWs.2 and 3 are said to be the mediators. PW1 is the Enforcement Constable who assisted the PW.4 in conducting raids; P.W.2 is the Volunteer, PW3 is Volunteer; PW4 is the

Enforcement Sub-Inspector/LW4; Ex.P1 is the Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020; Ex.P2 is the signature on the Mediatornama dated 08.08.2020; Ex.P3 is the signature on the Mediatornama dated 08.08.2020; Ex.P4 is the First Information Report in Cr.No.75/2020; Ex.P5 is the Analysis Report and Ex.P6 is the Analysis report. MO1 is sample bottle containing I.D. liquor and MO2 is Paper Cover and the prosecution has given up the evidence of LW4 and LW6 on 14.07.2023

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which he denied the evidence as false and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence charged under Section 7 (A) r.w. 8 (e) of APP Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

9.The gravamen of the allegations against the Accused are that, on 08.08.2020 at about 8:15 PM, at Community Hall, Malapalli of

Kondaveedu Village, Edlapadu Mandal the Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5, Chilakaluripet along with her staff while conducting

AJCJ, CH.PET 4/12 C.C.No.166/2022 raids at the said place, caught hold of the Accused while he was in possession of White Plastic Bottle filled with I.D. arrack and two cartoon boxes containing 0.08 20 liters of I.D. arrack and each cartoon box contains 10 pieces of Black Jaggery, each piece weighing about 1 kg i.e.

total 20 kgs of Black Jaggery without having bills or permission, in order to sell the same at higher rates for his livelihood and therefore, they lifted the sample I.D. arrack from each brand for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and seized the remaining I.D. arrack from his possession in the presence of mediators under the cover of Mediator

Report dated 08.08.2020. On the other hand, the case of defence is total denial and the accused submitted that he was falsely implicated by the

Enforcement officials in the above case. Therefore, the burden lies upon the prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.To bring home the guilt of Accused for the said charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to

P6, MO1 and MO2.

11.POINT:

The PWs.2 and 3, who are said to be the mediators for the arrest of Accused and seizure of I.D arrack, have stated in their evidence in voice that they do not know anything about this case facts and about one year back, one day they were called to Excise Station by the Excise

Officials and therefore, they went to that station and there, they obtained their signatures in a blank paper, but they do not know as to why they took their signatures and purpose of it. As they did not support the case of the prosecution, they were declared as hostile by the learned Assistant Public prosecutor after obtaining permission from this

Court for cross-examination and nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination except marking of the signature of PW2

AJCJ, CH.PET 5/12 C.C.No.166/2022 mediatornama dated 08.08.2020 as Ex.P2 and the signature of PW.3 in the mediatornama dated 08.08.2020 as Ex.P3.

A perusal of the evidence of PW.4, it discloses that on 08.08.2020, she and her constables started from their Special Enforcement Station,

Chilakaluripet to conduct raids to Community Hall, Malapalli of

Kondaveedu Village, Edlapadu Mandal and they reached to Community

Hall, Malapalli of Kondaveedu Village, Edlapadu Mandal in that village by 8:15 PM., and by the time, they noticed the Accused tried to escape on seeing them in uniform, then Police detained on accused on searching surroundings they found one plastic can and two cartoon boxes. On suspicion, they detained the accused and on interrogation, he revealed

before Enforcement Sub-Inspector/PW4/LW5 that he is in possession of

the I.D. arrack in his right hand. On further interrogation, the accused revealed that he did not possess any bills or permit to have such I.D.

arrack in his possession. Then, their Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5 directed LW.1 to bring mediators from Malapalli of

Kondaveedu Village, Edlapadu Mandal and secured PW.2/Shaik Syed Peer and PW3/Shaik Siraj and produced them before their Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5. Then, their Enforcement Sub-Inspector/PW4/LW5 instructed the PW.1 to issue Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020/Ex.P1 and Enforcement Sub-Inspector/PW4/LW5 verified the White Plastic Can and found 0.08 20 liters of I.D. arrack and each Cartoon box contains 10 pieces of Black Jaggery, each piece weighing about 1 Kg i.e. total of 20 kgs of Black Jaggery and found heal labels over the caps of I.D. arrack were removed. On further interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity particulars and voluntarily confessed the offence. On that, he has drawn MO1 sample I.D. arrack and MO2 sample Paper Cover for the purpose of sample and chemical analysis and kept the remaining I.D.

arrack in the same bags sealed and labeled and affixed the identity slips.

AJCJ, CH.PET 6/12 C.C.No.166/2022

Thereafter, she arrested the accused after informing his grounds of arrest and seized the above said I.D. arrack from his possession under the cover of Ex.P1 Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020.

12.The evidence of PW.2 further discloses that basing on the strength of Ex.P1 Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020, he registered a case in Cr.No.75/2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Chilakaluripet under Sec.7 (A) r.w.8 (e) of APP Act and submitted the original FIR/Ex.P4 to this Court and copies to the concerned. Then, she forwarded the accused to judicial remand after completion of remand formalities. During the course of investigation, she forwarded the MO1 sample I.D. arrack and MO2 Paper Cover to Regional Excise Laboratory,

Guntur through their Enforcement Superintendent, Narasaraopet for chemical analysis. Then, she handed over the CD file to their

Enforcement Inspector/LW6 for further investigation, who during the course of investigation, received analysis report/Ex.P5 wherein the analyst opined that the sample I.D. arrack are Indian Liquor and then, he sent a requisition to their Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Nellore requesting him to issue proceedings for confiscation of the remaining I.D. arrack and after completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet against the accused.

13.The Enforcement Constable, Enforcement Bureau Station,

Chilakaluripet who said to have been accompanied P.W.5 is examined as

P.W.1 and he corroborated the evidence of P.W.5 in material particulars, such as conducting of raids, finding of I.D. arrack in the possession of the accused, arrest of the accused and seizure of I.D. arrack from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P1/Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020.

AJCJ, CH.PET 7/12 C.C.No.166/2022

14.A perusal of Ex.P1 Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020, it discloses that on interrogation, the accused confessed the offence

before the P.W.4/Sub-Inspector. The PW.4 has stated in his evidence that

since none were come forward to act as mediators except PW2 and PW3 to witness arrest of the accused and seizure of I.D. arrack and black jaggery, he prepared Ex.P1 Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020 and seized the said I.D. arrack and black jaggery from the possession of the accused. During the cross-examination, the Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5 has admitted that the alleged place of seizure is situated in busy locality.She has further admitted that she did not handover any written summons to PW.1 to serve the same on mediators.

has done most of the investigation in this case. She has further admitted that she did not prepare scene observation report and rough sketch in this case. She has further admitted that she did not mention anywhere whether the said I.D. arrack and black jaggery were purchased or prepared by the accused. She has further admitted that she did not examine and record the statements of the persons at the alleged place of seizure.

15.As can be seen from the records and from the evidence of

PW3 that the alleged place of seizure is located in busy area. It appears from the evidence of PW1 that the LW1 went to Malapalli of Kondaveedu village to bring mediators/PWs.2 and 3, but said mediators did not support the case of the prosecution by stating that they do not know anything about the case facts. Even, the Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5 has admitted that she did not mention anywhere whether the said I.D. arrack and black jaggery were purchased or prepared by the accused. Even, the Enforcement Sub-Inspector/PW4/LW5 has admitted that she did not examine and record the statements of the

AJCJ, CH.PET 8/12 C.C.No.166/2022 persons at the alleged place of seizure. When the alleged mediators/P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5 that she seized the above said I.D arrack from the possession of Accused in the presence of PWs.2 and 3. PW2 and PW3 evidence is not inspiring confidence of this court in the matter of seizing said I.D arrack as they turned hostile.

16.As can be seen from the Ex.P1 mediatornama, it is nothing but confessional statement of the accused made before the Enforcement officials about admitting the offence as the prosecution failed to follow the seizure procedure. It is not the case of prosecution that the

Enforcement Sub-Inspector/PW4/LW5 seized the above said I.D arrack and black jaggery on the disclosure statement being made by the

Accused while he was in the custody of Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/PW4/LW5. In Mudavath Mothia Vs State of Andhra

Pradesh, 2002(1) ALT (CRL) 437, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held in para No.5 that:

“The offence under Section 34 of the A.P Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the Excise Officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become Police Officials and the Excise Officials can never say that they are not the Police Officials. When once they become Police Officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, Ex.P5 Panchanama is hit by Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P5 Panchanama is hit by Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C and when the Independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and

AJCJ, CH.PET 9/12 C.C.No.166/2022 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt”.

17.In view of the laid down above, the Ex.P1 Mediator Report

dated 08.08.2020 cannot be used against the Accused, since the same is

hit by Secs.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Though the prosecution could establish that the MO.1/sample I.D arrack is Indian Liquor with the aid of Ex.P5/Analysis Report and MO2/Sample Black Jaggery is used in illicity of liquor, Ex.P6/Analysis Report, but it is of no avail to the case of prosecution, as it failed to establish with cogent and convincing evidence that the same I.D arrack were seized from the possession of Accused.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the contents of

Ex.P3/Mediatornama and it cannot be taken into consideration as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel.

18.In view of the laid down above, the Ex.P1 Mediator Report

dated 08.08.2020 cannot be used against the Accused, since the same is

hit by Secs.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Though the prosecution could establish that the MO1/sample I.D. arrack are Indian Liquor with the aid of Ex.P5 Analysis Report, MO2/Sample Black Jaggery,

Ex.P6/Analysis Report but it is of no avail to the case of prosecution, as it failed to establish with cogent and convincing evidence that the same

I.D. arrack and black Jaggery were seized from the possession of accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the contents of Ex.P1

Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020 and it cannot be taken into consideration as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel.

AJCJ, CH.PET 10/12 C.C.No.166/2022

19.In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the

Accused for the offence charged under Section 7 (A) r.w. 8 (e) of APP Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the Accused is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the

Accused and against the prosecution.

20.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under Section 7 (A) r.w. 8 (e) of APP Act. Accordingly, the Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties executed earlier, shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 14.07.2023. MO1 vide in R.C.No.2075/2020 dated 21.10.2020 and MO2 vide in

R.C.No.2078/2020 dated 21.10.2020 shall be destroyed after lapse of

appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- I.SWATHI,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

AJCJ, CH.PET 11/12 C.C.No.166/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: S. Veeranjaneya Raju, Enforcement Constable. PW2: Shaik Syed Peer PW3: Shaik Siraj PW4: B. Nayantara, Enforcement Sub-Inspector.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the Mediator Report dated 08.08.2020; Ex.P2 is the signature on the Mediatornama dated 08.08.2020; Ex.P3 is the signature on the Mediatornama dated 08.08.2020; Ex.P4 is the First Information Report in Cr.No.75/2020; Ex.P5 is the Analysis Report; Ex.P6 is the Analysis report.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 and MO2: 0.08 20 liters of I.D. arrack and each Cartoon box contains 10 pieces of Black Jaggery, each piece weighing about 1 Kg i.e. total of 20 kgs of Black Jaggery

Sd/- I.SWATHI,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

AJCJ, CH.PET 12/12 C.C.No.166/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET

Calendar in C.C.No.166/2022

Date of occurrence::08.08.2020 Date of complaint::08.08.2020 Date of taken on file::14.03.2022 Date of commencement of trial::04.05.2023 Date of closure of trial::13.07.2023 Date of sentence or order::14.07.2023 Name of the Complainant:: State: Rep. by the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chilakaluripet (Cr.No.75/2020) Name of AccusedKancherla Joseph, S/o. Souri, Aged 35 years, Caste: Mala, R/o. Kondaveedu village, Edlapadu Mandal. Nature of offence 7 (A) r.w. 8 (e) of APP Act Finding of the Court Not guilty Explanation for delay :This case is taken on file on 08.08.2020 and on 21.03.2022, copies furnished to Accused. On 04.04.2022, he was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty and on 04.05.2022, PW.1 examined, Ex.P1, MO1 and MO2 were marked and on 28.06.2023 PW2 examined and Ex.P2 was marked. On 28.06.2023 PW3 examined and Ex.P3 was marked. On 12.07.2023 PW4 was examined, and Exs.P4 to P6 were marked. On 13.07.2023 examination of Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was done. On 13.07.2023 heard arguments from both sides and on 14.07.2023, Judgmentpronounced(VideSeparate Judgment). Hence the delay. Sentence or Order :The Accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under Section 7 (A) r.w. 8 (e) of APP Act. Accordingly, the Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties executed earlier, shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 14.07.2023. MO1 vide in R.C.No.2075/2020

dated 21.10.2020 and MO2 vide in

R.C.No.2078/2020 dated 21.10.2020 shall be

destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- I.SWATHI,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHILAKALURIPET.

Present: Smt. I. SWATHI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Friday, the 14th day of July, 2023.

C.C.No.32/2023.

State: Rep. by the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chilakaluripet. … Complainant -Vs-

Alladi Girijanu Babu, S/o. Yesobu, Aged 23 years, Caste: Mala, R/o. Nuthalapadu village, Parchuru Mandal,

Prakasam District.... Accused

This case came up on 13.07.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. K. Jyothi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Chilakaluripet for Complainant and of Sri Dasari Chitti Babu, Pamidi Raj Kumar, learned Advocates for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Chilakaluripet filed a charge sheet against the Accused alleging that he has been committed the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act in Cr.No.18/2021 of his Special Enforcement Bureau

Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(a)That on 09.02.2021 at about 8:00 AM, at Sapta Chilakaluripet to Pedanandipadu Road, Chilakaluripet Mandal, the Enforcement

Inspector, Chilakaluripet along with his staff while conducting raids at the said place, caught hold of the Accused while he was in possession of (10) bottles of Champion Special Whiskey-180 ml each without having bills or permission, in order to sell the same at higher rates for his livelihood and therefore, they lifted the sample liquor bottles from each

AJCJ, CH.PET 2/11 C.C.No.32/2023 brand for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and seized the remaining liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of special report.

(b)That basing upon the strength of special report, the

Enforcement Inspector registered a case in Cr.No.18/2021 under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, submitted First Information Report to Court and copies to all concerned. The Enforcement Sub-Inspector sent the accused along with case record to Court, also sent the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner, Guntur through Court for analysis, received the

Report stating that “sample bottles are Indian liquor” and addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Nellore for issuing confiscation/destruction orders with regard to the remaining case property and after completion of investigation, the Enforcement

Inspector filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3.After perusing the charge sheet filed under Sec.173(2) of

Cr.P.C. and connected documents thereon, this Court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act against the Accused and issued summons to him.

4.On appearance of the Accused, he was supplied with copies of case documents as mandated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet in Telugu, for which he denied his involvement in the commission of offence. As there is ground for presuming that he had committed an offence, a charge under Section 34(1)(ii) of AP Excise Act is framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and Mo.1. PW1 is the Enforcement Sub-Inspector

AJCJ, CH.PET 3/11 C.C.No.32/2023 and Investigating Officer; Ex.P1 is the special report; Ex.P2 is the First

Information Report in Cr.No.18/2021 and Ex.P3 is the Analysis Report.

MO.1 is the sample liquor bottle of Champion Special Whiskey-180 ml and the prosecution has given up the evidence of LWs.1, 2 and LW4 on 13.07.2023.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu, for which he denied the evidence as false and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of Accused for the offence charged under Section 34(1)(ii) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

9.The gravamen of the allegations against the Accused are that, on 09.02.2021 at about 8:00 AM, at Sapta Chilakaluripet to

Pedanandipadu Road, Chilakaluripet Mandal the Enforcement Inspector,

Chilakaluripet along with his staff while conducting raids at the said place, caught hold of the Accused while he was in possession of (10) bottles of Champion Special Whiskey-180 ml each without having bills or permission, in order to sell the same at higher rates for his livelihood and therefore, they lifted the sample liquor bottles from each brand for chemical analysis, arrested the accused and seized the remaining liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of special report. On the other hand, the case of defence is total denial and the accused submitted that he was falsely implicated by the Enforcement officials in

AJCJ, CH.PET 4/11 C.C.No.32/2023 the above case. Therefore, the burden lies upon the prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.To bring home the guilt of Accused for the said charge, the prosecution has examined PW1 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P3 and

MO.1.

11.POINT:

A perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it discloses that on 09.02.2021, he and their constables started from their Special

Enforcement Station, Chilakaluripet to conduct raids in Sapta

Chilakaluripet to Pedanandipadu Road, Chilakaluripet Mandal and they reached Sapta Chilakaluripet to Pedanandipadu Road, Chilakaluripet

Mandal in that village by 8:00 AM., and by the time, they noticed the

Accused carrying one Black Polythene cover holding in his right hand and on seeing them in uniform, the accused tried to escape from that place. On suspicion, they detained the accused and on interrogation, he revealed before Enforcement Sub-Inspector/LW3/PW1 that he is in possession of the liquor bottles in his right hand. On further interrogation, the accused revealed that he did not possess any bills or permit to have such liquor bottles in his possession. Then, Enforcement

Sub-Inspector/LW3/PW1 directed LW.1 to bring mediators from Sapta

Chilakaluripet to Pedanandipadu Road, Chilakaluripet Mandal and he returned back after some time stating that the Village Revenue officer and Village Revenue Assistant were not available in the village and none came forward to act as mediators. Then, Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/LW3/PW1 issued Special Report/Ex.P1 and Enforcement Sub-

Inspector/LW3/PW1 verified the Black Polythene Cover and found (10) bottles of Champion Special Whiskey and found heal labels over the caps of liquor bottles were removed. On further interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity particulars and voluntarily confessed the

AJCJ, CH.PET 5/11 C.C.No.32/2023 offence. On that, he has drawn MO1 sample liquor bottles for the purpose of sample and chemical analysis and kept the remaining liquor bottles in the same bags sealed and labeled and affixed the identity slips. Thereafter, he arrested the accused after informing his grounds of arrest and seized the above said liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of Ex.P1 special report.

