Sri J Hanumantha rao

1 C.C.83 OF 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES COURT, SANGAREDDY

WEDNESDAY THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2017

PRESENT: Sri. J. Hanumantha Rao, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy.

CC.No.83 OF 2015

(This case is transferred to this Court from Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court Sangareddy vide C.C.No.1043/2013).

Between:-

The State of Telangana through, P.S. Ramchandrapuram.

...Complainant

A N D

Jetti Pinki Babu, S/o: Chennakeshava Rao, Age: 25 years, Caste: S.C. Mala, Occ: Lathe Machine Work/Fitter Sandvik Company, R/o. Behind Old Vani Convent, Railpet, Gudiwada, Krishna District, Presently R/o: National School Front Line, Adarsha Nagar, Lingampally

...Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 19-06-2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri. A.M. Janardhan Goud and Sri. M. Sudhakar Goud, Advocates for accused, upon hearing them, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramchandrapuram Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.140/2012 for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code for short hereinafter referred to as IPC against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

On 18-04-2012 at about 20.30 hours the complainant lodged a complaint with Ramchandrapuram Police Station stating that on 17-04-2012 in the evening hours he went to ECIL, Nirmal Nagar on some works and to his shock when he

Page 1 of 9 2 C.C.83 OF 2015 returned to his house on the next day morning he noticed that the locks of the main door and almarah were in broken condition and two gold big chains, two small gold chains, two big finger rings, six small finger rings, one pair of small bangles, one pair of big silver anklets, one pair of small silver anklets, one pair of leg matees were committed theft by unknown offenders.

3.Basing on the complaint the LW7 i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ramchandrapuram Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.140/2012 under

Section 457 and 380 of IPC and he further examined the complainant, visited the scene of offence and in the presence of mediators LW2 and LW3 drafted rough sketch and conducted scene of offence panchanama.

4.On 31-08-2012 at about 11.30 hours on suspicious circumstances accused was called to Police Station for enquiries by LW7 i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ramchandrapuram Police Station and as led and shown by the accused LW7 along with the panchas LW4 and LW5 went to the house of the friend of the accused and noticed that his friends house was locked and the accused led LW7 to his house where the LW7 seized case property pertaining to Cr.No.140/2012 and arrested the accused and brought him to Police Station and thereafter produced before the Court for judicial custody.

5.Further on 03-09-2012 the accused was taken into Police Custody by LW7 and got recovered the stolen property in this case and property related to other cases under cover of confession cum seizure panchanama and seizure report in the presence of LW4 and LW5 at his friend’s house and produced before the

Court on 04-09-2012 and after completion of investigation LW7 filed charge sheet in this case.

6.The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy and registered as

Page 2 of 9 3 C.C.83 OF 2015

C.C.No.1043/2013 and on appearance of accused case copies were served to accused as provided U/Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. On 23-06-2014 accused was examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 of I.P.C., were framed and the same were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, on behalf of complainant PW1 to PW4 were examined and

Ex.P1 to P7 and M.O.1 to M.O.7 are marked.

7. At this stage the case was transferred to this Court vide

Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Proceedings No.2570/2014

dated 24-06-2014 and numbered as C.C.No.83/2015. Further on behalf of

complainant PW5 and PW6 were examined and Ex.P8 to P11 are marked.

8.PW1 is the complainant, PW2 and PW3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, PW4 and PW5 are the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama and PW6 is the Investigation Officer.

9.The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW6 one of the Investigating officers. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

10.Ex.P-1 is complaint, Ex.P-2 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-3 is rough sketch, Ex.P-4 is signature on scene of offence panchanama of PW3,

Ex.P-5 is rough sketch, Ex.P-6 is confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P-7 is seizure report, Ex.P-8 is portion of signature of PW5 on Ex.P6, Ex.P-9 is portion of signature of PW5 on Ex.P6, Ex.P-10 is portion of signature of PW5 on Ex.P7,

Ex.P-11 is FIR. M.O.1 are two big gold chains, M.O.2 are two small gold chains,

M.O.3 are two big finger gold rings, M.O-4 are six small finger gold rings, M.O-5 are two small gold bangles, M.O-6 is one pair of big silver leg anklets a M.O-7 are one small silver leg anklets.

Page 3 of 9 4 C.C.83 OF 2015

11.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining all the incriminating evidence available in the evidence of the witnesses. However, the accused reported no defence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

12.Now the points for consideration are:- i. Whether the MO1 to 7 belongs to PW1 was subjected to theft on the date of offence?

ii. Whether the accused was arrested when he was in possession of MO1 to 7?

iii. Whether the accused accounted for MO1 to 7?

iv. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC?

13.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for defence.

14.POINT NO. 1:The case of the prosecution is that MO1 to 7 belongs to defacto complainant/PW1 was subjected to theft by break opening the lock of the house on 17/18-04-2012 while he was away from his house and he lodged a complaint with Police Station Ramchandrapuram. Basing on the complaint of

PW1 on 18-04-2012 at 8.30 PM a case in Cr.No.140/2012 for the offence under

Section 457 and 380 of I.P.C., was registered against the accused. To substantiate the same the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW1 and panch witnesses for scene of offence as PW2 and PW3. Their evidence shows that a theft took place on 17-04-2012 by break opening the doors of the house of PW1 when he was away. The complaint of PW1 is marked as Ex.P1 and scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P2 and rough sketch is marked as Ex.P3 by the prosecution to prove its case.

