Smt J.Sowmya Josphine

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM

Present : Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram,

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parvatipuram

Tuesday, this the 24th day of February, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Kurupam police station.

…Complainant. And:

Amiti Golla, S/o. Late Chinaramulu, Aged 46 years, Caste by Dasari, R/o. Dsari Street, Kurupam village and Mandal.

` …Accused.

This case coming on 20-2-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri P.Chandrasekhara Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for determina- tion till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

01. The complainant filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.56/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

02. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 13-08-2024 on reliable information about illegal possession and trans- porting of IMFL bottles, Pws 1 and 2 and other staff members rushed to Ravada road junction of Kurupam village and Mandal at 11.00 hrs., and while they were performing vehicle checking at the spot, they noticed the accused while he was coming towards

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024 2 them with one white gunny bag and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape , for which they caught the accused and on questioning, the accused revealed his identity and the accused also confessed that he used to purchase wine bottles at Government wine shop at Kurupam village in order to sell the same for higher price and on verification of the gunny bag of the accused, they found 1)Hayward fine whiskey 180 ml: 06 bottles each bottle worth of Rs.150/- (6 x 150/-=900/-); 2) Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy:180ml:

20 bottles each bottle worth Rs.120/- (20 x Rs.120/-=2400/-), total worth Rs.3,300/- and total quantity comes to 3.6 liters and when questioning about the possession of license, the accused stated that he has no license or permit to sell the said liquor bottles and that thereby the accused was informed about the offence committed by him and arrested the accused, seized the property after obtaining the samples under the cover of an occurrence report and issued notice to the accused u.s. 35(3) of BNSS and after completion of the entire investigation as prescribed under law, the charge sheet was filed and that thereby the accused is liable for punishment under the above section of law. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.The Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, Copies of documents were furnished to the accused, as required under Section 230 of BNSS (207 of Cr.P.C.)

04.Accused was examined under Section 262 B N SS ( 239 Cr.P.C ) by explaining the particulars of offence for which the accused denied the offence. Charge under sec- tion 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024 3 the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt of the Accused, the Prosecution has examined Pws 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 were got marked through them. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS ( 313 of

Cr.P.C.), by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused. The accused denied it totally and reported no defence evidence.

06. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the Accused.

07. Now the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the charge leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

08.Much was argued by both sides. This Court has gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and exhibits exhibited. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the form of deposition and thus it is not necessary to reproduce the same again in the Judgment. However, before going into merits of the case it is just and proper to know the gist of their testimonies. Now it is to be scrutinized how far the prosecution is able to fulfill the fore said ingredient in the case on hand.

09. On scrutinizing the entire evidence of prosecution, PW2 who detected the crime deposed on the same lines of the charge sheet averments and also deposed

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024 4 about filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation etc facts. The evidence of Pw.1 corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 in all aspects.

10. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the accused was found in possession of

I.D liquor bottles cannot be relied on, when the evidence of PWs1 and 2 was excluded from consideration, there remains no evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of said offence. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are the police officials cannot be discarded on the sole ground that their evidence is found to be incredible or it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence. But, in the present case, Pws 1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they also stated that they tried to secure the mediators, but no body come forward to act as mediators. So, when the scene of offence is busy locality, there is every possibility for securing independent mediators, but that was not done. If the independent witnesses were available but not examined, it can be a significant issue in the case. The prosecution's decision not to examine independent witnesses can raise questions about the reliability and credibility of the official witnesses' testimony. In such cases, the court has to consider that 1)why were independent witnesses not examined?, 2) Was it a deliberate omission and

3) Impact on the credibility of official witnesses. In this regard, the prosecution need to explain why they chose not to examine independent witnesses, despite their availability. But, there is no specific reason or explanation offered by the police officials for the non-securing of local mediators. The failure to examine independent witnesses can undermine the credibility of the official witnesses' testimony, especially if their evidence is the only basis for the conviction. Further, PW.2 did not mention the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators in Ex.P.1. The prosecution failed to

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024 5 provide a satisfactory explanation for the absence of independent mediators or witnesses during the seizure, which raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Although, the investigating officer, claimed that he attempted to secure independent witnesses but was unsuccessful, no further details or reasons were provided for this failure. Importantly, no specific mention was made in the evidence regarding the identities of those who allegedly refused to act as mediators, as required under Ex.P.1 (the occurrence report). This omission weakens the prosecution's case further, as it casts doubt on the claim that attempts were made to comply with the procedural requirements.

