Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex · Wanaparthy · Telangana

Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh, Prl JCJ cum JMFC, is posted at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex, Wanaparthy, Telangana, India. 2,259 court orders on record since 2017. 16 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

2,259

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/490/2019 Acquitted

The SHO Narayanapet vs Kalal Krishnaiah Goud

30 Dec 2019

C.C.No.490 of 2019 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKURA

Monday, this the 30 th day of December, 2019

Present: SRI JEEVAN SURAJ SINGH, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, AtmakurA

C.C.No. 490 of 2019

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise SubInspector of Police, ExciseP.S.Narayanpet.

...Complainant.

And

Kalal Krishnaiah Goud S/o Bala Narsimulu Goud, Age: 40 years, Occ: Tody Seller, R/o Patherched Village of Narwa Mandal.

...Accused

Offence:34(a) of T.S.Excise Act, 1968

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and

having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Prohibition and Excise SubInspector of Narayanpet, laid

Charge sheet against accused in PCOR.No. 95/2019 for the offence punishable Under Sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2019 at about 12.45

Pm., on receipt of reliable information about the illegal possession and

C.C.No.490 of 2019 Page 2 sale of toddy, LW3/S.Narsi Reddy, the Proh. & Excise Inspector, DTF,

Mahabubnagar along with his staff and the mediators proceeded to

Pathereched village and went to the house of accused and found him under suspicious circumstances. On seeing the excise officials the accused fled away. They tried to chase him but in vain. Then they returned back and found that the accused was in possession of 3 plastic drums each of 50 liters, total comes to 150 liters. Later he took small quantity of toddy in a test tube and tested with prescribed chemical and did not find the pink layer on the surface of the test tube, which indicates that the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate. They seized the said contraband in the presence of mediators by drawing the required two samples of about 350 ml each. After conducting the panchanama they destroyed the remaining toddy on the spot and returned to the Excise Station along with samples. Later the case papersalongwithsampleswerehandedoverto

Lw4/Pw2/A.Gangadhar for further investigation. The Lw4 on satisfaction with the procedure and process followed by Lw3 issued

P.C.O.R No. 95/2019 for the offence punishable Under Sec.34(a) of

T.S Excise Act, 1968. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to chemical examiner for examination and report. The chemical examiner vide his C.E. report bearing No. 2516/2019/02, dated 22.04.2019 opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from Chloral Hydrate and Diazepam. After concluding the investigation he filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C., and he was examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and the charge there upon was framed against him for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise

Act, 1968. The contents of the charge was duly explained and read over to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C.No.490 of 2019 Page 3

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 and

PW2 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw1 and Lw3.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The prosecution examined PW1 and PW2, PW1, who was then the panch witness during the course of his evidence before this Court have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The suggestion posed by learned APP with the permission of the court was equally denied. Whereas PW2 is the Investigating Officer and he deposed about the investigation done by him pursuant to the registration PCOR. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of PW2, who is the Investigating Officer, there is no other independent corroborative evidence supporting the evidence of PW2.

In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling toddy illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in possession of toddy. Further, it is also noticed that PW2 is the Investigating Officer cum complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the guilt to the accused. Hence, there is no material and cogent evidence against the accused to connect the alleged offence against accused for the offence under sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to

C.C.No.490 of 2019 Page 4 prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.75/2019 and the same shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court this the 30 th day of December, 2019.

Sd/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ATMAKURA.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: Pw1. Chakali Sanjanna/ Panch witness. None Pw2. A.Gangadhar / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P2: PCOR No.95 of 2019. Ex.P3: FSL Report. Ex.P4: Search Memo. ::Material objects marked for:: Nil Sd/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ATMAKURA.

C.C.No.490 of 2019 Page 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: ATMAKURA

CC No. 461 of 2019

1Calendar Case No.:461/2019 2Name of the P.S.:Excise Atmakur 3Section of Law:Sec. 34(a) of T.S Excise Act.

4Crime No.:PCOR No. 157/2018 5Name and Boya Hanmanthu S/o Thimmappa, description of Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Mitta accused Nandimalla Village of Amarachintha Mandal.

