Smt. K. Naga Lakshmi

CC.No.182/2017 1 Dt.02.05.2023

JFCM, KKLR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAIKALURU.

Present: SMT K.NAGA LAKSHMI,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru.

Tuesday, this the 2nd day of May, 2023.

Calendar Case No: 182 /2017

Between:

The State:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandavalli Police Station.… Complainant.

AND

Bathula Satyanarayana, S/o.Lakshmanudu, Aged 35 years, C/SC-Mala, Draksharamam Village, Daruvupeta Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Now at Chigurukota Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Driver of JCB (Proclain) AP 05 BW 7056 at the time of accident. … Accused.

This case is coming on 28.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.G.E.Radhika, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri A.Rambabu, learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mandavalli Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused alleging the offences under sections 337, 304-A of IPC in Crime No.14/2017.

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

(i)The deceased by name Ghantasala Venkateswara Rao is resident of Ingilipakalanka village of Mandavalli mandal. On 28.02.2017 morning PW.1/Ghantasala Radha kumari, who is the wife of the deceased/Ghantasala Venkateswara Rao and deceased went to PW.1 parents house at Komatilanka Village of Eluru mandal, West Godavari

District on their motorcycle, later same day night at about 20.30 hours, they returning from Komatilanka village to their village Ingilipakalanka, on their motorcycle at about 21.30 hours when they arrived near Appapuram

CC.No.182/2017 2 Dt.02.05.2023

JFCM, KKLR.

cross road in front of empty place of Gottimukkala Satyanarayana Raju when the driver of JCB (proclain) bearing registration No.AP 05 BW 7056 drove the same on NH-165 road from Mandavalli side towards Kaikaluru in a rash and negligent manner and wihout blowing horn and taking any precautions and dashed against their motorcycle in opposite direction, when the PW.1/Complainant and deceased were fell down on the road from their motorcycle and the deceased sustained injuries on his stomach and forehead and PW.1 was sustained injuries on her trunk PW.2 and PW.3 shifted both the injured to Kallapalem Hospital, Kaikaluru and informed to their relatives. Later, the deceased was shifted to Government General

Hospital, Eluru for better treatment. While shifting the deceased toward

Government General Hospital, Eluru on the way the deceased/Ghantasala

Venkateswara Rao was died on 01.03.2017 at 02.30 hours, then the complainant /PW.1 came to the police station and present a written report.

(ii).On receipt of report, PW.4/SI of Police registered a case in

Crime No.14/2017 under section 337, 304-A of IPC and issued FIR. He visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and scene observation report of the scene of offence. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the dead body of deceased for inquest and conducted inquest over dead body of deceased in the presence of his family members and mediators and sent the body of the deceased to the

Postmortem examination. He served notice to the accused under Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he sent requisition for Motor Vehicle Inspector to conduct inspection on the crime vehicle. After receipt of Postmortem certificate, Motor Vehicle Inspector report and after completion of investigation, PW.4 filed charge sheet against accused.

3.This case was taken on cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 337, 304-A of IPC against accused.

CC.No.182/2017 3 Dt.02.05.2023

JFCM, KKLR.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents on which the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C.

Accusation for the offence punishable under Section 337, 304-A of IPC explained to him in Telugu and having understood the same, accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW. 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.2/Ghantasala Subba Rao, LW.3/Bale Ramanjaneyulu,

LW.4/ghantasala Lakshmana Raju, LW.5/Sydu Prasad, LW.8/Banda Narayana

Rao, LW.9/Moru Venkanna, LW.10/Moru Subrahmanyam, LW.11/Sri

T.V.Krishna Veni and LW.12/Dr.V.Siva Mohan Naidu.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the entire incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the point arises for determination is that:-

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under section 337, 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

POINT:

10. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.02.2017 at about 20.30 hours, while the deceased and PW.1 returning from Komatilanka Village to their village Ingilipakalanka village on their motorcycle at about 21.30 hours, when they arrived near Appapuram cross road in front of empty place of Gottimukkala Satyanarayana Raju, the accused being the driver of JCB (proclain) bearing registration No.AP 05 BW 7056, drove it in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, hit the motorcycle of

CC.No.182/2017 4 Dt.02.05.2023

JFCM, KKLR.

deceased in opposite direction, resulting the deceased and PW.1/complaint fell down on the road. Due to that the deceased and PW.1 sustained severe injuries and the deceased succumbed due to injuries.

