J Sri Seetha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

TENALI

PRESENT : Smt J.Sree Seetha,

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TENALI

FAC I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TENALI

Thursday, the 20th day of July, 2023.

CALENDAR CASE No.776/2019

Between: State: Inspector of Police, Tenali II Town Police Station.Complainant.

And

Mahali Sankar Raju, S/o.Ramaraju, 37 years, Raju, D.No.6-6-29, Katevaram Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. Accused.

This case is coming on 19.07.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Senior A.P.P., for the State and of Sri B.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for

Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The SI of Police, Tenali II Town police filed charge against accused is that he cheated PW.1-Shaik Hafeeja and thereby committed the offence, punishable u/Secs.420 and 506 I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant came to know that the accused has been selling house plots at Yerukulapudi Village, on that herself and her husband approached the accused and enquired him, on that he took them to Yerukulapudi Village and shown the plots, purchased to sell plot

No.2 as per plan to them which is of 101 sq. yards, they agreed to purchase it for

Rs.3,03,000/- entered into an agreement with accused, on 26.07.2017 paid an advance of Rs.1,30,000/- to accused, agreeing to pay the balance sale consideration within 100 days and agreed to register the said plot in the name of husband of defacto complainant. On 28.08.2017 they paid Rs.40,000/- to accused towards part of remaining sale consideration and the same was endorsed on the second page of agreement of sale. Later, the accused failed to register regular 2 sale deed and when questioned by them, he replied that the survey number was wrongly noted for the said venture and the plots cannot be registered. The defacto complainant and her husband asked the accused to return the amount paid by them as advance, but he failed to repay the same and stated that he will not repay the advance amount and threatened them. Prior to 08.07.2019 LWs.1 to 4 visited the office of accused and asked him to return their money, but he refused to return the same and threatened them with dire consequences.

Therefore, on 08.07.2019, LW.1 gave report in Tenali II Town Police Station.

2.2)Basing on the report of P.W.1, PW.6-B.Srinivasa Rao, Sub Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.147/2019 u/Secs.420 and 506 IPC., of Tenali II

Town PS., on 08.07.2019 at 03.00 p.m and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected it and prepared rough sketch of the same. He examined Lws.1 to 7 and recorded their detailed statements. LW.1 produced a copy of agreement of sale dt.26.07.2017 that was executed by the accused in favour of LW.2, copy of agreement of sale dt.27.04.2016 that was executed by Danaboina Apparao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao in favour of the accused and copy of partition deed among Danaboina Apparao and

Danaboina Ramakrishna vide Doc.NO.4893/2015 of SRO, Tenali. LW.9 collected them for investigation. LW.1 is willing to file the original agreement of document at 26.07.2017 that was executed by the accused before this court during trial whenever required. Thus, prima facie was made out against the accused u/S.420, 506 IPC. As such PW.6 served notice to the accused u/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C after explaining the facts of the case. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused u/Sec.420, 506 IPC.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.On examination of the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C, he denied the charge sheet allegations levelled against him. Hence, the charge u/Secs.420 and 506 IPC., have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to 3 the Accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the Accused has been tried for the said charges levelled against him.

5.In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6, Exs.P.1 to P.7. The evidence of L.W.7 was given up by the learned Senior A.P.P.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied him as false and reported no defense evidence.

6.After having heard the rival contentions of the learned Senior A.P.P. for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the Accused, the point germane for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of accused

for the charge u/Secs.420 and 506 of I.P.C., beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

7.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses as Pws.1 to 6. Among them, PW.1 is defacto complainant, PW.2 is her husband, PW.3 is one of the attestor of the agreement of sale, PW.4 is the document writer, who allegedly prepared the sale agreement, PW.5 is the eye witness to the alleged incident of prior to two days on 08.07.2019 at the office of accused and PW.6 is the investigation officer.

8.PW.1 deposed that in the year 2017, herself and her husband i.e.,

PW.2 approached the accused at his office at Ganganammapet, Tenali and enquired about house plots, the accused took them to Yerukalapudi Village and shown the plots. He promised them to sell plot No.2 as per plan which is of 101 sq. yards, they agreed to purchase it for Rs.3,03,000/-, entered into an agreement with him on 26.07.2017, paid advance of Rs.1,30,000/- agreeing to pay the remaining sale consideration within 100 days, Lws.3 and 4 attended the sale agreement, on 28.08.2017, they paid Rs.40,000/- to accused towards part of 4 remaining sale consideration and it was endorsed on second page of sale agreement, but later the accused failed to register the regular sale deed in favour of her husband by stating that the survey number of the said venture was wrongly noted and inspite of their repeated demands, he failed to return the advance amount to them and on the other hand, he threatened them. Ex.P.1 is the report given by PW.1. During her cross-examination, she admitted that they have to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,33,000/- to the accused on or before 05.11.2017 as per the agreement of sale and if they fails to pay the same within 100 days as agreed by them, they have to pay with interest @ 24% p.a., till the date of registration. She admitted that PW.2 got issued legal notice to accused on 14.03.2020 i.e., after 2 years 8 months from the date of agreement and they did not issue any legal notice within 100 days of agreement by paying balance sale consideration. She voluntarily deposed that they approached the accused within 100 days and asked him to execute regular sale deed in favour of LW.2/PW.2 and she admitted that the same was not stated by her either in Ex.P.1 or in her 161