11.In this case, the primary issue revolves around the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which is based solely on the testimony of police officers, and the failure to adhere to procedural safeguards required under the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly the provision for securing independent witnesses during search and seizure operations. The key procedural failure in this case is the absence of independent witnesses during the search and seizure, as mandated by Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. This provision requires that searches and seizures be carried out in the presence of two or more independent witnesses, usually from the locality, to ensure transparency and prevent abuse of power by law enforcement officers. When the prose- cution failed to prove the seizure in the presence of mediators as contemplated under section 100(4) of code of criminal procedure, the case of prosecution is clouded with a shadow of doubt.

12.The Search, seizure and arrest of the accused is in contravention of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. as the above section itself envisages to secure any of the inhabitants of

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024 6 the locality as mediators. So non-availability of village revenue officer and Sarpanch is not just and reasonable explanation for their non securing independent mediators since any of the villagers are available to act as mediators and the evidence of Pws 1and 2 is found to be artificial, stereotype and conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence without independent corroboration. The failure to involve independent witnesses in this case is not a trivial matter. Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. is a safeguard designed to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the transparency of police actions. Non-compliance with this provision raises a legitimate concern about the authenticity of the seizure and whether it was conducted properly and without tampering or manipulation.

13. In such circumstances, the evidence of official witnesses needs corroboration by independent evidence. Except the evidence official witnesses, no other credible evidence is available to corroborate the charges, hence, this court finds that it is difficult to convict the accused solely on the basis of police testimony. As there is no corroborative evidence is available to substantiate the prosecution's case, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

14.Therefore, in such circumstances the accused in this case is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence from the discussion made supra prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024 7 as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II (on deputation) directly on the computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram,

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parvatipuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL.

PW.1: L.N.Dora, HC-507, Kurupam Police Station. PW.2: S.Shanmukharao, Sub-Inspector of police, Present working a tG.Maduguyla Police Station.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Ex.P.2: First Information Report, Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:One sample bottle.

Sd/-J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram,

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parvatipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1066/2024 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM

` ****

1. Date of offence : 13-08-2024

2.Date of report or complaint: 13-08-2024

3. Date of apprehension of accused : Issued notice u.s.35(3) of BNSS

4. Date of release on bail :Issued notice u.s.35(3) of BNSS

5. Date of commencement of trial : 29-07-2025

6.Date of closure of trial : 20-02-2026

7.Date of sentence or order : 24-02-2026 Explanation for the delay: Due to non production of witnesses from time to time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 1066/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvatipuram.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Kurupam police station. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Husband’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Village & Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amiti Golla, S/o. Late Chinaramulu, Aged 46 years, Caste by Dasari, R/o. Dsari Street, Kurupam village and Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence: Under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act Finding: Not guilty. Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram,

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parvatipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARVATIPURAM

Present : Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of February, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025

Between:

State represented by the Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Parvatipuram Manyam.

…Complainant.

And:

A.1: Kola Ajith, S/o Santhosh, Aged 24 years, R/o. Gumada valasa village of Komarada Mandal;

A.2: Biddika Challayya @ Suresh, S/o. Laxmu, Aged 36 years, R/o. Jayakota valasa village, Koraput District, Odisha State.

…Accused.

This case coming on 13-2-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri N. Srinivasa Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

01. The complainant filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.325/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025 2

02. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On reliable information, on 6-7-2022 at about 20.15 hrs., Pws 1 and 2 and other staff members they conducted patrolling at Gumada village of Komarada Mandal and while they were conducting patrolling, A.1 was found while he was coming by his bike along with Cans and on seeing them, he tried to run away, for which they caught the accused No.1 and on enquiry, he confessed about the possession of ID liquor which was purchased from A.2 and that the raid party tried to secure the mediators, but invain, for which they verified the said 06 black plastic Cans which were in possession of

A.1, for which they found each Can contains 20lts of ID liquor , total 120 lts of ID liquor and also verified the bike bearing registration No.A P 35 M 1624 which was used for commission of offence and and later the accused was informed about the grounds of ar- rest and seized the property along with the said bike after obtaining the samples under the cover of an occurrence report and affixed the identity slips duly signed by the raid party, registered the crime basing on the occurrence report and sent the samples for chemical examination and later after completion of the entire investigation as pre- scribed under law the charge sheet was filed and that thereby the accused is liable for punishment under the above section of law. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.The Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act. On appearance of Accused Nos 1 and 2 before the Court, Copies of documents were furnished to the accused, as required under Section 230 of BNSS (207 of Cr.P.C.)

