Ms K.Deepa Dyva Krupa

1

IN THE COURT OF CUM–PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, VIZIANAGARAM.

Present: Ms.Kodali Deepa Dyva Krupa,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022

O.S.No. 24/2018

BETWEEN:

Tirumalaraju Suryanarayana Raju, S/o late Rayapuraju, Hindu, aged 59 years, Cultivation, residing at Atchuthapuram Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District … Plaintiff.

AND

1. Burella Lakshmana, S/o Narayana, Hindu, aged 45 years, Cultivation, residing at Chodavaram Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District

2. Burella Lakshmi, W/o Lakshmana, Hindu, aged 38 years, House Wife, residing at Chodavaram Village, Gurla Mandal, Vizianagaram District Present at Vinayaka Colony, Garividi Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District

3. Burella Rajesh, S/o Lakshmana, Hindu, aged 18 years, Rest ditto Appointed as Guardian 1st Defendant as per Orders in I.A.No.1568/2018 dated 08.03.2019 … Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mavuri Sankara Rao and Sri N.Satyanarayana, Advocates for the Plaintiff and Sri I.Ramesh, Advocate for the Defendants and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for a decree for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,71,700/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs and for such relief or reliefs.

2. The plaint averments are that:

The 2nd Defendant is the wife and the 3rd Defendant is the son of 1st Defendant, all the Defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 12.01.2015 for the purpose of their family necessities and for discharging their sundry debts and jointly executed a Demand Promissory note on the even date in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount either to him or to his order together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, subsequently in spite of 2 repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not chose to repay the said amount, thus this suit is filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of suit promissory note amount along with interest.

3.On receipt of summons, the 1st Defendant filed his written statement and the 2nd Defendant filed her adoption memo by adopting the written statement of 1st Defendant, publication of 3rd Defendant was filed on 20.12.2019, but he did not attend before the court, the same was recorded on the docket dated 20.12.2019.

4.The Defendants No.1 and 2 denied the parawise allegations of the plaint and submitted that they never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff and the suit promissory note is materially altered and it is barred by limitation and further submitted that the Plaintiff is having poultry and 15 cows besides lands and the

Plaintiff requested the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to do coolie work under him about twelve years back and that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to work under the

Plaintiff to look after the poultry with the monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- to the 1st Defendant, Rs.2,000/- per month to the 2nd Defendant, accordingly the Defendant

Nos. 1 and 2 worked under the Plaintiff for three months and the Defendant

Nos. 1 and 2 asked the Plaintiff in the year 2010 before Pongal that they want Nivada of accounts and that the Plaintiff maintained small book and he used to enter the amounts in the said book whenever the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 takes payments, the

Defendants are illiterates and having no knowledge and the Plaintiff obtained white papers and stamped papers before payments and kept with the Plaintiff.

5.The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that when the Defendants did not agree to do coolie works under the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff postponed and did not pay coolie work amounts, the Defendant further submitted that the Plaintiff fell due of one year coolie work amount nearly Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and he refused to clear the said amount and that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 raised dispute before the elders of

Chodavaram for settlement of amount and Plaintiff bore grudge against Defendant 3

Nos. 1 and 2 and filed this false suit basing on the empty promissory note obtained by him.

6.Having considered the plaint and written statement the following issues are settled on 29.08.2018

1) Whether the Suit promissory note is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the Defendants?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

3) To What relief?

7.Thereafter the Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibit A.1 and produced the Attestor G.Varaha Narasimha Murthy as P.W.2 and Scribe Chatla

Thowduas P.W.3. On the other hand, the Defendants did not chose to adduce evidence on their behalf in spite of several adjournments and their evidence was closed on 04.04.2022.

8.Thereafter heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and their counsel are absent on the date of arguments and this court treated as no arguments on behalf of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on 06.04.2022.

9.Issue No.1: Whether the Suit promissory note is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the Defendants?

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of suit promissory note amount along with agreed interest, it is the contention of the Plaintiff that the Defendants

No. 1 to 3 have borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.01.2015 and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same at 24% per annum, thereafter they did not repay the amount borrowed by them, on the other hand, it is the contention of the Defendant that they never borrowed any amount from the Plaintiff, in fact the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were engaged by the Plaintiff to work in his Poultry for monthly salary of Rs.2,500/- to the 1st Defendant and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd Defendant and they worked for a period of three years, thereafter they asked the 4

Plaintiff about the accounts and that the Plaintiff opened a book, thereafter the

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 worked under the Plaintiff, at that time, the Plaintiff obtained various white papers and stamped papers from the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in the year 2013 the Plaintiff fell due of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- to them and the

Defendants No. 1 and 2 placed the matter before the elders of Chodavaram, keeping the same in view, the Plaintiff filed this suit with the empty promissory note obtained by him from the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

10.To prove their rival contentions, the Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibit A.1 and produced the attestor as P.W. 2 and Scribe as P.W.3, on the other hand, the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not chose to attend before the court and that their evidence was closed.