6Date of offence:01/12/18 7Date of complaint:01/12/18 8Date of :01/12/18 Apprehension 9Released on bail: 10 Commencement of :21/11/19 trail 11 Close of Trial:27/11/19 12 Date of Judgment:29/11/19 13 Reasons for delay:The prosecution witness has not produced by the Police within time.

14 Sentence of order:Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.97/2019 and the same shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

C.C.No.490 of 2019 Page 6

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AtmakurA.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Copy submitted to The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar.

CC/479/2019 Acquitted

SHo Proh and Excise cases Narwa vs Boya Raju

31 Dec 2019

C.C.No.479 of 2019 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKURA

Tuesday, this the 31 st day of December, 2019

Present: SRI JEEVAN SURAJ SINGH, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, AtmakurA

C.C.No. 479 of 2019

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise SubInspector of Police,

Excise P.S. Mahabubnagar. ...Complainant

And

Boya Raju S/o B.Shantha Laxmanna, Age: 29 years, Occ: Toddy Vendor, R/o Muchinthala Village, C.C.Kunta Mandal.

Mahabubnagar District. ...Accused.

Offence:34(a) of T.S.Excise Act, 1968

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence or order :Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. *** This case coming up before me for final hearing on 27.12.2019 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri A.Narayana Goud, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Prohibition and Excise SubInspector of Mahabubnagar, laid Charge sheet against accused in PCOR.No. 166/2019 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2019 at about 05.10

Pm., on receipt of reliable information about the illegal possession and sale of toddy, LW3/E.Mogulaiah, the Proh. & Excise SubInspector,

Mahabubnagar along with his staff and the mediators proceeded to

Muchinthala village and went to the hut of accused and found him under suspicious circumstance. On enquiry, he revealed his

C.C.No.479 of 2019 Page 2 particulars and he was found in possession (09) plastic crates of toddy, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650 ml., filled with toddy. Later he took small quantity of toddy from each bottle in a test tube and tested with prescribed chemical and did not find the pink layer on the surface of the test tube, which indicates that the toddy is free from Chloral Hydrate. They seized the said contraband in the presence of mediators by drawing the required two samples of about 350 ml each. After conducting the panchanama they destroyed the remaining toddy on the spot. Basing on the panchanama a case was registered against the accused vide P.C.O.R No. 166/2019 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act,1968 and issued

Sec.41A Cr.P.C notice to accused. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to chemical examiner for examination and report. The chemical examiner vide his

C.E. report bearing No. 6170/2019/1 dated 26.09.2019 opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from Chloral Hydrate and

Diazepam. After completing the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of T.S

Excise Act, 1968.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C., and he is examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and the charge there upon was framed against him for the offence under sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act, 1968.

The contents of the charge was duly explained and read over to him in

Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

C.C.No.479 of 2019 Page 3

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW3, PW1 and PW2, who were then the panch witnesses during the course of their evidence before this Court have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The suggestion posed by learned APP with the permission of the court was equally denied. Whereas PW3 is the Investigating Officer and he deposed about the investigation done by him pursuant to the registration PCOR. On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of PW3, who is the Investigating Officer, there is no other independent corroborative evidence supporting the evidence of PW3.

In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling toddy illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in possession of toddy. Further, it is also noticed that PW3 is the Investigating Officer cum complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the guilt to the accused. Hence, there is no material and cogent evidence against the accused to connect the alleged offence against accused for the offence under sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.191/2019 and the same shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this

the 31 st day of December, 2019.

C.C.No.479 of 2019 Page 4

Sd/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ATMAKURA.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: Pw1. Kavali Shiva / Panch witness. None Pw2. K.Thirupathi Reddy / Panch witness. Pw3. E.Mogulaiah / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1: Portion of signature of Pw2 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3: PCOR No.166 of 2019. Ex.P4: FSL Report.

::Material objects marked for:: Nil Sd/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ATMAKURA.

C.C.No.479 of 2019 Page 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: ATMAKUR

CC No. 452 of 2019

1Calendar Case No.:452/2019 2Name of the P.S.:Excise Mahabubnagar 3Section of Law:Sec. 34(a) of T.S Excise Act.

4Crime No.:PCOR No. 258/2018 5Name and Shankarolla Narsimulu S/o Ramulu description of Goud, Age: 52 years, Occ: Toddy accused Vendor, R/o Dasarpally Village, C.C.Kumnta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District 6Date of offence:26/09/18 7Date of complaint:26/09/18 8Date of :26/09/18 Apprehension 9Released on bail: 10 Commencement of :26/11/19 trail 11 Close of Trial:03/12/19 12 Date of Judgment:04/12/19 13 Reasons for delay:The prosecution witness has not produced by the Police within time.

14 Sentence of order:Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/sec. 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.275/2018 and the same shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AtmakurA.

Copy submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No.479 of 2019 Page 6

Copy submitted to The Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar.

CC/200/2021 Acquitted

Proh, and Excise SI, vs Kethavath Anjilanna Naik

07 Oct 2021

C.C.No.200 of 2021 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKUR-A

This the 07 th day of October, 2021

Present: SRI JEEVAN SURAJ SINGH, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A

C.C.No. 200 of 2021

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police,

Excise P.S.Mahabubnagar. ...Complainant.

And

Kethavath Anjilanna Naik S/o Obya Naik, Age: 37 years,

Occ: Agriculture, R/o Undyal Thanda of C.C.Kunta Mandal. ...Accused.

Offence:U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.54/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time ***

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 04.10.2021 in the presence of Sri Sri MKQ.Baqhtiyar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.Muktheshwar, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Mahabubnagar filed

Charge sheet against the accused in PCOR.No.53/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.03.2021 at about 06.00 A.M., on receipt of reliable information about the illegal possession and Transportation of I.D.Liquor, LW3/PW3/E.Mogulaiah, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Mahabubnagar along with his staff and the

C.C.No.200 of 2021 Page 2 mediators Proceeded towards the road leading from Undyal Thanda to

Undyal Village of C.C.Kunta Mandal and conducting the search operation by checking the suspected vehicles and persons and they found the accused was coming on his bike under suspicious circumstances. On seeing the Excise Officials he tried to escape by leaving the Bajaja Auto

LTD Platina BSII bike bearing Registration No.AP22-TKTR-7915. They tried to catch hold of him but in vain. Then they returned back and found 02 liters bottles of IML in a plastic bottle. On enquiry they came to know the particulars of accused. Later he seized the said contraband in the presence of mediators, drawn the required two samples of about 350 ml by conducting the panchanama. Basing on the panchanama he issued

P.C.O.R No. 53/2021 for the offence punishable U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S

Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to the chemical examiner for examination and report. Whereas the remaining quantity of the seized contraband was deposited before the

Office of the Deputy Commissioner, P & E, Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner vide his C.E. report bearing

No.222/2021/2, dated 31.03.2021 opined that the sample contain illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. After completing of the investigation he filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section- 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act, 1995.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., and he is examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and the charge there upon was framed against him for the offence punishable under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995. The contents of the charge was duly explained and read over to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

C.C.No.200 of 2021 Page 3

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW3, PW1 and PW2, who were then the panch witnesses during the course of their evidence before this

Court have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The suggestion posed by learned APP with the permission of the court was equally denied. Whereas Pw3 is the Investigating Officer and he deposed about the investigation done by him pursuant to the registration PCOR.

On perusal of entire material on record, except the evidence of Pw3, who is the Investigating Officer, there is no other independent corroborative testimony supporting the evidence of Pw3. In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was in possession and transportation of I.D.Liquor illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in possession of I.D.Liquor. Further, it is also noticed that Pw3 is the Investigating Officer cum complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the guilt to the accused.

Hence, there is no material and cogent evidence against the accused to connect him with the alleged commission of the offence punishable under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 and

C.C.No.200 of 2021 Page 4 accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.54/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this the 07th day of October, 2021.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ATMAKUR-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: Pw1. Kethavath Ravi Naik / Panch witness. None Pw2. Kethavath Ramulu Naik / Panch witness. Pw3. E.Mogulaiah / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1: Portion of signature of Pw1 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Portion of signature of Pw2 on panchanama. Ex.P3: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P4: PCOR No.53 of 2021. Ex.P5: FSL Report. ::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ATMAKUR-A.