04.Accused Nos 1 and 2 were examined under Section 262 B N SS ( 239 Cr.P.C ) by explaining the particulars of offence for which Accused Nos 1 and 2 denied the offence.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025 3

Charge under 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act was framed against Accused Nos 1 and 2, read over and explained them in Telugu, for which Accused Nos 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt of the Accused Nos 1 and 2 , the Prosecution has exam- ined Pws 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 were got marked through them. After clo- sure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 351 of

BNSS ( 313 of Cr.P.C.), by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused. The accused denied it totally and reported no defence evidence.

06. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the Accused.

07. Now the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the charge leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

08.Much was argued by both sides. This Court has gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and exhibits exhibited. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the form of deposition and thus it is not necessary to reproduce the same again in the Judgment. However, before going into merits of the case it is just and proper to know the gist of their testimonies. Now it is to be scrutinized how far the prosecution is able to fulfill the fore said ingredient in the case on hand.

09. On scrutinizing the entire evidence of prosecution, PW2 who detected the crime deposed on the same lines of the charge sheet averments and also deposed

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025 4 about filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation etc facts. The evidence of Pw.1 corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 in all aspects.

10. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the accused was found in possession of

I.D liquor sachets cannot be relied on, when the evidence of PWs1 and 2 was excluded from consideration, there remains no evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of said offence. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are the police officials cannot be discarded on the sole ground that their evidence is found to be incredible or it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence. But, in the present case, Pws 1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they also stated that they tried to secure the mediators, but no body come forward to act as mediators. So, when the scene of offence is busy locality, there is every possibility for securing independent mediators, but that was not done. If the independent witnesses were available but not examined, it can be a significant issue in the case. The prosecution's decision not to examine independent witnesses can raise questions about the reliability and credibility of the official witnesses' testimony. In such cases, the court has to consider that 1)why were independent witnesses not examined?, 2) Was it a deliberate omission and

3) Impact on the credibility of official witnesses. In this regard, the prosecution need to explain why they chose not to examine independent witnesses, despite their availability. But, there is no specific reason or explanation offered by the police officials for the non-securing of local mediators. The failure to examine independent witnesses can undermine the credibility of the official witnesses' testimony, especially if their evidence is the only basis for the conviction. Further, PW.2 did not mention the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators in Ex.P.1. The prosecution failed to

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025 5 provide a satisfactory explanation for the absence of independent mediators or witnesses during the seizure, which raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Although, the investigating officer, claimed that he attempted to secure independent witnesses but was unsuccessful, no further details or reasons were provided for this failure. Importantly, no specific mention was made in the evidence regarding the identities of those who allegedly refused to act as mediators, as required under Ex.P.1 (the occurrence report). This omission weakens the prosecution's case further, as it casts doubt on the claim that attempts were made to comply with the procedural requirements.

11.In this case, the primary issue revolves around the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which is based solely on the testimony of police officers, and the failure to adhere to procedural safeguards required under the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly the provision for securing independent witnesses during search and seizure operations. The key procedural failure in this case is the absence of independent witnesses during the search and seizure, as mandated by Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. This provision requires that searches and seizures be carried out in the presence of two or more independent witnesses, usually from the locality, to ensure transparency and prevent abuse of power by law enforcement officers. When the prose- cution failed to prove the seizure in the presence of mediators as contemplated under section 100(4) of code of criminal procedure, the case of prosecution is clouded with a shadow of doubt.

12.The Search, seizure and arrest of the accused is in contravention of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. as the above section itself envisages to secure any of the inhabitants of

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025 6 the locality as mediators. So non-availability of village revenue officer and Sarpanch is not just and reasonable explanation for their non securing independent mediators since any of the villagers are available to act as mediators and the evidence of Pws 1and 2 is found to be artificial, stereotype and conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence without independent corroboration. The failure to involve independent witnesses in this case is not a trivial matter. Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. is a safeguard designed to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the transparency of police actions. Non-compliance with this provision raises a legitimate concern about the authenticity of the seizure and whether it was conducted properly and without tampering or manipulation.