11.The Plaintiff reiterated the contents of plaint in his chief-examination affidavit and during the course of cross examination, the Plaintiff stated that he gave amount to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Atchuthapuram village and further stated that he does not know whether the 3rd Defendant is a minor and he does not know whether the 3rd Defendant is a minor at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 and he denied the other suggestions given by the learned counsel for the Defendant with regard to the poultry farm, work of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under him and due amount of

Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and placing of matter before elders of Chodavaram.

12P.W.2 who is the attestor stated about his presence at the time of Ex.A.1 transaction, during the course of cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that Ex.A.1 was executed at Atchuthapuram village, on the date of Ex.A.1, himself, P.W.1, Chatla

Thowdu and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were present and further stated that Defendant

Nos. 1 to 3 were resided in Chodavaram Village.

13.P.W.3 who is the scribe of Ex.A.1 also stated about his presence at the time of execution of Ex.A.1 and during the course of cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that at the time of preparation of Promissory notes, generally parties provides information 5 relating to their names and village particulars and they used to ascertain whether the person is a major or minor at the time of promissory note.

14.As seen from the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to 3, it is clear that the Defendant Nos.

1 to 3 executed Ex.A.1 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, though the learned counsel for the Plaintiff searchingly cross-examined P.W.s1 to 2 about the presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, Defendants 1 to 3, passing of consideration, no deviation is found in the version of P.Ws. 1 to 3 about the execution of Ex.A.1 to A.3.

15.On the other hand, though the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contended that they were engaged by the Plaintiff to work in a poultry farm for monthly salary of

Rs.2,500/- to the 1st Defendant and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd Defendant and further contended that the Plaintiff fell due of Rs.30,000/- to 40,000/- to them in the year 2013 and that the matter was placed before the village elders of Chodavaram, they did not produce any evidence in proof of the same either oral or documentary, moreover they did not enter into the witness box to disprove the version of the

Plaintiff.

16.Now the question is “Whether the 3rd Defendant was a minor at the time of execution of Ex.A.1?, if so, whether Ex.A.1 Promissory note is binding on the 3rd

Defendant, who was a minor at the time of its execution?”.

17.The Court has to decide the above question before passing of a decree, according to the contention of the Defendants No. 1 and 2, the 3rd Defendant was a minor at the time of execution of Ex.A.1, in proof of the same, the Defendants filed a memo before this court vide SR.No.1500/26-12-2018 along with Transfer Certificate of the 3rd Defendant, according to the Transfer Certificate, the date of birth of 3rd Defendant is 12.08.2000, where as the Ex.A.1 was executed on 12.01.2015, if the

Plaintiff kept quiet without taking any step on the memo filed by the Defendant

Nos. 1 and 2 along with the Transfer Certificate of Defendant No.3, the question would be otherwise, but the Plaintiff filed a petition before this court under I.A.No.1568 of 2018 under Order XXXII Rule 3 of CPC seeking the court to appoint the 1st Defendant 6 as guardian of 3rd Defendant and the same was allowed by the court on 08.03.2019, accordingly the Plaintiff filed neat copy of plaint by showing that the 1st Defendant is guardian of 3rd Defendant, in such circumstance, this court can treat that it is a mere admission made by the Plaintiff about the minority of the 3rd Defendant, so that this court can conclude that the 3rd Defendant was a minor at the time of execution of

Ex.A.1 even though the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not produce any oral or documentary evidence before this court as the admitted facts need not be proved.

18.Then, the next question would be whether the Ex.A.1 suit promissory note is binding on the Defendant No.3?

19.As stated in the earlier paragraph, the 3rd Defendant undoubtedly was a minor at the time of execution of Ex.A.1, then the court has to decide whether a contract which was entered by a minor is a valid contract, as per Section 2(h) of Indian

Contract Act, the essentials of valid contract are:

1) Offer and acceptance

2) Intention to create a legal relationship

3) Lawful consideration

4) Competent parties.