Cr.P.C statement. She further admitted that her husband filed civil suit for recovery of earnest money and pleaded ignorance that whether he got attached the other property of accused in the said suit. She further admitted that they have not personally verified with regard to mistake of survey number in their document and also admitted that the real dispute is that the accused demanded them for balance sale consideration with interest till the date of registration and that their contention is they have no necessity to pay the interest. The remaining cross- examination is nothing but suggestions and denials.

9.PW.2 is the husband of PW.1. He also deposed in the same lines as that of PW.1, in his chief-examination, Exs.P.2 and P.3 are marked through him.

Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of sale agreement and Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of plaint filed by him on the file of IAJCJ Court, Tenali. During the cross-examination, he deposed that the accused shown photocopies of property documents and believing him, he purchased the house plot and that the contents of said 5 documents were not got read over by him through 3rd parties. He deposed that document writer read over the contents of the agreement. During his further cross-examination, he deposed that he does not remember whether he got issued legal notice on 14.03.2020 or not, he filed suit in OS.No.250/2020 and got attached the properties of accused in the said suit. He admitted that he got issued legal notice to accused to return his advance amount, but not registration of the said land in his name. He admitted that he has not given any document to police to show that he was ready to pay the balance sale consideration and to obtain regular sale deed.

10.PW.3 is the one of the attestor of sale agreement. He deposed that along with him, LW.3 also signed on the said Ex.P.2 agreement of sale as attestors.

During his cross-examination, the photocopy of the document was confronted to him and he admitted his signature on it.

11.PW.4 is the document writer. He deposed that he is working as document writer since 1993 at Tenali. He turned hostile by stating that he does not know Ex.P.2 and he never prepared the said document.

12.PW.5 cited as a witness that the papers were purchased from him. He also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

13.PW.6 is the investigation officer. He deposed about registration of FIR under Ex.P.6, recording of statements of witnesses, preparation of rough sketch under Ex.P.7, serving of 41-A Cr.P.C., notices to accused and filing of charge sheet.

14.During the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not examine any of the inhabitants at the office of accused as they did not come forward and also deposed that Pws.1 and 2 did not show any document to him that they are ready to get register the regular sale deed within the stipulated time.

15.From the above evidence of Pws.1 and 2, it was elicited out that they themselves approached the accused for purchase of the house plot and a sale 6 agreement was entered into in between them and the accused. It was further evident that they also paid advance amount to the accused for two times. PW.1 admitted that they have to pay the balance sale consideration on or before 05.11.2017 and her husband got issued legal notice to accused on 14.03.2020 i.e., after 2 years 8 months. Further, according to PW.2, he filed OS.No.250/2020 for recovery of earnest money against the accused in the said suit. Further, as per the own admissions of Pws.1 and 2, they got issued notice to accused only to return their advance amount, but not with a demand to register the said land in the name of PW.2. More particularly, PW.1 admitted that the real dispute is that the accused demanded them to pay the balance sale consideration along with interest till the date of registration and their contention is that they have no necessity to pay the interest.

16.These admissions of Pws.1 and 2 clearly shows that the accused had no intention to cheat them with his deceitful words and he only demanded the interest. Further, the property of accused was attached in the civil suit filed by

PW.2 for recovery of their earnest money. The evidence of Pws.3 to 5 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. In view of the clear admissions of Pws.1 and 2 and in view of the above discussion, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, accused found not guilty and he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Secs.420 and 506 of IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled., after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of July, 2023.

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali 7

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the prosecution: For the defence: None.

P.W.1: Shaik Hafeeza P.W.2: Shaik Nagul Meera P.W.3: T.Vishnu Murthy P.W.4: S.Anjaneyulu P.W.5:K.Srinivas. P.W.6:B.Srinivasa Rao, SI of Police.

