Sri K. Bharath Chandra

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE

Present : - Sri.K.Bharath Chandra

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the First (1st) day of August, 2022

Calendar Case No.262 of 2022

[Cr.No.12/2022 of Thamballapalle PS]

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thamballapalle police station …. Complainant And : -

1.Bukke Malleswari, W/o Late Prasad Naik, 32 years, Kotakonda Eguva

Thanda, H/o Kotakonda, Thamballapalle Mandal

2.Bukke Rajamma, W/o Late Shankar Naik, 42 years, Kotakonda Eguva Thanda, H/o Kotakonda, Thamballapalle Mandal …. Accused

This case has come up on 01.08.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri.S.Gaffar Saheb, Advocate for accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following –

J U D G M E N T

1) The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Thamballapalle police station filed charge against A1 and A2 in Cr.No.12/2022 for the offence under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

2) Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the case are recapitulated as under:

On 22.01.2022 at about 1.00 PM, PW.1/B.Sahadevi, Sub Inspector,

Thamballapalle police station along with her staff conducted raids and found A1 and A2 at a distance of 100 meters from Kotakonda Eguva Thanda,

Thamballapalle Mandal in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack and after lifting sample, seized the remaining contraband under cover of police proceedings. A1 and A2 were brought to the police station and a case in Cr.No.12/2022 was - 2 - registered against A1 and A2, sent them to the court for remand. The seized property was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor for issuing necessary proceedings. After completion of investigation, PW.1 laid charge sheet in this case against the accused.

3) In this case, cognizance was taken under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act against A1 and A2. Copies of the documents were furnished to them u/s.207 of Cr.P.C, on their appearance.

4) A1 and A2 were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. A charge 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act was framed against them, read over and explained in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1.

6) After the closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witness. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused, and the evidence of defence is accordingly closed.

7) Heard both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt?

9) POINT:To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined B.Sahadevi, Sub Inspector as PW.1 and M.Bramesh,

Police Constable as PW.2.

10) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 commonly goes to show that on 22.01.2022 at about 1.00 PM, PW.1 along with her staff conducted raids and found A1 and A2 at a distance of 100 meters from Kotakonda Eguva Thanda,

Thamballapalle Mandal in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack, drew sample for the purpose of chemical analysis, the same was seized by drafting police - 3 - proceedings/Ex.P.1, registered the same as case under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, sent A1 and A2 to the court for remand. The remaining property was sent to Superintendent of Police, Chittoor for necessary proceedings and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of

Investigation, PW.1 filed charge sheet.

11) It is admitted by PWs.1 and 2 that there is residential locality at a distance of 100 meters from the scene of offence. They also admitted that they did not secure mediators before visiting scene of offence and did not issue any notices to the persons who refused to act as mediators.

12) The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu v. The State of A.P. 1while dealing with a case of a similar circumstance, observed as follows :

“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of Section 100 Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

13) In the case at hand also, though there is ample opportunity, no efforts were made by police officials to secure any mediators. When there is residential locality nearer to the scene of offence, it is very easy for police officials to ask any responsible citizen in that vicinity itself to act as mediators for seizure and arrest and if anybody refuses, the police officials have got ample power to issue summons to them to act as mediators. But there is no proper explanation given by PWs.1 and 2 as to why they could not secure mediators in this case. When such power is vested in them, not securing any mediators in this case, creates a doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether they have really arrested the accused when the accused were in possession of contraband.

1 2009 SCCA.P. 570 :: 2009 (4) APLJ 57 - 4 -

14) A reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are police officials, does not inspire any confidence and in the absence of independent testimony, believing their evidence is always fraught with danger of miscarriage of justice.

Therefore in the circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 cannot be relied upon and there by the Prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they are charged and the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.

15) In the result, this Court found A1 and A2 not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, and hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 received vide CPR No.382/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1 st day of August, 2022.