5) Free consent

6) Lawful object

7) Not being expressly declared void

And Section 10 of Indian Contract Act states that the parties must be competent to contract and Section 11 defines the competence of a party as every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject. According to Section 11 of Indian Contract Act, the Defendant

No.3 is not a competent party to enter into a contract with the Plaintiff, it is the contention of the Plaintiff that the 3rd Defendant also agreed to repay the amount borrowed under Ex.A.1, but the said contract is voidable as the contract entered into by a minor is voidable at the instance of the minor, in the suit on hand also the

Defendant no.1 and 2 are contending that the Defendant No.3 is a minor, so that this court can say without any hesitation that the suit promissory note is not binding on the Defendant No.3 and he is not liable to repay the amount.

7

20.In view of the above discussion, this court is of opinion that the Plaintiff successfully established the suit promissory note transaction by examining himself as

P.W.1 and by producing Ex.A.1, P.Ws. 2 and 3 and in view of the discussion in the earlier paragraphs, this court is of opinion that the Defendant No.3 was a minor at the time of execution of Ex.A.1, thus Ex.A.1 promissory note is not binding on the

Defendant No.3.

21. Issue No.2: 2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

In view of the findings in Issue No.1, the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit promissory note amount along with agreed interest from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 only.

22. Issue No.3: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff as against the Defendants No.1 and 2 only for an amount of Rs.1,71,700/- (Rupees One

Lakh Seventy One Thousand and Seven Hundred only) together with subsequent in- terest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). The suit against Defendant No.3 is dis- missed.

Dictated to the Stenographer namely B.Jyothi, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Kodali Deepa Dyva Krupa

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR Plaintiff: FOR Defendant: PW1: T.S.N.Raju PW2: G.V.N.Murthy None P.W3: Thowdu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR Plaintiff: Ex.A1: promissory note dated 12.01.2015 executed by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiff FOR Defendant : NIL.

Sd/- Kodali Deepa Dyva Krupa

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS­cum­PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM.

Present: Ms. Kodali Deepa Dyva Krupa,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class­cum­Principal

 Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. Monday, the 11th day of April, 2022.

C.C. No.738/2019

Between: State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Denkada Police Station. ...…Complainant

And:

1.Chaganti Subramanyam, S/o late Kondalarao, aged 68 years, Brahmin by Caste, Krishnapuram Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District 2.Chaganti Jayalaxmi, W/o Subramanyam, aged 60 years, Brahmin by Caste, Krishnapuram Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District

3. Imandi Laxmi Kumari, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 45 years, Padmasali by Caste, Krishnapuram Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District 

4. Indala Suseela, W/o Ramachandra Rao, aged 38 years, Padmasali by Caste, Krishnapuram Village, Denkada Mandal,

Vizianagaram District ….. Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Complainant State represented by the police, and of Sri J.Bheemasenarao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State Sub­Inspector of Police, Denkada Police Station has filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 341, 324, 509 read read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.22/2019

2. The brief averments of the Charge­Sheet are as follows:

 L.W.1.Burugu Santhoshi Kumari is resident of Krishnapuram Colony

Chinthalavalasa, L.W.2.Burugu Appalanarasamma is her mother and they have land in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents situated adjacent to the house of L.W.2.Burugu

Appalanasaramma, on 08.02.2019 when L.W.1.Burugu Santhoshi Kumari and

L.W.2.Burugu Appalanarasamma were doing work in the said site, A1 to A4 who are the neighbours rushed there and obstructed them, on that L.W.1.Burugu

Santhoshi Kumari questioned them as to why they are obstructing, then A1 grew wild against them and abused them in filthy language and beat L.W.1.Burugu

Santhoshi Kumari with a stick on her left side of head and caused swelling injury, then L.W.2.Burugu Appalanarasamma went for her rescue and shifted

L.W.1.Burugu Santhoshi Kumari to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, on receipt of medical intimation, L.W.7.S.Raju, Head Constable 1197, Denkada Police

Station rushed to District Hospital, Vizianagaram and recorded the statement of

L.W.1.Burugu Santhoshi Kumari and forwarded the same to Denkada Police

Station, L.W.8.M.Rambabu, Head Constable 1134, Denkada Police Station registered the said statement as a case in Cr.No.22/2019 under Section 341, 324 and 509 read with 34 of IPC of Denkada Police Station on 08.02.2019, later

L.W.8.M.Rambabu, Head Constable 1134 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, prepared rough sketch, later L.W.9.R.Vasudevu, Sub­Inspector of Police,

Denkada Police Station verified the investigation and he issued 41­A Cr.P.C notices to A1 to A4 on 20.02.2019 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 under Sections 341, 324, 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

3. This case was taken cognizance against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 324 and 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. After appearance of the accused case copies are furnished to A1 to A4 as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., Accused were examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C. and Charge under Sections 341, 324 and 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code were framed against A1 to A4, charges have been read over and explained to the A1 to A4 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1.. After closure of the prosecution evidence,

A1 to A4 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses against them, for which they denied and also stated that there is no defence evidence on their behalf.