CC/494/2019 Acquitted

Proh and Excie Cases, Atmakur vs Edigi Snajamma

30 Dec 2019

C.C.No.494 of 2019 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKURA

Monday, this the 30 th day of December, 2019

Present: SRI JEEVAN SURAJ SINGH, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, AtmakurA

C.C.No. 494 of 2019

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise SubInspector of Police, ExciseP.S.Atmakur.

...Complainant.

And

Edigi Sanjamma S/o Edigi Masanna, Age: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o Earladinne Village,

Narva Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ...Accused.

Offence:34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence or order :Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

***

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 26.12.2019 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri A.Narayana Goud, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Prohibition and Excise SubInspector of Atmakur, laid

Charge sheet against the accused in PCOR.No. 82/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

C.C.No.494 of 2019 Page 2

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 10.0.2016 at about 03.1

Pm., on receipt of reliable information about the illegal possession and sale of toddy, LW3/M.A.Waheed Khan, the Proh. & Excise Inspector, Gadwal along with his staff and the mediators proceeded to Earladinne village and went to the hut of the accused and found him under suspicious circumstances. On seeing the excise officials the accused fled away.

They tried to chase her but in vain. Then they returned back and found that the accused was in possession of (02) crates of toddy, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650 ml., filled with toddy.

Later he took small quantity of toddy from each bottle in a test tube and tested with prescribed chemical and did not find the pink layer on the surface of the test tube, which indicates that the toddy is free from

Chloral Hydrate. They seized the said contraband in the presence of mediators by drawing the required two samples of about 350 ml each.

After conducting the panchanama they destroyed the remaining toddy on the spot and returned to the Excise Station along with samples.

Later the case papers along with samples were handed over to Lw4 for further investigation. The Lw4 on satisfaction with the procedure and process followed by Lw3 issued P.C.O.R No. 82/2016 for the offence punishable Under Sec34(a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to chemical examiner for examination and report. The chemical examiner vide his C.E. report bearing No. 4130/2016/1 dated 21.06.2016 opined that the sample is fermented toddy free from Chloral Hydrate and Diazepam. Later the accused was arrested and released by issuing a notice under Sec41A of Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to her in compliance under section 207 Cr.P.C., and she is examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and the charge there upon was framed against her for the offence punishable under Section. 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968. The contents of the charge was duly explained and

C.C.No.494 of 2019 Page 3 read over to her in Telugu, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lws.3 and 4.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

In the absence of independent corroborative evidence, it cannot be said that the accused was selling toddy illegally. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was in possession of toddy. Further, it is also noticed that PW3 is the Investigating Officer cum complainant in the present case and in such a case, his sole testimony cannot be relied to believe the prosecution case and to connect the guilt to the accused. Hence, there is no material and cogent evidence against the accused to connect the alleged offence

C.C.No.494 of 2019 Page 4 against accused for the offence under sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence she is entitled for acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly she is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.263/2016 and the same shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court this the 27 th day of December, 2019.

Sd/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ATMAKURA.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: Pw1. K.Muruthi / Panch witness. None Pw2. K.Bheemanna / Panch witness. Pw3. M.D Waheeduddin / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P2: PCOR No.82 of 2016. Ex.P3: FSL Report.

::Material objects marked for:: Nil Sd/ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ATMAKURA.

C.C.No.494 of 2019 Page 5

CC/191/2021 Acquitted

Proh. and Excise SI, vs Kethavath Venkatanna Naik

08 Oct 2021

C.C.No.191 of 2021 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

ATMAKUR-A

This the 07 th day of October, 2021

Present: SRI JEEVAN SURAJ SINGH, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur-A

C.C.No. 191 of 2021

Between:

State through Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police,

Excise P.S.Mahabubnagar. ...Complainant.

And

Kethavath Venkatanna Naik S/o Ramulu Naik, Age: 34 years,

Occ: Agriculture, R/o Undyal Thanda of C.C.Kunta Mandal. ...Accused.

Offence:U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995.