12.The evidence of PW.1 further discloses that basing on the strength of Ex.P1 special report, he registered a case in Cr.No.18/2021 of

Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chilakaluripet under Sec.34(a) of

AP Excise Act and submitted the original FIR/Ex.P2 to this Court and copies to the concerned. Then, he forwarded the accused to judicial remand after completion of remand formalities. During the course of investigation, he forwarded the MO1 sample liquor bottles to Regional

Excise Laboratory, Guntur through their Enforcement Superintendent,

Narasaraopet for chemical analysis. Then, he handed over the CD file to their Enforcement Inspector/LW4 for further investigation, who during the course of investigation, received analysis report/Ex.P3 wherein the analyst opined that the sample liquor bottles are Indian Liquor and then, he sent a requisition to their Deputy Commissioner, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Nellore requesting him to issue proceedings for confiscation of the remaining liquor bottles and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

13.The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, is examined as P.W.1 and he corroborated material particulars, such as conducting of raids, finding of liquor bottles in the possession of the accused, arrest of the accused and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P1/special report.

14.A perusal of Ex.P1 special report, it discloses that on interrogation, the accused confessed the offence before the P.W.1/Sub-

AJCJ, CH.PET 6/11 C.C.No.32/2023

Inspector. The PW.1 has stated in his evidence that since none were come forward to act as mediators to witness arrest of the accused and seizure of liquor bottles, he prepared Ex.P1 special report and seized the said liquor bottles from the possession of the accused. During the cross- examination, the PW.1 has admitted that the LW.1 did not state the names of persons before him who refused to come and act as mediators. He has further admitted that there is a Village Secretariat in the Sapta Chilakaluripet to Pedanandipadu Road, Chilakaluripet Mandal.

He has further admitted that their he did not issue any written summons to the mediators. He has further admitted that he cannot say the specific boundaries of the alleged place of seizure. He has further admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 special report as to the batch numbers and manufacturing date of the above said liquor bottles. He has further admitted that he did not examine and record the statement of the wine shop owners from whom the accused alleged to have purchased the said liquor bottles. He has further admitted that he did not take the local inhabitants while issuing the Ex.P2 FIR. He has further admitted that he did not prepare any rough sketch in this case. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in relation to search and seizure. In S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs the State of

Andhra Pradesh, Crl.R.C. No.492 of 2014 dt:11.09.2005, the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that;

“When the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise Officials or Prohibition Officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise Officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Sub Section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of Section 100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and

AJCJ, CH.PET 7/11 C.C.No.32/2023 incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators any other locality would not only weaken, but some times destroy the prosecution case.”

15.As seen from the evidence of PW1, it appears that the alleged scene of offence is situated in busy locality, wherein the independent witnesses are very much available. Though the independent witnesses were very much available near to the place of arrest of the accused, the PW1 did not put his sincere efforts to secure such mediators to witness the arrest of the accused and seizure of liquor bottles for the reasons best known to him. The version of the prosecution that since no independent witnesses came forward to act as mediators, the PW1 prepared Ex.P1 special report which is scribed by

LW1 rather than the preparing of mediatornama could not make believable, he did not issue any written summons to the mediators.

Even, the PW.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not examine and record the statement of the wine shop owners from whom the accused alleged to have purchased the said liquor bottles. Hence, it seems that the PW.1 did not follow the mandatory procedure laid under

Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C by issuing a written summons to the independent witnesses. Since the evidence of PW1 is silent in that respect, it creates a doubt that whether the PW1 has made sincere efforts to secure the local inhabitants of the place of seizure to witness the seizure of above liquor bottles from the possession of the accused.

Though the PW1 have reiterated in their evidence as that of Ex.P1 special report, but their evidence is not inspiring confidence of this Court in the matter of seizing the said liquor bottles from the possession of the accused, as their evidence is not corroborated by the independent evidence and they did not follow the seizure procedure.

AJCJ, CH.PET 8/11 C.C.No.32/2023

16.As can be seen from the Ex.P1 special report, it is nothing but confessional statement of the accused made before the Enforcement officials about admitting the offence. It is not the case of prosecution that the PW.1 seized the above said liquor bottles on the disclosure statement being made by the accused while he was in the custody of

PW.1. In Mudavath Mothia Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2002(1)

ALT (CRL) 437, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held in para

No.5 that:

“The offence under Section 34 of the A.P Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the Excise Officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become Police Officials and the Excise Officials can never say that they are not the Police Officials. When once they become Police Officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, Ex.P5 Panchanama is hit by Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arises due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P5 Panchanama is hit by Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C and when the Independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt”.

17.In view of the laid down above, the Ex.P1 special report cannot be used against the Accused, since the same is hit by Secs.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Though the prosecution could establish that the MO1/sample liquor bottles are Indian Liquor with the aid of

Ex.P3 Analysis Report, but it is of no avail to the case of prosecution, as it failed to establish with cogent and convincing evidence that the same liquor bottles were seized from the possession of accused. Therefore, the

AJCJ, CH.PET 9/11 C.C.No.32/2023 prosecution failed to prove the contents of Ex.P1 special report and it cannot be taken into consideration as rightly contended by the learned defence counsel.

18.In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the

Accused for the offence charged under Section 34(1)(ii) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the Accused is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the

Accused and against the prosecution.

19.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under Section 34(1)(ii) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, the

Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties executed earlier, shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 14.07.2023. MO1 vide in

RC.No.1422 of 2021 dated 07.09.2021 shall be destroyed after lapse of

appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- I.SWATHI,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

AJCJ, CH.PET 10/11 C.C.No.32/2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: R.V.V. Prasad, Enforcement Sub-Inspector.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Special report. Ex.P1: First Information Report in Cr.No.18/2021. Ex.P3: Analysis Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1: Champion Special Whiskey-180 ml

Sd/- I.SWATHI,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

AJCJ, CH.PET 11/11 C.C.No.32/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET

Calendar in C.C.No.32/2023

Date of occurrence::09.02.2021 Date of complaint::09.02.2021 Date of taken on file::04.02.2022 Date of commencement of trial::12.07.2023 Date of closure of trial::13.07.2023 Date of sentence or order::14.07.2023 Name of the Complainant:: State: Rep. by the Station House Officer, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chilakaluripet (Cr.No.18/2021) Name of AccusedAlladi Girijanu Babu, S/o. Yesobu, Aged 23 years, Caste: Mala, R/o. Nuthalapadu village, Parchuru Mandal, Prakasam District. Nature of offence 34(1)(ii) of AP Excise Act Finding of the Court Not guilty Explanation for delay :This case is taken on file on 09.02.2021 and on 04.04.2022, copies furnished to Accused. On 27.06.2023, he was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty and on 12.07.2023, PW.1 examined, Exs.P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked and on 13.07.2023 examination of Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was done and on 13.07.2023 heard arguments from both sides and on 14.07.2023, Judgment

pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment).