6. Thereafter heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused.

7. The point for determination is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the A1 to A4

for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 509

read with 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

8.POINT:

PW.1 who is the defacto complainant deposed about the incident dated 08.02.2018 and giving of Ex.P.1 statement to the police, P.W.2 who is the mother of P.W.1 also deposed about the incident dated 08.02.2019 and shifting P.W.1 to

Hospital, P.W.3 who is the father of P.W.1 deposed about his presence at the time of incident, P.W.4 who is an eye witness did not support the prosecution case, denied his 161 Cr.P.C statement as in Ex.P.2, P.W.5 who is the Investigating

Officer deposed about the entire investigation done by him in this case vide

Exhibits P.3 to P.5.

9.It is the case of prosecution that on 08.02.2019 when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were cleaning the vacant site and cutting the small plants, A1 to A4 came there and questioned them as to why they are cleaning the vacant site, then P.W.1 questioned them as to why they are obstructing, then A1 grew wild against P.W.1 and beat her with a stick on her head and caused injury, then she was shifted to hospital, to prove the same, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got marked

Exhibits P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1.

10.The P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant though deposed about entire incident and giving of Ex.P.1 statement to Police in her chief examination on 12.03.2021 and also denied the defence taken by the accused during the course of cross examination dated 15.03.2021, but during the course of further cross examination dated 30.03.2022, P.W.1 stated that herself and accused are compromised before village elders after deposing evidence before this court as in her chief and cross examinations and she admitted that herself and accused are compromised in both the cases filed against each other and she is willing to withdraw the case and also stated that the compromise is voluntary compromise and nobody pressured her for the compromise and further stated that at present no disputes are existing between herself and Accused No.1 to 4.

11.The P.W.2 who is the mother of P.W.1 also though stated about the incident

dated 08.02.2019 during the course of her chief and cross examinations, she has

stated during the course of further cross examination dated 30.03.2022 that herself and accused are compromised before village elders after deposing evidence

before this court as in her chief and cross examinations and she admitted that

herself and accused are compromised in both the cases filed against each other and she is willing to withdraw the case and she also stated that the compromise is voluntary compromise and nobody pressured her for the compromise and further stated that at present no disputes are existing between herself and

Accused No.1 to 4.

12.P.W.3 who is the father of P.W.1 and husband of P.W.2 stated about rushing to place of offence on hearing the cries, according to his testimony, by the time he visited the scene of offence, the altercation was completed. The prime witnesses available for the prosecution to establish its case are P.Ws. 1 to 4, P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the daughter and mother though deposed about the prosecution case in their chief examination, they have changed their version during the course of further cross examination dated 30.03.2022, according to the testimonies of P.Ws.

1 and 2, a compromise is held in between them and accused after deposing the evidence before the court, coming to the testimony of P.W.3, according to his version by the time he visited the scene of offence, the incident was completed, so that his testimony is noway helpful to the prosecution and another eye witness who was examined as P.W.4 also not supported the prosecution case, denied his 161 Cr.P.C statement as in Ex.P.2, as seen from the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to 4, it is clear that the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be believed as P.Ws. 1 and 2 have changed their version during the course of their cross examination, coming to the testimony of P.W.5, who is the Investigating Officer, he deposed about the entire investigation done by him in this case, basing on the sole testimony of

Investigating Officer i.e. P.W.5, this court cannot believe the version of prosecution, moreover it is the clear cut statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that themselves and

Accused Nos.1 to 4 were compromised before village elders and they are willing to withdraw the cases and also stated that no disputes are existing between them, this simple statement itself is enough to throw away the prosecution case.

13.On thorough reading of testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and Exhibits P1 to P5 and considering the M.O.1 and entire material paper available on record, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution is utterly failed to establish the guilt of the A1 to A4 for the offence under Sections 341, 324 and 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code by placing acceptable material before this court, hence A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal.

14. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 341, 324 and 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and A.1 to A.4 are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of A.1 to A.4 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. The M.O.1 i.e. stick any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

 Typed to my Personal Assistant viz., B.Jyothi, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2022 Sd/­ Kodali Deepa Dyva Krupa

Judicial Magistrate of First Class­cum­Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Vizi anagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:For Defence PW1: Burugu Santoshi Kumari ­None ­ PW2: Burugu Appalanarasamma PW3: P.Ramana PW4: Dindi Govindarao PW5: M.Rambabu

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: Rough Sketch Ex.P5: Wound Certificate of P.W.1. For Defence:­ Nil.