Exhibits marked

For the prosecution: Ex.P.1Report given by P.W.1 to the Police which contains her signature. Ex.P.2Certified copy of sale agreement executed by the accused in his name. Ex.P.3Certified copy of plaint filed by PW.2 against the accused on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Tenali. Ex.P.4/--161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.5/-- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.6/--Original FIR in Cr.NO.147/2019. Ex.P.7/--Rough sketch. For the defence: NIL

II AJMFC., Tenali FAC IAJMFC, Tenali 8

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.776/2019 Nature of Offence: U/Secs.420 and 506 of I.P.C.

Date of Judgment 20.7.2023

Report of ApprehensionReleaseCommencemClosure ofSentence or Offencecomplaina of accusedon bailent of trialtrialorder nt 8.7.198.7.1930.12.20-7.7.226.4.2320.7.23

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses and due to Pandamic Situation of Corona.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.776/2019 (Cr.No.147/2019 of Tenali II Town P.S.) On the file of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Tenali.

Complainant: The State: Inspector of Police, Tenali III Town Police Station.

Name ofAge Father’sReligionCalling ResidenceMandal accusedname Mahali Sankar Raju, S/o.Ramaraju, 37 years, Raju, D.No.6-6-29, Katevaram Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.

Finding: Accused is not found guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused found not guilty and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Secs.420 and 506 of IPC. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled., after expiry of appeal time.

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali

FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

TENALI

Present : Smt J. Sree Seetha,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class :: Tenali FAC : I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

Friday, the 21st day of July, 2023.

CALENDAR CASE No.478/2022

Between:-

State: Sub Inspector of Police,

Tenali III Town Police Station.....Complainant.

And

1.Kranthikiran Maddu, S/o.Kannaiah, 34 years, C/Mala, Fathimapuram, 6th line, Guntur Town.

2.Marthamma Maddu, W/o.Kannaiah, 48 years, C/Mala, Fathimapuram, 6th line, Guntur Town.

3.Kannaya Maddu, S/o.Lazar, 55 years, C/Mala, Fathimapuram, 6th line, Guntur Town.

4.Kranthi Medepalli, W/o.Vijayakumar, 31 years, Mala, Bhattiproluvillage, Bapatla Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on the same for final hearing before me in the presence of Sr. A.P.P., for the State and of None were Appeared, Advocate for the accused, upon perusal of the entire material on record, on hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The gravamen of the charge against A.1 to A.4 is that A.1 harassed PW.1-

Maddu Divya Jyothi, both physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity and thereby the accused committed the offence, punishable u/Secs.498A, 324 of

I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P., Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

2.1) PW.1-Maddu Divya Jyothi is resident of Chenchupet, Tenali Town and LW.2-Komarabathini Mohan and LW.3-Komarabathini Meri who are parents of

PW.1. Her parents performed her marriage with A.1 and also gave Rs.15,00,000/- 2 towards dowry. After marriage, she joined with A.1 at her in-laws house. A.1 doing bank manager job at IDBI Bank. She got a son Prajwal aged 5 years, daughter

Atvika 3 years. A.2 to A.4 harassed her and instigaged her husband t bring more dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parents. Later A.2 t A.4 instigated A.1 against her and they all harassed her physically and mentally. ON 14.10.2022 at 9.00 AM., A.1 to A.4 picked quarrel and A.1 caught hld of her hands twisted back and A.2 throttled her throat and accused beat her with hands and legs and inflicted swelling injuries n her hand and right hip. Then she tried to call police, but A.1 grabbed phone and hit her head to wall and inflicted injuries. She escaped from them and went to hospital and admitted to GGH., Guntur and got admitted. PW.1 informed to her parents Lws.2 and 3 by phone and later she got discharged from the hospital and staying with her parents at Tenali. LW.4-Vagolu Rajasekhar and

LW.5-Perika Prasad learnt about the offence comitted by the accused.

2.2)Basing on the report of PW.1, LW.7-M.Vijaykumar, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.330/2022 u/Secs.498-A and 324 of IPC., and

Secs.3 and 4 of D.P., Act of Tenali III Town PS., and investigated into on 15.10.2022 at 10.00 hours. He visited the scene of offence examined it, drafted rough sketch of it and secured PW.1 and Lws.2 to 5, examined them, recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. He served notices on accused 1 to 4 u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., with instructions to appear before the court as and when they are summoned. He obtained wound certificate of PW.1 from the Medical officer. LW.6-Dr.Divya, CAS who opined that the injuries received by LW.1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. My learned predecessor in office took cognizance u/Secs.498-A and 324 of I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P., Act against A.1 to A.4.

3

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. On examination of the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C, they denied the charge sheet allegations levelled against them. Hence, the charge u/Secs.498-

A and 324 IPC., and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the Accused have been tried for the said charge levelled against them.

6.In support of it’s case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The learned Senior A.P.P., given up the evidence of Lws.3 to 7.

7.The examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against the accused.

8.After having heard the rival contentions of the learned Sr. A.P.P., for the prosecution and the Accused, the point germane for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of A.1 to

A.4 for the charge u/Secs.498A and 324 of I.P.C., and Secs.3 and

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT ::

9. At the outset, it is significant to mention that P.W.1-Maddu Divya

Jyothi who are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

10.P.W.1 deposes on oath that on 30.6.2016 her marriage with A.1 was taken place at Guntur. After the marriage, she joined A.1 at Guntur to lead marital life. During their wedlock, they were blessed with one male and one female children. Later in the month of October, 2022 due to petty disputes in between 4 herself and A.1, she placed the matter before her relatives and they obtained her signature on some papers and she does not know the contents of the said papers.

She does not know who presented the said papers at the police station. Since

P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Senior Additional

Public Prosecutor requested the Court to declare her as hostile. Hence, the witness was declared as hostile. During her cross examination by the learned

Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, she denied that she stated before the police as in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement. Hence, her statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C., was marked as Ex.P.2. She admitted in her cross-examination that herself and A.1 are living together and leading happy marital life at Guntur.

11.P.W.2 deposes on oath that on 30.6.2016 the marriage of PW.1 with

A.1 was taken place at Guntur. After marriage, she joined A.1 at Guntur to lead marital life. During their wedlock, they were blessed with one male and one female children. Later in the month of October, 2022 due to petty disputes in between PW.1 and A.1, she placed the matter before their relatives and at their instigation, she put her signature on some papers. She was not examined by the police, she does not know anything about the case facts. Since P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Senior Additional Public

Prosecutor requested the Court to declare him as hostile. Hence, the witness was declared as hostile. During his cross examination by the learned Senior Assistant

Public Prosecutor, he denied that he stated before the police as in his 161 Cr.P.C., statement. Hence, his statement u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C., was marked as Ex.P.3.

admitted in his cross-examination that PW.1 and A.1 are living together and leading happy marital life at Guntur.

12.Since P.W.1/defacto-complainant herself did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor rightly given up the evidence of other witnesses as no purpose would be served. Having regard to 5 the evidence of P.W.1, which does not incriminate the accused for the charge u/Secs.498-A and 324 of I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act, it is inevitable to hold that the prosecution could not establish the charge levelled against them0, beyond all reasonable doubt.

13.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge u/Secs.498-A and 324of I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of DP., Act and thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of July, 2023.

II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, FAC I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, TENALI.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the prosecution:

P.W.1- Maddu Divya Jyothi.

P.W.2-K.Mohan Babu

For the defence : None. Exhibits marked For the prosecution: Ex.P.1/--Report given by PW.1.

Ex.P.2/--161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1

Ex.P.3/--161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2

For the defence: NIl

II AJMFC.,

I AJMFC.,

Tenali.

6

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.478/2022 Nature of Offence: U/sec.498-A and 324 IPC:-

Date of Judgment 21.7.2023

Report ofApprehensionRelease onCommence-Closure ofSentence Offence complainantof accusedbailment of trialtrialor order 16.2.23 15.10.2215.10.22-21.7.2321.7.2321.7.23

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused and non production of witnesses.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.478/2022 (Cr. No.330/2022). On the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Tenali.

Complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Tenali III Town police station.

Name ofAge Father’sReligion Calling Residence Mandal accused name

1.Kranthikiran Maddu, S/o.Kannaiah, 34 years, C/Mala, Fathimapuram, 6th line, Guntur Town.

2.Marthamma Maddu, W/o.Kannaiah, 48 years, C/Mala, Fathimapuram, 6th line, Guntur Town.

3.Kannaya Maddu, S/o.Lazar, 55 years, C/Mala, Fathimapuram, 6th line, Guntur Town.

4.Kranthi Medepalli, W/o.Vijayakumar, 31 years, Mala, Bhattiproluvillage, Bapatla Mandal.

Finding: A.1 to A.4 are not found guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge u/Secs.498-A and 324of I.P.C., and Secs.3 and 4 of DP., Act and thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

7

II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, FAC I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, TENALI.

Copy Submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TENALI

Present : Smt J.Sri Seetha, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2024

C.C.No.223/2023

Between: The Enforcement Sub­Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Duggirala.… Complainant

­And­

Bhukya Bala Naik S/o. Jai Naik, age 53 years, Caste:Sugali, R/o. Thumuluru Village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District. … Accused

This case come before me on this day i.e. on 26­04­2024 for final hearing

before me in the presence of learned Asst.P.P. for the State and

Sri. G. Srinivas Goud, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Sub­Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Duggirala filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 09­06­2022 at about 9:00 A.M., while L.W.3/T. Raja Sree, Sub­Inspector of S.E.B Station, Duggirala, along with L.Ws.1 and 2/N.Govardhana Rao and K. Ramu, Constables of S.E.B

Station, Duggirala were conducting raids for enforcement offences, they reached near Davuluru Cross road left side margin, Davuluru Village, there, they noticed 2 the accused in possession of white colour polythene bag in his right hand and on seeing them, he tried to ran away, upon which, L.W.3 detained him with the assistance of her staff, on enquiry, accused stated that he is in possession of liquor bottles in the said bag. On further enquiry as to having bills and permit, accused stated that he does not have any bills. On further enquiry about the source of the liquor, the accused stated that he purchased liquor bottles from government liquor shops in Kollipara Mandal and selling them at higher prices in the village for his livelihood. Then, LW3 deputed LW2 to Davuluru village to secure mediators and after some time, he returned and reported that the Village officers were not available in the village and none of the villagers came forward to act as mediators. On that, LW3 decided to draft special report and on verification of the said bag, they found 6 liquor bottles of 9 Sea Horses Whiskey each of 180 ml. Then, LW3 has drawn sample bottle from the contraband for chemical analysis and kept remaining bottles in the same bag by affixing seal and identity slips and arrested the accused, seized the case property, drawn sample under cover of special report, returned to S.E.B Station, Duggirala and registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.39/2022 under Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise (Amendment) Act, submitted copies of F.I.R to all concerned, took up investigation, send the accused to Judicial custody, sent sample bottle to the

Regional Proh. & Excise Laboratory, Guntur for chemical analysis and received report vide RC No.2110/2022,dt.02­08­2022 with an opinion that the sample vide Sl.No.10721 is Indian liquor and submitted the case property to the Deputy 3

Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Nellore for confiscation. After completion of further investigation, L.W.4/K. Raveendra, Enforcement Inspector,

S.E.B Station,Duggirala laid charge sheet against the accused U/sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise(Amendment) Act.

3.This Court has taken cognizance of this case against the accused under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment) Act and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies under

Sec.207 Cr.P.C and examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge was framed under

Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment) Act and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused were read over and explained to him in

Telugu language and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Arguments treated as heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the accused was carrying liquor bottles without any license or permit or bill and Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?” 4

POINT:

7.In support of the case of the prosecution, Constables of S.E.B

Station, Duggirala were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. According to them, on 09­06­2022 at about 9:00 a.m., L.W.3 accompanied by P.Ws.1 and 2, while conducting raids, they reached near Davuluru cross roads, Davuluru Village, there, they noticed the accused by keeping white colour polythene bag in his right hand, on seeing them, he tried to skulk away, then, they detained him, ascertained his name and address particulars, and on further enquiry the accused revealed that he was carrying liquor bottles. Then L.W.3 deputed P.W.2 for mediators and after some time, he returned back and reported that nobody come forward to act as mediators and in the said circumstances, L.W.3 proceeded under special report and recorded the confession andrecovery of the accused under Ex.P1. The sample was also drawn from the said 9 Sea Horses

Whiskey liquor bottles and seized from the possession of the accused in order to send for chemical analysis vide M.O.1. Then, they returned to the Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Duggirala along with accused, seized contraband, sample bottles and affixed identity slips to the sample and L.W.3 registered the said Special report as a case vide Cr.No.39/2022 under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise(Amendment) Act and issued Ex.P2 First Information Report, then sent the accused to judicial custody. Thereafter,L.W.3 sent M.O.1 to the Chemical analysis and received the report (Ex.P3) vide RC No.2110/2022, dt.02­8­2022 in

Sl.No.10721 that the sample is Indian made Liquor. P.W.2 further deposed that 5 after completion of further investigation, L.W.4 filed charge sheet. During cross­ examination P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality surrounded by bus shelter. P.W.2 admitted that they did not request any one at the scene of offence to act as mediators. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he signed on Ex.P1 in the police station itself and he did not visit the scene of offence on that day and not participated in the raids. The remaining cross­ examination of witnesses is nothing but suggestions and denials.

8.The above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly shows that the accused was apprehended at about 9:00 A.M., near Davuluru cross roads, Davuluru village and securing independent mediators at the scene of offence is not a difficult task for the Investigating agency, as it is a busy locality surrounded by bus shelter as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The proceedings under special report does not amount to any irregularity, but at the same time, the

Investigating agency has to show that there are less chances to secure independent mediators to record the confession and recovery of the accused.