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.11/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time ***

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 05.10.2021 in the presence of Sri Sri MKQ.Baqhtiyar, A.P.P. for the State and of Sri.Muktheshwar, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Mahabubnagar filed

Charge sheet against the accused in PCOR.No.274/2021 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.09.2021 at about 09.00 A.M., on receipt of reliable information about the illegal possession and Transportation of Black I.D.Liquor, LW3/PW3/E.Mogulaiah, the

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Mahabubnagar along with his staff

C.C.No.191 of 2021 Page 2 and the mediators Proceeded to Undyal village and went to the house of accused and found nobody in the house. On enquiry with the panchas they came to know the particulars of the accused. Then he prepared search memo and pasted on the door of the house of accused. During the search of the house they found 01 liters of ID Liquor in a plastic bottle. Later he seized the said contraband in the presence of mediators, drawn the required two samples of about 350 ml by conducting the panchanama. Basing on the panchanama he issued P.C.O.R No. 274/2020 for the offence punishable

U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused. The sample so drawn was deposited before the court with a requisition to send it to the chemical examiner for examination and report. Whereas the remaining quantity of the seized contraband was deposited before the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, P & E,

Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The chemical examiner vide his C.E.

report bearing No.5584/2020/3, dated 28.10.2020 opined that the sample contain illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. After completing of the investigation he filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under section- 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused.

5.At trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

7.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for accused.

C.C.No.191 of 2021 Page 3

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW3, PW1 and PW2, who were then the panch witnesses during the course of their evidence before this

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property deposited before this court vide CPR No.11/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Typist, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the

08th day of October, 2021.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

C.C.No.191 of 2021 Page 4

ATMAKUR-A.

:: Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: Pw1. Kethavath Panthulu Naik / Panch witness. None Pw2. Kethavath Seeth Ram Naik / Panch witness. Pw3. E.Mogulaiah / Investigating Officer.

::Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Defence:Nil

Ex.P1: Portion of signature of Pw1 on panchanama. Ex.P2: Portion of signature of Pw2 on panchanama. Ex.P3: Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P4: PCOR No.274 of 2020. Ex.P5: FSL Report. ::Material objects marked for:: -Nil-

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ATMAKUR-A.