Material Objects Marked

Stick. Sd/­ Kodali Deepa Dyva Krupa

Judicial Magistrate of First Class­cum­Principal

 Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS::

(EXCISE), VIZIANAGARAM

Present :- Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaam.

Wednesday this the 18th day of March,2020

C.C.No.951/2018

Between:

State represented by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla.

… Complainant. AND

Meesala Ramana, S/o. Late Papayya, Aged 36 years, R/o. Gudem village of Gurla Mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming on 13-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri D.Surya Rao, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla has filed a charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 36(1) (b & c)of A.P. Excise Act in Crime No. 147/2017 of Prohibition and Excise

Station, Nellimarla.

2. The charge sheet averments are that:

On 25-10-2017 at 17.45 hrs., LW.4/ Excise Head Constable,Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla and along with his staff i.e. Lws 1 to 3 i.e.

Prohibition and Excise Constables and Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and

Excise, Enforcement, Vizianagaram, proceeded to M/s Satya Wines of

Jarajapupeta and found one person at the counter while he was conducting 2 sales and on seeing the excise personnel,the said person tried to escape from the place and on suspicion LW.4/Excise Head Constable, Prohibition and

Excise, Nellimarla reached to the counter and found 12 IML bottles on various brands and the seals of those bottles were removed and caps were opened and on verification, it is found by LW.4/Excise Head constable that some of the bottles are mixed with other bottles and also found empty bottles of various brands and on interrogation the said person revealed his identity and other particulars and also revealed that he is working in the said wine shop and also revealed that he used to open the seals of bottles and used to change the MRP prices and used to affix the labels of another brands of bottles and it is also stated by him that he used to fill empty bottles with cheap liquor. On that

LW.4/Excise Head Constable of Nellimarla and seized those bottles under cover of occurrence report and arrested the said person,later LW.5/ Prohibition and

Excise Sub-Inspector, Nellimarla registered the occurrence report as a case in

Crime No. 147/2017 under Section 3691)(b & c) ofA.P. Excise Act. Later

LW.5/Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Nellimarla filed the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance against the Accused for the offence under Section 36(1)(b & c) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act against the Accused.

4. After appearance of the Accused, case copies were furnished to the

Accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, and charge for the offence U/Section 36(1) b & c of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w. Rule 37 of A.P. Excise Rule, 2012 has been framed against him and read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3 and M.Os 1 to 12. After the closure of the 3 prosecution evidence the Accused were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they reported no defence evidence.

6. Thereafter heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

7.Now the point for Consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the charges leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8.POINT:

PW.1 who worked as a Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector,

Enforcement, Vizianagaram has deposed about the conducting raids on 25-10- 2017 and seizure of 12 open bottles along with other bottles from the possession of Accused under cover of Ex.P.1 special report and handing over those bottles, occurrence report and accused to the Station House Officer,

Prohibition and Excise station of Nellimarla. PW.2 who worked as a Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Nellimarla has deposed about the registration of

Ex.P.2/First Information Report, issuance of 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused, sending the samples for analysis and filing of charge sheet on receipt of analaysis report.

9.It is the case of the prosecution that on 25-10-2017 on receipt of information PW.1 conducted raid over Satya wines which is situated in

Jarajapupeta village and found the accused at the time of conducting business by sitting in the counter and also found while the accused was mixing the liquor with other bottles and also removing the bottles and seals and also found empty bottles in the said shop and on enquiry,the accused revealed that he is mixing the liquor with other bottles and also filling the cheap liquor in the empty bottles and that PW.1 seized those bottles under cover of Ex.P.1/Special

Report.

4

10.It is the admission of PW.1 that the place of offence is situated in a busy locality and it is also admitted by PW.1 that the owner of Satya Wines was not examined by him and also he did not seize any documents from Satya Wines to establish that the accused is an employee in the said Satya Wine shop.

Further,the license issued to Satya Wines was also not produced before this court. Except the sole testimony of PW.1, no other independent is produced

before this court to establish that the seizure of property from the possession

of accused while he was mixing the liquor of various brands. The contents of

Ex.P.1 and the testimony of PW.1 alone cannot be believed.

11.Coming to the testimony of PW.2 who is the investigation officer, it is her admission that on receipt of occurrence report she registered the

Ex.P.2/First Information Report, but PW.2 also not secured any local person to ascertain the seizure of property from Satya Wines and also no ledgers or documents are seized from Satya Wines to show that the properties were seized from the said shop. The testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 cannot be believed without the corroboration of individual witnesses. Hence, this court of opinion that the prosecution is utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused by placing acceptable material before this Court. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 36(1) b & c of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w. Rule 37 of A.P. Excise

Rules, 2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. M.Os. 1 to 12 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer Grade III, transcribed by him, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18 th day of March, 2020.