11.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW.1 to 4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 are marked. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased/Ghantasala Venkateswara Rao, who is defacto complainant and injured person. PW.2 and PW.3 are said to be eye witnesses. PW.4 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the PW.1 signature in the report. Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 are the earlier statements U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. of PW.1 to PW3 respectively. Ex.P5 is the Original First Information Report. Ex.P6 is the

Original scene observation report. Ex.P7 is the Original rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8 is the Original inquest report. Ex.P9 is the Original

Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Ex.P10 is the Original Postmortem

Examination report. Ex.P11 Original wound certificate of PW.1.

12.PW.1 is the wife of the deceased deposed that about five years ago on one day when herself and her husband went to her parental home and in the night time they returned to go to their village on their bike, as deceased drove their vehicle and PW1 sat on the vehicle as pillion rider and when they reached near Appapuram cross road, one JCB dashed their vehicle with rash and negligent manner, they fell down and received severe injuries, they were shifted to hospital at Kaikaluru and thereafter her husband shifted to Government General Hospital, Eluru and on the way her husband died due to accidental injuries. Further she deposed that at request of elders, PW.1 signed in a paper and she do not know the contents therein. Ex.P1 is her signature in the report. She did not depose any thing about involvement of crime vehicle and accused was driver of the crime vehicle at relevant time. As such, the evidence of PW.1 does not attach much significance to implicate the accused in this offence.

CC.No.182/2017 5 Dt.02.05.2023

JFCM, KKLR.

13.Coming to the evidence of eye witnesses i.e., PW.2 and PW.3, according to them, at about five years ago, when the deceased and his wife PW.1 while going on their bike from Kaikaluru to Gudivada at about 09.30P.M., JCB vehicle coming in their opposite direction, dashed the deceased. Both deceased and his wife/PW.1 received severe bleeding injuries and the deceased died while shifting to the hospital. PW.3 deposed that he do not know anything about the case .

14.Except PW.2 & PW.3, no other eye witnesses were examined by the prosecution for the entire case, As PW.1 to PW.3 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned APP cross examined them with the permission of the court. But nothing could be elicited to support the case of prosecution except marking their U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements as EX.P2 to

EX.P4 respectively.

15. PW.4 is investigating officer, deposed the chronological events of the investigation. He deposed that on 01.03.2017 at about 05.50 hours PW.1 submitted a written report and he registered the same in case in Crime

No.14/2017 Under Section 337, 304-A IPC and issued First Information

Report under Ex.P5. Later, he examined PW1, PW2 and PW3 are stated as in Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at Appapuram Cross road, Mandavalli village along with mediators

LW8/Banda Narayana and LW9/Moru Venkanna and observed the scene of offence and drafted scene observation report (Ex.P6) and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P7. He also conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and Panchayathidars LW.8, LW.9 and LW.10/Moru Subramanyam and blood relatives. Ex.P8 is the original inquest report. Later, he received Motor Vehicle Inspector report (Ex.P9) and postmortem examination report (Ex.P10) and also received wound certificate of PW.1 (Ex.P11). On 01.03.2017 he issued notice under Section

CC.No.182/2017 6 Dt.02.05.2023

JFCM, KKLR.

41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

16.As such, there is no positive evidence against the accused to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time and due to his negligence the said incident was happened. Therefore, the accused cannot be fastened with offence U/Sec.337, 304-A IPC.

17. In view of the above observations, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 337, 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused and his sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no property seized and produced in this case, hence no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2nd day of May, 2023

Sd/-Smt K.Naga Lakshmi,

Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate,

Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kaikaluru.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

On behalf of prosecution On behalf of accused PW1- Ghantasala Radha Kumari

PW2- Simhadri Bhimudu -NIL- PW3- Simhadri Arjuna Rao

PW4-A.Mani Kumar (IO)

CC.No.182/2017 7 Dt.02.05.2023

JFCM, KKLR.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : PW.1 is Signature in the report

Ex.P2 : U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P3 : U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P4 : U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P5 : Original First Information Report

Ex.P6 : Original Scene observation report

Ex.P7 : Original Rough Sketch of the Scene of offence

Ex.P8 : Original Inquest report

Ex.P9 : Original Motor Vehicle Inspector report

Ex.P10 : Original Postmortem Examination report

Ex.P11 : Original wound certificate of PW.1

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence: -NIL-

Material Objects marked: -NIL-

Sd/-Smt K.Naga Lakshmi,

AJFCM, Gudivada. FAC/JMFC, Kaikaluru.