Order Record 2,240 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/191/2021	Proh. and Excise SI, vs Kethavath Venkatanna Naik	08 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/192/2021	Proh, and Excise SI, vs Kethavath Manemma	08 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/100/2020	The SHO Excise vs Hotel Thirupathaiah Goud	07 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/194/2021	Proh, and Excise SI, vs Kethavath Laxmamma	07 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/200/2021	Proh, and Excise SI, vs Kethavath Anjilanna Naik	07 Oct 2021	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/313/2020	SHO Excise Mahabubnagar vs Nenavath Thukya Naik	07 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/88/2021	Proh and Excise cases Atmakur vs Vadthyavath Mangamma	05 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/100/2020	The SHO Excise vs Hotel Thirupathaiah Goud	05 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/109/2020	The SHO Atmakur Excise Atmakur vs Karre Munemma	05 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/193/2021	Proh, and Excise SI, vs Lambadi Keshamma	05 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/201/2021	Proh, and Excise SI, vs Kethavath Venkatanna Naik	05 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
DVC/3/2021	Smt Mattappa Ramadevi vs Mattapa Suresh	05 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/92/2021	The station House officer Prohibition and Excise cases, Atmakur vs Nunsavath Laxmi	04 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/320/2020	SHO Proh and Excise SI Atmakur vs Edigi Naresh Goud	04 Oct 2021	Judgement	—
CC/90/2021	Prohibition and Excise cases, Atmakur vs Mudavath Hanumanthu	30 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/265/2020	The SHO prohibiuton and Excise Atmakur vs Mudavath Padma	30 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/271/2020	The SHO prohibition and Excise Atmakur vs P.Naganna	30 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/318/2020	SHO Excise Atmakur vs Sabavath Venkatamma	30 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/666/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Gurram Bhargav	29 Sep 2021	Judgement	Convicted
CC/89/2021	The statition hosue officer, Proh and Excise Cases, Mahabubnagar vs Kethavath shanthamma	28 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/319/2020	SHO Proh and Excise SI Atmakur vs Pathalavath Mangamma	28 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/322/2020	SHO Proh and Excise SI Atmakur vs Edigi Mahender	28 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
OS/79/2019	Harizan Pedda Thimmanna vs P. Thirumal Rao	24 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/321/2020	SHO Proh and Excise SI Atmakur vs Mudavath Manemma	24 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/190/2020	The Station Houe officer, Excise Atmakur vs Mudavath Lingamma	23 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
MC/20/2017	Avula Nikil Kumar vs Avula Ravinder	22 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/95/2021	The station House officer Prohibition and Excise cases, Atmakur vs Kalaboina Thirupathaiah	20 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/270/2020	The SHO prohibition and Excise Atmakur vs Pathlavath Shankaramma	20 Sep 2021	Decree	—
CC/247/2020	proh and Excise Atmakur vs Vadtyavath Ramesh	17 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/96/2021	The station House officer Prohibition and Excise cases, Atmakur vs Giramma	16 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/735/2018	K.Mallikarjun vs Kytay Srinivasulu	15 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
PRC/12/2021	PS KhillaGhanpur vs Gonela Ramesh	15 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/253/2020	proh and Excise Atmakur vs Mudavath Govindu Naik	13 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/4/2020	Sri Rachamalla Subba Rao vs Kammari parashuramudu	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	Convicted
CC/15/2020	Vaddenamoni Muralaiah vs Vaddenavari Bhaskar	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/16/2020	Vaddenavari Bhaskar vs Vaddenavari Muralaiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/25/2021	Pasupula Gopal vs Lakkavarm Sudhakar	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/38/2018	Avula Raghavendra vs Duppa Ravindra	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/41/2021	Jeelam Chinna Kurmaiah vs Karangi Sateesh	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/80/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Gandham Krishnaiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/90/2021	PS Khilla Ghanpur vs Gunti Raju	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/107/2021	PS Kothakota vs Joshi Ravikanth	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/118/2018	Smt.Janakanoor Chandrakala vs Smt.Bojjigani Mariyamma	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/124/2020	Kommu Chennaiah vs Uppari venkatesh	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/132/2021	PS Srirangapur vs Vanguru Venkatamma	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/140/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Puchala Sharath Kumar Reddy	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/160/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Cheerla Uppari Krishnaiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/184/2021	PS Kothakota vs V Anand Kumar	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/187/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Cheerla Uppari Krishnaiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/218/2014	P.S.Kothakota vs Ali Hasan	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/229/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Md Khasim	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/283/2017	Smt Arramoni Choudeshwary vs Manapadu Krishnaiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/288/2019	Chinchelapeta Sharan Prasad vs G.Venkat Reddy	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/305/2017	Md.Dasthagiri vs S.Kiran Kumar Goud	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/346/2021	PS Srirangapur vs Shanku Balaraju	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/379/2021	PS Kothakota vs Md Mahimood	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/423/2021	PS Kothakota vs Santosh	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/427/2018	Nandhipeta Praveen vs Maddelamanu Rajender	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/438/2021	PS Srirangapur vs Julakani Shanker	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/460/2021	PS Srirangapur vs Singanamoni Mahesh	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/506/2018	Gouni Venkat Reddy vs Elgonda Buchanna @ Earla Buchanna	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/511/2021	PS Pebbair vs Gandipalli Swami Goud	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/521/2018	Devani Sailu vs Vadder Shekar	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/533/2019	Kethavath Manisha vs Kethavath mallesh	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/540/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Nandhimalla Savaraiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/559/2021	PS Srirangapur vs Vssathyanarayana mentapalli	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/561/2021	PS Wanaaprthy Town vs Vsmahamood Fhayum	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/570/2019	Bolle Maddileti vs Bandari Nagaraju	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/577/2021	PS Pebbair vs Yerukali Yella Krishna	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/585/2020	Through telangana State Police, S.Raghavender Reddy SI of Police, Pebbair PS. vs Acholi Yellaiah shetty	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/586/2021	PS Kothakota vs Manjunath	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/587/2021	PS Kothakota vs Vishwanadam Narender	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/588/2021	PS Kothakota vs Mangalai Laxmaiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/589/2021	PS Kothakota vs MD Yusef	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/590/2021	PS Kothakota vs Kummari Rajedra Prasad	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/591/2021	PS Kothakota vs Gadapu Shekar	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/592/2021	PS Kothakota vs MD. Moinuddin	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/593/2021	PS Kothakota vs Prasanth	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/594/2021	PS Kothakota vs Guntha Nagishetty	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/595/2021	PS Kothakota vs Konda Yadaiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/596/2021	PS Khillaghanpur vs Sonnathi Murali Krishna	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/597/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Raghuveer Eelluri	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/598/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Manusani Srinivasulu	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/600/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Telugu Venkatesh	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/601/2021	PS Pebbair vs Janumpally Baleeshwaraiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/602/2021	PS Pebbair vs Janumpally Baleeswaraiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/605/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Vsashok pole	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/606/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Gurram Bhargav Kumar	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/607/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Kistaiah Guntha	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/608/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Venkatramana Kotra	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/610/2021	PS Wanaparthy Town vs Md Abudul Gaffar	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/612/2021	PS Pebbair vs Yerukali Yella Krishna	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/613/2021	prohibition and excise inspector,Kothakota vs Raja Manemma	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/614/2021	prohibition and excise inspector,Kothakot vs Udari Ramulu	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/615/2021	prohibition and excise inspector,Kothakot vs Damodar Reddy	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/616/2021	prohibition and excise inspector,Kothakot vs A.Bhagyamma	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/617/2021	prohibition and excise inspector,Kothakot vs Vsosman	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/618/2021	prohibition and excise inspector,Kothakot vs Erapaga Shantaiah	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/619/2021	prohibition and excise inspector,Kothakot vs Kallimgali	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
CC/620/2020	Through Telangaga State Police, K.Ravi Kumar PC.2303 of Ghanpur PS. vs Pogula Srikanth	11 Sep 2021	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 2,240 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2021		14
Sep 2021		222
Aug 2021		13
Jul 2021		48
Apr 2021		49
Mar 2021		39
Feb 2021		35
Jan 2021		8
Dec 2020		38
Nov 2020		26
Oct 2020		2
Sep 2020		15