5

Sd/-Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

PW.1: B.V.N.BhushanRao, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Enforcement, Vizianagaram.

PW.2: Smt. D. Ch.Jogamma, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Nellimarla.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Special Report/dated: 25-10-2017

Ex.P.2: Original First Information Report/dated:25-10-2017

Ex.p.3: Analysis report/dated: 14-11-2017

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.Os.1 to 12: Sample bottles.

Sd/-Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram 6

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE

(EXCISE COURT), VIZIANAGARAM.

* * *

Date of offence: 25-10-2017 Date of report or complaint: 25-10-2017 Date of apprehension of accused: 25-10-2017 (Issued 41-A Cr.P.C.Notice) Date of release, if any on bail: --- Date of commencement of trial: 14-02-2020 Date of close of trial: 06-03-2020 Date of sentence or order : 18-03-2020

Explanation for delay and remarks:- : – Delay in production of witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.951/2018 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, (Excise), Vizianagaram. (in Cr.No. 147/2017 of

Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla)

Complainant:- State represented by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of the Accused, Age, Father’s Name, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

Meesala Ramana, S/o. Late Papayya, Aged 36 years, R/o. Gudem village of Gurla Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence :- under Section 36(1) b & c of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w. Rule 37 of A.P. Excise Rules, 2012: Willfully omits the conditions of license or permit provided in this Act.

Finding:- Not guilty

Sentence:- IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 36(1) b & c of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 r/w. Rule 37 of A.P. Excise Rules, 2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. M.Os. 1 to 12 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS::

(EXCISE), VIZIANAGARAM

Present :- Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaam.

Wednesday this the 18th day of March,2020

C.C.No. 587/2018

Between: State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellimarla … Complainant. AND

Vali Rama Rao, S/o. Suridu (late), Aged 47 years, C/o.Kapu, R/o. Thangudubilli village of Nellimarla Mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming on 13-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri S. Ramakrishna, Advocate

for the Accused and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for

consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The state represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellimarla has filed a charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act in Crime No. 166/2017 of Prohibition and Excise Station,

Nellimarla.

2. The charge sheet averments are that:

On 18-12-2017 at about 16.00hrs., LW.3/Prohibition and Excise sub-

Inspector, Enforcement Wing, Vizianagaram along with other excise officials conducted petrolling at Thangudubilli village and found the accused while he was in possession of 10 Carton boxes i.e. 1st box containing 48 Gold Riband elite whiskey, 2) 2nd box containing with 48 Gold Riband Elite Whiskey, 3)3rd box 2 containing with 48 Officers Choice Reserve Whiskey, 4) 4th both containing with 48 officers choice reserve whiskey, 5) 5th box containing with 40 officers choice reserve whiskey, 6)6th box containing with 33 imperial blue classic Grin Whiskey bottles each 180 ml, 7) 7th box containing with 12 King Fisher strong premium beer with 650 ml, 8) 8th box containing with 12 kingfisher strong premium beers with 650 ml , 9)9th box containing with 48 H.D. Heavens Door whiskey with 180 ml and 10)10th box containing with 16 H.D. Heavens Door whiskey + 32 Gold

Riband elite whiskey + 6 king fisher strong premium beer with 330 ml bottles, without having any bill or license, when LW.3/ Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, Enforcement Wing, Vizianagaram questioned the accused about the possession of accused without having any license, for which the accused revealed that he purchased those bottles from Classic wines, Nellimarla in order to sell the same for higher price. Later, LW.3/Prohibition and Excise sub-

Inspector, Enforcement Wing, Vizianagaram seized those bottles under cover of occurrence report and handed over the occurrence report before the Station

House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Nellimarla. Later LW.6/ Prohibition and

Excise Inspector, Nellimarla registered the occurrence report as a case in C rime No. 166/2017 under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and sent the samples for analysis and issued 41-A Cr.P.c. notice to the accused and on receipt of analyst report, he filed the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance against the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act against the

Accused.

4. After appearance of the Accused, case copies were furnished to the

Accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, and charge for the offence U/Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed against him and read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3 and M.Os 1 to 12. After the closure of the prosecution evidence the Accused were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they reported no defence evidence.