Sd/- K.BHARATH CHANDRA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined :

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1 B.Sahadevi Nil

PW.2 M.Bramesh

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Ex.P.1 22.01.2022 Police Proceedings Ex.P.2 22.01.2022 FIR in Cr.No.12/2022 of Thamballapalle PS Ex.P.3 18.02.2022 Analysis report

Exhibits marked for Accused Nil

Material Objects marked for Prosecution M.O.1 One sample bottle of ID arrack

Material Objects marked for Accused Nil

JMFC, TBPL

- 5 -

FORM NO.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calendar and cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle

1. Offence : 22.01.2022

2. Report of complaint : 22.01.2022

3. Apprehension of accused : 22.01.2022

4. Release on bail : 25.01.2022

5. Commencement of trial : 12.07.2022

6. Close of trial : 12.07.2022

7. Sentence of order : 01.08.2022

8. Explanation of delay and : -- remarks

Judgment in Calendar Case No.262 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle

Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, Thamballapalle police station [Cr.No.12/2022]

Name of accused Age years Father/Husband’s name (1) (2) (3)

1.Bukke Malleswari 1.32 1.Late Prasad Naik

2.Bukke Rajamma 2.42 2.Late Shankar Naik

Religion Calling Residence Mandal (4) (5) (6) (7)

Both are r/o Kotakonda Both are Both are living Both belongs to Eguva Thanda, H/o Hindus by coolie Thamballapalle Mandal Kotakonda

Offence : Sec.7 (A) of A.P.P. Act - Production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack

Sec.8 (e) of A.P.P. Act - Punishment in contravenes the provisions of Sec.7(a) of the Act - 6 -

Finding : A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act

Sentence : In the result, this Court found A1 and A2 not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, and hence they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 received vide CPR No.382/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Sd/- K.BHARATH CHANDRA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE

Present : - Sri.K.Bharath Chandra

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Friday, the Twenty-Ninth (29th) day of July, 2022

Calendar Case No.198 of 2022

[Cr.No.221/2021 of PTM PS]

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub Inspector, PTM police station …. Complainant And : -

Vadnala Ramakrishna, S/o Ramappa, 38 years, D.No.15-47, Janupu Street, B.Kothakota …. Accused

This case has come up on 29.07.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.D.Siddalinga Reddy, Advocate for accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following –

J U D G M E N T

1) The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, PTM police station filed charge against the accused in Cr.No.221/2021 for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

2) Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the case are recapitulated as under:

On 06.10.2021 at about 8.00 AM PW.1/C.Madhu Ramachandrudu, Sub

Inspector of Police Peddatippasamudram Police Station along with his staff conducted raids and found the accused at Jinkalamitta cross, H/o Kandukuru,

PTM Mandal and on seeing the police, accused tried to escape from the place but they caught hold of him and on search they found 42 tetra packets of Old Tavern

TM whisky each of 180 ml., 122 tetra packets of Old Admiral VSOP brandy each of 180 ml. in his possession illegally. After collecting the samples for chemical - 2 - analysis, the same was seized by drafting police proceedings, arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of Investigation, charge sheet was laid.

3) In this case, cognizance was taken under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act against the accused. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C., on his appearance.

4) Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, and framed charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against accused, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 and M.O.2.

6) After the closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against accused in the evidence of the prosecution.

Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence and hence the defence evidence is closed.

7) Heard both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt?

9) POINT:To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined C.Madhu Ramachandrudu, Sub Inspector of Police as

PW.1 and B.Murthy Naik, Police Constable as PW.2.

10) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 commonly goes to show that on 06.10.2021 at about 8.00 AM they conducted raids along with other staff at

Jinkalamitta cross, H/o Kandukuru, PTM Mandal and found the accused in illegal possession of 42 tetra packets of Old Tavern TM whisky each of 180 ml., 122 tetra packets of Old Admiral VSOP brandy each of 180 ml. in a bag, drew samples for the purpose of chemical analysis, the same was seized by drafting Police - 3 -

Proceedings/Ex.P1, registered the same as case under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act, forwarded him to the court for remand, sent the remaining property to

Superintendent of Police, Chittoor for necessary proceedings and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of Investigation, he filed charge sheet.

11) It is admitted by PWs.1 and 2 that there is residential locality at a distance of 600 meters from the scene of offence and they further admitted that they did not secure mediators before reaching the scene of offence and did not issue any notices to the persons who refused to act as mediators.

12) The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu v. The State of A.P. 1while dealing with a case of a similar circumstance, observed as follows :

“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of Section 100 Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

13) In the case at hand also, though there is ample opportunity, no visible efforts were put by Police officials in securing mediators. When there is residential locality nearer to the scene of offence, it is very easy for police officials to ask any responsible citizen in the vicinity of alleged seizure to act as mediator for seizure and arrest and if anybody refuses, they got ample power to issue summons to them to act as mediators. When such power is vested in them, not securing any mediators in this case, in the absence of proper explanation, creates a doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether they have really arrested the accused when the accused was in possession of liquor.