\\ True Copy //

AJFCM, Gudivada,

FAC/JFCM, Kaikaluru.

CC.No.182/2017 8 Dt.02.05.2023

JFCM, KKLR.

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar Case No: 182/2017

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

KAIKALURU.

1.Date of Offence::28.02.2017

2.Date of ::01.03.2017

Report/Complaint

3.Date of Apprehension ::01.03.2017 (Notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C issued to the accused)

4.Date of Release ::--

5.Commencement of trial::27.10.2022

6.Date of Closure of trial::03.02.2023

7.Date of Judgment::02.05.2023

8.Name of the ::The State:- Sub-Inspector of Police, ComplainantMandavalli Police Station.

9.Name of the Accused::Bathula Satyanarayana, S/o.Laksh- manudu, Aged 35 years, C/SC-Mala, Draksharamam Village, Daruvupeta Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Now at Chig- urukota Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Driver of JCB (Proclain) AP 05 BW 7056 at the time of accident.

10.Section of Law::U/Sec.337, 304-A of IPC

11.Plea of Accused::Pleaded Not guilty

12.Finding of the court::Found not guilty

13.Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 337, 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused and his sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no property seized and produced in this case, hence no property order is passed.

14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file under section 337, 304-A of IPC and numbered as CC.182/2017. On 06.07.2017, the accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. Trial commenced in this case on 27.10.2022 and trial closed on 03.02.2023 and on 15.02.2023, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and on 28.04.2023, heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 02.05.2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-Smt K.Naga Lakshmi,

Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate,

Gudivada. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kaikaluru.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.1132/2021 -1- Date: 28.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, KAIKALURU

FAC/ ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUDIVADA.

Present: SMT. K.NAGA LAKSHMI,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kaikaluru

Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2023.

Calendar Case No.1132/2021

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandavalli Police Station. … Complainant. AND

Ghantasala Venkanna, S/o.Yedukondalu, Aged 26 years, C/o.Vaddilu, R/o.Penumakalanka Village, Mandavalli Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on 27.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.G.E.Radhika, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri Moru Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mandavalli Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.244/2021 alleging that the accused committed the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- i.On 28.11.2021 at about 20.30 hours, on credible information about illegal possession and sale of prohibited ID arrack, PW.2 secured the mediators and proceeded towards Penumakalanka village of Mandavalli

Mandal along with his staff and mediators and when they reached outskirts of

Penumakalanka village, found the accused near the Anjaneyaswamy temple.

C.C.No.1132/2021 -2- Date: 28.04.2023

On seeing the police, the accused tried to escape, then they caught hold the accused and on enquiry, the accused confessed that he purchased the ID arrack from unknown person at Eluru and sell the same for higher price.

Then PW.1 verified the plastic bag and found 30 plastic ½ bottles and it contains 15 liters of ID arrack. PW.2 seized the same in the presence of mediators from the possession of the accused, arrested him and separated 250 ml ID arrack as sample and sent the same for chemical analysis and affixed signatures of himself and mediators, drafted mediators report.

ii.PW.2 registered the mediator report as a case in Crime

No.244/2021 U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. PW.2 arrested the accused and produced before this Honorable Court for Judicial custody. After receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, PW.2 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 &

P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO.1 on behalf of the prosecution.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

L.W.1/R.Nagaraju, LW.2/N.Naga Anjaneyulu, LW.3/K.Avinash, LW.4/P.Ravindra

Babu and LW.6/Vemuri Ananthaiah.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material available in

C.C.No.1132/2021 -3- Date: 28.04.2023 the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against him is false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

10.The case of prosecution is that the accused was in the possession of I.D arrack without license or permit. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and

MO.1.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that PW.1 is eye witness and PW.2 is the official witness, supported the case of the prosecution. They found that accused was in the possession of I.D arrack without valid license. The prosecution could establish the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused and prayed to convict the accused.

12.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused did not commit any offence, this false case was filed against the accused only for the statistical purpose. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

13.In the instant case, unfolding the case of prosecution, PW.1 who is the mediator deposed that on 28.11.2021 at about 08.30 A.M., PW.2/S.I of

Police, Mandavalli Police Station along with staff requested to him to act as mediator and himself along with LW.6/Vemuri Ananthaiah went to

Penumakalanka village and on seeing the police, accused trying to escape, then PW.2/S.I of police detained the accused. PW.1 further deposed that on enquiry, he found 30 bottles of ID liquor each bottle contain half liter of ID arrack. The accused confessed that he used to purchase the said liquor with

C.C.No.1132/2021 -4- Date: 28.04.2023 low price and used to sell the same for higher prices. PW.1 further deposed that basing on the confession, the PW.2/S.I of police seized 15 liters of ID arrack under the cover of mediators report and he signed on the said report.

Ex.P1 is the original mediator report.

14.P.W.2/Investigating Officer deposed that on 28.11.2021 at about 20.30 hours, on receipt of credible information he along with his staff and mediators went to Penumakalanka village and found the accused standing with a white bag in his hand near a Anjaneyaswamy temple. On seeing them, he tried to escape. He further deposed that they detained him and on enquiry, the accused confessed that he used to purchase ID arrack from unknown persons to sell the same for higher price. He further deposed that on checking found 15 liters of ID arrack in 30 bottles, each bottle contains 500 ml worth Rs.4,500/-. He further deposed that he seized the ID arrack and separated one bottle of ID arrack for chemical examination and pasted slips with signatures of the mediators and accused and drafted mediators report. He registered the mediator report as a case in Crime No.244/2021 under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. Ex.P2 is the

Original First Information Report. He further deposed that he arrested the accused and produced him before this court for judicial remand. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P3 is the original rough sketch of the scene of offence. He send requisition for chemical analysis along with letter of advice. Ex.P4 is the original letter of advice. Ex.P5 is the original chemical analysis report. MO.1 is the sample bottle. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

15.From the evidence of above prosecution witnesses, the Court has observed that except PW.1 and PW.2, no other evidence from independent witness is available to prove the guilt of the accused.

16.The search as contemplated U/s.100 Cr.P.C shall be made in the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of that

C.C.No.1132/2021 -5- Date: 28.04.2023 locality in which the place to be searched is situated. In this regard

PW.1/mediator admitted that the Anjaneyaswamy temple area is a busy locality and he is not resident of Penumakalanka village. He was secured at police station and he drafted two or three mediators reports.

PW.2/Investigating Officer deposed that “It is true the scene of offence is residential busy locality. It is true

I did not issue any summons to local inhabitants to act as mediator for seizure of alleged property.”

17.Thus, it is clear PW.2 failed to secure the local inhabitants of that locality to act as mediators and also failed to comply mandatory Provisions

U/s.100 Cr.P.C. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

S.Baba Saheb Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2009 (4)

APLJ 57 HC that:- “Before making a search, the officer or other person about to make it, shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality. If no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. ”

18.Moreover, except Ex.P1-Mediators report which is confessional statement of the accused recorded in the presence of the police and the same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused purchased the said seized contraband to sell the same for higher price as mentioned Ex.P1 Mediators report, PW.2 did not try to examine anybody in the scene of offence or the place where the accused alleged to have been selling the said contraband and to secure any independent witness to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, PW.2 has not recorded the grounds of his suspicion and no notice was served on the accused before searching the bag which was in the possession of the accused. Therefore, on that ground, the proceedings can be vitiated. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of the I.D., arrack and that he was selling the I.D., arrack.

C.C.No.1132/2021 -6- Date: 28.04.2023

19.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he was charged and accordingly he is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and he is acquitted for the said offence U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 in C.P.

No.11/2013 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi,

Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate,

Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kaikaluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- ACCUSED/DEFENCE:-

PW.1 :- Mukku Chakradhar Rao- None - PW.2 :- T.Rama Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:-

1.Ex.P1 :-Mediators report.

2.Ex.P2 :-Original First Information Report

3.Ex.P3 :-Original rough sketch of the scene of offence

4.Ex.P4 :-Original chemical analysis report

5.Ex.P5 :-Original letter of advice

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- M.O.1 :- Sample bottle.

Sd/- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi,

AJFCM, Gudivada, FAC/JMFC, Kaikaluru.

C.C.No.1132/2021 -7- Date: 28.04.2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE NO.1132/2021

ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE: KAIKALURU

1.Date of Offence:28.11.2021

2.Date of Report/Complaint:28.11.2021

3.Date of Apprehension :29.11.2021

4.Date of Release :29.11.2021

5.Commencement of trial:15.09.2022

6.Date of Closure of trial:20.10.2022

7.Date of Judgment:28.04.2023

8.Name of the Complainant:State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mandavalli Police Station

9.Name of the Accused:Ghantasala Venkanna, S/o.Yedukondalu, Aged 26 years, C/o.Vaddilu, R/o.Penumakalanka Village, Mandavalli Mandal.

10.Section of Law:U/s.7(A)r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

11.Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

12.Finding of the court:Found not guilty.

13.Result : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and he is acquitted for the said offence U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 in C.P.No.11/2023 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.1132/2021 and on 24.03.2022, the accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., and Charge framed for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and posted for trial and on 15.09.2022, trial commenced in this case and closed on 20.10.2022 and on 21.04.2023 the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and on 27.04.2023, heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 28.04.2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi,

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Gudivada. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kaikaluru.

Copy Submitted to :- The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.862/2020 -1- Date: 02.05.2023.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS,

KAIKALURU

Present: SMT. K.NAGA LAKSHMI,

Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Kaikaluru

Tuesday, this the 2nd day of May, 2023.

Calendar Case No.862/2020

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau, Kaikaluru… Complainant.

AND

Gollu Syamala, W/o.Rama Rao, Aged 44 years, C/Velama, R/o.Kaikaluru Village and Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on 28.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.G.E.Radhika, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri D.Siva Prasad, learned Counsel for the Accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Kaikaluru, has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.79/2019 alleging that the accused committed the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of the

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is that:- i.On 27.12.2019 at about 07.15 A.M., as per the instruction of Director

Enforcement of Prohibition and Excise, Vijayawada, Prohibition and Excise

Sub Inspector , STF Team-IV, Vijayawada. PW.1 and PW.2 along with their staff while conducting patrolling for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences at Kaikaluru village, found the accused standing with one carry bag in her right hand. On seeing the raid party, the accused tried to escape, PW.1 caught hold her and on enquiry, the accused confessed that she was in possession of 10 IML bottles in a carry bag i.e., 1) HD Gold Whisky 180 ml 07 bottles, 2) Old Label fine Grain Whisky 180 ML 01 bottle, 3) Men’s Club

C.C.No.862/2020 -2- Date: 02.05.2023.

Supreme Whisky -180ML 01 bottle, 4) President Medal Fine Whisky 180ML -01 bottle. The accused further confessed that she purchased the liquor bottles from Government Retail outlets and bring the same to sell at higher price and she did not have any license or permission to sell the same. PW.1 seized the said contraband and drawn one bottle from each brand as sample from the contraband and PW.1 brought the accused to the excise station along with seized contraband and handed over to PW.2/Sub Inspector of Police

Prohibition and Excise, Kaikaluru.

ii.PW.2 registered the Special Report as a case in Crime No.79/2019

U/Sec.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. PW.2 issued notice

U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C., to the accused. After receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, PW.2 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., charge for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu for which she denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and

PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MOs.1 to 4 on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

LW.2/P.Satyanarayana.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material available in

C.C.No.862/2020 -3- Date: 02.05.2023.

the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, she stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against her is false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9. Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable U/s. 34(a) of the Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:-

10.The case of prosecution is that the accused was in the possession of 10 liquor bottles without license or permit. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and

M.Os.1 to 4.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that PW.1 and

PW.2 are the official witnesses. She found that the accused was in the possession of liquor bottles without valid license. The prosecution could establish the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused and prayed to convict the accused.

12.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused did not commit any offence and the prosecution did not examine any independent eye witness. This false case was filed against the accused only for the statistical purpose. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

13.In the instant case, unfolding the case of prosecution, PW.1/Junior

Assistant, Office of Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada deposed that on 27.12.2019 at about 07.15 A.M., on the instructions of Prohibition and Excise

Enforcement Director, Vijayawada he along with LW.2/P.Satyanarayana while patrolling of Kaikaluru Village at Raythubazar, notice one person standing with carry bag in her right hand and on seeing them, the accused tried to skulk away. They caught hold the accused and on questioning, the accused

C.C.No.862/2020 -4- Date: 02.05.2023.

confessed that she was in possession of 10 liquor bottles in her carry bag.

Then PW.1 got opened the carry bag which was in the possession of the accused and found 10 liquor bottles i.e., 1) HD Gold Whisky 180 ml 07 bottles, 2) Old Label fine Grain Whisky 180 ML 01 bottle, 3) Men’s Club

Supreme Whisky -180ML 01 bottle, 4) President Medal Fine Whisky 180ML -01 bottle and found all the seals of the bottles are broken. PW.1 deputed to

LW.2/P.Satyanarayana, to secure mediators but he returned as nobody come forward to act as mediators and village officials are also not available. Then they seized the said contraband and arrested the accused under the cover of

Ex.P1 Special Report. PW.1 drawn one bottle from each brand. MO.1 to MO.4 are the sample bottles and PW.1 brought the accused to the excise station along with seized contraband and handed over to PW.2/Sub Inspector of

Police, Prohibition and Excise, Kaikaluru.

14.PW.2/Sub Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Kaikaluru deposed that on 27.12.2019 at about 11.30 P.M., PW.1 presented a special report basing on the said report PW.2 registered a case in Crime No.79/2019

U/Sec.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. Ex.P2 is the Original First

Information Report. PW.2 issued notice U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C., to the accused and set her at liberty. PW.2 send the samples collected by PW.1 for chemical analysis along with letter of advice. Ex.P3 is the original letter of advice.

Ex.P4 is the original chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, PW.2 filed charge sheet against the accused.

15.From the evidence of above prosecution witnesses, the Court has observed that except PW.1 and PW.2, who are interested witnesses, no other evidence from independent witnesses is available to prove the guilt of accused.

16.The search as contemplated U/s.100 Cr.P.C shall be made in the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of that

C.C.No.862/2020 -5- Date: 02.05.2023.

locality in which the place to be searched is situated. In this regard, PW.1 deposed that:

“ It is true the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality. It is true in the said village, there are Revenue officials and the alleged date of offence is working day.”

17.Thus, it is clear that people available at the place of seizure. But,

PW.1 failed to secure them to act as mediators and also failed to comply mandatory Provisions U/s.100 Cr.P.C. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in S.Baba Saheb Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2009 (4) APLJ 57 HC that:- “Before making a search, the officer or other person about to make it, shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality. If no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.”

18.Moreover, except Ex.P1-Special report which is confessional statement of the accused recorded by police and the same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused purchased the said seized liquor bottles from various shops to sell the same for higher prices as mentioned in Ex.P1-Special Report, PW.1 did not try to examine anybody in that shops or the place where the accused alleged to have been selling the said seized liquor, to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, PW.1 has not recorded the grounds of his suspicion and no notice served on the accused

before searching the bag which was in the possession of the accused.

Therefore, on that ground the proceedings can be vitiated. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of the liquor and that he was selling the same.

19.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for

C.C.No.862/2020 -6- Date: 02.05.2023.

the offence with which she was charged and accordingly, she is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and she is acquitted for the said offence U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months, in view of

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.Os.1 to 4 in CPR.No.12/2023 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 2nd day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt K.Naga Lakshmi,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- ACCUSED/DEFENCE:-

PW.1 :- N.L.G.Sameer- None - PW.2 :- M.Ashalatha

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:-

1.Ex.P1 :-Special report.

2.Ex.P2 :-Original First Information Report

3.Ex.P3 :-Original Letter of advice.

4.Ex.P4 :-Original Laboratory analysis report.

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- - Nil –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

M.Os.1 to 4 :- Sample bottles.

Sd/-Smt K.Naga Lakshmi,

AJFCM, GDV.

FAC/JFCM, KKLR.

C.C.No.862/2020 -7- Date: 02.05.2023.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.862/2020

ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAIKALURU.

1.Date of Offence:27.12.2019

2.Date of Report/Complaint:27.12.2019

3.Date of Apprehension :27.12.2019 (Issue U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C., notice to the accused)

4.Date of Release :--

5.Commencement of trial:28.09.2022

6.Date of Closure of trial:15.02.2023

7.Date of Judgment:02.05.2023.

8.Name of the Complainant:State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau, Kaikaluru.

9.Name of the Accused:Gollu Syamala, W/o.Rama Rao, Aged 44 years, C/Velama, R/o.Kaikaluru Village and Mandal.

10.Section of Law:U/s.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

11.Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

12.Finding of the court:Found not guilty.

13.Result : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and she is acquitted for the said offence U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months, in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.Os.1 to 4 in CPR.No.12/2023 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file U/s.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against the accused and numbered as

CC.No.862/2020 and on 20.04.2021, the accused was examined U/s.239

Cr.P.C., and Charge framed for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and posted for trial and on 29.09.2022, trial commenced in this case and closed on 15.02.2023, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and on 28.04.2023, heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 02.05.2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Smt K.Naga Lakshmi,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru.

Copy Submitted to :- The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. //

C.C.No.419/2022 -1- Date: 02.05.2023

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, KAIKALURU

Present: Smt K.NAGA LAKSHMI,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kaikaluru.

Tuesday, this the 2ndday of May, 2023.

Calendar Case No: 419/2022

Between:

State represented by Inspector of Special, Enforcement Bureau, Kaikaluru.… Complainant.

AND

Parasa Maha Laxmi, W/o.Ganapathi, Aged 38 years, C/Gowda, R/o.Vibharampuram Village, Kalidindi Mandal.… Accused.

This case is coming on 28.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.G.E.Radhika, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ Complainant and Sri A.Rambabu, learned Counsel for the Accused and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau, Kaikaluru, has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.49/2021 alleging that the accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that:- i.On 16.05.2021 at about 12.30 P.M., as per the instructions of Inspector

Special Enforcement Bureau, Kaikaluru, PW.1 along with her staff while patrolling for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences at Vibharampuram village, found the accused holding with plastic bottle in her right hand. On seeing the police, the accused tried to escape, then they caught hold the accused and on enquiry, the accused confessed that she purchased the ID arrack from unknown person at Vibharamapuram Village of Kalidindi mandal and sell the same for higher price. Then PW.1 verified the plastic bottle and

C.C.No.419/2022 -2- Date: 02.05.2023 found plastic bottle with 02 liters of capacity and it contains 02 liters of ID liquor. PW.1 seized the ID liquor and arrested her and separated 300 ml ID liquor from for sample and affixed identity slips under cover of of special report. She sent the same for chemical analysis.

ii.PW.1 registered the special report as a case in Crime No.49/2021

U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Sher served notice to the accused U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. After receipt of chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, LW.3/S.Rambabu filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to her as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., charge for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 has been framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu for which, she denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 on behalf of the prosecution. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW.2/G.Bhaskara Reddy and LW.3/S.Rambabu.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, she stated that entire incriminating evidence appearing against her is false and reported no defence evidence.

C.C.No.419/2022 -3- Date: 02.05.2023

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

10.The case of prosecution is that the accused was in the possession of I.D., liquor without license or permit. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that PW.1 is the official witness, supported the case of the prosecution. They found that accused was in the possession of I.D., liquor without valid license. The prosecution could establish the essential ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused and prayed to convict the accused.

12.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused did not commit any offence and the prosecution did not examine any independent eye witnesses. This false case was filed against the accused only for the statistical purpose. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

13.In the instant case, unfolding the case of prosecution, PW.1 who is the Sub Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau, Kaikaluru deposed that on 16.05.2021 about 12.30 P.M., while patrolling at Vibharampuram village and found the accused standing with a plastic bottle in her right hand. On seeing them, she tried to escape. She further deposed that they detained her and on enquiry, the accused confessed that she used to purchase ID arrack from unknown persons to sell the same for higher price. PW.1 further deposed that on checking found 2 liters of ID arrack and PW.1 seized the ID arrack and drawn 300ML as sample for chemical examination. MO.1 is the sample. Then, she informed her about the offence committed by her and seized the property under the Cover of special report. Ex.P1 is the special report, basing on the said report PW.1 registered a case in Crime No.49/2021

C.C.No.419/2022 -4- Date: 02.05.2023

Under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and issued FIR. Ex.P2 is the original First Information Report. PW.1 further deposed that she served notice to the accused U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. and set her at liberty. PW.1 send requisition for chemical analysis along with letter of advice. Ex.P3 is the original letter of advice. Ex.P4 is the original chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation, basing on the laboratory report LW3/CI of police filed charge sheet and PW.1 identify the signature of the LW3/CI of police.

14.From the evidence of above prosecution witness, the Court has observed that except PW.1, who is interested witness, no other evidence from independent witness is available to prove the guilt of the accused.

15.PW.1 is not only the person who led raid party, but also complainant and investigating officer. Thereby, she should have the responsibility or ensuring the result of the case and therefore, such situation would always be prejudicial to the case of accused and conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable as per the Judgment of Honorable High

Court in the case of Podduturi Satyam Reddy Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held that; “Now the only evidence available is that PW.2, who was the complainant and also the investigating officer,this certainly reflects the credibility of the Investigation done in the matter. The prosecution cannot reply on the evidence of PW.2 solely. The Court below were not correct in relying upon this evidence. Hence, the benefit of this procedural irregularity is given to the accused.”

16.The search as contemplated U/s.100 Cr.P.C shall be made in the presence of two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of that locality in which the place to be searched is situated. In this regard PW.1 did not secure any independent witness at the time of alleged offence.

17.Moreover, except Ex.P1-Special report which is confessional statement of the accused recorded by the police and the same is hit by

C.C.No.419/2022 -5- Date: 02.05.2023

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused purchased the said seized contraband to sell the same for higher price as mentioned Ex.P1- special report, PW.1 did not try to examine anybody in the scene of offence or the place where the accused alleged to have been selling the said contraband and to secure any independent witness to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, PW.1 has not recorded the grounds of her suspicion and no notice was served on the accused before searching the bag which was in the possession of the accused. Therefore, on that ground, the proceedings can be vitiated. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of the I.D., arrack and that he was selling the I.D., arrack.

18.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which she was charged and accordingly she is entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and she is acquitted for the said offence U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 in C.P.

No.13/2013 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 2nd day of May, 2023.

Sd/- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Gudivada.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru.

C.C.No.419/2022 -6- Date: 02.05.2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- ACCUSED/DEFENCE:-

PW.1 :- M.Ashalatha- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:-

1.Ex.P1 :-Special report.

2.Ex.P2 :-Original First Information Report.

3.Ex.P3 :-Original letter of advice

4.Ex.P4 :-Original chemical analysis report

ACCUSED/DEFENCE:- Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

M.O.1 :- Sample bottle.

Sd/- Smt.K.Naga Lakshmi,

AJFCM, Gudivada, FAC/JMFC, Kaikaluru.

C.C.No.419/2022 -7- Date: 02.05.2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE NO.419/2022

ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAIKALURU.

1.Date of Offence:16.05.2021

2.Date of Report/Complaint:16.05.2021

3.Date of Apprehension :16.05.2021 (Notice issued U/Sec.41 Cr.P.C., to the accused)

4.Date of Release :---

5.Commencement of trial:29.11.2022

6.Date of Closure of trial:29.11.2022

7.Date of Judgment:02.05.2023

8.Name of the Complainant:State represented by Inspector of Spe- cial Enforcement Bureau, Kaikaluru.

9.Name of the Accused:Parasa Maha Laxmi, W/o.Ganapathi, Aged 38 years, C/Gowda, R/o.Vib- harampuram Village, Kalidindi Mandal.

10.Section of Law:U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

11.Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

12.Finding of the court:Found not guilty.

13.Result : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w.8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and she is acquitted for the said offence U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of 6 months in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property i.e., M.O.1 in C.P.No.13/2023 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

14. Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.419/2022 and on 29.09.2022, the accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., and Charge framed for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and posted for trial and on 29.11.2022, trial commenced in this case and closed on 29.11.2022 and on 28.04.2023 the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and on 28.04.2023, heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 02.05.2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-Smt K.Naga Lakshmi,

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada. FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru.

Copy Submitted to :- The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION), GUDIVADA.

Present: Smt. K.Naga Lakshmi,

Additional Junior Judge (Junior Division), Gudivada

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2024

O.S. NO.142 of 2023

Between:

Telukala Mamatha, W/o. Dilleswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 45 years, Properties, R/o. D.No.29A, Railway Quarters, Gudivada, Krishna District.

... Plaintiff.

A N D

1. Kowthavarapu Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Krishna Rao, Hindu, Aged 42 years, Gateman, LC.No.12, South Central Railway, Gudlavalleru, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Kowthavarapu Lalitha, W/o. Venkata Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged 40 years, Housewife, R/o. 12th ward, NTR Colony, Gudlavalleru, Krishna District.

... Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,34,666/- being the principal and interest due on promissory note dated 06.12.2021, executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff together with interest at 24% p.a., on

principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and for costs.

This suit is coming before this Court on this day in the presence of Sri G.Rambabu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri K.Ravi and G.J.Williams, Advocates for the defendants and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff is called present. She filed a memo stating that the plaintiff and defendants are compromised before elders and the defendants paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the suit claim amount and requested to dismiss the suit as she is not pressing the suit, in the presence of her counsel.

2

Considering the memo filed by the plaintiff, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 25 th day of April,

2024.

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

GUDIVADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

… Nil ...

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

GUDIVADA.