6. Thereafter heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

7.Now the point for Consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the charges leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8.POINT:

PW.1 who worked as Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition and

Excise, Enforcement, Vizianagaram has deposed about the raid conducted by her on 18-10-2017 , arrest of the accused and seizure of the bottles under cover of Ex.P.1 Occurrence report. PW.2 who worked as Sub-Inspector of

Police, Prohibition and Excise, Nellimarla has deposed about registration of

Ex.P.2/First Information Report and sending the samples for analysis and issuance of41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. PW.3 who worked as Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla has deposed about filing of charge sheet in this case after receipt of analyst report.

9.To establish the guilt for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.3 and M.Os 1 to 12.

10. It is the version of the prosecution that on 18-12-2017 at about 4

PM PW.1 seized M.Os 1 to 12 from the possession of the accused under cover of occurrence report. During the court of cross examination, it is admitted by

PW.1 that she did ot secure the local persons to act as mediators. Admittedly 4 she did not secure any local persons to act as mediators at the time of seizure of property from the possession of the accused and also the PW.1 did not secure the owner or workers of Classic Wines, Nellimarla to ascertain the purchase of bottles from the said wines, by the accused. As seen from the testimony of PW.1, it is clear that the place of seizure is situated in a residential area, but the PW.1 did not secure any local person to act as mediators. Thus, the sole testimony of PW.1 cannot be believed with regard to the seizure of property from the possession of accused. Further, the prosecution examined

Pws 2 and 3 and they have deposed about the registration of First information

Report, sending of samples for analysis and filing of charge sheet on receipt of analyst report and the investigation officer who was examined as PW.3 also not examined any witness to ascertain that the said bottles were purchased by the accused from Classic Wines of Nellimarla and no registers or documents were seized from the Classic Wines , Nellimarla to ascertain the said fact. The testimonies of excise officials without the corroboration of independent witness, cannot be believed. Thus, this court of opinion that the prosecution is utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused by placing acceptable material before this Court. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. M.Os. 1 to 12 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer Grade III, transcribed by him, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram 5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

PW.1: V.L.Karunalatha, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Enforcement Wing, Vizianagaram.

PW.2: D.Ch. Jogamma, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Nellimarla.

PW.3: D. Sailaja Rani, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellimarla

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Occurrence Report/dated:18-12-2017

Ex.P.2: Original First Information Report/dated:18-12-2017

Ex.p.3:Analyst report/dated:22-03-2018

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.Os.1 to 12: Sample bottles.

Sd/-Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram 6

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE

(EXCISE COURT), VIZIANAGARAM.

* * *

Date of offence: 18-12-2017 Date of report or complaint: 18-12-2017 Date of apprehension of accused: 18-12-2017 (Issued 41-A Cr.P.C.Notice) Date of release, if any on bail: --- Date of commencement of trial: 24-01-2020 Date of close of trial: 06-03-2020 Date of sentence or order : 18-03-2020

Explanation for delay and remarks:- : – Delay in production of witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.587/2018 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, (Excise), Vizianagaram. (in Cr.No.166/2017 of

Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla)

Complainant:- State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellimarla.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of the Accused, Age, Father’s Name, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

Vali Rama Rao, S/o. Suridu (late), Aged 47 years, C/o.Kapu, R/o. Thangudubilli village of Nellimarla Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence :- under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. (Possession of liquor without having any license).

Finding:- Not guilty

Sentence:- IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. M.Os. 1 to 12 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS::

(EXCISE), VIZIANAGARAM

Present :- Ms. K. DEEPA DYVA KRUPA Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaam.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020

C.C.No. 828 of 2019

Between:

State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellimarla … Complainant. AND

Nadipena Kishor Kumar, S/o. Raja Rao, Aged 33years, C/o. Kapu, R/o. Saripalli village, Nellimarla Mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming on 10-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellimarla police station filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act,in Crime No. 111/2018 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla police station.

2. The charge sheet averments are that:

On 2-8-2018 at about 16.30 hrs., LW.3/Head Constable of Nellimarla

Police Station along with Lw 1/M. Ganesh (police constable of Nellimarla police station and LW. 2/ N.Rajasekhar (Police constable of Nellimarla Police station) who his staff proceeded to Kudipi village and found the accused in possession of card board boxes containing 284 IML Nips in Auto bearing No. AP 35X 1584 and that LW.3/Head constable caught the accused and questioned him, for 2 which the accused revealed that he purchased those bottles from SKDM wines for selling the same in higher price and that LW.3/Head Constable drawn five samples from each brand and seized those bottles under cover of occurrence report, later he handed over those bottles to the Station House

Officer,Prohibition and Excise, Nellimala. Then LW.4/Prohibition and Excise Sub-

Inspector, Nellimarla registered the same as a case in C rime No. 111/2018 under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and sent the samples to the chemical examination and issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused, later

LW.5/Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Nellimarla, filed the charge sheet after receipt of the analyst report.