1 2009 SCC A.P. 570 :: 2009 (4) APLJ 57 - 4 -

14) A reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are police officials, does not inspire any confidence and in the absence of independent testimony, believing their evidence is always fraught with danger of miscarriage of justice.

Therefore in the circumstances of the case, this court feels that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and as such the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

15) In the result, this court found the accused not guilty of the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property i.e.,

M.O.1 and M.O.2 received vide C.P.R.No.396/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- K.BHARATH CHANDRA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined :

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1 C.Madhu Ramachandrudu Nil

PW.2 B.Murthy Naik

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Ex.P.1 06.10.2021 Police Proceedings Ex.P.2 06.10.2021 FIR in Cr.No.221/2021 of PTM PS Ex.P.3 10.11.2021 Analysis report Exhibits marked for Accused Nil

Material Objects marked for Prosecution M.O.1 One sample packet of Old Tavern TM whisky of 180 ml M.O.2 One sample packet of Old Admiral VSOP brandy of 180 ml

Material Objects marked for Accused Nil

JMFC, TBPL

- 5 -

FORM NO.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calendar and cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle

1. Offence : 06.10.2021

2. Report of complaint : 06.10.2021

3. Apprehension of accused : 06.10.2021

4. Release on bail : 08.10.2021

5. Commencement of trial : 11.07.2022

6. Close of trial : 11.07.2022

7. Sentence of order : 29.07.2022

8. Explanation of delay and : -- remarks

Judgment in Calendar Case No.198 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle

Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, PTM police station [Cr.No.221/2021]

Name of accused Age years Father/Husband’s name (1) (2) (3)

Vadnala Ramakrishna 38 Ramappa

Religion Calling Residence Mandal (4) (5) (6) (7)

Hindu Coolie B.Kothakota B.Kothakota

Offence : Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act - Penalty for illegal imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant

Finding : Accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act - 6 -

Sentence : In the result, this court found the accused not guilty of the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property i.e., M.O.1 and M.O.2 received vide C.P.R.No.396/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.BHARATH CHANDRA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE

Present : - Sri.K.Bharath Chandra

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Friday, the Twenty-Ninth (29th) day of July, 2022

Calendar Case No.240 of 2022

[Cr.No.232 /2021 of PTM PS]

Between:-

The State represented by the Sub Inspector, PTM police station …. Complainant And : -

Kunchapu Chandra Sekhar, S/o K.Nagappa, 28 years, 2-58/3, Thakatamvaripalle village, B.Kothakota Mandal …. Accused

This case has come up on 29.07.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.D.Srinivasulu, Advocate for accused, and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following –

J U D G M E N T

1) The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, PTM police station filed charge against the accused in Cr.No.232/2021 for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

2) Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the case are recapitulated as under:

On 31.10.2021 at about 8.00 AM PW.1/C.Madhu Ramachandrudu, Sub

Inspector of Police Peddatippasamudram Police Station along with his staff conducted raids and found the accused at Gangampalle cross, H/o

Thummarakunta, PTM Mandal and on seeing the police, accused tried to escape from the place but they caught hold of him and on search they found 47 tetra packets of Haywards cheers whisky each of 180 ml., 25 tetra packets of Old

Tavern TM whisky each of 180 ml in his possession illegally. After collecting the - 2 - samples for chemical analysis, the same was seized by drafting police proceedings, arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of Investigation, charge sheet was laid.

3) In this case, cognizance was taken under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act against the accused. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C., on his appearance.

4) Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, and framed charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against accused, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 and M.O.2.

6) After the closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against accused in the evidence of the prosecution.

Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence and hence the defence evidence is closed.

7) Heard both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt?

9) POINT:To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined C.Madhu Ramachandrudu, Sub Inspector of Police as

PW.1 and B.Murthy Naik, Police Constable as PW.2.

10) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 commonly goes to show that on 31.10.2021 at about 8.00 AM they conducted raids along with other staff at

Gangampalle cross, H/o Thummarakunta, PTM Mandal and found the accused in illegal possession of 47 tetra packets of Haywards cheers whisky each of 180 ml., 25 tetra packets of Old Tavern TM whisky each of 180 ml in a bag, drew samples - 3 - for the purpose of chemical analysis, the same was seized by drafting Police

Proceedings/Ex.P1, registered the same as case under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act, forwarded him to the court for remand, sent the remaining property to

Superintendent of Police, Chittoor for necessary proceedings and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of Investigation, he filed charge sheet.

11) It is admitted by PWs.1 and 2 that there is residential locality at a distance of 600 meters from the scene of offence and they further admitted that they did not secure mediators before reaching the scene of offence and did not issue any notices to the persons who refused to act as mediators.

12) The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu v. The State of A.P. 1while dealing with a case of a similar circumstance, observed as follows :

“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of Section 100 Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

13) In the case at hand also, though there is ample opportunity, no visible efforts were put by Police officials in securing mediators. When there is residential locality nearer to the scene of offence, it is very easy for police officials to ask any responsible citizen in the vicinity of alleged seizure to act as mediator for seizure and arrest and if anybody refuses, they got ample power to issue summons to them to act as mediators. When such power is vested in them, not securing any mediators in this case, in the absence of proper explanation, creates a doubt in the mind of this Court as to whether they have really arrested the accused when the accused was in possession of liquor.

1 2009 SCC A.P. 570 :: 2009 (4) APLJ 57 - 4 -

14) A reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are police officials, does not inspire any confidence and in the absence of independent testimony, believing their evidence is always fraught with danger of miscarriage of justice.

Therefore in the circumstances of the case, this court feels that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused and as such the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

15) In the result, this court found the accused not guilty of the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property i.e.,

M.O.1 and M.O.2 received vide C.P.R.No.333/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- K.BHARATH CHANDRA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined :

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1 C.Madhu Ramachandrudu Nil

PW.2 B.Murthy Naik

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Ex.P.1 31.10.2021 Police Proceedings Ex.P.2 31.10.2021 FIR in Cr.No.232/2021 of PTM PS Ex.P.3 26.11.2021 Analysis report Exhibits marked for Accused Nil

Material Objects marked for Prosecution M.O.1 One sample packet of Haywards cheers whisky of 180 ml M.O.2 One sample packet of Original Choice TM whisky of 180 ml

Material Objects marked for Accused Nil

JMFC, TBPL

- 5 -

FORM NO.72

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Chittoor, Calendar and cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle

1. Offence : 31.10.2021

2. Report of complaint : 31.10.2021

3. Apprehension of accused : 31.10.2021

4. Release on bail : 03.11.2021

5. Commencement of trial : 11.07.2022

6. Close of trial : 11.07.2022

7. Sentence of order : 29.07.2022

8. Explanation of delay and : -- remarks

Judgment in Calendar Case No.240 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle

Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, PTM police station [Cr.No.252/2021]

Name of accused Age years Father/Husband’s name (1) (2) (3)

Kunchapu Chandra Sekhar 28 K.Nagappa

Religion Calling Residence Mandal (4) (5) (6) (7)

Hindu Coolie Thakatamvaripalle B.Kothakota

Offence : Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act - Penalty for illegal imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant

Finding : Accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act - 6 -

Sentence : In the result, this court found the accused not guilty of the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, and hence he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The case property i.e., M.O.1 and M.O.2 received vide C.P.R.No.333/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.BHARATH CHANDRA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE

Present :- Sri K.Bharath Chandra

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Wednesday, the Third (3rd) day of August, 2022

P. R.C.No.4 of 2022

[Cr.No.230/2021 of Peddathippasamudram PS]

Between : -

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peddathippasamudram Police Station …. Complainant

And : -

1.R.Rajesh, S/o Late R.Lakshman Reddy, 42 years, r/o D.No.73/B1,

Government House Raod, Nazarbad Mysore, Karnataka State, r/o Dasanna Building, Ward No.18, Chintamani, Chikkabalapur, Katanataka State

2.R.Dharani @ R.Daharani, W/o K.A.Ananda Kumar @ Anand, 40 years,

Kanampalle Layout, infront of New Public School, Chintamani town, Karantaka State, presently r/o Aswini Badavane, Ward No.7, Chintamani, Chikkabalapur, Karnataka State

3.L.Kamalamma, W/o Late Lakshman Reddy, 60 years, Ward No.18,

Dasanna Building, Near KMD Choultry, Chintamani Town, Karnataka State …. Accused

This case is coming on 03.08.2022 before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri.M.Lakshmikanth, Advocate

for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration,

this Court made the following –

C O M M I T T A L O R D E R

1) The State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

Peddathippasamudrm police station has filed this case against A1 to A3 in

Cr.No.230/2021 of Peddathippasamudram Police Station for the offence u/s.307, 498-A, 312 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s.4 of DP Act. This court took cognizance for the offences u/s.307, 498-A, 312 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. The offence under sections 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, this case is committed under Section 209(a) Cr.P.C to the Honourable Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor District, Chittoor for trial.

2) A1 was released on bail as per pre-bail orders of the Hon’ble II

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in Crl.M.P.No.224/2021

dt.04.12.2021; A2 and A3 were released on bail as per the pre-bail orders of the

Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Court, Madanapalle in

Crl.M.P.No.221/2021, dt.04.12.2021 and they shall be continued on the same bail

till conclusion of trial as provided u/s.209 (b) of Cr.P.C.

3) A1 to A3 submitted that they have got means to engage a counsel of their own to defend their case before the court of sessions. Therefore, the records and the case property if any shall be submitted to the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Chittoor, under Section 209(c) Cr.P.C.

4) Office is directed to intimate the public prosecutor about the commitment of the case under section 209(d) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 3 rd day of August, 2022.

Sd/- K.BHARATH CHANDRA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

Appendix of Evidence NIL

Id/- KBC

JMFC, TBPL

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE

Dairy Extract in PRC No.4 / 2022 25.05.2022 : Perused the charge sheet. Taken cognizance for the offence u/s.498-A, 307, 312 r/w 34 of IPC. Issue summons to A1 to A3. Call on 27.06.2022 27.06.2022 : A1 to A3 present. Case copies furnished to them. Sri.M.Lakshmikanth, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of A1 to A3. For hearing and committal, call on 25.07.2022 25.07.2022 : A1 to A3 are absent. Petition filed and allowed. For hearing and committal, call on 03.08.2022 03.08.2022 : A1 to A3 are present. They submitted that they have means to engage a counsel to defend their case before the court of

sessions. Heard and perused the record. The record prima facie

shows a case against accused for the offence under Section 307, 498-A, 312 r/w 34 of IPC. The offence under section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Hence the entire case is committed to the Honourable Principal District and Sessions Court, Chittoor vide separate committal order as per section 209(a) of Cr.P.C. A1 was released on bail as per pre-bail orders of the Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle in Crl.M.P.No.224/2021 dt.04.12.2021; A2 and A3 were released on bail as per the pre-bail orders of the Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Court, Madanapalle in Crl.M.P.No.221/2021, dt.04.12.2021 and they shall be continued on the same bail till conclusion of trial as provided u/s.209 (b) of Cr.P.C. The entire case record and properties, if any shall be submitted to the

Honourable Principal District and Sessions Court, Chittoor

U/Sec.209(c) of Cr.P.C. Office is directed to intimate the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of the case u/s.209(d) of Cr.P.C.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

THAMBALLAPALLE

Register Extract in PRC No.4 / 2022

1. Name of the case : PRC No.4 / 2022

2. Name of the accused, : 1.R.Rajesh, S/o Late R.Lakshman Reddy, 42 father's name and age years

2.R.Dharani @ R.Daharani, W/o K.A.Ananda

Kumar @ Anand, 40 years

3.L.Kamalamma, W/o Late Lakshman Reddy, 60 years

3. Substance of complaint : Vide separate order

4. Name of the complainant : The State of A.P. represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Peddathippasamudram police station *Cr.No.230/2021+

5. Name of the witnesses 1.Varikasuvu Sudharaani :

2.C.Venkatalakshmi

for the complainant

3.Chinnareddyvari Chandra Sekar Reddy

4.K.Reddappa Reddy

5.C.Susheela

6.M.Sreenivasulu

7.Y.Manjunatha Reddy

8.Y.Bayya Reddy

9.Chakali Reddamma

10.P.Manjunatha Reddy

11.B.Narayanaswamy

12.C.Madhu Ramachandrudu

6. Name of the witnesses : -- for the defence

7. Summary of the facts : Vide separate committal order proved

8. Result of enquiry : In the result, the case is committed to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions for the trial under

section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. as the offence under section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

9. Date of offence : Prior to 23.10.2021

10. Date of complaint : 23.10.2021

11. Date of apprehension of : A1 to A3 obtained pre-bail accused

12. Date of close of the : 03.08.2022 enquiry

13. Explanation for delay : Vide diary extract submitted

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

FORM No. 31

NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

(See section 209)

The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle hereby gives notice that he has committed one PRC No.4/2022 in Cr.No.230/2021 of

Peddathippasamudram PS against the accused/A1 to A3 for trial at the next

Sessions ; and the Magistrate hereby instructs the Public Prosecutor of the

Sessions Court to conduct the prosecution of the said case.

The charge against the accused is under sections 307, 498-A, 312 r/w 34 of IPC.

Dated, this the 3 rd day of August, 2022.

(Seal of the Court)

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

From To

K.Bharath Chandra, The Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor. Thamballapalle.

Dis.No.__________Dt.___________

Honoured Sir,

Sub: Courts – Criminal – Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle – Commitment of accused in P.R.C.No.4/2022 to the Court of Sessions – Committal Order – Submitted – Regd.

~oOo~

I humbly submit that P.R.C.No.4/2022(Cr.No.230/2021 of

Peddathippasamudram PS) on the file of this court was committed to the Court of

Sessions against the accused/A1 to A3.

I am herewith submitting the committal order and the extract of the PRC register along with entire case records duly indexed as per the index list.

I further submit that the accused/A1 to A3 are directed to appear before the court of sessions, Chittoor Division on receipt of summons from the Sessions Court.

Yours faithfully

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

THAMBALLAPALLE

Encl: Entire case records in PRC.4/2022 along with Register and Diary Extracts.

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, THAMBALLAPALLE

Present : - Sri.K.Bharath Chandra Junior Civil Judge

Monday, the First (1st) day of August, 2022

Original Suit No.124 of 2019

Between : -

Bommireddy Raghunatha Reddy, S/o B.Venkataswamy Reddy, Hindu aged about 55 years, Cultivation, r/o Sri Ramapuram, H/o Molakalacheruvu Mandal

.... PLAINTIFF

And : -

Bodeddula Nagesh, S/o B.Narasimhulu, Hindu aged about 35 years, Cultivation, r/o Yesuvaripalle, H/o Sompalle post, Molakalacheruvu Mandal

.... DEFENDANT

This suit coming on 01.08.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P.Venkatramana, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following -

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.81,133/- being principal of Rs.50,000/- and interest of Rs.31,133/- due under ‘A’ marked pronote dt.15.12.2017 and Rs.1,62,133/- being principal of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest of Rs.62,133/- due under ‘B’ marked pronote dt.17.12.2017 with future interest and for costs of the suit.

2) The brief facts of the plaint are : - On 15.12.2017 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at 24% p.a. and executed suit ‘A’ marked pronote. Again on 17.12.2017 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at 24% p.a. and executed suit ‘B’ marked pronote. Inspite of demands the defendant failed to pay the debt and so the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit.

3) Summons to defendant refused by the defendant and such refusal is deemed service of summons. Hence, defendant was set exparte on 12.05.2022.

- 2 -

4) In support of her case, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. Ex.A.1 is the suit ‘A’ marked pronote dt.15.12.2017 and it shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- agreeing to pay interest at 24% p.a. and executed the pronote. Ex.A.2 is the suit ‘B’ marked pronote dt.17.12.2017 and it shows that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed pronote. The testimony of PW.1 and the documents remained unrebutted by the defendant. Hence, it is opined that the plaintiff has proved his claim and is therefore entitled for a decree.

5) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.81,133/- and Rs.1,62,133/- (Total Rs.2,43,266/-) from the defendant with future interest, on principal amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively, at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1 st day of August, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

THAMBALLAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined and exhibits marked for Plaintiff :

PW.1 : B.Raghunatha Reddy

Ex.A.1 : Suit ‘A’ marked pronote dt.15.12.2017 for Rs.50,000/- Ex.A.2 : Suit ‘B’ marked pronote dt.17.12.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/-

Witnesses examined and exhibits marked for Defendant : Nil

JCJ, TBPL

Fair Judgment in

O.S.No.124/2019

Dt.01.08.2022 - 3 -