K.K.V. Bulikrishna

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHADRACHALAM.

Friday, this the 20th day of April, 2018.

Present : Sri K.K.V.Bulikrishna,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.239 of 2018

Between:- The State through S.I.of Police, Prohibition & Excise, Bhadrachalam.

...Complainant

and

A1. Mottam Kamalamma, W/o.Subbarao, age.32 years, Coolie, R/o.Tummala Village, Chintoor Mandal, East Godavari District. A2. Kunja Laxmi, W/o.Subbarao, age.28 years, Coolie, R/o.Tummala Village, Chintoor Mandal, East Godavari District. A3. Mottam Ramulamma, W/o.Brahmaiah, age.31 years, Coolie, R/o.Tummala Village, Chintoor Mandal, East Godavari District. A4. Uyika Kamalamma, W/o.Seetaiah, age.32 years, Coolie, R/o.Tummala Village, Chintoor Mandal, East Godavari District. A5. Nampalli Srinu, S/o.Vijay Kumar, age.35 years, Coolie, R/o.Tummala Village, Chintoor Mandal, East Godavari District. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 18-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Asst Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri B.Srinivas Prasad, advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case of illegal possession, transport and sale of I.D liquor by the accused, which arises out of C.O.R.No.156/2016 for the offence U/sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Police, Bhadrachalam.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

On 08.06.2016 at about 6.35 a.m on reliable information, the LW3 alongwith their staff proceeded to K.K.Function Hall for conducting raids. He called two mediators LW.1 and 2 and found five persons in suspicious manner travelled in one

Bajaj auto, they stopped the auto and on examination the raid party and panchas smelt the same and identified the same as I.D liquor in 11 plastic cans places besides the accused persons in that auto, each plastic contain 20 liters of I.D liquor 2 total (220) liters of ID liquor alongwith bajaj auto bearing No.AP20 U 7574. Later,

LW3 drawn samples containing 180 ml from the contraband for the purpose of chemical analysis and sealed the samples and pasted slips duly signed by the mediators under cover of confession and seizure panchanama and brought the arrested accused to PS alongwith case property. On the strength of confession and seizure panchanama of the accused, LW3 registered a case in C.O.R.No.156/2016

U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, effected the arrest of accused.

During the course of investigation, LW3 incorporated the detailed description and rough sketch of the scene of offence in C.D form in presence of same mediators

Lws.1 and 2 recorded the detailed statements of Lws.1 and 2 in Part-II case diary of the date. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was laid against the accused

A1 to A5 for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the A1 to A5 and process was issued.

4. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to them as required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. A1 to A5 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge U/Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. The excise police filed memo by stating that the whereabouts of LW1/Payam Prabhakar are not known, hence the evidence of

LW1/Payam Prabhakar is closed by this court.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A5 were examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides arguments.

3

8. Now the point for consideration is:

whether the prosecution has proved its case against A1 to A5 for the

offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of prosecution that on 08.06.2016 at 06.30 a.m at K.K.Function

Hall, Bhadrachalam, the A1 to A5 were caught hold with (220) liters of ID Liquor and thereby the accused is liable for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of the

A.P.Prohibition Act. It is reiterated that to substantiate the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 and 2. PW1 is the panch witness for Confession and seizure panchanama as well as CDF panchanama and PW-2 is the Investigating

Officer. The evidence of LW1/Payam Prabhakar is closed on filing Death Certificate of LW1/Payam Prabhakar.

I have gone through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses (PW1 and

PW2), exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record.

10.The prosecution case is a suo-moto registered case registered by

PW2/Investigating Officer. The PW.1 is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama as well as CDF panchanama, as per the evidence of PW-1 about three years back on one day the Prohibition and Excise police Bhadrachalam obtained his signature on some written papers. PW1 categorically deposed that no body confessed about any offence, no panchanama was conducted and no ID liquor was seized form any person in his presence. PW1 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

11. The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer as PW-2. As per the evidence of PW-2, on 08.06.2016 at about 06.30 a.m on reliable information she along with her staff members proceeded to K.K.Function Hall, Bhadrachalam and found five persons in suspicious manner by holding 11 plastic cans places besides the accused persons in that auto, each plastic contain 20 liters of I.D liquor total (220) liters of ID liquor alongwith bajaj auto bearing No.AP20 U 7574, they stopped the 4 accused person and on examination the raid party and panchas smelt the same and identified the same as I.Dliquor total (220) litres of ID liquor in the presence of two mediators,ie., Pw.1 and Lw.1 drawn samples and drafted panchanama, he registered a case in C.O.R.No.156/2016 for the offence U/sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued C.O.R. Later he sent the accused person to court for judicial remand after completing the legal formalities he filed chargesheet in this case.

During the cross-examination he further admitted that PW.1 and LW.1 were acted as panch witnesses in other cases also. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence and they falsely implicated in this case. He further denied a suggestion that PW.1 and LW1 were not the residents of same locality.

12. The evidence of PW2 shows that he conducted the panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW1 and seized ID Liquor from them. But the very panch witness/PW-1 and LW1 deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no ID

Liquor was seized from the possession of accused. The aforesaid two versions of

Investigating officer and independent panch witness is contradicting with each other and the same is gives rise to a suspicion as to which version is to be believed. If at all presuming for a while that the version of PW.1 and 2 that no panchanama was conducted and no ID Liquor was seized from the possession of accused is believed, the evidence of PW-2 becomes false and vice-versa. In the above said manner the evidence of independent panch witness and that the evidence of Investigating Officer is not tallying with each other with regard to conducting panchanama, seizure of contraband ID Liquor from the possession of accused.

13.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and on close scrutiny of entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution could not establish the recovery of ID Liquor from the possession of accused and that the evidence of witnesses is not corroborated with each other. There is no other convincing, corroborative and trustworthy evidence to believe the case of prosecution. In the interest of justice, it is unsafe to rely conviction against the 5 accused and consequently the accused is liable to be acquitted for the said charges under benefit of doubt.

14. In the result, A1 to A5 are not found guilty for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation to the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20th day of April, 2018.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution P.W.1. Pingili Babu P.W.2. Sameemullah Khan

For defence -None-

Exhibits Marked For prosecution Ex.P.1. Signature of PW1 on panchanama. Ex.P.2. Panchanama Ex.P.3. Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P.4. Chemical Analysis report Ex.P.5. Destruction Proceedings.

For defence -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Corrections carried out by me:

6 7

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHADRACHALAM.

Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Present : Sri K.K.V.Bulikrishna,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.259 of 2018

Between:- The State through S.I.of Police, Prohibition & Excise, Bhadrachalam.

...Complainant

and

Banoth Chandra Shekar, S/o.Chatru, age.23 years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Pichukalapadu, Yetapaka Mandal, East Godavari District. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 19-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Asst Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri B.Srinivas Prasad, advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case of illegal possession, transport and sale of I.D liquor by the accused, which arises out of C.O.R.No.328/2017 for the offence U/sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Police, Bhadrachalam.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

On 25.09.2017 at about 06.00 a.m on reliable information, the LW3 alongwith their staff proceeded to Out skirts of Rajupeta, Bhadrachalam for conducting raids.

He called two mediators LW.1 and 2 and found one person in suspicious manner by holding (06) polythene covers, they stopped the accused person and on examination the raid party and panchas smelt the same and identified the same as I.D liquor total (06) liters of ID liquor. Later, LW3 drawn samples containing 180 ml from the contraband for the purpose of chemical analysis and sealed the samples and pasted slips duly signed by the mediators under cover of confession and seizure panchanama and brought the arrested accused to PS alongwith case property. On the strength of confession and seizure panchanama of the accused, LW3 registered 2 a case in C.O.R.No.328/2017 U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, effected the arrest of accused. During the course of investigation, LW3 incorporated the detailed description and rough sketch of the scene of offence in C.D form in presence of same mediators Lws.1 and 2 recorded the detailed statements of Lws.1 and 2 in Part-II case diary of the date. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was laid against the accused for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the A1 and A2 and process was issued.

4. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required

U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge

U/Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for

the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of prosecution that on 25.09.2017 at 06.00 a.m at outskirts of

Rajupeta, Bhadrachalam, the A1 and A2 were caught hold with (04) liters of ID Liquor and thereby the accused is liable for the offence punishable U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8(e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act. It is reiterated that to substantiate the guilt of accused, the 3 prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3. PW-1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for

Confession and seizure panchanama as well as CDF panchanama and PW-3 is the

Investigating Officer.

I have gone through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses (PW1 to

PW3), exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record.

10.The prosecution case is a suo-moto registered case registered by

PW3/Investigating Officer. The PW.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama as well as CDF panchanama, as per the evidence of PW-1 about seven months back on one day the Prohibition and Excise police

Bhadrachalam obtained his signature on some written papers. PW2 deposed on the same lines of PW1. PW1 and PW2 categorically deposed that no body confessed about any offence, no panchanama was conducted and no ID liquor was seized form any person in his presence. PW1 and 2 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

11. The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer as PW-3. As per the evidence of PW-3, on 25.09.2017 at about 06.00 a.m on reliable information she along with her staff members proceeded to out skirts of Rajupeta, Bhadrachalam and found one person was in suspicious manner by holding (06) Polythene covers in one hand bag, each one polythene cover contains one liter of I.D.liquor, they stopped the accused person and on examination the raid party and panchas smelt the same and identified the same as I.Dliquor total (04) litres of ID liquor in the presence of two mediators,ie., Pw.1 and Pw.2 drawn samples and drafted panchanama, he registered a case in C.O.R.No.328/2017 for the offence U/sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued C.O.R. Later he sent the accused person to court for judicial remand after completing the legal formalities he filed chargesheet in this case.

During the cross-examination he further admitted that PW.1 and PW.2 were acted as panch witnesses in other cases also. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence and they falsely implicated in this case. He further denied a suggestion that PW.1 and PW2 were not the residents of same locality.

4

12. The evidence of PW3 shows that he conducted the panchanama in the presence of PW1 and PW2 and seized ID Liquor from them. But the very panch witnesses/PW-1 and 2 deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no ID

Liquor was seized from the possession of accused. The aforesaid two versions of

Investigating officer and independent panch witness is contradicting with each other and the same is gives rise to a suspicion as to which version is to be believed. If at all presuming for a while that the version of PW.1 and 2 that no panchanama was conducted and no ID Liquor was seized from the possession of accused is believed, the evidence of PW-3 becomes false and vice-versa. In the above said manner the evidence of independent panch witness and that the evidence of Investigating Officer is not tallying with each other with regard to conducting panchanama, seizure of contraband ID Liquor from the possession of accused.

13.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and on close scrutiny of entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution could not establish the recovery of ID Liquor from the possession of accused and that the evidence of witnesses is not corroborated with each other. There is no other convincing, corroborative and trustworthy evidence to believe the case of prosecution. In the interest of justice, it is unsafe to rely conviction against the accused and consequently the accused is liable to be acquitted for the said charges under benefit of doubt.

14. In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation to the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

5

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution P.W.1. Kesari Kishore P.W.2. Giriboina Kiran P.W.3. Sameemullah Khan

For defence -None-

Exhibits Marked For prosecution Ex.P.1. Signature of PW1 on panchanama. Ex.P.2. Signature of PW2 on panchanama. Ex.P.3. Panchanama Ex.P.4. Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P.5. Chemical Analysis report Ex.P.6. Destruction Proceedings.

For defence -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Corrections carried out by me:

6

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHADRACHALAM.

Friday, this the 27th day of April, 2018.

Present : Sri K.K.V.Bulikrishna,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.240 of 2018

Between:- The State through S.I.of Police, Prohibition & Excise, Bhadrachalam.

...Complainant

and

Karakapally Naresh, S/o.Devadasu, age.26 years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Ayyappa colony, Bhadrachalam. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 26-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Asst Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri B.Srinivas Prasad, advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case of illegal possession, transport and sale of I.D liquor by the accused, which arises out of C.O.R.No.65/2017 for the offence U/sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Police, Bhadrachalam.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

On 04.02.2017 at about 03.30 p.m on reliable information, the LW3 alongwith their staff proceeded to Ayyappa Colony, Bhadrachalam for conducting raids. He called two mediators LW.1 and 2 and found one person in suspicious manner by holding (10) polythene covers, they stopped the accused person and on examination the raid party and panchas smelt the same and identified the same as I.D liquor total (10) liters of ID liquor. Later, LW3 drawn samples containing 180 ml from the contraband for the purpose of chemical analysis and sealed the samples and pasted slips duly signed by the mediators under cover of confession and seizure panchanama and brought the arrested accused to PS alongwith case property. On the strength of confession and seizure panchanama of the accused, LW3 registered 2 a case in C.O.R.No.65/2017 U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, effected the arrest of accused. During the course of investigation, LW3 incorporated the detailed description and rough sketch of the scene of offence in C.D form in presence of same mediators Lws.1 and 2 recorded the detailed statements of Lws.1 and 2 in

Part-II case diary of the date. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was laid against the accused for the offence U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the A1 and A2 and process was issued.

4. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to him as required

U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge

U/Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5. The prosecution filed Memo by stating that the whereabouts of LW1/P.Pullarao are not known, hence the evidence of LW1/P.Pullarao is closed.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for

the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of prosecution that on 04.02.2017 at 03.30 p.m at Ayyappa

Colony, Bhadrachalam, the accused was caught hold with (10) liters of ID Liquor and thereby the accused is liable for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of the 3

A.P.Prohibition Act. It is reiterated that to substantiate the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 and 2. PW-1 is the panch witness for Confession and seizure panchanama as well as CDF panchanama and PW-2 is the Investigating

Officer. The evidence of LW1/P.Pullarao is closed on filing memo by the prosecution by stating that the whereabouts of LW1/P.Pullarao are not known.

I have gone through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses (PW1 and 2), exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record.

10.The prosecution case is a suo-moto registered case registered by

PW3/Investigating Officer. The PW.1 is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama as well as CDF panchanama, as per the evidence of PW-1 about seven months back on one day the Prohibition and Excise police Bhadrachalam obtained his signature on some written papers. PW1 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

11. The prosecution examined the Investigating Officer as PW-2. As per the evidence of PW-2, on 04.02.2017 at about 03.30 p.m on reliable information she along with her staff members proceeded to Ayyappa Colony, Bhadrachalam and found one person was in suspicious manner by holding (10) Polythene covers in one hand bag, each one polythene cover contains one liter of I.D.liquor, they stopped the accused person and on examination the raid party and panchas smelt the same and identified the same as I.Dliquor total (10) litres of ID liquor in the presence of two mediators,ie., Pw.1 drawn samples and drafted panchanama, he registered a case in

C.O.R.No.65/2017 for the offence U/sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued C.O.R. Later he sent the accused person to court for judicial remand after completing the legal formalities he filed chargesheet in this case. During the cross- examination he further admitted that PW.1 and LW1 were acted as panch witnesses in other cases also. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence and they falsely implicated in this case. He further denied a suggestion that

PW.1 and LW1 were not the residents of same locality. The non-examination of

LW1/P.Pulla Rao is fatal to the case of prosecution.

4

12. The evidence of PW2 shows that he conducted the panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW1 and seized ID Liquor from them. But the very panch witness/PW-1 deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no ID Liquor was seized from the possession of accused. The aforesaid two versions of Investigating officer and independent panch witness is contradicting with each other and the same is gives rise to a suspicion as to which version is to be believed. If at all presuming for a while that the version of PW.1 that no panchanama was conducted and no ID

Liquor was seized from the possession of accused is believed, the evidence of PW-2 becomes false and vice-versa. In the above said manner the evidence of independent panch witness and that the evidence of Investigating Officer is not tallying with each other with regard to conducting panchanama, seizure of contraband ID Liquor from the possession of accused.

13.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and on close scrutiny of entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution could not establish the recovery of ID Liquor from the possession of accused and that the evidence of witnesses is not corroborated with each other. There is no other convincing, corroborative and trustworthy evidence to believe the case of prosecution. In the interest of justice, it is unsafe to rely conviction against the accused and consequently the accused is liable to be acquitted for the said charges under benefit of doubt.

14. In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation to the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2018.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

5

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution P.W.1. Giriboina Kiran P.W.2. Sameemullah Khan

For defence -None-

Exhibits Marked For prosecution Ex.P.1. Signature of PW1 on panchanama. Ex.P.2. Panchanama Ex.P.3. Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P.4. Chemical Analysis report Ex.P.5. Destruction Proceedings.

For defence -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Corrections carried out by me:

6

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BHADRACHALAM.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Present : Sri K.K.V.Bulikrishna,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.263 of 2018 Between:-

The State through S.I.of Police, Prohibition & Excise, Bhadrachalam.

...Complainant

and

Addanki Ramulu, S/o.Guravaiah, aged.30 years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Rajuthanda, Sarapaka, Burgampahad. …Accused.

This case is coming before me on 23-04-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Asst Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.Ramachandraiah, advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a case of illegal possession, transport and sale of I.D liquor by the accused, which arises out of C.O.R.No.81/2017 for the offence U/sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 of Prohibition and Excise Police, Bhadrachalam.

2. The brief facts of the case are that :

On 13.02.2017 at about 06.00 a.m on reliable information, the LW3 alongwith their staff proceeded to Raju Thanda, Sarapaka, Burgampahad Mandal for conducting raids. He called two mediators LW.1 and 2 and found one person in suspicious manner by holding (05) polythene covers, they stopped the accused person and on examination the raid party and panchas smelt the same and identified the same as I.D liquor total (05) litres of ID liquor. Later, LW3 drawn samples containing 180 ml from the contraband for the purpose of chemical analysis and sealed the samples and pasted slips duly signed by the mediators under cover of 2 confession and seizure panchanama and brought the arrested accused to PS alongwith case property. On the strength of confession and seizure panchanama of the accused, LW3 registered a case in C.O.R.No.81/2017 U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, effected the arrest of accused. During the course of investigation, LW3 incorporated the detailed description and rough sketch of the scene of offence in C.D form in presence of same mediators Lws.1 and 2 recorded the detailed statements of Lws.1 and 2 in Part-II case diary of the date. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was laid against the accused for the offence

U/sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused and process was issued.

4. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to them as required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge U/Sec. 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution examined PW1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for

the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

It is the case of prosecution that on 13.02.2017 at 07.00 a.m at Raju Thanda,

Sarapaka, the accused was caught hold with (05) liters of ID Liquor and thereby the 3 accused is liable for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition

Act. It is reiterated that to substantiate the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3. Pws. 1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for Confession and seizure panchanama as well as CDF panchanama and PW-3 is the Investigating

Officer.

I have gone through the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses (PW1 to 3), exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record.

10.The prosecution case is a suo-moto registered case registered by

PW3/Investigating Officer. The PW.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama as well as CDF panchanama, as per the evidence of PW-1 about seven months back on one day the Prohibition and Excise police

Bhadrachalam obtained his signature on some written papers. PW1 categorically deposed that no body confessed about any offence, no panchanama was conducted and no ID liquor was seized form any person in his presence and in the presence of

PW2. PW1 deposed on the same lines of PW1 in all material aspects. PW1 and 2 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

11. The prosecution examined the I.O. as PW-3. As per the evidence of PW-3, on 13.02.2017 at about 06.00 a.m on reliable information she along with her staff members proceeded to Raju thanda, Sarapak and found one person was in suspicious manner by holding (05) Polythene covers and found (05) litres of ID liquor in the presence of two mediators,ie., Pw.1 and PW2 drawn samples and drafted panchanama, he registered a case in C.O.R.No.81/2017 for the offence U/sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued C.O.R. Later he sent the accused person to court for judicial remand after completing the legal formalities he filed chargesheet in this case. During the cross-examination he further admitted that

PW.1 and PW.2 were acted as panch witnesses in other cases also. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not commit any offence and they falsely implicated in this case. He further denied a suggestion that PW.1 and PW2 were not the residents of same locality.

4

12. The evidence of PW3 shows that he conducted the panchanama in the presence of PW1 and PW2 and seized ID Liquor from them. But the very panch witnesses/PW-1 and 2 deposed that no panchanama was conducted and no ID

Liquor was seized from the possession of accused. The aforesaid two versions of

Investigating officer and independent panch witness is contradicting with each other and the same is gives rise to a suspicion as to which version is to be believed. If at all presuming for a while that the version of PW.1 that no panchanama was conducted and no ID Liquor was seized from the possession of accused is believed, the evidence of PW-3 becomes false and vice-versa. In the above said manner the evidence of independent panch witness and that the evidence of Investigating Officer is not tallying with each other with regard to conducting panchanama, seizure of contraband ID Liquor from the possession of accused.

13.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and on close scrutiny of entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, exhibits marked and basing on the other material available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution could not establish the recovery of ID Liquor from the possession of accused and that the evidence of witnesses is not corroborated with each other. There is no other convincing, corroborative and trustworthy evidence to believe the case of prosecution. In the interest of justice, it is unsafe to rely conviction against the accused and consequently the accused is liable to be acquitted for the said charge under benefit of doubt.

14. In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation to the Gr-III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

5

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For prosecution P.W.1. Y.Ramesh P.W.2.K.Satyanarayana Reddy P.W.3. Smt. P.Sailaja

For defence -None-

Exhibits Marked For prosecution Ex.P.1. Signature of PW1 on panchanama. Ex.P.2. Signature of PW2 on panchanama Ex.P.3. Panchanama Ex.P.4. Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P.5. Chemical Analysis report Ex.P.6. Destruction Proceedings.

For defence -Nil-

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam.

Corrections carried out by me:

6

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS BHADRACHALAM

Dated this the 20th day of April, 2018

Present : Sri K.K.V.Bulikrishna

Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.245/18

Between:- The State of A.P. through Sub Inspector of P & E.Bhadrachalam

…..Complainant

And.

Panuganti Venkanna, W/O: Ramachandraiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Coolie R/o: Chinna Nallabelli Village, Dummugudem Mandal.

……..Accused.

This is a case coming before me on 20.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Asst Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri B.Srinivasa Prasad, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Proh & Excise Sub-Inspector, Bhadrachalam has filed charge sheet against the accused

Nos 1 to 4 for the punishable U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P.Act .

2. The brief facts of the case are that on credible information about illegal possession,

Manufacture and sale of ID liquor, then Lw-3/Sameeullakhan, S.I Proh & Excise, Bhadrachalam and his staff proceeded to Chinnanallabelli Village, Dummugudem Mandal along with his staff for conducting ID raids during the course of ID raids they found one persons on suspicious manner by holding 5 Polythene covers in one hand bag each polythene cover containing 01 liters of ID liquor in total 5 liters of ID liquor then he seized the said ID liqor from the possession of Accused under the cover of panchanama after duly drawn the sample and also seized the said auto under the cover of panchanama later he brought the accused to P&E

Bhadrachalam along with seized property, basing on the panchanama a case in COR 92/2017 for the offence U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of APP Act was registered and sent them to court for judicial remand. Subsequently he sent the sample to FSL for analysis and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. for the offences U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P.Act.

3.This case was taken on file for the offences U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 against the accused Nos 1 to 5 and process was issued.

4. On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents upon which the prosecution proposed to be relied upon, were furnished to them as required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

The accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charges U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of the APP

Act, were framed read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilty of accused the prosecution examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of persecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence offence.

7. Heard both sides arguments.

8. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8(e) of APP Act, beyond all reasonable doubt or not ?

9. POINT : The Proh & Excise S.I. Bhadrachlaam , has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P.Act . The Excise police alleged that the accused while carrying he were carrying 05 liters of ID liquor and seized the said ID liquor from the possession of Accused under a cover of panchanama in the presence of PWs 1 and 2, after duly drawn the sample for analysis and basing on the panchanama a case in COR 92/2017 was registered against the accused and investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2.

Pw-1 is the panch witness and he turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

PW-1 deposed that the Proh & Excise police never called him to any place to act as panch in any panchanama proceedings about one year ago he obtained his signature on some written papers but he did not know the contents of said papers.

Pw-2 deposed that on 17.02.2017 at 09.00a.m. on reliable information with regard to possession and sale of ID liquor then he along with his staff proceeded to Chinnanallebelli village, Dummugudem Mandal for conducting ID raids and during the raids they found one person on suspicious manner by holding 05 liters of ID liquor and then they seized the said ID liquor under the cover of panchanam in the presence of PW 1 and LW2/P. Pulla Rao after duly drawn the sample for analysis purpose and he registered a case in Cr.No:92/2017 for the offence U/Sec 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P.Act and later sent them to court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

10. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the panch witness i.e. PWs-1 & 2 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The learned counsel for accused further submitted that the excise officials failed to secure the independent witnesses in the locality or village officials of the locality. The learned counsel for accused prayed this court to acquit the accused.

11. The learned Asst.P.P. submitted that the prosecution proved the case, beyond all reasonable doubt and praying this court to convict the accused.

12.In the cross-examination, Pw-2 deposed that the PWs 1 and LW2/P. Pullarao who are panch witnesses for seizure panchanama and not resident of same locality where the excise officials seized the ID liquor and he further admitted that the said panch witnesses are acted as panch witnesses in antoehr cases also. Therefore, Excise Police did not tried to secure the persons of independent mediators of the said locality. As per the version of excise officials they secure the panch witnesses, before conducting route watch. Therefore, it is clear that the alleged panch witnesses already mingled with the Excise Officials. Therefore, I am not inclined to rely on the evidence of PW-2. The panch witnesses i.e. Pws-1 & LW2 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile, in these circumstances I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences. Accordingly the accused is acquitted. `

13. IN THE RESULT, the accused not found guilty for the offences U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8(e) of the

A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The un-marked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in upon court, on this the 20th day of April, 2018.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution For defence: P.W.1: Giriboina Kiran P.W.2: Sameeullakhan -None-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution For defence: Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw-1 on panchanama and CDF Ex.P.2: Panchanama -Nil- Ex.P.3: C.O.R. Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P5: Destruction Proceedings.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.