3. This case was taken cognizance against the Accused for the offence under Sections 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

4. After appearance of the Accused , case copies were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the Accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C, and charge for the offence U/Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed against him and read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.Os.1 to 5 . After the closure of the prosecution evidence the Accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they reported no defence evidence.

6. Thereafter heard the arguments of Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

7.Now the point for Consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the charge leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8.POINT:

3

PW.1 who worked as Head Constable in Nellimarla police station deposed about visiting to the place of seizure on 2-8-2018 at 16.30 hrs., and seizure of property from the possession of accused along with Auto, preparation of Ex.P.1 Occurrence report and handing over the accused, seized property and occurrence report to the Sub-Inspector of Police,Prohibition and

Excise,Nellimarla. PW.2 who worked as Sub-Inspector of police,Prohibition and

Excise of Nellimarla deposed about registration of First Information Report basing on the occurrence report, sending he samples to the Chemical Analysis and issuance of 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to the accused. PW.3 who worked as

Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, Nellimarla deposed about filing of the charge sheet on receipt of analysis report.

9.To establish the guilt of accused under 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.Os.1 to 5. It is the version of prosecution that on 2-8-2018 PW.1 caught the accused while he was in possession of card board boxes having 284 IML Nips without having any valid license. Coming to the testimony of PW.1, it is his admission that the place of seizure is a busy locality and he did not secure the local persons to act as mediator and he did not try to examine any one from SKDM

Wines of Nellimarla, though it was mentioned in the charge sheet that the PW.2 inspected the SKDM wines, Nellimarla and recorded the statement of licensee, the same was not filed before this court. As seen from the admission of PW.1 with regard to non-securing the local persons as mediators and non- examination of owner of the SKDM wines and workers of the said wine shop and non-seizure of the registers of the said wine shop creates doubt about

Ex.P.1 occurrence report. PW.1 did not secure the mediators to prove the seizure of property from the possession of the accused and the said act is strengthen the defence taken by the accused that this case was foisted against him by preparing Ex.P.1 in the police station for the statistical purpose.

4

10.More-over PW.1 did not secure any independent person to establish that the liquor bottles are purchased from SKDM Wines. The prosecution further examined pws 2 and 3 who filed charge sheet and registered Ex.P.3 First Information Report, and according to them on receipt of occurrence report the case was registered vide Ex.P.2, Pw.3 who field the charge sheet also not examined any one to establish that M.Os.1 to 5 bottles were seized from the possession of the accused. Though the PW.3 filed Ex.P.3 analysis report the seizure of property from the possession of the accused itself is not established by the prosecution. Thus, this court of the opinion that the prosecution is utterly failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. M.Os. 1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/-Ms. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa,

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram,

FAC/Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

PW.1: K. Ashirwadam, Police Head Constable:924, Nellimarla police station.

PW.2: P. Narendra Kumar,Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Nellimarla.

PW.3: D. Sailaja Rani, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellimarla.

5

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Occurrence report, dated:2-8-2018

Ex.P.2: Original First Information Report, dated: 2-8-2018

Ex.P.3: Analyst report, dated:27-09-2018

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.Os 1 to 5 : Sample bottles.

Sd/-Ms. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa,

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram,

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram 6

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE

(EXCISE COURT), VIZIANAGARAM.

* * *

Date of offence: 2-8-2018 Date of report or complaint: 2-8-2018 Date of apprehension of accused: 2-8-20181 (Issued 41-A Cr.P.C.Notice to accused) Date of release, if any on bail: --- Date of commencement of trial: 20-11-2019 Date of close of trial: 06-03-2020 Date of sentence or order: 17-03-2020

Explanation for delay and remarks:- : – Delay in production of witnesses.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 828/2019 on the file of the Special Judicial

Magistrate of the First Class, (Excise), Vizianagaram. (in Cr.No.111/2018 of

Prohibition and Excise Station, Nellimarla.

Complainant:- State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nellimarla.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of the Accused, Age, Father’s Name, calling, Religion, Residence, Mandal.

Nadipena Kishor Kumar, S/o. Raja Rao, Aged 33years, C/o. Kapu, R/o. Saripalli village, Nellimarla Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence :- 34(a) of AP Excise Act.: Possession of liquor without any license.

Finding:- Not guilty.

Sentence:- IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. M.Os. 1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Ms. K. Deepa Dyva Krupa,

Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Mobile), Vizianagaram, FAC/ Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram