Smt J.Sri Seeta

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka) · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Smt J.Sri Seeta, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, is posted at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,954 court orders on record since 2024. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

1,954

Total Orders

Judgments

164

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/273/2024 Acquitted

A.P. State Sub Inspector of Police, Addanki P.S. vs Thiruveedula Mahesh

14 Nov 2024

1 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS:: ADDANKI

PRESENT :: Sri J.Sri Seeta Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki FAC: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Thursday, the 14th day of November, 2024

CALENDAR CASE.No.273/2024

(Crime.No.380/2023 of Addanki Police Station)

BETWEEN: Sub-Inspector of Police, Addanki Police Station …Complainant -Vs –

1. Thiruveedula Mahesh, S/o.Chenna Kesavulu, Aged 33 years, R/o.Babaigunta, Seetha Nagar, Tirupathi.

2. Dati Sunil, S/o.Venkatesh, Aged 29 years, R/o.H.No.5-114, NTR Colony, Peruru, Tirupathi. ……Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 11.11.2024 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Prakash, Legal Aid counsel for A.1 and A.2, Advocate for Accused and having stood over consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arises out of crime No.380 of 2024 for the offences, under

Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC, registered by Addanki Police Station, on the report given by P.W.1(Kommanaboina Muttaiah), with the following allegations.

2 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

2. Case of the prosecution is that prior to 19.12.2023 at Vasavi Nagar,

Addanki Town, on 15.12.2013 PW.1-K.Muttaiah, along with his family members went to Kunkulamarru village of Karamchedu Mandal for worship after proper lock to the house, some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of PW.1 by break open the locks of the house and iron safe and committed theft of (1) Gold ear studs 2 pairs weighing about 6 grams (2) Pixel 7 Pro mobile phone (3) wrist watches -2 (4) Black bleeds gold chain weighing about 20 grams and (5) Silver ornaments, all worth Rs.50,000/- and decamped with booty. PW.1 gave report to police, basing on the same PW.3-T.Anil Kumar, S.I of police registered the case in Cr.No.380/2023 for the offences U/sec.457 & 380 of IPC, took up investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, LW.8-A.Chiranjeevi, S.I. of police, Tiruchanuru P.S, arrested A1 and A2 on 08.01.2024 and seized gold ornaments in this case and others case under cover of mediatornama. On 22.01.2024, LW.11-J.Nagaraju/SI of police, Addanki produced A1 and A2 on PT Warrant and sent to judicial remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against.

4. The Court took cognizance of the offences under sections 457,380 and 411 of IPC, against the accused 1 and 2.

3 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

5.Accused 1 and 2 were put in appearance before the court, copies of all documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

6. Accused 1 and 2 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them, and charges, for the offences

U/secs.457,380 and 411 of IPC, have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7. The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused, examined PW1 to PW3 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, Mos 1 to 3 are marked.

8.Accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

9. I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for accused.

10.Now the question that arises for the consideration:

 Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the

offences under sections 457,380 and 411 of IPC?

4 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

11. POINT:-

In support of its case, the prosecution has examined ‘03’ witnesses as Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Among them PW.1 is the defacto complainant. As per his evidence, on 15.12.2023 at about 10.00

A.m, when he went to Kunkalamarru village for Ayyappa puja by locked to his house, on the next day at 10-00 A.M., some unknown offenders gained entrance into his home and committed theft of (1) Gold ear studs 2 pairs weighing about 6 grams (2) Pixel 7 Pro mobile phone (3) wrist watches -2 (4) Black bleeds gold chain weighing about 20 grams and (5)

Silver ornaments, all worth Rs.50,000/- and decamped with booty by broke open the locks of his house and almyrah and on 19.12.2023 he went to police station and gave report under Ex.P1. In his cross- examination he admitted that the police did not conduct any identification parade and he denied the suggestion that except giving Ex.P1 report he was not examined by police.

12.PW.2-B.Ramesh is the mediator for arrest of accused and seizure of stolen property. He clearly deposed that at the request of LW.8/SI of police, Tiruchanur P.S, himself and LW.7-P.Srinu went to Thiruchanuru circle, V.V.Nagar, Thirupathi, there in their presence, LW.8 caught hold of

A1 and A2, examined and recorded their confession statements and 5 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

seized gold ornaments i.e., gold rings, bracelets, cell phones under cover of mediator report. LW.8/SI of police, Tiruchanuru P.S arrested A1 and

A2, himself and LW.7-P.Srinu signed on mediator report. Ex.P2 is confession statement of accused.

In the cross-examination, except giving suggestion about the distance in between Thiruchanuru circle and VV Nagar cross roads, the gold ornaments will be available in open market and that Ex.P2 was prepared in the police station itself and on that day only the police constable shown him the accused and as such he identified them, which were denied by him, nothing contrary was elicited out.

13.PW3-T.Anil Kumar is the investigating officer in this case. He deposed about registration of FIR in this case, visiting the scene of offence, preparation of FIR, recording the statement of witnesses, arrest of accused in in Cr.No.255/2023 of Thiruchanuru P.S and seizure of stolen property pertains to this case and also in Cr.No.380/2023.

LW.10/M.Venkateswarlu, SI of police, Addanki P.S filed P.T Warrant on 22.01.2024 and sent the accused to judicial custody and after completion of investigation LW.11-J.Nagaraju, SI of police, Addanki P.S filed charge sheet in this case. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he prepared Ex.P4-Rough sketch in the police station itself and basing on 6 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

investigation done by Thiruchanuru police they prepared all the documents in the police station itself and made table investigation in this case.