13. In such circumstances, the evidence of official witnesses needs corroboration by independent evidence. Except the evidence official witnesses, no other credible evidence is available to corroborate the charges, hence, this court finds that it is difficult to convict the accused solely on the basis of police testimony. As there is no corroborative evidence is available to substantiate the prosecution's case, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

14.Therefore, in such circumstances the accused in this case is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence from the discussion made supra prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result,Accused Nos 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused Nos 1 and 2 shall be in force

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025 7 for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II (on deputation) directly on the computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL. PW.1: K.Srinivasa Rao, Enforcement Head Constable, Parvatipuram PW.2: S.V.Rama Rao, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Parvatipuram.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Ex.P.2: First Information Report, Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Six sample bottles of ID liquor (each 250 ml)

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 556/2025 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS:: PARVATIPURAM ` ****

1. Date of offence :6-7-2022

2.Date of report or complaint: 6-7-2022

3. Date of apprehension of accused : 6-7-2022 (A.1) 27-2-2023 (A.2)

4. Date of release on bail : (A.1):6-7-2022 (A.2)02-03-2023

5. Date of commencement of trial : 5-2-2026

6.Date of closure of trial :13-2-2026

7.Date of sentence or order : 17-02-2026 Explanation for the delay: Due to non production of witnesses from time to time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 556/2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Parvatipuram.

Complainant: State represented by the Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Parvatipuram Manyam. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Husband’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Village & Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.1: Kola Ajith, S/o Santhosh, Aged 24 years, R/o. Gumada valasa village of Komarada Mandal; A.2: BiddikaChallayya @ Suresh, S/o. Laxmu, Aged 36 years, R/o. Jayakota valasa village, Koraput District, Odisha State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act Finding: Not guilty. Sentence: In the result,Accused Nos 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused Nos 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352/2024 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM

Present : Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram,

FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Parvatipuram

Friday, this the 20th day of February, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352 /2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Komarada police station.

…Complainant.

And:

Patnana Chandrasekhar, S/o. Sreeramulu, Aged 59 years, Caste by Vyshya Kotha Colony, Komarada village of Komarada Mandal. …Accused.

This case coming on 19-2-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri G.Muralimohana Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for determina- tion till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

01. The complainant filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.71/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

02. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 14-4-2024 at 14.30 hrs., Pws 1 and 2 and other staff member went to the outskirts of Komarada village of Komarada Mandal to detect the excise crimes and there, they noticed the accused with white colour gunny bag in his hand and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape, but they caught the accused and on enquiryu, the ac-

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352/2024 2 cused disclosed his identity and he voluntarily opened the bag and shown 1) Gold Kind

Whiskey 180 ml: 20 bottles; 2) Royal right Whiskey 180 ml: 2 bottles; 3) Whitehall

Whiskey 180ml : 1 bottle; 4) Old Taveran Whiskey 180 ml : 01 bottle; 5)Bira beer 650 ml:

1 bottle; 6) Block buster beer 650 ml : one bottle, total comes to 26 bottles i.e. 5.620 lts worth of Rs.4770/- and the accused further confessed that he purchased those liquor bottles at Komarada whine shops at different intervals and that thereby the accused was informed about the offence committed by him and seized the said liquor bottles after obtaining the samples under the cover of an occurrence report, registered the crime bas- ing on the occurrence report, issued notice to the accused under section 41(A) Cr.P.C.

and after completion of the entire investigation as prescribed under law, the charge sheet was filed and that thereby the accused is liable for punishment under the above section of law. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.The Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, Copies of documents were furnished to the accused, as required under Section 230 of BNSS (207 of Cr.P.C.)

04.Accused was examined under Section 262 B N SS ( 239 Cr.P.C ) by explaining the particulars of offence for which the accused denied the offence. Charge under 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act was framed against accused, read over and explained the accused in

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

05.To prove the guilt of the Accused, the Prosecution has examined Pws 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 were got marked through them. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS ( 313 of

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352/2024 3

Cr.P.C.), by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused. The ac- cused denied it totally and reported no defence evidence.

06. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the Accused.

07. Now the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the charge leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

08.Much was argued by both sides. This Court has gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and exhibits exhibited. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the form of deposition and thus it is not necessary to reproduce the same again in the Judgment. However, before going into merits of the case it is just and proper to know the gist of their testimonies. Now it is to be scrutinized how far the prosecution is able to fulfill the fore said ingredient in the case on hand.

09. On scrutinizing the entire evidence of prosecution, PW2 who detected the crime deposed on the same lines of the charge sheet averments and also deposed about filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation etc facts. The evidence of Pw.1 corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 in all aspects.

10. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the accused was found in possession of liquor bottles cannot be relied on, when the evidence of PWs1 and 2 was excluded from consideration, there remains no evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of said offence. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are the police officials

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352/2024 4 cannot be discarded on the sole ground that their evidence is found to be incredible or it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence. But, in the present case, Pws 1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they also stated that they tried to secure the mediators, but no body come forward to act as mediators. So, when the scene of offence is busy locality, there is every possibility for securing independent mediators, but that was not done. If the independent witnesses were available but not examined, it can be a significant issue in the case. The prosecution's decision not to examine independent witnesses can raise questions about the reliability and credibility of the official witnesses' testimony. In such cases, the court has to consider that 1)why were independent witnesses not examined?, 2) Was it a deliberate omission and

3) Impact on the credibility of official witnesses. In this regard, the prosecution need to explain why they chose not to examine independent witnesses, despite their availability. But, there is no specific reason or explanation offered by the police officials for the non-securing of local mediators. The failure to examine independent witnesses can undermine the credibility of the official witnesses' testimony, especially if their evidence is the only basis for the conviction. Further, PW.2 did not mention the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators in Ex.P.1. The prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the absence of independent mediators or witnesses during the seizure, which raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Although, the investigating officer, claimed that he attempted to secure independent witnesses but was unsuccessful, no further details or reasons were provided for this failure. Importantly, no specific mention was made in the evidence regarding the identities of those who allegedly refused to act as mediators,

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352/2024 5 as required under Ex.P.1 (the occurrence report). This omission weakens the prosecution's case further, as it casts doubt on the claim that attempts were made to comply with the procedural requirements.

11.In this case, the primary issue revolves around the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which is based solely on the testimony of police officers, and the failure to adhere to procedural safeguards required under the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly the provision for securing independent witnesses during search and seizure operations. The key procedural failure in this case is the absence of independent witnesses during the search and seizure, as mandated by Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. This provision requires that searches and seizures be carried out in the presence of two or more independent witnesses, usually from the locality, to ensure transparency and prevent abuse of power by law enforcement officers. When the prose- cution failed to prove the seizure in the presence of mediators as contemplated under section 100(4) of code of criminal procedure, the case of prosecution is clouded with a shadow of doubt.

12.The Search, seizure and arrest of the accused is in contravention of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. as the above section itself envisages to secure any of the inhabitants of the locality as mediators. So non-availability of village revenue officer and Sarpanch is not just and reasonable explanation for their non securing independent mediators since any of the villagers are available to act as mediators and the evidence of Pws 1and 2 is found to be artificial, stereotype and conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence without independent corroboration. The failure to involve independent witnesses in this case is not a trivial matter. Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. is a safeguard

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352/2024 6 designed to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the transparency of police actions. Non-compliance with this provision raises a legitimate concern about the authenticity of the seizure and whether it was conducted properly and without tampering or manipulation.

13. In such circumstances, the evidence of official witnesses needs corroboration by independent evidence. Except the evidence official witnesses, no other credible evidence is available to corroborate the charges, hence, this court finds that it is difficult to convict the accused solely on the basis of police testimony. As there is no corroborative evidence is available to substantiate the prosecution's case, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

14.Therefore, in such circumstances the accused in this case is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence from the discussion made supra prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

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

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of

BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II (on deputation) directly on the computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-cum-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Parvatipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352/2024 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL.

PW.1: V.Vijay Kumar, PC: 795 of Komarada police station. PW.2: L.R.Naidu, ASI:1044 of Komarada police station.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Ex.P.2: First Information Report, Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:Four sample bottles.

Sd/-J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parvathipuram FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-cum-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Parvatipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 352/2024 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARVATIPURAM

` ****

1. Date of offence : 14-4-2024

2.Date of report or complaint:14-4-2024

3. Date of apprehension of accused : Issued notice u.s. 41-A Cr.P.C.

4. Date of release on bail :Issued notice u.s. 41-A Cr.P.C.

5. Date of commencement of trial : 12-02-2026

6.Date of closure of trial : 19-02-2026

7.Date of sentence or order : 20-02-2026 Explanation for the delay: Due to non production of witnesses from time to time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 352/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvatipuram.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Komarada police station.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Husband’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Village & Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patnana Chandrasekhar, S/o. Sreeramulu, Aged 59 years, Caste by Vyshya Kotha Colony, Komarada village of Komarada Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence: Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Finding: Not guilty. Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parvathipuram, FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-cum-

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Parvatipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARVATIPURAM

Present : Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram.

Wednesday, this the 28th day of January, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025

Between:

State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Parvatipuram.

…Complainant. And:

Rayipalli Vinod,S/o. Late Krishna, Aged about 29 years, C/o SC Relli, R/o. Gumada, Komarada Mandal. …Accused.

This case coming on 27-1-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri G. Murali Mohana rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for determina- tion till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

01. The complainant filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.443/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APPAct.

02. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 4-12-2022 at about 19.00 hrs., Pws 1 and 2 and other staff members on the instructions of the enforcement Superintendent, Parvatipuram, went to to the vil- lage limits of Gumada of Komarada mandal to detect the excise crimes and there they proceeded to a culvert which is at a distance of 100meters of Sarvapadu village of

Komarada Mandal for conducting route watch and that they noticed the accused while

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025 2 he was coming on his motor cycle i.e. Bajaj Pulsur bearing No. AP 31 BE 5803 along with two plastic Cans which were tied both sides of the vehicle and on seeing them, left the bike along with Cans and ran away, for which the raid party reached to the scene and tried t secure the mediators, but in vain and that they verified the said two Cans and found 20 lts of ID liquor in each Can (total comes to 40 lts of ID liquor) and that they seized the same along with the said motor bike under the cover of an occurrence report, registered the crime and investigated into and during the course of investigation, the ac- cused was arrested on 14-12-2022 at about 07.00 hrs. at Gumada village and sent for ju- dicial remand and later after completion of the entire investigation as prescribed under law, the charge sheet was filed and that thereby the accused is liable for punishment un- der the above section of law. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.The Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, Copies of documents were furnished to the accused, as required under Section 230 of BNSS (207 of Cr.P.C.)

04.Accused was examined under Section 262 B N SS ( 239 Cr.P.C ) by explaining the particulars of offence for which the accused denied the offence.Charge under 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt of the Accused, the Prosecution has examined Pws 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 were got marked through them. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS ( 313 of

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025 3

Cr.P.C.), by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused. The accused denied it totally and reported no defence evidence.

06. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the Accused.

07. Now the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the charge leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

08.Much was argued by both sides. This Court has gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and ex hibits exhibited. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the form of deposition and thus it is not necessary to reproduce the same again in the Judgment. However, before going into merits of the case it is just and proper to know the gist of their testimonies. Now it is to be scrutinized how far the prosecution is able to fulfill the fore said ingredient in the case on hand.

09. On scrutinizing the entire evidence of prosecution, PW2 who detected the crime deposed on the same lines of the charge sheet averments and also deposed about filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation etc facts. The evidence of Pw.1 corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 in all aspects.

10. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the accused was found in possession of

I.D liquor cannot be relied on, when the evidence of PWs1 and 2 was excluded from consideration, there remains no evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of said offence. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are the police officials

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025 4 cannot be discarded on the sole ground that their evidence is found to be incredible or it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence. But, in the present case, Pws 1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they also stated that they tried to secure the mediators, but no body come forward to act as mediators. So, when the scene of offence is busy locality, there is every possibility for securing independent mediators, but that was not done. If the independent witnesses were available but not examined, it can be a significant issue in the case. The prosecution's decision not to examine independent witnesses can raise questions about the reliability and credibility of the official witnesses' testimony. In such cases, the court has to consider that 1)why were independent witnesses not examined?, 2) Was it a deliberate omission and

3) Impact on the credibility of official witnesses. In this regard, the prosecution need to explain why they chose not to examine independent witnesses, despite their availability. But, there is no specific reason or explanation offered by the police officials for the non-securing of local mediators. The failure to examine independent witnesses can undermine the credibility of the official witnesses' testimony, especially if their evidence is the only basis for the conviction. Further, PW.2 did not mention the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators in Ex.P.1. The prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the absence of independent mediators or witnesses during the seizure, which raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Although, the investigating officer, claimed that he attempted to secure independent witnesses but was unsuccessful, no further details or reasons were provided for this failure. Importantly, no specific mention was made in the evidence regarding the identities of those who allegedly refused to act as mediators,

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025 5 as required under Ex.P.1 (the occurrence report). This omission weakens the prosecution's case further, as it casts doubt on the claim that attempts were made to comply with the procedural requirements.

11.In this case, the primary issue revolves around the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which is based solely on the testimony of police officers, and the failure to adhere to procedural safeguards required under the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly the provision for securing independent witnesses during search and seizure operations. The key procedural failure in this case is the absence of independent witnesses during the search and seizure, as mandated by Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. This provision requires that searches and seizures be carried out in the presence of two or more independent witnesses, usually from the locality, to ensure transparency and prevent abuse of power by law enforcement officers. When the prose- cution failed to prove the seizure in the presence of mediators as contemplated under section 100(4) of code of criminal procedure, the case of prosecution is clouded with a shadow of doubt.