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh handled?

Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh has handled 2259 court orders since 2017 at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 49 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh hear?

Based on available records, Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh currently posted?

Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh is posted as Prl JCJ cum JMFC at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex, Wanaparthy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh available online?

Yes. 16 judgments by Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh dispose cases?

Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh disposes approximately 49 cases per month, based on 2259 orders handled over their tenure at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh serving?

Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh has been serving at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 59%

STC 27%

OS 8%

PRC 4%

MC 1%

DVC 1%

EP 0%

Posting History

Aug 2021 — Oct 2021

Prl JCJ cum JMFC · 181 orders
Aug 2021 — Oct 2021

I Addl JCJ cum JMFC
Aug 2021 — Oct 2021

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC
Mar 2020 — Oct 2021

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 350 orders
Dec 2018 — Jan 2020

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 1,090 orders
Dec 2017 — Aug 2018

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 638 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Convicted 2

Other Judges at this Court

D.ramakanth

Principal District and Sessions Judge

4 orders

Karthik Reddy T

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

1,482 orders

Smt.Bandari Srilatha

I Addl JCJ cum JMFC

1,258 orders

Ms. N.Ashwini

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC

130 orders

Smt. G.kalarchana

Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Session...

215 orders

Smt.K.Kavitha

Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Assi...

196 orders

← View all judges at Wanaparthy, PDJ Court Complex

Sri. Jeevan Suraj Singh

Monday, this the 30 th day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 490 of 2019

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: ATMAKUR­A

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Tuesday, this the 31 st day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 479 of 2019

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section 34(a) of T.S. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: ATMAKUR

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR-A

This the 07 th day of October, 2021

C.C.No. 200 of 2021

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

ATMAKUR-A.

ATMAKUR-A.

Monday, this the 30 th day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 494 of 2019

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

ATMAKUR-A

This the 07 th day of October, 2021

C.C.No. 191 of 2021

could able to prove the offence against the accused under

section. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

ATMAKUR-A.

ATMAKUR-A.

AT :: ATMAKURA