The evidence of LW.2-K.Anuradha, LW.3-S.Narapu Reddy, LW.4-

B.Umamaheswara Rao, LW.5-B.Ankamma Rao, LW.7-P.Srinu, LW.8-

A.Chiranjeevi, LW.10-M.Venkateswarlu and LW.11-J.Nagaraju was given up by the learned APP.

14. In the case on hand, admittedly, the testimony of PW1 did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused to the effect that he committed lurking house trespass at night or house breaking at night with the intention of committing theft. The presumption under section 114(a) of the Evidence Act, applies to the offence of theft and not a lurking house trespass at night or house breaking at night with the intent of committing theft, and such a presumption can be drawn only, if the accused caught immediately, after the incident with the stolen articles. It is not the case of the Investigating agency that the accused was caught immediately after the incident. As already stated, since the evidence of

PW1 did not indicate any incriminating material against the accused, and as the accused was not caught hold immediately after the incident, I am of the opinion that, the evidence let-in by prosecution is not inspiring 7 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

confidence either on facts or on law for connecting him with the offences under section 457 and 380 of IPC.

15.As per the evidence of PW.1, some unknown offender committed theft of his house and he immediately gave report to police, Ex.P1 report shows that it was given with two days delay. PW.2 who is the mediator for arrest of accused and seizure of stolen property in his presence and

LW.7 clearly deposed that in their presence A1 and A2 were arrested and police seized the stolen property and he identified the accused. He came from Thirupathi and gave his evidence as PW.3 is also in corroboration with the evidence of PW.2 on the material aspects. Therefore, the prosecution by examining the mediator i.e., PW.2 clearly proved the case.

16.In a case of property offence, where the accused 1 and 2 are found in possession of stolen property, and they are unable to account for such possession, legal presumption U/sec.114(a) of Evidence Act, that the accused 1 and 2 either the thieves or receiver of the stolen property, knowing it to be stolen, can be drawn. In the case on hand, the property in question is of stolen property, and it was found in possession of accused, and that the said property was in possession of PW1, before accused got possession. It is also evident from the material on record that, accused possess the property dishonestly with the knowledge that it 8 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

was of stolen property. Had the accused offered any plausible explanation accounting for the said property, when questioned by LW.8, case of defence could have been appreciated, but no such explanation was offered, and therefore, without any inch of doubt, this Court can arrive at a conclusion that the accused was found in possession of stolen property, knowingly that belongs to some others, and as such, they are liable for the offence U/sec.411 of IPC. The minor inconsistencies and discrepancies found noticed in the evidence brought on record, do not destroy the entire prosecution case. In other words, I hold that, the prosecution could be able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.411 of

IPC, though, it could not establish its case attracting the ingredients of offences U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC, and accordingly, the accused is found guilty of the offence U/sec.411 of IPC.

17.In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences U/sec.457 and 380 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Further the accused 1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence U/sec.411 of IPC and they are convicted of the same

U/sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 14 th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- J.Sri Seeta

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki FAC: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki 9 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

Hearing on quantum of sentence:

18.Accused No.1 is produced from District Jail, Ongole and A.2 called present. Heard about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them. They pleaded mercy of the Court, and sought for lenient view, on the ground that A1 is in since long time and A2 submits that he is having dependents to maintain, and in the event of sending them to jail, their family members will suffer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not feel that it is a fit case to extend the benefit of Probation of

Offenders Act. However, considering the value of the property involved in this case, age of the accused, apart from the fact that, A.1 is in jail, nearly for the last ten months, circumstances warrants this Court, the

Accused 1 and 2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days , it could meet the ends of justice.

19.In the result, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of offences

U/sec. 457 and 380 of IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. However, the Accused 1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence u/s.411 of IPC, and they are convicted under section 248(2)

Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees one 10 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The remand period undergone by the A.1 i.e., from 23.-1.2024 to 14.11.2024 and A.2 from 23.01.2024 to 22.02.2024 is ordered to be given set off

U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C. Accused 1 and 2 are informed about their right to carry the matter in appeal. MO1 to MO3 vide CPR No.182/2024 which were already given for interim custody to PW1 vide Crl.M.P.No.395/2024

dated 23.08.2024, shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 14 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- J.Sri Seeta

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki FAC: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:- Nil

P.W.1- Kommanaboina Muttaiah (defacto complainant) P.W.2- PW.2-B.Ramesh (Mediator) P.W.3- T.Anil Kumar (Investigating Officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 given to police dt 19.12.2023 Ex.P.2: Confessional Mahazarnama dt: 08.01.2024 Ex.P.3: First Information Report in Cr.No.379/2023 of Addanki P.S. Ex.P.4 :Rough sketch 11 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

MOS marked:

M.O.1 : 2 pairs of Gold ear studs M.O.2 : Pixel 7 Pro Mobile Phone M.O.3 : Wrist kwatches-2

Sd/-. J.Sri Seeta

A.J.F.C.M.

ADDANKI.