Hence the delay. Sentence or Order :The Accused is found not guilty for the offence charged under Section 34(1)(ii) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, the Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties executed earlier, shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 14.07.2023. MO1 vide in

RC.No.1422 of 2021 dated 07.09.2021 shall

be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- I.SWATHI,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Guntur.

CC.No.956/20211 dt.28.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT :: Smt I.Swathi

Addl. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), Chilakaluripet

Dated, on the 28 th day of April, 2026

Calender Case No.956/2021

(Crime Number 61/2020 of Chilakaluripet Urban Police station)

Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police

station... Complainant

And:

1. Shaik Meera vali S/o. Moulali, 40 years, Muslim, R/o. 3rd Lane, Gundaiah Thota, Chilakaluripet. (Driver Piaggio Ape Auto bearing No.AP27 TU2058.

2. Vadiyala Masthan S/o. Subbarao, 60 yrs, C/Mala, R/o. Rajupalem(V), Martur(M), Registered Owner of Piaggio Ape Auto bearing No.AP27 TU2058. … Accused

Deceased: Shaik Nagur Bachha Bude, S/o. Masthan Saheb, 70 yrs, Muslim, R/o. D.No.27-311, Subbaiah Thota, Chilakaluripet.

This case is coming on24.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri PVR,

Advocate for accused and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivers the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police station, laid charge sheet against accused in crime No.61/2020for offence under Section 304-A and Sec. 180 and 196 of M.V. Act.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that:-

The offence took place at Ongole – Guntur NH-16 Road, Opposite to

Adam Water Servicing Point Shed of LW1, near Sai Karthik Cinema Hall,

CC.No.956/20212 dt.28.04.2026

Chilakalurpet. It is further alleging that on 10.03.2020 evening around 07:30 p.m. deceased/Shaik Nagur Bachha Bude with a view to have Tiffin at Friends

Food Mobile Canteen, near Sai Karthik Cinema Hall, he crossed the Guntur-

Ongole NH-16 Road and when he reached the western end of Ongole-Guntur

Road by foot. At that time, the accused drove the auto bearing No. AP.27.

TU 2058 came from Ongole side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn hit the deceased/Shaik Nagur Bachha Bude. As a result, deceased/Shaik Nagur Bachha Bude fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries over left eye, right hand fingers, abrasions over right knee, right leg big toe and blood also oozed from nostrils and the same had witnessed by the LW.2. Then deceased/Shaik Nagur Bachha Bude shifted to

Community Health Centre, Chilakaluripet where the doctor referred him to

Government General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment where while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries.

On 11.03.2020 AT 08:00 a.m. LW3, who is the son of deceased came to the P.S. and gave a report to PW5/Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.61/2020 U/sec.304-A of IPC and he submitted the copies of FIR to all concerned.

During the course of investigation, PW5 inspected the scene of offence before the presence of mediators PW4 and draw the observation report and prepared rough sketch of the scene. Then he examined the witnesses i.e.

PW3 and recorded his statement 161 Cr.P.C. Statement. Later, PW5 conducted inquest over the dead body to the medical officer, Government

General Hospital, Guntur for conduct inquest over the dead body of the

CC.No.956/20213 dt.28.04.2026

deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars i.e. PW4 and examined PW1 and

PW2 and recorded their statements u/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. LW12/Dr.V. Krishna

Murthy, Asst. Professor, Dept of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College,

Guntur conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem Certificate. During investigation, PW5 found Vehicle has no valid insurance, the crime vehicle belongs to accused A2 and also not having Driving

License to the accused A1. Then he added the sections.181 and 196 MV Act and he served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused A1 and A2. Then he forward the requisition to the LW12/Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle and receiving the postmortem examination report and MVI report.

On 24.07.2019 A2 was died, Hence the Hon’ble court is to abate action against A2. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section.304-A IPC and

Sections.181 of M.V. Act against accused A1. After receipt of summons, the accused A1 appeared before the court and copies of documents furnished to him as contemplated under sec.207 Cr.P.C.,

4.The accused A1 was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C and contents of charge sheet filed for the offence under section.304-A IPC and Sections.181 of

M.V. Act have been read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused A1, the prosecution has examined defacto complainant/P.Ws.1, alleged eye witness as PW3 and PW2

CC.No.956/20214 dt.28.04.2026

witnesses, PW4 is the inquest mediator and the Investigating Officer as P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The evidence of LW.2, LW4, LW6, LW8, LW9

LW11, LW12 and LW.14 given by prosecution.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused A1 was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been read over and explained to the accused A1, for which the accused A1 denied and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

8.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused A1, who is the drive of Auto bearing

No.AP27 TU 2058 resulted the death of one Shaik Nagur Bachha Bude. On the other hand the learned defence counsel contends that the evidence of prosecution witnesses itself is not suffice to hold that the incident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused A1 and PW3 is the direct eye witness was examined by the prosecution, he was turned hostile to the case of prosecution and though the witnesses who was examined by the prosecution did not testify that accused A1 in a rash or negligent manner drove the vehicle, as such the prosecution miserably failed to establish the case against the accused A1 and A2 and therefore prayed the court for acquittal. Further accused A1 had pleaded innocence and as a natural corollary the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused A1 beyond a shadow of doubt.

CC.No.956/20215 dt.28.04.2026

9. Now the point for determination is:

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

A1 for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.181 MV Act ?

POINT :-

10.In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused A1 which is also regarded as human right.

Because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however, strong it may be. The prosecution is required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. To prove the case of the prosecution

U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.181 MV Act, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the rash or negligent act has caused death of a person. The negligence must be gross negligence and it must not be simple lack of care.

11. For better appreciation of rival contentions it is useful to reproduce

Sections 304-A and secs.181 MV Act. It reads as under: Section 304 A:

Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section.181 M.V.Act: Whoever allowing to drove the vehicle without valid license, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend three months, or with fine, or with both.

12. The meaning of criminal rashness and criminal negligence can be explained in the following words: criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may

CC.No.956/20216 dt.28.04.2026

cause injury but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal

negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that

reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.

13.It is an undisputed fact that one Shaik Nagur Bachha Bude died due to the incident. The said fact was deposed by the prosecution witnesses.

14.PW1 deposed that about 5 years ago, he came to know that his father met with an accident through phone call. He reached to scene of offence and saw the deceased, there he died. He don’t know the manner in which accident was occurred. He gave report/Ex.P1 dt.11.03.2020 to the police and Police examined him.

15. PW2 and PW3 who are the relatives/witnesses of deceased, they deposed that in their evidence, they don’t know anything about the case facts.

They never witnesses any incident. Police never examined them.

16. PW4 who is the inquest mediator in this case, he deposed that he don’t know anything about the case facts and he never acted as mediator for the inquest of the deceased in connection with this case. Police obtained his signature at Governement Hospital, when he went to see the deceased. Police did not examined him.

CC.No.956/20217 dt.28.04.2026

17.A overall reading of the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused A1 was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act enacts that when the identity of a thing or the person is a fact in issue, in such a case the prosecution is obligated with the duty to prove by unequivocal evidence with respect to the identity of a person or a thing which has nexus with the crime.

18.Now the evidence surfaced to the prosecution is the evidence of

Investigating Officer/P.W.5 deposed that On 11.03.2020, at 08.00 A.M while he was present at P.S. He received intimation of GGH, Guntur. Then PW1 came to the P.S. and gave report. Basing on the strength of the report, he registered the statement as a case in Cr.No.61/2020 for the offences U/Sec.304-A of IPC and send the original FIR/Ex.P6 along with the statement forwarded to the

Hon’ble Court and concerned officers. He visited the scene of offence. He took

up the investigation and secured the presence of LW8 to 9 and PW4 and visited the scene of offence and examined the scene of offence and draw the scene observation report/Ex.P7 and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P8 of the same.

He examined witness LW1 and LW2 and recorded their statements. Then he visited Government General Hospital, Guntur along with Panchaytidar and conducted inquest/Ex.P9 over the dead body.. Then immediately handover the dead body to the Medical Officer/LW11, to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused A1 and A2 with instructions to appear before the competent authorities whenever required. Further on verification crime vehicle documents it was found vehicle belongs to A2. Then he forwarded a requisition to LW12/N Nageswara Rao ,

Motor Vehicle Inspector, Chilakaluripet to inspect the crime vehicle. As the

CC.No.956/20218 dt.28.04.2026

crime vehicle has no valid insurance. Then LW14 included section.196 M.V.Act against the accused A2. In this case A2 was died on 24.07.2019. Hence, the

Hon’ble court is requested to abate action against the A2. After receipt of MVI

report/Ex.P10 and PM report/Ex.P11 LW14 filed the charge sheet.

19.As I discussed supra, except the evidcence of Investigating Officer, there is no other occular evidcence to show that the accused driven the crime vehicle i.e., crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 there is no incriminating material against the accused to convict under Section.304-A IPC and

Sections.180, 181 and 196 of M.V.Act. Basing on the sole testimony of

Investigating Officer conviction cannot be imposed against the accused, as such the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence underection.304-A IPC and Sections.181 of M.V. Act

20.As the material witness turned hositle, it can been seen there is no cogent and convencing evidence available on the record. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused.

21.In the result, the accused A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.181 MV Act and accordingly, accused A1 is acquitted in terms of Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of 6 (six)months in view of

Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 28.04.2026.

CC.No.956/20219 dt.28.04.2026

Property Order: There is no order for disposal of property, as property is seized and produced before the Court.

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

open court, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined Prosecution: PW1 –Shaik Nagur Kareem, defacto-complainant PW2 – Shaik Karimulla, Witness PW3 –Shaik Adam Shafi, eye witness PW4 – Shaik Nagur Karimulla Sha vali/Inquest Mediator PW4 – Shaik Sharief, SI, investigating officer

Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: Ex.P1– is the report of PW1, dt.11.03.2020 Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P4-signature on scene observation report of PW.4 dt.11.03.2020. Ex.P5 is the signature of the witness on the inquest of the deceased Ex.P6-Original FIR. Ex.P7-Scene Observation Report. Ex.P8-Rough Sketch. Ex.P9-Inquest Report. Ex.P10- M.V.I Report. Ex.P11-Postmortem Report of Deceased.

For Defence: Nill M.O’s. Marked For Prosecution: Nil

For Defence: Nill

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chilakaluripet.

CC.No.956/202110 dt.28.04.2026

CALENDER OF CASES TRIED BY

THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), CHILAKALURIPET.

Calendar in C.C.No: 956 of 2021

Date of offence : 10.03.2020 Date of report/complaint : 11.03.2020

Date of apprehension of accused : --

Date of release on bail : --

Taking of cognizance : 29.12.2021

Furnishing of copies to the accused : 28.06.2023

Recording plea of the accused : 01.04.2025

Date of commencement of trial : 28.04.2025

Date of closure of trial : 26.03.2026

Examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C. : 24.04.2026

Date of Judgment : 28.04.2026

Explanation for delay : Due to non production of witness by prosecution

Name of the complainant : Chilakaluripet Urban P.S -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of the Accused

1. Shaik Meera vali S/o. Moulali, 40 years, Muslim, R/o. 3rd Lane, Gundaiah Thota, Chilakaluripet. (Driver Piaggio Ape Auto bearing No.AP27 TU2058.

2. Vadiyala Masthan S/o. Subbarao, 60 yrs, C/Mala, R/o. Rajupalem(V), Martur(M), Registered Owner of Piaggio Ape Auto bearing No.AP27 TU2058.

Offence U/Secs. : 304-A and Sec.181 of M.V.Act

Finding : Found not guilty.

Result: Acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chilakaluripet.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for favour of information.

Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.

CC.No.956/202111 dt.28.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

Present: Smt. I.SWATHI,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

C.C.No.258/2022.

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S. … Complainant -Vs-

1. Banavathu China Ramulu Naik @ Ramulu Naik S/o. Ramulu Naik, Aged 41 years, C/ Sugali, R/o. Sugali Colony, Chilakaluripet Town. ALM

2. Pala Yougeswararao, S/o. Visweswara Rao, Aged 56 years, C/ Gouda, R/o.D.No.4-15/194, Kondaiah Colony, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Town, Line Man. ... A1 and A2.

This case came up on 13.07.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri

Dasari Chitti Babu, Pamidi Raj Kumar, Advocates for A1 and A2 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S. filed charge heet in against the A1 and A2 alleging that he has been committed an offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC in Cr.No.48/2021 registered under Sec.304-A of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(a)One Maila Ratna Babu (deceased) is a resident of Pasumarru

Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal and he is living by doing Street Lights repair in Panchayat.

(b)On 05.04.2022 around 12.05 PM, in order to attend electrical works A1 and A2 took the deceased to Pasumarru Village from

Yaddanapudi Line, but not from lift line and negligently boarded the deceased over the 1st number pole situated in Unnava Rajesh field and

AJCJ, Ch. Pet 2/9 C.C.No.258/2022 the deceased caught the electrical wires in order to connect them and sustained electrical shock, as a result he fell from the electrical pole on ground and sustained sever bleeding injury to his head and also burnt injuries to his forehead, left hand. Then, PW3/Gopathoti Suresh, made a phone call to 108 ambulance, as it is became late to arrive, he along with deceased relatives shifted him in auto to Komminenu Super

Speciality Hospital, Chilakaluripet and from there to Community Health

Center, Chilakaluripet for better treatment.

(c)That on 05.04.2022 , PW1 went to Chilakaluripet Rural P.S. and presented a written report to SI of Police/LW12/PW5, who in turn registered it as a case in Cr.No.48/2021 under Sec.304-A of IPC and submitted original FIR to Court and copies to all concerned, as S.I. of

Police/LW12/PW5 engaged otherwise, as per the instructions of S.I. of

Police/LW12/PW5, Head Constable by name Shaik Ismail ASI 2363/LW11 took up further investigation, visited scene of offence, drafted observation report attested by mediators, prepared rough sketch and held inquest over the body of deceased in the presence of mediators, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the dead body to Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Chilakaluripet for PM examination and served Sec.41-A Cr.PC notice on A1 and A2. The

Medical Officer, who conducted PM examination, issued certificate opining that deceased died due to Cardiac Arrest and after completion of investigation, he filed charge heet against the A1 and A2 under Sec.304-

A of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.After perusal of the charge heet filed U/Sec.173(2) of Cr.P.C. and connected material papers, this case was taken on file by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC.

Accordingly ordered summons to A1 and A2.

AJCJ, Ch. Pet 3/9 C.C.No.258/2022

4.On receipt of such summons, they appeared and received case copies supplied by the court in due compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C explaining him the sum and substance of accusation of the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of

IPC in Telugu, for which, they denied the commission of offence, they pleaded not guilty and to proceed for trial.

5.In order to establish their case against A1 and A2 during trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. PW1 is the father of deceased; PW2 is relative of the deceased; PW3 is relative of the deceased and PW4 is Shift Operator (Outsourcing). Ex.P1 is

Signature on the report dated 05.04.2020; Ex.P2 is 161(3) Cr.PC statement of PW1; Ex.P3 is 161(3) Cr.PC statement of PW2; Ex.P4 is 161(3) Cr.PC statement of PW3; Ex.P5 is 161(3) Cr.PC statement of PW4;

Ex.P6 is Complaint dated 13.12.2022; Ex.P7 is FIR; Ex.P8 is the Scene

Observation Report; Ex.P9 is the Rough Sketch; Ex.P10 is the Inquest

Report; Ex.P11 is Postmortem Report dated 06.04.2022. The Learned

APP has given up the evidence of L.Ws.2 to 3 and LWs.7 to 11.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 was examined under Sec.313 Cr.PC by explaining the incriminating material appears from the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 in Telugu, to which he pleaded false implication, however he reported no defence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the A1 and A2. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

AJCJ, Ch. Pet 4/9 C.C.No.258/2022

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution to prove the guilt of A1 and A2

of the offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?”

9.The gravamen of the allegations against the A1 and A2 are that, on 05.04.2022 around 12.05 PM, in order to attend electrical works A1 and A2 took the deceased to Pasumarru Village from Yaddanapudi Line, but not from lift line and negligently boarded the deceased over the 1st number pole situated in Unnava Rajesh field and the deceased caught the electrical wires in order to connect them and sustained electrical shock, as a result he fell from the electrical pole on ground and sustained sever bleeding injury to his head and also burnt injuries to his forehead, left hand and died at Community Health Center, Chilakaluripet.

Whereas, the defence of A1 and A2 is total denial. Therefore, the burden lies upon the prosecution to establish its case against the A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.To bring home the guilt of A1 and A2, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P11.

11.POINT:

In order to establish their allegations levelled against A1 and A2, prosecution projected the evidence of 4 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents, out of which, PW1 is the father of deceased; PW2 is relative of the deceased; PW3 is relative of the deceased and PW4 is Shift

Operator (Outsourcing), PW5 is Sub-Inspector of Police. It is an undisputed fact that soon after the accident, the deceased has sustained head injury on the spot. Thus, it is to be establihed by prosecution who caused such accident, for being held as responsible for the accidental death of deceased.

AJCJ, Ch. Pet 5/9 C.C.No.258/2022

12.The P.W.1, who is father of deceased, has stated in his evidence that one year back he received a call from known persons and informed him about the accident caused to his son and he died at Kommineni

Super Specialty Hospitals,, Chilakaluripet and then, himself along with others proceeded to Kommineni Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur. He has further stated that on the date of accident, police obtained his Signature on the report dated 05.04.2020 on a blank paper and he does not know the purpose why the Police obtained her Signature on the report dated 05.04.2020. As such he has no knowledge about the contents of alleged report and he identified his Signature on the report/Ex.P1 on the report

dated 05.04.2020. As he resiled from his previous statement, he was

declared as hostile by the learned APP after obtaining permission of this

Court and nothing could be elicited from his evidence except marking of his Signature on the report dated 05.04.2020 as Ex.P1 and his 161

Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2.

13. The P.W.2, who is relative of deceased, has stated in his evidence that he knows PW1/Myla Lazar, LW2/Maila Babu Rao, LW3/Maiala

Prakasham and he does not know the accused A1 and A2. As he resiled from his previous statement, he was declared as hostile by the learned

APP after obtaining permission of this Court and nothing could be elicited from his evidence except marking of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P3.

14.The PW3, who is relative of deceased has also stated in the same lines as that he knows PW1/Myla Lazar, PW2/Myla Rajesh and

LW6/PW4/Vemula Subramanyam and he does not know the accused A1 and A2. He was declared as hostile by the learned APP after obtaining permission of this Court and nothing could be elicited from his evidence except marking of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P4.

AJCJ, Ch. Pet 6/9 C.C.No.258/2022

15.The PW4, who is working as Shift Operator, has stated in his evidence that one year back he received a call from known persons and informed him about the accident caused to deceased/Myla Ratna Babu and he succumbed due to injuries. He was also declared as hostile by the learned APP after obtaining permission of this Court and nothing could be elicited from his evidence except marking of his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement as Ex.P5.

16.Then, there left the evidence of PW5/Sub-Inspector, who has stated that regarding registration of crime basing on the

Complaint/Ex.P6 given by PW1, submitting Ex.P7/FIR to Court by registering a case in Cr.No.48/2022 and copies to all concerned, he entrusted LW11/ASI 2363 for further investigation, LW11/ASI 2363 visited scene of offence, drawn Ex.P8/Scene of Observation Report,

Ex.P9/rough sketch, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased at Community Health Center, Chilakaluripet in the presence of his relatives and witnesses vide Ex.P10/Inquest report, securing the presence of witnesses and recording their statements, forwarding the dead body to Medical Officer for autopsy, PW5/Sub-Inspector served

Sec.41-A Cr.PC notice on the A1 and A2, and laying charge sheet after collection of Ex.P11/PME report etc. facts.

17.The prosecution examined the relatives of deceased as P.Ws.1,2,3 and 4 to corroborate the evidence of P.W.5/Sub-Inspector, but they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case as stated supra.

The P.W.5/Sub-Inspector has stated in his evidence as to the procedural aspects of the investigation done by him. Since, P.W.5/Sub-Inspector is not an eye-witness to the accident, his evidence is of no avail to the case of prosecution to establish that the A1 and A2 took the deceased to

Pasumarru Village from Yaddanapudi Line, but not from lift line and negligently boarded the deceased over the 1st number pole situated in

AJCJ, Ch. Pet 7/9 C.C.No.258/2022

Unnava Rajesh field and the deceased caught the electrical wires in order to connect them and sustained electrical shock and succumbed due to injuries thereby responsible for the accident. Though the prosecution could establish that the deceased met with electrical shock on 05.04.2022 around 12.05 PM in Unnava Ramesh fiedl near 11 KV Sub- station, near Pasumarru Village, Chilakaluriept Mandal, but it failed to establish that the A1 and A2 were responsible for that accident. On the other hand, the prosecution has also failed to examine any other independent witness in support of their case. Admittedly, PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 are hear-say witnesses.

18. In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the A1 and

A2 for the offences punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the A1 and A2 is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the A1 and A2 and against the prosecution.

19.IN THE RESULT, the A1 and A2 is found not guilty of offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and he is acquitted of the same under

Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bond and surety bonds if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 14.07.2023 as per Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of July, 2023..

Sd/- I. Swathi,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

AJCJ, Ch. Pet 8/9 C.C.No.258/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 Maila Lazar PW2 Maila Rajesh PW3 Gopathoti Suresh PW4 Vemula Subramanyam PW5 S. Rajesh/Sub-Inspector

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Signature on the report dated 05.04.2020; Ex.P2 161(3) Cr.PC statement of PW1; Ex.P3 161(3) Cr.PC statement of PW2; Ex.P4 161(3) Cr.PC statement of PW3; Ex.P5 161(3) Cr.PC statement of PW4; Ex.P6 Complaint dated 13.12.2022; Ex.P7 FIR; Ex.P8 Scene Observation Report; Ex.P9 Rough Sketch; Ex.P10 Inquest Report; Ex.P11 Postmortem Report dated 06.04.2022.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -Nil-

Sd/- I. Swathi,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

AJCJ, Ch. Pet 9/9 C.C.No.258/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET

Calendar in C.C.No.258/2022

Date of occurrence::05.04.2022 Date of complaint::05.04.2022 Date of taken on file::07.08.2022 Date of commencement of trial::27.03.2023 Date of closure of trial::12.07.2023 Date of sentence or order::14.07.2023 Name of the Complainant:: State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S.(Cr.No.48/2021)

Name of A1 and A2 :1. Banavathu China Ramulu Naik @ Ramulu Naik S/o. Ramulu Naik, Aged 41 years, C/ Sugali, R/o. Sugali Colony, Chilakaluripet Town. ALM.

2. Pala Yougeswararao, S/o. Visweswara Rao, Aged 56 years, C/ Gouda, R/o.D.No.4-15/194, Kondaiah Colony, Amaravathi Road, Guntur Town, Line Man. Nature of offence : 304-A of IPC Finding of the Court : Not guilty Explanation for delay : This case is taken on file on 07.08.2022 and on 06.03.2023, copies furnished to A1 and A2. On 21.03.2023, he was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty and on 27.03.2023, trial commenced and on 12.07.2023 examination of A1 and A2 under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was done. On 13.07.2023, heard arguments from both sides and on 14.07.2023, Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay. Sentence or Order : The A1 and A2 is found not guilty of offence punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and he is acquitted of the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bond and surety bonds if any, shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 14.07.2023 as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- I.SWATHI,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Copy submitted to Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate -cum- Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Guntur.