9.According to the prosecution, the accused was found in possession of 6 liquor bottle 9 Sea Horses Whiskey each of 180 ml. Out of them, M.O.1 sample was drawn in order to send for chemical analysis. In this case, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the excise officials. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the scene of offence is a busy locality surrounded by bus shelter. When such is the case, as stated supra, it 6 is not difficult for the investigation agency to secure independent mediators from the scene for search and seizure of the contrabands. In this regard, P.W.2 stated in his cross­examination that they did not request any one at the scene of offence to act as mediators. Contra to that in the chief­examination, P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that P.W.2 tried to secure mediators, but none were come forward to act as mediators, but no proof like issuance of notice etc., were filed. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the Ex.P1 is silent about the source of supply of contraband.

In the said circumstances and in the absence of the evidence of any independent witnesses, basing on Ex.P1 and the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 who are interested witnesses, the case of prosecution cannot be believed. 

10. The remaining investigation is very formal and when the crucial document vide Ex.P1 which is confession and recovery of the accused is not believable.

11.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled for an acquittal for the offence under Sec.34(a)of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

7 12.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act and he was acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and

M.O.1 vide C.P.R.No.104/2023 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of April,2024.

Sd/­J. Sri Seeta,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TENALI

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: ­None­ PW1: N. Govardhana Rao PW2: K. Ramu

Exhibits marked 

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Special Report Ex.P2First Information Report Ex.P3 Chemical Analysis Report For Defence: ­Nil­ 

Material Objects marked

M.O.1 ­ Sample liquor bottle.

Sd/­J.S.S., II A.J.M.F.C.,Tenali.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TENALI

Present : Smt J.Sri Seetha, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2024

C.C.No.219/2023

Between: The Enforcement Sub­Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Duggirala.… Complainant

­And­

Mahmad Fayaz S/o. Rasheed, age 40 years, Caste­Muslim, R/o. Chiluvuru Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.… Accused

This case come before me on this day i.e. on 26­04­2024 for final hearing

before me in the presence of learned Asst.P.P. for the State and

Sri. T. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Sub­Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Duggirala filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 04­05­2022 at about 9:00 A.M., while L.W.3/T. Raja Sree, Sub­Inspector of S.E.B Station, Duggirala, along with L.Ws.1 and 2/K. Ramu and N.Govardhana Rao, Constables of S.E.B

Station, Duggirala were conducting raids for enforcement offences, they reached near Thummapudi Arch, Thummapudi village, there, they noticed the accused in 2 possession of white colour polythene bag and on seeing them, he tried to ran away, upon which, L.W.3 detained him with the assistance of her staff, on enquiry, accused stated that he is in possession of liquor bottles in the said bag.

On further enquiry as to having bills and permit, accused stated that he does not have any bills. On further enquiry about the source of the liquor, the accused stated that he purchased liquor bottles from government liquor shops in

Duggirlaa Mandal and selling them at higher prices in the village for his livelihood. Then, LW3 deputed LW2 to Thummapudi village to secure mediators and after some time, he returned and reported that the Village officers were not available in the village and none of the villagers came forward to act as mediators. On that, LW3 decided to draft special report and on verification of the said bag, they found 7 liquor bottles of Old Timer Deluxe Whiskey each of 180 ml. Then, LW3 has drawn sample bottle from the contraband for chemical analysis and kept remaining bottles in the same bag by affixing seal and identity slips and arrested the accused, seized the case property, drawn sample under cover of special report, returned to S.E.B Station, Duggirala and registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.35/2022 under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act, submitted copies of F.I.R to all concerned, took up investigation, send the accused to Judicial custody, sent sample bottle to the

Regional Proh. & Excise Laboratory, Guntur for chemical analysis and received report vide RC No.1577/ 2022,dt.15­07­2022 with an opinion that the sample vide Sl.No.7993 is Indian liquor and submitted the case property to the Deputy 3

Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Nellore for confiscation. After completion of further investigation, L.W.4/K. Raveendra, Enforcement Inspector,

S.E.B Station,Duggirala laid charge sheet against the accused U/sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise(Amendment) Act.

3.This Court has taken cognizance of this case against the accused under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment) Act and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies under

Sec.207 Cr.P.C and examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge was framed under

Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment) Act and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and he denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused were read over and explained to him in

Telugu language and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Arguments treated as heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the accused was carrying liquor bottles without any license or permit or bill and Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?” 4

POINT:

7.In support of the case of the prosecution, Constables of S.E.B

Station, Duggirala were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. According to them, on 04­05­2022 at about 9:00 a.m., L.W.3 accompanied by P.Ws.1 and 2, while conducting raids, they reached near Thummapudi Arch, Thummapudi Village, there, they noticed the accused by keeping white colour polythene bag in his possession, on seeing them, he tried to skulk away, then, they detained him, ascertained his name and address particulars, and on further enquiry the accused revealed that he was carrying liquor bottles. Then L.W.3 deputed P.W.2 for mediators and after some time, he returned back and reported that nobody come forward to act as mediators and in the said circumstances, L.W.3 proceeded under special report and recorded the confession andrecovery of the accused under Ex.P1. The sample was also drawn from the said Old Timer

Deluxe Whiskey liquor bottles and seized from the possession of the accused in order to send for chemical analysis vide M.O.1. Then, they returned to the

Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Duggirala along with accused, seized contraband, sample bottles and affixed identity slips to the samples and L.W.3 registered the said Special report as a case vide Cr.No.35/2022 under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment) Act and issued Ex.P2 First Information Report, then sent the accused to judicial custody. Thereafter,L.W.3 sent M.O.1 to the

Chemical analysis and received the report (Ex.P3) vide RC No.1577/2022, dt.15­3­2022 in Sl.No.7993 that the sample is Indian made Liquor. P.W.2 further 5 deposed that after completion of further investigation, L.W.4 filed charge sheet.

During cross­examination P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. P.W.2 admitted that that he can’t say the names of Revenue officials and village elders, whom P.W.2 requested to act as mediators. P.Ws.1 and 2 further admitted that they did not enquire about the source of supply of liquor bottles. The remaining cross­examination is nothing but suggestions and denials.

8.The above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly shows that the accused was apprehended at about 9:00 A.M., near Thummapudi Arch of Thummapudi village and securing independent mediators at the scene of offence is not a difficult task for the Investigating agency, as it is a busy locality surrounded by residential houses as per the evidence of P.W.1. The proceedings under special report does not amount to any irregularity, but at the same time, the

Investigating agency has to show that there are less chances to secure independent mediators to record the confession and recovery of the accused.

9.According to the prosecution, the accused was found in possession of 7 liquor bottle Old Timer Deluxe Whiskey each of 180 ml. Out of them, M.O.1 sample was drawn in order to send for chemical analysis. In this case, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the excise officials. According to P.W.2, the scene of offence is a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. When such is the case, as stated supra, it is not difficult for the investigation agency to secure independent mediators from the scene for search and seizure of the contrabands. In this regard, P.Ws.1 6 and 2 stated that P.W.2 tried to secure mediators, but none were come forward to act as mediators, but no proof like issuance of notice etc., were filed. Further,

P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the Ex.P1 is silent about the source of supply of contraband. In the said circumstances and in the absence of the evidence of any independent witnesses, basing on Ex.P1 and the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 who are interested witnesses, the case of prosecution cannot be believed. 

10. The remaining investigation is very formal and when the crucial document vide Ex.P1 which is confession and recovery of the accused is not believable.

11.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled for an acquittal for the offence under Sec.34(a)of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

12.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act and he was acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and

M.O.1 vide C.P.R.No.100/2023 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of April,2024.

Sd/­J. Sri Seeta,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TENALI 7

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: ­None­ PW1: K. Ramu PW2: N. Govardhana Rao

Exhibits marked 

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Special Report Ex.P2First Information Report Ex.P3 Chemical Analysis Report For Defence: ­Nil­ 

Material Objects marked

M.O.1 ­ Sample liquor bottle.

Sd/­J.S.S., II A.J.M.F.C.,Tenali.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TENALI

Present : Smt J.Sri Seetha, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tenali.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2024

C.C.No.414/2023

Between: The Enforcement Sub­Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Tenali. … Complainant

­And­

Karumuru Sundaramma W/o. Krishna Reddy, age 42 years, Caste­Reddy, R/o. Edlapalli Village, Tsunduru Mandal.… Accused

This case come before me on this day i.e. on 26­04­2024 for final hearing

before me in the presence of learned Asst.P.P. for the State and

Sri. M. Srinadha Reddy, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Sub­Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Tenali filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 27­09­2022 at about 6:30 A.M., on receipt of credible information, L.W.5/M. Vinitha Reddy, Sub­

Inspector of S.E.B Station, Tenali, along with L.Ws.1 to 4/Batta Bala Sowry,

Karre Jhansi Rani, R. Venkata Rao and Sandhya, V.R.O., G.M.S.K., Edlapalli village, Constables of S.E.B Station,Tenali, reached to the Door No.7­280, House 2 of Karumuri Sundaramma, Edlapalli village, and in the presence of L.W.5, LWs.1 and 2 knocked door, then a female came out and on enquiry she stated that she is the owner of the house, then, L.W.5 served Sec.165 Cr.P.C. and on search of the house found one black colour polythene bag in north­west corner of left side portion, on verification of the bag, they found 20 liquor bottles of Daaru House

XO brandy each of 180ml. On further enquiry as to having bills and permit, accused stated that she does not have any bills. On further enquiry about the source of the liquor, the accused stated that she purchased liquor bottles from various government liquor shops in Tenali town and selling them at higher prices in the village for her livelihood. Then, LW5 has drawn sample bottle from the contraband for chemical analysis and kept remaining bottles in the same bag by affixing seal and identity slips and arrested the accused, seized the case property, drawn sample under the cover of mediators report scribed by L.W.3 attested by L.Ws.1 to 5., returned to S.E.B Station, Tenali and registered the mediators report as a case in Cr.No.60/2022 under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act, submitted copies of F.I.R to all concerned, took up investigation, send the accused to Judicial custody, sent sample bottle to the

Regional Proh. & Excise Laboratory, Guntur for chemical analysis and received report vide RC No.3102/2022,dt.31­10­2022 with an opinion that the sample vide Sl.No.13979 is Indian liquor and submitted the case property to the Deputy

Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Nellore for confiscation. After completion of further investigation, L.W.6/K. Raveendra, Enforcement Inspector, 3

S.E.B Station,Duggirala laid charge sheet against the accused U/sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise(Amendment) Act.

3.This Court has taken cognizance of this case against the accused under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment) Act and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of accused, she was furnished with copies under

Sec.207 Cr.P.C and examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C, charge was framed under

Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise(Amendment) Act and the allegations made by the prosecution has been read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and she denied the same and claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against the accused were read over and explained to her in

Telugu language and she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Arguments treated as heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the accused was carrying liquor bottles without any license or permit or bill and Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

7.In support of the case of the prosecution, Constables of S.E.B Station,

Tenali were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. According to them, on 27­09­2022 at 4 about 6:30 a.m., on credible information received by L.W.5, they along with

L.Ws.1 and 2 accompanied L.W.5, reached to the house of accused at Edlapalli village, and served Sec.165 Cr.P.C. notices to the accused,entered into the house along with them and found one black colour polythene bag, on verification of the said bag, found 20 liquor bottles of Daaru XO brandy each of 180ml., and on further interrogation, accused revealed that the accused purchased the liquor bottles from various government liquor shops in Tenali Town at M.R.P. price, for selling them at her price in the village for her livelihood; and L.W.5 separated one bottle as sample for the chemical analysis purpose, and arrested the accused, seized the liquor bottles and lifted sample under the cover of mediators report/Ex.P1 drafted by P.w.1 on the dictation of L.W.5, duly attested by

P.Ws.1and 2, L.Ws.1, 2 and 5, and returned to SEB Station, Tenali along with accused and case property, and L.W.5 registered Ex.P1 as a case in Crime

No.60/2022 for the offence U/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise (Amendment) Act and submitted F.I.R/Ex.P2 to the court and sent the sample/M.O.1 for chemical analysis and received report vide R.C.No.3012/2022, dt.31.10.2022 sample

No.13979 with an opinion that the sample is Indian made Liquor and after completion of further investigation, L.W.6 filed charge sheet. During cross­ examination P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that they reached to the scene of offence at 6:30 a.m., and L.W.5 informed to LWs.1 and 2 about the arrest of accused. They admitted that Ex.P1 is silent about the vehicle details in which they proceeded to the scene of offence. They denied the suggestion that L.W.5 has not issued the 5 search proceeding to the accused. The remaining cross­examination of witnesses is nothing but suggestions and denials.

8.The above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly shows that the accused was apprehended at about 6:30 A.M., at her house in Edlapalli village and found 20 liquor bottles of Darru House XO brandy in a black polythene bag each of 180 ml. Out of them, M.O.1 sample was drawn in order to send for chemical analysis. In this case, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the excise officials. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, they accompanied L.W.5 along with L.ws.1 and 2, who are mediators, but no proof like issuance of notice etc., were filed by the prosecution to prove that they served notices to L.Ws.1 and 2 to act them as mediators in a case. Further,

P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that the Ex.P1 is silent about the source of supply of contraband. In the said circumstances and in the absence of the evidence of any independent witnesses, so also documentary proof, basing on Ex.P1 and the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 who are interested witnesses, the case of prosecution cannot be believed. 

10. The remaining investigation is very formal and when the crucial document vide Ex.P1 which is confession and recovery of the accused is not believable.

11.Taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled for an 6 acquittal for the offence under Sec.34(a)of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

12.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act and she was acquitted under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and

M.O.1 vide C.P.R.No.181/2023 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of April,2024.

Sd/­J.Sri Seeta,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TENALI

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: ­None­ PW1: R. Venkata Rao PW2: Y. Sandhya

Exhibits marked 

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Special Report

Ex.P2First Information Report Ex.P3 Chemical Analysis Report For Defence: ­Nil­ 

Material Objects marked

M.O.1 ­ Sample liquor bottle.

Sd/­J.S.S., II A.J.M.F.C.,Tenali.