12 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS:: ADDANKI

PRESENT :: Sri J.Sri Seeta Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki FAC: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Thursday, the 14th day of November, 2024

CALENDAR CASE.No.273/2024

(Crime.No.380/2023 of Addanki Police Station)

BETWEEN: Sub-Inspector of Police, Addanki Police Station …Complainant -Vs –

1. Thiruveedula Mahesh, S/o.Chenna Kesavulu, Aged 33 years, R/o.Babaigunta, Seetha Nagar, Tirupathi.

2. Dati Sunil, S/o.Venkatesh, Aged 29 years, R/o.H.No.5-114, NTR Colony, Peruru, Tirupathi. ……Accused

Charges under section(s) : 457, 380 and 411 of IPC

Date of occurrence: prior to 19.12.2023

Date of report: 19.12.2023

Date of appearance: 19.12.2023

Date of commencement of trial: 21.08.2024

Date of closure of trial: 07.11.2024

Date of Judgment: 14.11.2024

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Accused : Found guilty 13 AJFCM,Addanki CC No.273/2024

Date: 14.11.2024

Result of the Case : In the result, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of offences U/sec. 457 and 380 of IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. However, the Accused 1 and 2 are found guilty of the offence u/s.411 of IPC, and they are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The remand period undergone by the A.1 i.e., from 23.-1.2024 to 14.11.2024 and A.2 from 23.01.2024 to 22.02.2024 is ordered to be given set off U/sec.428 of Cr.P.C. Accused 1 and 2 are informed about their right to carry the matter in appeal. MO1 to MO3 vide CPR No.182/2024 which were already given for interim custody to PW1 vide Crl.M.P.No.395/2024

dated 23.08.2024, shall holds good after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 25.07.2024. On 05.08.2024, A1 and A2 produced from Jail, copies furnished to them. On 14.08.2024 accused examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C, charges u/s. 457, 380 and 411 of IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and Mos 1 to 4. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 11.11.2024, examination of the accused examined under section 313(1)(a) Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence and heard arguments. On 14.11.2024 pronounced the Judgment.

Sd/-. J.Sri Seeta

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki FAC: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Bapatla.

CC/200172/2015 Acquitted

State Sub Inspector of Police,Medarametla P.S. vs Emani Suresh Reddy

28 Oct 2024

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.1CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: ADDANKI.

Present: Sri J.Sri Seeta, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addanki, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addanki.

Monday, this the 28th day of October, 2024.

C.C.No.172 of 2015

(Cr.No.99 of 2014 of Medarametla Police Station)

Between:

Sub-Inspector of Police, Medarametla Police Station. -- Complainant

Vs.,

1. Emani Suresh Reddy, S/o.Anji Reddy, Aged 35 years, R/o.Daivalaravur village, Korisapadu Mandal.

2. Kandi Rami Reddy, S/o.Jayarami Reddy, Aged 38 years, R/o.Thimmanapalem village, Korisapadu Mandal.

3. Vanukuru Sudhakara Reddy, S/o.Seshireddy, Aged 39 years, R/o.K.R.V.Palem village, Korisapadu Mandal.

*4. Shaik Manoz, (DIED) *5. Maguluri Veeraiah (DIED) …. Accused * Case against A4 and A5 is abated on 29.03.2022 as they are died

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.09.2024 in the presence of Sri Sk.Zaheer Ahamad, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri M.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for A1; and of Sri

R.Hazarathaiah, Advocate for A2 and A3; and case against A4 and A5 is abated, and having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.2CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.99 of 2014, for the offence under section 406 of IPC and section 3 r/w.7 of Essential Commodities Act,1955 (for short E.C.Act), registered by Medarametla police station, basing on the report given by LW.1/PW.1(Machavaram Venkata Rama Subba Rao, VRO,

Medarametla), with the following allegations.

2. The case of prosecution case in brief is that, on the night of 02.12.2024 the accused purchased PDS rice bags 148 in numbers each 50 kgs from surrounding Mandals and were being exchanged into another bags and loaded to lorry bearing No.AP 05 T 4937, they collected PDS rice which was arranged by Government to distribute to poor people with low price and sold the same in black market and getting wrongful gain. On 03.12.2014 at early hours on receipt of information about illegal transportation of PDS rice Lw.5(O.Durga Prasad), LW.6/PW.2(NVB Rajesh),

LW.7(K.Ch.Sambaiah) and LW.8(Sk.Masthan Vali), who are police officials secured the presence of PW.1, LW.2(K.Kasaiah), LW.3(V.Prabhakara Rao) and LW.4(G.Venkata Subba Rao), who are mediators and conducted raid against Anjaneya Trading Rice Mill, Medarametla and seized 148 PDS rice bags each 50 kgs along with lorry bearing No.AP 05 T 4937 also caught hold of A.1 and A.4. The rice bags were handed over to LW.9(I.Suresh) in

MLS point, A1, A.4 and the lorry was handed over in police station along with report. Basing on the same L.W.14/)W.3(A.Raja Mohan Rao), Sub-

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.3CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

Inspector of Police, Medarametla Police station registered the same as a case in crime No.99/2016 for the offences U/sec.406 IPC and Section 3 read with 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the accused.

3.During the course of investigation, PW.3/SI of police, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested A1, A4 and sent them to judicial remand. Later, he sent sample rice collected from seized rice to

LW.13-District Manager, Civil Supply, Corporation, Ongole. Later, A2, A3 and A5 got Anticipatory bail from Hon’ble High Court of A.P Vide

Crl.P.No.15993/2014, having concluded the Investigation, filed charge sheet.

4. On receipt of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offence U/sec.3 r/w.7 of Essential Commodities Act, was taken by the court.

5. On appearance made by the accused 1 to 5, copies of documents along with relevant material, have been supplied to them, as required u/s.207

Cr.P.C..

6. After considering the material on record, accused were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and charges for the offence under section 3 r/w.7 of Essential Commodities Act, has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.4CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

During the pendency of the case, A4 and A5 died and case against them was abated.

7. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

8.Accused 1 to 3 were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, and they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9. I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

10.Now the question that arises for the consideration is:-

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

accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence under

section 3 r/w.7 of Essential Commodities Act”?

11.POINT

In support of its case, the prosecution has examined ‘3’ witnesses as

PW.1 to PW.2. PW.1 is the Junior Assistant in MRO Office, Kothapatnam.

He deposed that on 03.12.2014 at wee hours on receipt of phone call the

Enforcement Wing and informed about their receiving information about presence of PDS rice in Anjaneya Rice Mill, he along with LW.4 went there and noticed truck bearing No.AP 05 T 4937 containing the load of rice and also noticed A4, Truck driver, A5 shifting PDS Rice from PDS bags into

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.5CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

normal bags, enquired by Enforcement officials A1 to A3, they stated that they collected PDS rice from Santhamaguluru, Addanki and Martur areas by paying price to some of the public to sell the said rice and to dealers and they purchased to sell the said rice for higher prices. They seized 148 Rice bags, recorded the Mediatornama. A4 and A5 ran away from that place.

On the alert made by APP the witness again stated that while A4 and A5 fleeing they were caught hold by Enforcement Officials and recorded their statements. He deposed about the subsequent procedure. Ex.P1 is report,

Ex.P2 is the mediatornama dated 03.12.2014 and Ex.P3 Mediatornama of

A4.

In his cross-examination he admitted that he has to obtain permission from the MRO prior to inspection. He further deposed that he noticed a lorry at the premises of rice mill and not noticed any rice bags inside the mill, the Vigilance officials drawn samples from the said rice bags in his presence and on the information given by Vigilance officials he came to know that the rice in the lorry is PDS rice and he has no personal knowledge and it is a residential locality. They tried to secure mediators, but cannot say their names.

12.PW.2 is the then Deputy Tahsildar. He also deposed in the same lines of PW.1 in the chief-examination and also deposed that the rice bags were intact with FCI Imprints. He deposed that A1 stated that he was

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.6CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

involved in two or three similar types of offences and police seized rice in previous cases and to compensate the loss he was doing the same.

In his cross-examination he deposed that the rice mill stands in the name of Viswanadha Reddy, but he was not shown as accused in this case.

The lorry stands in the name of A3. But, according to PW.1, it belongs to

A4 Manoj. He identified the A1 at the time of his chief-examination. He deposed in his cross-examination that he does not remember whether he stated before police that he can identify the accused if they are shown to him or he has not stated the physical features of Accused No.1 in his statement before police and he has seen A1 on the date of his apprehension and again on the date of his evidence.

The alleged offence of this case is dated 03.12.2014 and he gave evidence on 30.07.2024 and there is nearly 10 years gap between the date of alleged offence and the evidence of PW.2. So his identifying A1 after lapse of 10 years is very much doubtful.

In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for Accused 2 and 3 he admits that he has not tried to secure independent persons to act mediators and not verified the registers of rice mill, not enquired the surrounding fair price shop dealers about stock and PW.1 did not seize the

C-Book of seized vehicle.

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.7CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

13.PW.3 is the investigation officer. He deposed about registration of

FIR, recorded statement of witnesses, visited scene of offence prepared rough sketch, arresting of accused and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not collected any documentary proof to show that rice mill belongs to A1, but stated that A1 voluntarily stated that the rice mill belongs to him, he further clearly admits that he cannot say that the seized rice is PDS rice. He deposed that he lifted sample rice in the presence of LW.9. But according to PW.1, the

Vigilance Officials seized sample in their presence. He further admitted that PW.1 did not given any report stating that he observed the

Government imprints on seized rice bags and in general PDS rice will be supplied by ration shop dealers to ration cardholder only. He voluntarily stated that as the rice bags were available at the rice mill of A1, the

Vigilance Authority conducted raid and seized rice bags. But, according to

PW.1 he had not noticed any rice bags in the rice mill. The remaining evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is nothing but suggestions and denials.

14.In this case, absolutely there is no proof that the seized rice is the

PDS rice. PW.3 clearly admitted that he cannot say correctly whether the seized file is PDS rice or not. Further there are contradictions in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 on the main and material aspects. A1 is the owner of rice mill, where as according to PW.2 the rice mill stands in the name of

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.8CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

one Viswanadha Reddy but he was not shown as accused in this case.

Further even though PW.2 identified A1 as one of the persons whose confession statement was recorded in their presence, but as discussed earlier, he saw A1 for the first time on the date of his arrest i.e., on 03.12.2014 and again in the court at the time of his cross-examination on 30.07.2024 i.e., after 10 years of the alleged incident, which is very much doubtful. There is contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 about lifting of sample rice by Vigilance authority or by PW.3 the investigation officer. Admittedly, independent mediators were not secured in this case, even though the scene of offence is situated in a residential area, and that it is not a big task for the police officials.

The learned counsel for accused filed the GO NO.CCS

Ref.No.PI(3)/1831/2014 dt. 09.04.2015, and argued that as per said GO, in view of the lapse of GOI SO NO.3043(5) dt. 29.11.2013 the APSCD (LS&R) Order 2008 is not applicable in respect of paddy and rice from 01.12.2014. The present case is dated 03.12.2014. By applying the said

GO and as there is no incriminating material against the accused to connect them to the offences levelled in this charge sheet and as there is absolutely no evidence or proof that the seized rice is the PDS rice and in the absence of any independent mediators, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.9CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

15. In the result, Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 r/w.7 of Essential Commodities Act and they are acquitted of the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the Provision of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed. Case against A4 and A5 is abated.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28 th day of October, 2024.

Sd/- J. Sri Seeta

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Addanki.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Defense

PW.1 : M.Venkata Rama Subba Rao -Nil- PW.2 : N.V.B.Rajesh PW.3 : A.Rajamohan, Sub-Inspector of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1 given to police Ex.P2 : Mediatornama dated 03.12.2014 Ex.P3 : Confession statement of the Accused No.4 Ex.P4 : First Information Report Ex.P5 : Rough sketch Ex.P6 : Receipt

Material Objects: NIL

Sd/- J. Sri Seeta

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.10CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: ADDANKI.

Present: Smt J.Sri Seeta, Prl. Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, FAC:Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addanki.

Monday, this the 28th day of October, 2024.

C.C.No.172 of 2015

(Cr.No.99 of 2014 of Medarametla Police Station)

Between: Sub-Inspector of Police, Medarametla Police Station. -- Complainant

Vs.,

1. Emani Suresh Reddy, S/o.Anji Reddy, Aged 35 years, R/o.Daivalaravur village, Korisapadu Mandal.

2. Kandi Rami Reddy, S/o.Jayarami Reddy, Aged 38 years, R/o.Thimmanapalem village, Korisapadu Mandal.

3. Vanukuru Sudhakara Reddy, S/o.Seshireddy, Aged 39 years, R/o.K.R.V.Palem village, Korisapadu Mandal.

*4. Shaik Manoz, (DIED) *5. Maguluri Veeraiah (DIED) …. Accused

* Case against A4 and A5 is abated on 29.03.2022 as they are

died

Charges under section(s) : U/sec.3 r/w.7 of EC Act. Date of occurrence: 02.12.2014 Date of report:03.12.2014 Date of appearance:04.04.2017 (A1 to A5) Date of commencement of trial:15.06.2022 Date of closure of trial:19.09.2024 Date of hearing :27.09.2024 Date of Judgment:28.10.2024

AJMFC, Addanki. Page No.11CC. No.172 of 2015 28 th October, 2023.

Result of the Case : In the result, Accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 r/w.7 of Essential Commodities Act and they are acquitted of the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as per the Provision of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed. Case against A4 and A5 is abated.

Explanation for the delay :The case was taken on file on 05.06.2015. On 04.04.2017, copies furnished to the accused. On 27.04.2022, accused 1 to 3 are examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C, charges u/s.3 r/w.7 of EC Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offences and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution,

PW1 to PW3 are examined, Ex.P1 to P6 are marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and they denied incriminating material against them and reported no defence evidence and arguments heard on 27.09.2024. Pronounced the judgment on 28.10.2024.

Sd/- J. Sri Seeta

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addanki FAC:Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Addanki. Copy Submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Bapatla.

CC/552/2025 Acquitted

Sub Inspector of Police, Ballikurava P.S. vs Mandapati Ramanjaneyulu alias Bullaiah

28 Apr 2026

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.1

APPR0B0008622025Presented on : 28-06-2025 Registered on : 28-06-2025 Decided on : 28-04-2026 Duration : 0 years, 10 months, 0 days

CALENDAR in C.C. No. 552 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AD-

DANKI.

01.Date of offence: 09.05.2023

02.Date of report/complaint: 10.05.2023

03.Date of apprehension of accused : 41-A Cr.P.C.notices

04.Date of release of accused on bail: ---

05.Date of commencement of trial: 27.02.2026

06.Date of close of trial: 27.04.2026

07.Date of Judgment: 28.04.2026

08.Complainant:- STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ballilkurava P.S.

09.Description of Accused:

Mandapati Ramanjaneyulu @ Bullaiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu, 43 years, Kamma by caste, V. Kopperapadu village, Ballilkurava mandal, Driver of Mini Van Bearing No. AP 03TC / 1219.

10. Description of Accused:

Kethavath Manu Vinay Naik, S/o. Srinu Naik, 02 years, Sugali by caste, V. Kopperapadu village, Balllikurava Mandal.

11.Offence: Under Section 304 (A) of IPC

12.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

13.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

14.Sentence or Order:

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.2

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and that of his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

15. Fine amount: -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16.Explanation for the delay:- This case initially filed on the file of Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki and later on, this case was

transferred from the said court to this court as per proceedings of Hon’ble Prl.

District Judge, Ongole in Dis.No.698, dated 12.09.2025.

This Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheet for the offence punish- able Under Section 304-A of IPC against the accused. After the appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal procedure Code. On 14.12.2012 accused was examined under sec- tion 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code by explaining substance of accusation Under Section 304-A of IPC against the accused has been read over and ex- plained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, PWs. 1 to 5 examined, Exs.P1 to P11 marked, prosecution evidence closed and posted for 313 Cr.PC. Examination. On 27.04.2026, accused was examined under section 313 of the Criminal Proce- dure Code, by stating the incriminating circumstances found to be appearing in the evidence of the prosecution against him, for which he denied, and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, but no documents marked and on the same day arguments heard and posted for judgment. On 28.04.2026, judgment pro- nounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- Smt.J. Sri Seeta,

Prl. Judl. Magistrate Of First Class, Addanki.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.3

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDANKI.

Present: Smt.J.Sri Seeta Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addanki.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No. 552/2025 (Crime No.44/2023 of Ballilkurava P.S)

Between:

State :Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ballilkurava P.S. ... Complainant

And

Mandapati Ramanjaneyulu @ Bullaiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu, 43 years, Kamma by caste, V. Kopperapadu village, Ballilkurava mandal, Driver of Mini Van Bearing No. AP 03TC / 1219. … Accused

Kethavath Manu Vinay Naik, S/o. Srinu Naik, 02 years, Sugali by caste, V. Kopperapadu village, Balllikurava Mandal. … Deceased.

This case is coming up on 28.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Smt. A.M. Satyavathi, Advocate for accused and upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the fol- lowing:- // J U D G M E N T \\

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ballikurava Police Station, laid charge sheet in Crime No. 44/2023 for the offence punishable under section 304 (A) of

IPC against the accused.

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.4

02. This case was initially filed on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki and later on, transferred from the said court to this court as per proceedings of Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Ongole in Dis.No. 698

dated 12.09.2025.

03.The case of the prosecution in brief is that:-

(i). The accused is resident of V. Kopperapadu village of Ballilkurava

Mandal, living by selling drinking water by using Mini Van, bearing Noi. AP 03TC / 1219. On 09.05.2023 at about 07.00 hrs., while LWs 1 and 2 are at their house by sewing curtains (Parada pattalu) and making tiffin to their children re- spectively while the deceased playing on their bazar. At that time, the accused came on his mini van bearing No. AP03TC/1219 in order to pour drinking water to LW.9 at her house. After, completion of that the accused driver the mini van bearing No. AP03TC/1219 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with out blowing horn and dashed the deceased while playing on the road. As re- sulted that the deceased jumped and fell down on left side margin of road, re- ceived scratched injuries to his right and left hand, left thigh was broken and left side ribs are also broken and went to unconscious state and noticed the same,

LWs 1 and 2 were shifted their son to CHC, Addanki for treatment. After, first aid they shifted to GGH, Ongole for better treatment. The condition of the deceased is in serious, as per the instructions of the medical officer, they were shifted de- ceased to GGH Guntur for treatment. On 09.05.2023 at about 21.38 hrs., Later, on the same day at around 23.39 hrs., the deceased lost his breath while under- going treatment. L.W.s 1 to 10 witnessed the occurrence. On 10.05.2023 at about 15.00 hours LW1 went to Ballilkuava P.S. and gave report.

(ii). Basing on the report of LW1, LW16 registered the same as a case

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.5 in Cr. No. 20/2014 u/s 337, 304-A IPC of Ballikurava PS, submitted the original

FIRs to Hon'ble court and its copies to all the concerned Officers and took up in- vestigation of the case. During the course of Investigation LW16 visited the scene of offence and prepared observation report duly attested by the media- tors, Secured them and examined LWs 1 to 10 and recorded their statements u/s 161 (3) Cr.PC in part-II of his case diary, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW 11 to 13 and sent the dead body of the de- ceased to LW 14 for conducting Post Morterm examination. Later LW 17 took up investigation and found all investigational facts are correct which is done by the

LW16. On 13.05.2023, LW17 served 41-A CrPC notice the accused. Later LW14 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued P.M certifi- cate opining that the deceased would appear to have died due to "Multiple in- jury". LW15 who inspected the crime vehicle and issue MVI report, he opined that the accident occurred is not due to any mechanical defects. Later LW18 tookup investigation in this case and received MACT Proceedings (Form-54) from PDJ Court cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ongole and filed charge sheet in this case. After completion of investigation LW18 filed charges heet against the accused for the offence under sec. 304-(A) of I.P.C.

04.After the appearance of the accused before the Court, the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of the Criminal procedure Code.

05.The accused was examined under Section 251 of the Criminal Pro- cedure Code by explaining substance of accusation Under Section 304-A of IPC, has been read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.6

06.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, has given up the evidences of L.Ws.3 to 8, 11 to 14.

07.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was exam- ined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the incriminating ev- idence available on the record was read over and explained to him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf and no documents marked on his behalf.

08.Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

09.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of accused for the offence Under Section 304-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5.

P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. He deposed that the deceased is his son, aged about 2 years, according to him on 19.05.2023 at 2.00 a.m., while himself and his wife were present at the house , LW. 9 and his wife took their son to their house, and at that time his son was sustained injuries and not conscious, and at that time his son was playing out side the house, then they immediately shifted their son to Community Health Center, Addanki for treatment, from there to

RIMS Hospital, Ongole for better treatment, there their son died on the same day at G.G.H., Guntur at 9.30 p.m. He came to know that his son was met with an accident with some vehicle, but he does not know with which vehicle he sus- tained injuries. As he tuned hostile to the case of prosecution, his signature in

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.7 the report was marked as Ex.P1 and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked as

Ex.P.2.

11.PW2 is the mother of deceased, she also deposed in the same lines as that of PW1. Her 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked as Ex. P3.

12.PW3 is the person, who brought the deceased to PW1, according to

PW1, he also turned hostile. His 161 Cr.P.C. Statement was marked as Ex. P4.

13.PW4 is the scene observation and inquest mediator. In his evidence, he deposed that on 11.05.2023 in his presence and in the presence of L.Ws. 12 and 13 notified the scene at Kopperapadu village. He deposed that he has not observed any material at the scene. Later, in their presence, police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased. Through him, Ex. P5 and P6 scene ob- servation report and inquest report were marked.

But, in his cross examination, he clearly admitted that he signed in

Ex. P5 and P6 at the request of police and he does not know the contents of Ex.

P5 and P6.

14.PW5 is the Investigation officer, He deposed about the manner of investigation in a chronological manner. Ex. P7 is the report of P.W. 7, Ex. P. 8 is the F.I.R., Ex. P9 is the rough sketch, Ex. P. 10 and P. 11 are P.M. Certificate and M.V.I Certificate and after investigation, he filed charge sheet.

In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the de- ceased cannot walk properly due to his tender age of 2 years and he acciden- tally fell in to the side canal and he sustained fracture injury to his leg, but he has not sustained any injury due to crime vehicle of accused.

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.8

15.In this case, the main and material witnesses truned hostile. So, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is not helpful to the case of prosecution. The only evi- dence available in this case is that of PW5, who is Investigation officer. Even though, he deposed about the investigation, but his evidence is also not helpful, to prosecution, as he is the official witness and it is only useful for corroboration purpose.

16. In this case, there is no convincing evidence that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle on the date of accident and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The accident was occurred at 7.00 a.m., and the deceased died at 9.00 p.m., as per prosecution case P.Ws. 1 and 2 deposed that LW 9 and his wife brought their son i.e., the deceased at 2.00 a.m., stating that they found him in front of the house of PW1. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not helpful to the case of prosecution. More over, if any vehicle hits a 2 years child at 7.00 a.m., rashly, there are very lesser chances to survive till 9.30 P.M.

From all the above, it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is an- swered.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under

Section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and that of his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of

Six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer,corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt. J. Sri Seeta,

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Addanki.

PJFCM, Addanki C.C.No. 552 of 2025 Page No.9 //APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE// -: WITNESSES EXAMINED :- For Prosecution For Defence:

P.W.1 : K. Srinu NayakNone P.W.2 : K. LakshmI Bai P.W.3 : B. Ramulu Naik P.W.4 : B. Raju Nayak P.W.5 : Ch. Bala Krishna / / DOCUMENTS MARKED / / For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on the Report Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P5 : Scene observation Report Ex.P6 : Inquest report Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P7 : Report Ex.P8 : FIR Ex.P9: Rough sketch Ex.P10 : P.M. Certificate Ex.P11 : M.V.I Certificate

For defence: -- NIL --- // Material objects marked // NIL

Sd/- Smt J. Sri Seeta,

PJFCM, Addanki // True Copy //

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Addanki.

CC/990/2025 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Addanki vs Shaik Shabbir

24 Apr 2026

1

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

APPR0B0014692025Presented on : 24-09-2025 Registered on : 24-09-2025 Decided on : 24-04-2026 Duration : 0 years, 7 months, 0 days

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

ADDANKI

C.C.No. 990 of 2025

Complainant:Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Addanki. Description of the Accused:Shaik Shabbir, S/o. Pedda Kalesha, aged about 31 years, Muslim by caste, R/o. Rajanagaram village, Thalluru mandal, Bapatla District.

Offence:Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. Plea of Accused:Not guilty Finding of the Court:Found 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 therefore, he is acquitted under Sec. 271 (1) BNSS. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time. Mos.1and 2 ie., sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

DATE OF

Offence:21.11.2024 Complaint:21.11.2024 Apprehension of Accused:Issued under Sec. 35 (3) of notices Released on bail:-- Commencement of trial:20.04.2026 Closure of trial:20.04.2026 Judgment:24.04.2026

Explanation for the delay:

2

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

This case was initially filed on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class Court, Addanki and later on, transferred from the said court to this

court as per proceedings of Hon’ble Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge-cum,-Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Prakasam District in Dis.No.698, dated 12.09.2025.

This Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheet for the offence punishable Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against accused . After the appearance of accused before this Court, the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, are furnished to accused as contemplated under section 30 of BNSS. The accused were examined under Sec. 262 of BNSS for the offence Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, and accused having understood of the substance of charge denied the same and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs No.1 and 2. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section351 of BNSS and the incriminating material available on the record was read over and explained to him and he denied the same. Arguments heard on both sides, on the same day i.e., on 24.04.2026 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Smt.J. Sri Seeta,

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Addanki

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

// True Copy //

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Addanki.

3

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ADDANKI.

Present: Smt.J.Sri Seeta, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026

C.C.No. 990 of 2025 Between:

Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Addanki.

... Complainant

And

Shaik Shabbir, S/o. Pedda Kalesha, aged about 31 years, Muslim by caste, R/o. Rajanagaram village, Thalluru mandal, Bapatla District. … Accused

This case has come on today for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri Shaik Abdul Jabbar, Advocate for accused and upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T \\

This case was initially filed on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki and later on, transferred from the said

court to this court as per proceedings of Hon’ble Prl. Assistant Sessions Judge- cum,-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prakasam District in Dis.No.698, dated 12.09.2025.

4

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

01. The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Addanki Police station, laid charge sheet in Crime No.147/2024 for the offence Under section 34 (a) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act (herein after referred as A.P. Excise Act against the accused .

02.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-

On 21.11.2024 LW3 / S. Harsha Vardhan Reddy along with LWs. 1 and 2 i.e., T. Usha Rani, A. Ramanaiah Proh. And Excise Constable conducting patrolling for Proh. & Excise offences, at about 3.30 p.m. they reached to Masjid in Konidena village of Ballilkurava mandal, they noticed the accused standing there by holding a black colour plastic bag in his right hand. On seeing the the accused tried to skulk away. LW3 / S. Harsha Vardhan Reddy on suspicion got detained the accused with the help of his staff and on enquiry about his trying to skulk away and about the contents of the bag, the accused admitted possession of liquor bottles. LW3 / S. Harsha Vardhan Reddy requested the surrounding people there to come act as mediators, but none came forward as such. In order to verify the said bag, found in possession of the accused, LW3 / S. Harsha

Vardhan Reddy sent LW2 / A. Ramanaiah to bring mediators to Konidena village.

LW2 / A.Ramanaiah returned to the spot after some time and reported that the

VRO / VRA were not available in the village at that time and none of the people come forward to act mediator in Proh. & Excise cases. LW3 / S. Harsha Vardhan

Reddydecided to prepare special report on the spot, on verification of the said bag, in possession of the accused found it contain 30 liquor bottles i.e. 15 bottles of Classic Blue Finest whiskey of each 180ml and 15 bottles of Officers Choice

Elegant Whiskey of each 180ml, enticed that HEAL labels on the caps of the bottles were torn, labels with inscriptions for sale in Andhra Pradesh only. LW3 /

S. Harsha Vardhan Reddy on questioned the accused about his name and address. LW3 asked accused about the source of liquor bottles, accused stated that he purchased three liquor bottles multiple times from various wine shops in

Baikurava mandal and selling them for higher rates in his village for his

5

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

livelihood. LW3 / S. Harsha Vardhan Reddy asked accused whether he is having any bills for having possession of the liquor bottles and for which the said accused replied that he is having nothing with him. LW3 / S. Harsha Vardhan

Reddy had taken two bottles from each brand one as a sample for chemical analysis, kept the remaining 28-bottles in the same bag, tied the same, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by LW3 / S. Harsha Vardhan Reddy and the accused. LW3 verified the available record that accused has previously no case on him and it is first offence of the accused, then served a notice to accused under section 35(3) BNSS. and got incorporated all the observations that took place at the place of offence, as in Special report, typed by LW1 / T. Usha Rani and was attested by LWs. 1 to 3. On 21-11-2024 after having returned to the station at about 6.00 p.m. LW3 registered the Special report as a case in

Cr.No.147/2024, dt. 21.11.2024 of Proh. & Excise Station, Addanki, U/s 34 (a) of

A. P. Excise (A) Act, 2023 and submitted Original FIR to this Court and its copies to all the officers concerned. During the course investigation, LW4 forwarded the sample bottles through the Assistant Proh. & Excise

Superintendent, Bapatla to the Regional Proh. & Excise Laboratory, Guntur for analysis on 25.11.2024. LW4 received the analysis report, where the expert who analyzed the liquor bottle issued analysis report vide Rc. No.5235/2024, Dt: 02- 12-2024 and opined that the samples at Sl.Nos.34735 and 34736 are Indian

Liquor. After completion of investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

03.On appearance of the accused the copies of case documents served on them as per Sec.230 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

04.The accused is examined under Sec. 262 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and the accused having understood of the substance of charge denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

05.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, Mos.1 and 2 The learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor given up LWs. 1, 2 and 4. On behalf of accused no evidence is produced.

06.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Section 271 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the incriminating material available on the record were read over and explained to them and they denied the same.

07.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

08.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

09.POINT :-

(i)In support of the case of prosecution, LW3 / S. Harsha Vardhan

Reddy, who is the S.I. of Police, Prohibition and Excise,Addanki was examined as PW1. He deposed about conducting of patrolling at Konidena village, on 21.11.2024 at 4.00 p.m., along with L.Ws. 1 and 2 i.e., his staff and near

Mosque they noticed the accused in possession of black plastic bag, he sent

LW2 for securing mediators to Konidena village, but he returned back to station, but none were available in the village, on that he verified the bag and found total 30 liquor bottles of “2” brands of each, 15 bottles of 180 ml each. He seized the said bottles under cover of police proceedings i.e, Ex. P1 and lifted “2” sample bottles from each brand. Later, he returned to excise police station along with accused and seized contraband and registered Ex. P1 as a case in Cr. No. 147 /

7

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

2024 for the offence under Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and Ex. P2 is the F.I.R.

The sample bottles were makred as M.Os No.1 and 2. Later, he served Sec. 35 (3) of BNSS notices to accused, sent the samples to analysis purpose, received report under Ex. P3, wherein it was opined that the samples are “Indian made liquor” and destructed the remaining contraband under Ex. P4 proceedings of

Deputy Commissioner vide R.C. No. 26/2024 / B1, dt. 06.12.2024.

(ii)During the cross examination, he deposed that he prepared Ex. P1 on his laptop and he took printer to the scene of offence. Ex. P1 is Telugu

Report. His cross examination shows that the scene of offence is busy locality and surrounded by residential houses and commercial complexes. The accused is resident of Konidena village. L.W1 also not stated the names of VRA and

VRO to whom he requested to act as mediators. PW1 also did not request any of the staff of Sachivalayama and Panchayat office or Secretary to act as mediators, eventhough they are available.

(iii)As per the evidence of PW1, when the scene of offence is a busy locality, securing mediators or any independent witnesses at the time of 4.00

P.M., is not a big task to PW1. So also when Panchayat office and

Sachivalayam are situated in the village, PW1 did not take any steps to secure any of the staff members from Sachivalayam or from Panchayat office. No notices were also served to concerned VRO and VRA. In view of the above evidence of PW1, it is doubtful that Ex. P1 was prepared at the scene of offence and got printed there. Further the accused does not belong to that village.

Therefore, in the above circumstances, basing on the sole testimony of PW1, the case against accused cannot be believed. Accordingly this point is answered.

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

Under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and therefore, they are acquitted under

Sec.271 (1) of BNSS for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall

8

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

stands canceled after expiry of appeal time. Mos.1 and 2 ie., sample bottles shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

Sd/- Smt. J. Sri Seeta,

Principal Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Addanki.

//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE// -: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For ProsecutionFor Defence:

PW1: S. Harshavardhan Reddy NONE / / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Special Report Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P4 : Proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner vide RC. No. 26/2024/B1,

dt. 06.12.2024.

For defence: NIL // Material objects marked //

MOs No.1and 2 : Sample bottles

Sd/- Smt. J. Sri Seeta,

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Addanki. // True Copy //

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Addanki.

9

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

// True Copy //

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Addanki.

// True Copy //

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Addanki.

10

CC. 990/2025PJFCM Court, Addanki

// True copy //