Page 4 of 9 5 C.C.83 OF 2015

15.The evidence of PW1 to 3 remains unchallenged as the Counsel for defence neither denied the theft or the right of PW1 over case property. To substantiate the evidence of prosecution the Sub-Inspector of

Ramchandrapuram Police Station is examined as PW6 and he deposed that

PW1 lodged a complaint with Ramchandrapuram Police. Ex.P11 is First

Information Report marked through PW6 on behalf of prosecution. Considering the evidence of PW1 to 3 and PW6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P3 and Ex.P6 made this Court to say that case property of PW1 was subjected to theft on the date of offence. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

16.POINT NO. 2:The case of the prosecution is further that on 18-04-2012 PW6 who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police Ramchandrapuram

Police Station at the time of point of this case apprehended accused in

Cr.No.373/2012 of Police Station, Ramchandrapuram and during the course of his interrogation accused confessed his guilt in several offences including this crime i.e., Cr.No.140/2012 in the presence of two mediators PWs4 and 5 and further recovered two gold big chains, two gold small chains, two gold big rings, six gold small rings, one pair gold bangles, one pair silver anklets, one pair small silver anklets and one pair silver mettelu at H.No.2-31/A/A. Ex.P6 is confession cum seizure panchanama and Ex.P7 is seizure report marked through PW4.

To substantiate the same LW4 is examined as PW4 and LW5 is examined as

PW5. PW4 deposed that accused confessed his guilt regarding commission of offence in this case before Police in their presence and Police seized the case property. But the learned Counsel for accused during the cross-examination of

PW4 could elicit that PW4 is friend of PW1 and he went to Police Station

Ramchandrapuram after one month and he further could not exactly give descriptive particulars of the case property seized by the Police in his presence and it was further elicited by the learned Counsel for the accused that PW4 could not remember how many times he signed. Hence, the evidence of PW4 did not

Page 5 of 9 6 C.C.83 OF 2015 support the case of the prosecution with regard to seizure and confession panchanama and further the prosecution examined another mediator i.e., PW5 and he deposed that he does not know the accused and Police did not seize any gold ornaments from the accused in his presence and further the accused never confessed to him and he further deposed that he signed on blank papers. At this stage the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested to declare the witness as hostile and was permitted and during the cross-examination nothing favourable to the case of the prosecution could be elicited and further the cross-examination by learned Counsel for the accused was reported Nil. Hence, the evidence of PW4 and PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution that case property was seized from the possession of the accused.

17.So the other evidence that remains on behalf of the prosecution is PW-6 who is the Police Officer and who investigated this case and arrested the accused and seized case property and his evidence remains uncorroborated with that of PW4 and PW5 before whom he say that case property is seized from the accused and further during the cross-examination of PW6 the learned Counsel

for accused could elicit that Ex.P1 does not disclose the identification particulars

of offenders and also descriptive particulars of the case property and further PW6 did not seize any broken locks from the scene of offence and further during the cross-examination PW6 stated that the complainant did not state either in complaint or before him the descriptive particulars of ornaments stolen and it was further elicited that he did not conduct identification parade of person and property. Hence, this Point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

18.POINT NO. 3:In view of the findings in Point No.2, as there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to show that the stolen property was seized from the possession of accused, this point is also answered against the prosecution.

Page 6 of 9 7 C.C.83 OF 2015

19.POINT NO. 4:In view of the findings in Point No.1 to 3 though there is evidence that case property belongs to PW-1 was subjected to theft on date of offence but the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence that the stolen property was seized from the possession of accused. Hence this point is also answered against the prosecution.

20.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Section 457 and 380 of I.P.C., and accordingly accused is acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The M.O.1 to M.O.7 case property and unmarked case property i.e., one pair silver mettelu are deposited vide C.P.R.No.346/15/2013 on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Sangareddy and the same were given in for

interim custody to PW1 vide its order dated 03-09-2014 and the same shall become absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of June, 2017.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW-1 Gnan Kumar -Nil – PW-2 P.Shekar Reddy PW-3 Sri Reddy Nikesh Reddy PW-4 Prabhakar Reddy PW-5 Vadegar Raju PW-6 J.Venkat

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence

Ex.P-1 Complaint -Nil- Ex.P-2 Scene of Offence Panchanama Ex.P-3 Rough Sketch Ex.P-4 Signatures on Scene of Offence Panchanama of PW3

Page 7 of 9 8 C.C.83 OF 2015

Ex.P-5 Rough sketch Ex.P-6 Confessional-Cum-Seizure Panchanama Ex.P-7 Seizure Report Ex.P-8 Portion of Signature of PW5 on Ex.P6 by PW5 Ex.P-9 Portion of Signature of PW5 on Ex.P6 by PW5 Ex.P-10 Portion of Signature of PW5 on Ex.P7 by PW5 Ex.P-11 FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Two Big Gold Chains M.O.2: Two Small Gold Chains M.O.3: Two big finger Gold Rings M.O-4: Six small finger Gold Rings M.O-5: Two Small Gold Bangles M.O-6: One pair of big silver leg anklets M.O-7: One small silver leg anklets

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Sangareddy

Page 8 of 9 9 C.C.83 OF 2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES COURT AT SANGAREDDY

Date of offence: 17-04-2012

Report or Complaint: 18-04-2012

Apprehension of Accused: 32-08-2012

Released on bail: 15-09-2012

Commencement of Trial: 04-08-2014

Close of Trial: 05-11-2015

Sentence or order: 21-06-2017

Explanation of delay and remarks : Since this case is received by transfer vide C.C.No.1043/2013 on the file of Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sangareddy and due to Non-Production of Witnesses

JUDGMENT IN CALENDER CASE NO.83 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES

COURT AT SANGAREDDY

COMPLAINT: P.S. Ramchandrapuram

ACCUSED : Jetti Pinki Babu

OFFENCE : U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC

PLEA OF ACCUSED: Not guilty

FINDING OF THE JUDGE: Not guilty

SENTENCE OF ORDER: Acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

To, The Hon’ble I Addl Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Page 9 of 9

1 C.C.72 OF 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES COURT, SANGAREDDY

WEDNESDAY THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2017

PRESENT: Sri. J. Hanumantha Rao, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy.

CC.No.72 OF 2015

(This case is transferred to this Court from Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court Sangareddy vide C.C.No.852/2012).

Between:-

The State of Telangana through, P.S. Ramchandrapuram.

...Complainant

A N D

Jetti Pinki Babu, S/o: Chennakeshava Rao, Age: 25 years, Caste: S.C. Mala, Occ: Lathe Machine Work/Fitter Sandvik Company, R/o. Behind Old Vani Convent, Railpet, Gudiwada, Krishna District, Presently R/o: National School Front Line, Adarsha Nagar, Lingampally

...Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 19-06-2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri. A.M. Janardhan Goud and Sri. M. Sudhakar Goud, Advocates for accused, upon hearing them, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramchandrapuram Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.373/2012 for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code for short hereinafter referred to as IPC against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

On 25-08-2012 the defacto complainant came and lodged a complaint regarding theft in his house by break opening the locks of the door on

Page 1 of 10 2 C.C.72 OF 2015 14-08-2012 when he was on a preligrimage to Thirupathi and to his notice he complained that silver plates, silver pooja items, silver bowl, electronic goods, apple company phone, i-pod, sony camera, MP3 players, GPS, Nokia phone and some cash was committed theft by unknown offenders.

3.Basing on the complaint LW7 registered a case in Cr.No.373/2012 under

Section 457 and 380 of IPC and he further examined LW1 and LW2 at their residence and thereafter in the presence of LW3 and LW4 he prepared rough sketch and scene of offence panchanama and further on 27-08-2012 on suspicion on enquiry with the accused there were some leads in this case and the accused confessed the commission of the offence in this case and several other cases in the presence of LW5 and LW6 and he further confessed that case property related to this case was concealed by accused at his residence at

Sherilingampally and thereafter the LW7 along with LW5, LW6 as led and shown by the accused went to the house of accused at Sherilingampally and seized case property under seizure report and thereafter arrested the accused and sent him to the Court for judicial custody and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4.The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy and registered as

C.C.No.852/2012 and on appearance of accused case copies were served to accused as provided U/Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. On 03-02-2014 accused was examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 of I.P.C., were framed and the same were read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

Page 2 of 10 3 C.C.72 OF 2015 tried. Subsequently, on behalf of complainant PW1 to PW3 were examined and

Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1 to M.O.16 are marked.

5. After PW4 is examined in part this stage the case was transferred to this

Court vide Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Proceedings No.2570/2014

dated 24-06-2014 and numbered as C.C.No.72/2015. Further PW4 is examined

and Ex.P6 is marked. Later on behalf of complainant PW5 and PW6 were examined.

6.PW1 is the complainant, PW2 and PW3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, PW4 and PW5 are the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama and PW6 is the Investigation Officer.

7.The evidence of LW2 (wife of the complainant) is closed on 22-08-2016 since the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence of LW2 despite granting several opportunties. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

8.Ex.P1 is complaint, Ex.P2 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3 is rough sketch, Ex.P4 is signature of PW3 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P5 is signature of PW3 on rough sketch, Ex.P6 is confession statement of accused.

M.O.1 is big silver plate, M.O.2 is small silver plate, M.O.3 is small chembu,

M.O.4 is panchapaali, M.O.5 is deepapu kundalu (two in number), M.O.6 is achampany ginne with spoon, M.O.7 is ganta, M.O.8 is harathi, M.O.9 is bowl,

M.O.10 is MP3 player, M.O.11 is I-POD, M.O.12 is I-Phone, M.O.13 is canon camera, M.O.14 is handicam, M.O.15 is sony camera, M.O.16 is GPS.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining all the incriminating evidence

Page 3 of 10 4 C.C.72 OF 2015 available in the evidence of the witnesses. However, the accused reported no defence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

10.Now the points for consideration are:- i. Whether the MO1 to 16 belongs to PW1 was subjected to theft on the date of offence?

ii. Whether the accused was arrested when he was in possession of MO1 to 16?

iii. Whether the accused accounted for MO1 to 16?

iv. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC?

11.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for defence.

12.POINT NO. 1:The case of the prosecution is that case property belongs to the defacto complainant was subjected to theft by break opening the lock of the house on 14-08-2012 while he was away from his house and he lodged a complaint with Police Station Ramchandrapuram. Basing on the complaint of LW1 on 18-08-2012 a case in Cr.No.373/2012 for the offence under

Section 457 and 380 of I.P.C., was registered against the accused. To substantiate the same the prosecution examined the complainant as PW1 and panch witnesses for scene of offence and rough sketch as PW2 and PW3. Their evidence shows that a theft took place on 16-08-2012 by break opening the doors of the house of PW1 when he was away and PW1 received a phone call from his neighbour regarding the above said theft. He immediately returned back on 17-08-2012 and noticed locks of the doors were broken and the case property i.e., MO1 to MO16 were missing. He immediately lodged a complaint. Ex.P1 is

Page 4 of 10 5 C.C.72 OF 2015 his complaint. To substantiate the same the panchas for rough sketch and scene of offence were examined as PW2 and PW3 and both of them deposed in one voice that theft took place in the house of PW1 and PW2 informed the same to

PW1 and that the Police conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch and it was marked by the prosecution as Ex.P2 and P3 through PW2 and further the same is identified by PW3 in the open Court and they were marked by the prosecution as Ex.P4 and P5.

13.The evidence of PW1 to PW3 remains unchallenged as the Counsel for defence neither denied the theft or the right of PW1 over case property. To substantiate the evidence of prosecution the Sub-Inspector of

Ramchandrapuram Police Station is examined as PW6 and he deposed that

PW1 lodged a complaint with Ramchandrapuram Police. Similarly during the cross-examination of PW6 by the learned defence Counsel the evidence of PW6 remains unchallenged as the Counsel for defence neither denied the theft or the right of PW1 over case property. Considering the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and

PW6 coupled with Ex.P1 to P5 made this Court to say that case property of PW1 was subjected to theft on the date of offence. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

14.POINT NO. 2:The case of the prosecution is further that on 27-08- 2012 PW6 who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police Ramchandrapuram Police

Station at the time of point of this case apprehended accused in this case and during the course of his interrogation accused confessed his guilt in several offences including this crime i.e., Cr.No.373/2012 in the presence of two mediators PWs4 and 5 and further recovered MO1 to MO16 at H.No.2-31/A/A.

Ex.P6 is confession cum seizure panchanama is marked through PW4. To substantiate the same the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure

Page 5 of 10 6 C.C.72 OF 2015 panchanama are examined as PW4 and PW5 and PW4 deposed that accused confessed his guilt regarding commission of offence in this case before Police in his presence and Police seized the case property. But the learned Counsel for accused during the cross-examination of PW4 could elicit that PW4 deposed in other cases as panch witness and could further elicit that PW4 was not having a clear idea about the case property pertaining to this case seized in his presence and it was further elicited during the cross-examination that Test Identification

Parade of property was not conducted and it was further elicited that panchanama was already drafted in the Police Station before he reached the said Police Station and it was further elicited that PW1 was his neighbour and it was further elicited that he does not know the contents of Ex.P6 and from going through the cross-examination of PW4 it is understood by this Court that panchanama was conducted at the Police Station, Ramchandrapuram. Hence, the evidence of PW4 is not trustworthy and weaks the case of prosecution.

15.Further the prosecution examined another mediator i.e., PW5 and he deposed that he does not know the accused and Police did not seize any gold ornaments from the accused in his presence and further the accused never confessed to him and he further deposed that he signed on blank papers. At this stage the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested to declare the witness as hostile and was permitted and during the cross-examination nothing favourable to the case of the prosecution could be elicited and further the cross- examination by learned Counsel for the accused was reported Nil. Hence, the evidence of PW4 and PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution that case property was seized from the possession of the accused.

16.So the other evidence that remains on behalf of the prosecution is PW6 and who is the Police Officer and who investigated this case and arrested the

Page 6 of 10 7 C.C.72 OF 2015 accused and seized case property and his evidence remains uncorroborated with that of PW4 and PW5 before whom they say that case property is seized from the accused. During the cross-examination of PW6 the learned Counsel for accused could elicit that Ex.P1 does not disclose the identification particulars of offenders and also descriptive particulars of the case property and further PW6 did not seize any broken locks from the scene of offence and further during the cross-examination PW6 stated that the complainant did not state either in complaint or before him the descriptive particulars of ornaments stolen and it was further elicited that he did not conduct identification parade of person and property. Hence, this Point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

17.POINT NO. 3:In view of the findings in Point no. 2, as there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to show that the stolen property i.e., MO1 to MO16 was seized from the possession of accused, this point is also answered against the prosecution.

18.POINT NO. 4:In view of the findings in Point No.1 to 3 though there is evidence that case property belongs to PW-1 was subjected to theft on date of offence, the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence that the stolen property i.e., MO1 to MO16 was seized from the possession of accused. Hence this point is also answered against the prosecution.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Section 457 and 380 of I.P.C., and accordingly accused is acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of June, 2017.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Sangareddy

Page 7 of 10 8 C.C.72 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1 B.Shiva Prasad -Nil – P.W.2 Mamidi Srinivas P.W.3 Ramulu P.W.4 P.Prabhakar Reddy P.W.5 V.Raju P.W.6 M.Ramakrishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution For Defence

Ex.P1 Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2 Scene of Offence Panchanama Ex.P3 Rough Sketch Ex.P4 Signature of PW3 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 Signature of PW3 on rough sketch Ex.P6 Confession Statement of Accused

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 Big Silver Plate M.O.2 Small Silver Plate M.O.3 Small Chembu M.O.4 Panchapaali M.O.5 Deepapu Kundalu (2in Number) M.O.6 Achampany Ginne with spoon M.O.7 Ganta M.O.8 Harathi M.O.9 Bowl M.O.10 MP3 Player M.O.11 I-POD M.O.12 I-Phone M.O.13 Canon Camera M.O.14 Handi-Cam M.O.15 Sony Camera M.O.16 GPS

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Sangareddy

Page 8 of 10 9 C.C.72 OF 2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES COURT AT SANGAREDDY

Date of offence: 14-08-2012

Report or Complaint: 25-08-2012

Apprehension of Accused: 31-08-2012

Released on bail: 15-09-2012

Commencement of Trial: 04-08-2014

Close of Trial: 22-08-2016

Sentence or order: 21-06-2017

Explanation of delay and remarks : Since this case is received by transfer vide C.C.No.852/2012 on the file of Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sangareddy and due to Non-Production of Witnesses

JUDGMENT IN CALENDER CASE NO.72 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES

COURT AT SANGAREDDY

COMPLAINT: P.S. Ramchandrapuram

ACCUSED : Jetti Pinki Babu

OFFENCE : U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC

PLEA OF ACCUSED: Not guilty

FINDING OF THE JUDGE: Not guilty

SENTENCE OF ORDER: Acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

To, The Hon’ble I Addl Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Page 9 of 10 10 C.C.72 OF 2015

Page 10 of 10

1 C.C.65 OF 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES COURT, SANGAREDDY

THURSDAY THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2017

PRESENT: Sri. J. Hanumantha Rao, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy.

CC.No.65 OF 2015

(This case is transferred to this Court from Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court Sangareddy vide C.C.No.782/2012).

Between:-

The State of Telangana through, P.S. Ramchandrapuram.

...Complainant

A N D

Jetti Pinki Babu, S/o: Chennakeshava Rao, Age: 25 years, Caste: S.C. Mala, Occ: Lathe Machine Work/Fitter Sandvik Company, R/o. Behind Old Vani Convent, Railpet, Gudiwada, Krishna District, Presently R/o: National School Front Line, Adarsha Nagar, Lingampally

...Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 22-06-2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri. A.M. Janardhan Goud and Sri. M. Sudhakar Goud, Advocates for accused, upon hearing them, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramchandrapuram Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.269/2012 for the offence under Section 457 and 380 of

Indian Penal Code for short hereinafter referred to as IPC against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:-

On 23-06-2012 at about 12:40 hours the defacto complainant i.e.,

K. Rajeshwar i.e., LW1 came to the station and lodged a complaint staing that a theft was committed by breaking the locks of his house along with the house of

Sri. Krishna Reddy and the LW7 i.e., Sub-Inspector, Ramachandrapuram Police Page 1 of 8 2 C.C.65 OF 2015

Station registered a case in Crime No.269/2012 U/Sec.457, 380 and 511 of IPC and visited the scene of offence along with LW2, 3 and prepared rough sketch, scene of offence panchanama and thereafter on 28-07-2012 on suspisicous circumstances the accused was called for enquiries to the station and he was sent away and thereafter during the further enquiries with the accused in the presence of LW4, 5 he voluntarily confessed the commission of offence in this case and other cases. The LW7 recorded confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators of LW4,5 and thereafter as led and shown by the accused LW6 went to the house of the accused and seized case property in the presence of LW4,5 in this case and thereafter arrested the accused and brought him to the station.

3.Further on 03-09-2012 the accused was taken into Police Custody by LW7 and got recovered the stolen property in other cases under cover of seizure report at his friend’s house and produced before the Court on 04-09-2012 and after completion of investigation LW7 filed charge sheet in this case.

4.The case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy and registered as

C.C.No.782/2012 and on appearance of accused case copies were served to accused as provided U/Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. On 03-02-2014 accused was examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 r/w 511 of

I.P.C., were framed and the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, on behalf of complainant PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to P4 are marked.

5.At this stage the case was transferred to this Court vide Hon’ble Prl.

District and Sessions Court, Proceedings No.2570/2014, dated 24-06-2014 and

Page 2 of 8 3 C.C.65 OF 2015 numbered as C.C.No.65/2015. Further on behalf of the complainant P.W.4 to 6 are examined and Ex.P5 is marked.

6.PW1 is the complainant, PW2 and PW4 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, PW3 and PW5 are the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama and PW6 is the Investigation Officer.

7.The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW6 one of the Investigating

Officers. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

8.Ex.P-1 Complaint, Ex.P-2 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-3 is rough sketch, Ex.P-4 is confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P-5 is FIR.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining all the incriminating evidence available in the evidence of the witnesses. However, the accused reported no defence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

10.Now the points for consideration are:- i. Whether there was an attempt of commission of theft of property of PW1 on the date of offence?

ii. Whether the accused was arrested when he confessed volantarily for the offence in this case?

iii. Whether the accused accounted for attempt of commission of theft of property of PW1?

iv. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 r/w 511 of IPC?

11.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for defence.

Page 3 of 8 4 C.C.65 OF 2015

12.POINT NO. 1:The case of the prosecution is that case property belongs to the defacto complainant was subjected to attempt of theft by break opening the lock of the house on 23-06-2012 while he was away from his house and he lodged a complaint with Police Station Ramchandrapuram. Basing on the complaint of PW1 on 23-06-2012 at 12:40 hours a case in Cr.No.269/2012 for the offence under Section 457 and 380 r/w 511 of I.P.C., was registered against the accused. To substantiate the same the prosecution examined PW2, 4 who are panchas for scene of offence. Their evidence shows that an attempt of theft which took place on 23-06-2012 by break opening the doors of the house of PW1 when he was away. The complaint of PW1 is marked as Ex.P1 and scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 is rough sketch is marked by the prosecution to prove its case.

13.The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 remains unchallenged as the

Counsel for defence has not denied the attempt of theft of valuables of PW1. To substantiate the evidence of prosecution examined LW7 as PW6 and he is working as Sub-Inspector, Ramchandrapuram Police Station and he deposed that PW1 lodged a complaint with Ramchandrapuram Police. Similarly during the cross-examination of PW6 the learned counsel did not deny the attempt of theft of valuables of PW1. Ex.P5 is First Information Report marked through

PW6 on behalf of prosecution. Considering the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW6 coupled with Ex.P1, P2, P3 and P5 made this Court to say that case property of PW1 was subjected to attempt of theft on the date of offence. Hence,

Point No.1 is answered in favour of the prosecution.

14.POINT NO. 2:The case of the prosecution is further that on 31-08-2012 PW6 who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police Ramchandrapuram

Police Station at the time of point of this case apprehended accused in Cr.No.

269/2012 of Police Station, Ramchandrapuram and during the course of his interrogation accused confessed his guilt in several offences including this crime

Page 4 of 8 5 C.C.65 OF 2015 i.e., Cr.No.269/2012 in the presence of two mediators PWs2 and 3 and recovered property relating to other cases Ex.P4 is confessional statement is marked through PW3 and Ex.P3 is rough sketch marked through PW2. To substantiate the same LW4 is examined as PW3 and LW5 is examined as PW5 and PW3 deposed that accused confessed his guilt regarding commission of offence in this case before Police in his presence and Police seized the case property. But the learned Counsel for accused during the cross-examination of

PW3 could elicit that PW3 is friend of PW1 and he went to Police Station

Ramchandrapuram after one month and he further could not exactly give descriptive particulars of the case property seized by the Police in his presence and it was further elicited by the learned Counsel for the accused that PW3 could not remember how many times he signed. Hence, the evidence of PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to seizure and confession panchanama and further the prosecution examined another mediator i.e., PW5 and he deposed that he does not know the accused and Police did not seize any gold ornaments from the accused in his presence and further the accused never confessed to him and he further deposed that he signed on blank papers. At this stage the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested to declare the witness as hostile and was permitted and during the cross-examination except marking confession cum seizure panchanama through PW5 as Ex.P4 nothing favourable to the case of the prosecution could be elicited and further the cross-examination by learned Counsel for the accused was reported Nil. Hence, the evidence of

PW3, PW5 did not support the case of the prosecution that case property was seized from the possession of the accused.

15.So the other evidence that remains on behalf of the prosecution is PW6 who is the Police Officer and who investigated this case and arrested the accused and seized case property and his evidence remains uncorroborated with that of PW3 and PW5 before whom they say that case property is seized from

Page 5 of 8 6 C.C.65 OF 2015 the accused and further during the cross-examination of PW6 the learned

Counsel for accused could elicit that Ex.P1 does not disclose the identification particulars of offenders and also descriptive particulars of the case property and further PW6 did not seize any broken locks from the scene of offence and further during the cross-examination, PW6 stated that the complainant did not state either in complaint or before him the descriptive particulars of ornaments stolen and it was further elicited that he did not conduct identification parade of person and property. Hence, this Point No.2 is answered against the prosecution.

16.POINT NO. 3:In view of the findings in Point No.2, as there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to show that there is an attempt to commit theft of case property of PW1, this point is also answered against the prosecution.

17.POINT NO. 4:In view of the findings in Point No.1 to 3 though there is evidence that there was an attempt to commit theft of case property belonging to

PW-1 on the date of offence, the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence that there was an attempt of theft by accused. Hence this point is also answered against the prosecution.

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

Section 457 and 380 r/w 511 of I.P.C., and accordingly accused is acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd Day of June, 2017.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Sangareddy

Page 6 of 8 7 C.C.65 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

PW-1 K.Rajeshwar -Nil – PW-2 A.Sandeep PW-3 P.Prabhakar Reddy PW-4 Sherne Krupakar PW-5 Vadegar Raju PW-6 J.Venkat

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence

Ex.P-1 Complaint -Nil- Ex.P-2 Scene of Offence Panchanama Ex.P-3 Rough Sketch Ex.P-4 Confessional-Cum-Seizure Panchanama Ex.P-5 FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Sangareddy

Page 7 of 8 8 C.C.65 OF 2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES COURT AT SANGAREDDY

Date of offence: 23-06-2012

Report or Complaint: 24-06-2012

Apprehension of Accused: 31-08-2012

Released on bail: 15-09-2012

Commencement of Trial: 04-08-2014

Close of Trial: 07-12-2015

Sentence or order: 22-06-2017

Explanation of delay and remarks : Since this case is received by transfer vide C.C.No.782/2012 on the file of Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sangareddy and due to Non-Production of Witnesses

JUDGMENT IN CALENDER CASE NO.65 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES

COURT AT SANGAREDDY

COMPLAINT: P.S. Ramchandrapuram

ACCUSED : Jetti Pinki Babu

OFFENCE : U/Sec.457 and 380 r/w 511 of IPC

PLEA OF ACCUSED: Not guilty

FINDING OF THE JUDGE: Not guilty

SENTENCE OF ORDER: Acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

To, The Hon’ble I Addl Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

Page 8 of 8

1 of 7 CC of 652 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES COURT

SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri. J. Hanumantha Rao

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

C.C.No. 652 OF 2020

Between:-

The State through., Prohibition & Excise Station, Patancheru. …Prosecution A N D

Aluri Ravi Goud S/o Aluri Rayappa Goud, Aged: 45 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No. 2-38, R.C Puram village and Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of S. Arun Goud, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer,

Patancheru, filed a charge sheet under COR.No.97/2020 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968.

2.They alleged that on 03.05.2020 at about 11.15 am, Lw.3/A.

Venkatesham, along with staff by securing two panch witnesses i.e., 2 of 7 CC of 652 of 2020

LW.1/M. Srikanth Goud and Lw2/M. Veeraju and conducted route watch at the cross road of Indresham village, Patancheru Mandal in view of COVID-19

Lock down, on further observation they found one Motor cycle Activa 5G bearing Reg. No. TS 07 GG 1035 was coming, on suspicious intercepted the vehicle and they found three plastic cans, two cans containing 30 litres of toddy and one can containing 20 litres of toddy, total 80 litres of toddy and on search LW.3 did not found any valid license or permit to possess and transporting and selling of toddy. LW.3 tested the toddy with prescribed chemicals found the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate. The LW.3 drawn two samples and destroyed remaining toddy and one Motor cycle Activa 5G bearing Reg. No. TS 07 GG 1035 under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs 1 and LW.2.

3.LW.3 registered a case against the accused in COR. No.97/2020 for the offence under section 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act and took up the investigation. The samples were deposited before this Court with a requisition to send one sample for analysis of chemical examiner. The

Government Chemical examiner after analyzing the samples issued CE report No. 268/2020-6 dt:05.06.2020, and opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from Chloral Hydrate and Diazepam. The Motor Cycle

Activa 5G bearing Reg. No. TS 07 GG 1035 has been deposited before the

Dy. Commissioner of Proh and Excise Sangareddy for confiscation. During the course of investigation, LW4 issued notice U/sec 41-A (1) Cr. P.C on 3 of 7 CC of 652 of 2020 accused. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused.

4.This Court perused the documents filed along with charge sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C and took cognizance of offence under section 34 (a) of

T.S Excise Act 1968, against the accused by this Court. On appearance of the accused copies U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished against him and he was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. A Charge for an offence U/Sec.34(a) of the

Telangana Excise Act. 1968 was framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the case of the prosecution they examined Pws.1 and 2 only and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex. P6. The evidence of Lw1 is closed by this court as police filed report stating that where about of LW1 is not known.

After Closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/sec.

313 Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating material evidence deposed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, the accused denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard both sides

7.The point for consideration is “ Whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the accused for the offence with which the accused

is charge beyond all the reasonable doubt” ?

4 of 7 CC of 652 of 2020

8.Point: The panch witness i.e., Lw.2/K. Nagaraju is examined as

PW.1, he deposed that he does not know any thing about his case and that the Excise Officials have taken his signature on white blank papers, he does not know the exact date when the police have taken his signature.

9.To prove their case the prosecution LW.3/JA. Venkatesham, SI of

Police is examined as PW.2 who is the Investigation officer in this case he deposed that 03.05.2020 he received reliable information about illegal transportation toddy, along with staff by securing two panch witnesses i.e.,

LW.1/M. Srikanth Goud and Lw2/M. Veeraju and conducted route watch at the cross road of Indresham village, Patancheru Mandal. Pw2 further deposed that they found one Activa 5G bearing No. 07 GG 1035 on suspicious instructed the vehicle and they found accused was driving the vehicle LW3 recorded search memo and served the same to accused and verify the vehicle found three plastic can and two cans each containing 30 litres and one can containing 20 litres of toddy. Total toddy 80 litres and on search LW.3 did not found any valid license or permit to possess and transporting and selling of toddy, LW.3 tested the toddy with prescribed chemicals found the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate.

The LW.3 drawn two samples and destroyed remaining toddy and one

Motor cycle Activa 5G bearing Reg. No. TS 07 GG 1035 under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs 1 and LW.2 , LW3 registered a case in

COR 97/2020 u/se 34 (a) TS Excise Act. And atook up the investigation. During the course of investigation Issue notice U/sec 41 (a) Cr. P.C after collecting further accused has instructed honorable and deposited two sample in court along with 5 of 7 CC of 652 of 2020 letter of advise to chemical examiner samples. After collecting chemical analysis report the Activa 5G has been deposited before the Deputy Commissioner prohibition and excise Sangareddy fro confiscation. After completion of the investigation filed charge sheet

10.On careful perusal of evidence of Pw.1 who is alleged to has been acted as mediator of prosecution side in this case not supported the case of the prosecution and he denied the contents mentioned in Ex.P.1 panchanama and also Pw.1 stated that he does not know any thing about this case and turned hostile. The evidence of Lw1 is closed by this court as police filed report stating that where about of LW1 and not known.

11.According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C before making search the officer or other person shall call upon two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality. If such inhabitant of the said locality not willing to be a witness to the search the officer concerned may issue an order in writing to them so to do, but in this case of prosecution failed to furnish any cogent and convincing reasons for not securing independent mediators.

Therefore, it is highly un safe to rely testimony of police officers who are interested in prosecution case to convict the accused when both mediators have not supported the case of the prosecution.

12.On careful perusal of Ex.P.5 analysis report which is printed proforma including names of the tests and the result portion except the case 6 of 7 CC of 652 of 2020 particulars and proof of spirit. On seeing Ex.P.5 report it appears that the chemical examiner mechanically issued Ex.P.5 report without applying his mind. Further, the signature of the accused not present on sample bottle even though Pw.2 stated in his chief examination that he separated bottles from the case property for sample purpose in the presence of the mediators.

13.As PW.1 who is mediator turned hostile and other witnesse was given up by learned APP and in such circumstances according to confession cum panchanama made by the accused before the police officer is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of corroborated evidence with the sole evidence of the investigation officers it is not safe to rely on the evidence of investigation officers to convict the accused for the alleged offence.

14.Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW.2 it cannot be concluded that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused. The seizure was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C in the absence of independent testimony believing the evidence of police officers to convict the accused may lead to miscarriage of justice. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

7 of 7 CC of 652 of 2020

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

U/Sec.34(a) of T.S.Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused stands cancelled subject to Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property involved in this case vide CPR.No.168/15/2020, shall be destroyed after the expiry of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20th day of May, 2022.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court Sangareddy.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE: PW.1: M. Veeraju-NIL- PW.1: A. Venkatesham

Exhibits marked for

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE: -NIL- Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on seizure Panchanama Ex.P.2: Panchanama Ex.P.3: COR report Ex.P.4: Search memo Ex.P.5: Chemical analysis report Ex.P.6: Letter of advice.

Material Objects marked for

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court Sangareddy.

1 of 7 CC of 636 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES COURT

SANGAREDDY.

Present: Sri. J. Hanumantha Rao

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Prohibition & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

C.C.No. 636 OF 2020

Between:-

The State through., Prohibition & Excise Station, Patancheru. …Prosecution A N D

Vadde Sri Sailam S/o Narayana, Aged: 48 years, Caste: Vaddeera, Occ: Labour, R/o Veddera Colony, Rudraram village, Patancheru Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of M. Sudhaker Goud, Learned Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer,

Patancheru, filed a charge sheet under COR.No.82/2020 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of T.S. Excise Act 1968.

2.They alleged that on 24.04.2020 at about 06.10 am, Lw.3/A.

Venkatesham, along with staff by securing two panch witnesses i.e., 2 of 7 CC of 636 of 2020

LW.1/Vadde Sivakumar and Lw2/G. Devadas and conducted route watch near Toshiba Company Cycle, Rudraram village, on further observation they found one Motor cycle Passion Plus bearing Reg. No. AP 28 AU 4327 was coming from Thosiba company side, on suspicious intercepted the vehicle and they found three plastic cans, one plastic can of 35 litres capacity of toddy and on search LW.3 did not found any valid license or permit to possess and transporting and selling of toddy. LW.3 tested the toddy with prescribed chemicals found the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate. The LW.3 drawn two samples and destroyed remaining toddy and one Motor cycle Passion Plus bearing Reg. No. AP 28 AU 4327 under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs 1 and LW.2.

3.LW.3 registered a case against the accused in COR. No.82/2020 for the offence under section 34 (a) of T.S Excise Act and took up the investigaion.

The samples were deposited before this Court with a requisition to send one sample for analysis of chemical examiner. The Government Chemical examiner after analyzing the samples issued CE report No. 222/2020-16

dt:19.05.2020, and opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from

Chloral Hydrate and Diazepam. The Motor Cycle Activa 5G bearing Reg. No.

TS 07 GG 1035 has been deposited before the Dy. Commissioner of Proh and

Excise Sangareddy for confiscation. During the course of investigation, LW3 issued notice U/sec 41-A (1) Cr. P.C on accused. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against accused.

3 of 7 CC of 636 of 2020

4.This Court perused the documents filed along with charge sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C and took cognizance of offence under section 34 (a) of

T.S Excise Act 1968, against the accused by this Court. On appearance of the accused copies U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished against him and he was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. A Charge for an offence U/Sec.34(a) of the

Telangana Excise Act. 1968 was framed and the contents were read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the case of the prosecution they examined Pws.1 and 2 only and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex. P6. The evidence of Lw2 is closed by this court as police filed report stating that where about of LW2 is not known. After

Closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/sec. 313

Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating material evidence deposed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, the accused denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

6.Heard both sides.

7.The point for consideration is “ Whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the accused for the offence with which the accused is

charge beyond all the reasonable doubt” ?

4 of 7 CC of 636 of 2020

8.Point: The panch witness i.e., Lw.1/V. Sivakumar is examined as

PW.1, he deposed that he does not know any thing about his case and that the Excise Officials have taken his signature on white blank papers, he does not know the exact date when the police have taken his signature.

9.To prove their case the prosecution LW.3/A. Venkatesham, SI of Police is examined as PW.2 who is the Investigation officer in this case he deposed that 24.04.2022 he received reliable about illegal transportation of toddy, Lw3 along with staff secured LW1 and LW2 in their presence conducted route watch near

Thoshiba company circle, Rudram village. Pw2 further deposed that they found one

Motor cycle Passion Plus bearing Reg. No. AP 28 AU 4327 on suspicious instructed the vehicle and they found one plastic can 35 litres capacity of toddy and on search LW.3 did not found any valid license or permit to possess and transporting and selling of toddy, LW.3 tested the toddy with prescribed chemicals found the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate. The LW.3 drawn two samples and destroyed remaining toddy and one Motor cycle Passion Plus bearing Reg. No. AP 28 AU 4327 under cover of panchanama in the presence of LWs 1 and LW.2. LW3 registered a case in COR 97/2020 u/se 34 (a) TS Excise

Act. During the course of investigation, issue notice U/sec 41 (a) Cr. P.C to accused. Further accused has been instructed honorable court and deposited two sample in court along with letter of advise sent one sample to chemical examiner.

After collecting chemical analysis report one Motor cycle Passion Plus bearing

Reg. No. AP 28 AU 4327 has been deposited before the Deputy Commissioner 5 of 7 CC of 636 of 2020 prohibition and excise Sangareddy fro confiscation. After completion of the investigation filed charge sheet

10.On careful perusal of evidence of Pw.1 who is alleged to has been acted as mediator of prosecution side in this case not supported the case of the prosecution and he denied the contents mentioned in Ex.P.1 panchanama and also Pw.1 stated that he does not know any thing about this case and turned hostile. The evidence of Lw2 is closed by this court as police filed report stating that where about of LW2 and not known.

11.According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C before making search the officer or other person shall call upon two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality. If such inhabitant of the said locality not willing to be a witness to the search the officer concerned may issue an order in writing to them so to do, but in this case of prosecution failed to furnish any cogent and convincing reasons for not securing independent mediators. Therefore, it is highly unsafe to rely testimony of police officers who are interested in prosecution case to convict the accused when both mediators have not supported the case of the prosecution.

12.On careful perusal of Ex.P.5 analysis report which is printed proforma including names of the tests and the result portion except the case particulars and proof of spirit. On seeing Ex.P.5 report it appears that the chemical 6 of 7 CC of 636 of 2020 examiner mechanically issued Ex.P.5 report without applying his mind.

Further, the signature of the accused not present on sample bottle even though Pw.2 stated in his chief examination that he separated bottles from the case property for sample purpose in the presence of the mediators.

13.As PW.1 who is mediator turned hostile and other witnesse was given up by learned APP and in such circumstances according to confession cum panchanama made by the accused before the police officer is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of corroborated evidence with the sole evidence of the investigation officers it is not safe to rely on the evidence of investigation officers to convict the accused for the alleged offence.

14.Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW.2 it cannot be concluded that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused. The seizure was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C in the absence of independent testimony believing the evidence of police officers to convict the accused may lead to miscarriage of justice. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

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

U/Sec.34(a) of T.S.Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused stands cancelled 7 of 7 CC of 636 of 2020 subject to Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property involved in this case vide CPR.No.122/15/2020, shall be destroyed after the expiry of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20th day of May, 2022.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court Sangareddy.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE: PW.1: Vadde Shiva kumar -NIL- PW.1: A. Venkatesham

Exhibits marked for

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE: -NIL- Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on seizure Panchanama Ex.P.2: Panchanama Ex.P.3: COR report Ex.P.4: Search memo Ex.P.5: Chemical analysis report Ex.P.6: Letter of advice.

Material Objects marked for

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

(Proh & Excise) Offences Court Sangareddy.