12.The Search, seizure and arrest of the accused is in contravention of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. as the above section itself envisages to secure any of the inhabitants of the locality as mediators. So non-availability of village revenue officer and Sarpanch is not just and reasonable explanation for their non securing independent mediators since any of the villagers are available to act as mediators and the evidence of Pws 1and 2 is found to be artificial, stereotype and conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence without independent corroboration. The failure to involve independent witnesses in this case is not a trivial matter. Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. is a safeguard

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025 6 designed to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the transparency of police actions. Non-compliance with this provision raises a legitimate concern about the authenticity of the seizure and whether it was conducted properly and without tampering or manipulation.

13. In such circumstances, the evidence of official witnesses needs corroboration by independent evidence. Except the evidence official witnesses, no other credible evidence is available to corroborate the charges, hence, this court finds that it is difficult to convict the accused solely on the basis of police testimony. As there is no corroborative evidence is available to substantiate the prosecution's case, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

14.Therefore, in such circumstances the accused in this case is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence from the discussion made supra prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II (on deputation) directly on the computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28th day of January, 2026.

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL.

PW.1: G.Bhushana Rao, DTF, Parvatipuram. PW.2: L.Upendra, Prohibitionand Excise Inspector, Parvatipuram.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Ex.P.2: First Information Report, Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Two sample bottles.

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 223/2025 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS:: PARVATIPURAM ` ****

1. Date of offence : 04-12-2022

2.Date of report or complaint: 04-12-2022

3. Date of apprehension of accused : 14-12-2022

4. Date of release on bail : 23-12-2022

5. Date of commencement of trial : 18-12-2025

6.Date of closure of trial : 27-01-2026

7.Date of sentence or order : 28-01-2026 Explanation for the delay: Due to non production of witnesses from time to time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 223/2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Parvatipuram.

Complainant: State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Parvatipuram. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Husband’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Village & Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rayipalli Vinod,S/o. Late Krishna, Aged about 29 years, C/o SC Relli, R/o. Gumada, Komarada Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act Finding: Not guilty. Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARVATIPURAM

Present : Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parvathipuram.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of February, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Parvatipuram town police station.

…Complainant.

And:

Kola Ravi Kumar S/o. Late Ramdas, 48 years,Cheruvugattu veedhi, Patha Relli veedhi, Parvatipuram Town.

…Accused.

This case coming on 13-2-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri N.Rajeswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

01. The complainant filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.28/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act.

02. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025 2

On 24-2-2025 at about 08.00hrs.,on receipt of reliable information about illegal possession of I.D.liquor, Pws 1 and 2 and other staff members rushed to the

Patharelli veedhi, Parvatipuram Town and when they reached there, they noticed the ac- cused with a white plastic gunny bag in his possession and on seeing the police party the accused tried to escape, for which they caught the accused and on questioning, the accused revealed his identity and also confessed that he used to go to Odisha in order to purchase ID arrack for selling the same in higher price and that the raid party verified the gunny bag which was in possession of the accused and found 95 ID arrack sachets about 100 ml each (total comes about 9.5 lts worth of Rs.2850/-) and later the accused was informed about the grounds of arrest and seized the property after obtaining the samples under the cover of an occurrence report and affixed the identity slips duly signed by the raid party, registered the crime basing on the occurrence report and sent the samples for chemical examination.

It was further alleged in the charge sheet that during the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 28-02-2025 and later after completion of the entire investigation as prescribed under law the charge sheet was filed and that thereby the accused is liable for punishment under the above section of law. Hence, the charge sheet.

03.The Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, Copies of documents were furnished to the accused, as required under Section 230 of BNSS (207 of Cr.P.C.)

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025 3

04.Accused was examined under Section 262 B N SS ( 239 Cr.P.C ) by explaining the particulars of offence for which the accused denied the offence. Charge under 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt of the Accused, the Prosecution has examined Pws 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 were got marked through them. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS ( 313 of

Cr.P.C.), by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused. The accused denied it totally and reported no defence evidence.

06. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the Accused.

07. Now the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the charge leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

08.Much was argued by both sides. This Court has gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and exhibits exhibited. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the form of deposition and thus it is not necessary to reproduce the same again in the Judgment. However, before going into merits of the case it is just and proper to know the gist of their testimonies. Now it is to be scrutinized how far the prosecution is able to fulfill the fore said ingredient in the case on hand.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025 4

09. On scrutinizing the entire evidence of prosecution, PW2 who detected the crime deposed on the same lines of the charge sheet averments and also deposed about filing of charge sheet after completion of the investigation etc facts. The evidence of Pw.1 corroborated with the evidence of PW.2 in all aspects.

10. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the accused was found in possession of

I.D liquor cannot be relied on, when the evidence of PWs1 and 2 was excluded from consideration, there remains no evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of said offence. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are the police officials cannot be discarded on the sole ground that their evidence is found to be incredible or it is unsafe to rely upon their evidence. But, in the present case, Pws 1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and they also stated that they tried to secure the mediators, but no body come forward to act as mediators. So, when the scene of offence is busy locality, there is every possibility for securing independent mediators, but that was not done. If the independent witnesses were available but not examined, it can be a significant issue in the case. The prosecution's decision not to examine independent witnesses can raise questions about the reliability and credibility of the official witnesses' testimony. In such cases, the court has to consider that 1)why were independent witnesses not examined?, 2) Was it a deliberate omission and

3) Impact on the credibility of official witnesses. In this regard, the prosecution need to explain why they chose not to examine independent witnesses, despite their availability. But, there is no specific reason or explanation offered by the police officials for the non-securing of local mediators. The failure to examine independent witnesses can undermine the credibility of the official witnesses' testimony, especially if their

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025 5 evidence is the only basis for the conviction. Further, PW.2 did not mention the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators in Ex.P.1. The prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the absence of independent mediators or witnesses during the seizure, which raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Although, the investigating officer, claimed that he attempted to secure independent witnesses but was unsuccessful, no further details or reasons were provided for this failure. Importantly, no specific mention was made in the evidence regarding the identities of those who allegedly refused to act as mediators, as required under Ex.P.1 (the occurrence report). This omission weakens the prosecution's case further, as it casts doubt on the claim that attempts were made to comply with the procedural requirements.

11.In this case, the primary issue revolves around the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which is based solely on the testimony of police officers, and the failure to adhere to procedural safeguards required under the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr.P.C.), particularly the provision for securing independent witnesses during search and seizure operations. The key procedural failure in this case is the absence of independent witnesses during the search and seizure, as mandated by Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. This provision requires that searches and seizures be carried out in the presence of two or more independent witnesses, usually from the locality, to ensure transparency and prevent abuse of power by law enforcement officers. When the prose- cution failed to prove the seizure in the presence of mediators as contemplated under section 100(4) of code of criminal procedure, the case of prosecution is clouded with a shadow of doubt.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025 6

12.The Search, seizure and arrest of the accused is in contravention of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. as the above section itself envisages to secure any of the inhabitants of the locality as mediators. So non-availability of village revenue officer and Sarpanch is not just and reasonable explanation for their non securing independent mediators since any of the villagers are available to act as mediators and the evidence of Pws 1and 2 is found to be artificial, stereotype and conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence without independent corroboration. The failure to involve independent witnesses in this case is not a trivial matter. Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. is a safeguard designed to protect the rights of the accused and ensure the transparency of police actions. Non-compliance with this provision raises a legitimate concern about the authenticity of the seizure and whether it was conducted properly and without tampering or manipulation.

13. In such circumstances, the evidence of official witnesses needs corroboration by independent evidence. Except the evidence official witnesses, no other credible evidence is available to corroborate the charges, hence, this court finds that it is difficult to convict the accused solely on the basis of police testimony. As there is no corroborative evidence is available to substantiate the prosecution's case, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

14.Therefore, in such circumstances the accused in this case is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence from the discussion made supra prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025 7 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II (on deputation) directly on the computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence : NIL. PW.1: A.Ramesh, Pc: 2184, Parvatipuram Town police station. PW.2:M.Satyanarayana, Parvatipuram Town police station.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Occurrence report. Ex.P.2: First Information Report, Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1:One sample bottle.

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram

CALENDAR CASE NO. 357/2025 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS:: PARVATIPURAM ` ****

1. Date of offence :24-2-2025

2.Date of report or complaint: 24-2-2025

3. Date of apprehension of accused : 24-2-2025

4. Date of release on bail : 27-2-2025

5. Date of commencement of trial : 28-01-2026

6.Date of closure of trial : 13-02-2026

7.Date of sentence or order : 17-02-2026 Explanation for the delay: Due to non production of witnesses from time to time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 357/2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Parvatipuram.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Parvatipuram town police station. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused, Husband’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Village & Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kola Ravi Kumar S/o. Late Ramdas, 48 years,Cheruvugattu veedhi, Patha Relli veedhi, Parvatipuram Town. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act Finding: Not guilty. Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(b) of APP Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under Section 481 of BNSS. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt J. SOWMYA JOSPHINE,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram