K.ramya Sai

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20241 Dt.13-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT :: SMT. K.RAMYA SAI,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

Wednesday, this the Thirteenth (13th) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.380 of 2024

(Crime No.14 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Puttur.)

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Puttur.... Complainant.

And

K.Raja, aged 39 years, S/o. Rosaiah, R/o. D.No.2-66-1, V.K.Palem H.Wada, Narayanavanam Mandal. … Accused.

This case is came before me on this day i.e., 11.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri N.Ramamoorthi, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Puttur filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.14 of 2021 of

Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Puttur for the offence punishable under Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20242 Dt.13-05-2026

2)The brief facts of the prosecution are that, on 11.01.2021 at about 11.40 a.m., on credible information, LW4/N.Indrajith, Sub-

Inspector, SEB, Puttur and his staff conducted raid at D.No.2-66-1,

V.K.Palem Village H/wada, Narayanavanam Mandal and found one person infront of the door who is scared. On seeing the police officials the said person escaped from the scene of offence. On verification of the scene of offence, the Sub-Inspector of Police, found 10 liters of ID arrack in the white plastic can and the same was seized under cover of panchanama. LW4/N.Indrajith, Sub-Inspector of Police, enquired about the absconded person and came to know that his name is K.Raja i.e., accused. Basing on the panchanama, a case in Crime No.14 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was registered against the accused.

3)During the course of investigation, on 11.01.2021

LW4/N.Indrajith, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, produced the accused

before the Court for judicial remand. Later, sent the sample bottle to the

Chemical Examiner, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor to analyze the sample bottle and the Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample and opined that the sample is “illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health” vide C.E.No.166/2021,

Dated 28.01.2021. On 04.05.2021 destroyed the seized contraband in

the presence of mediators and prepared destruction panchanama. After completion of investigation, LW5/A.Nagaraja, Enforcement Sub-

Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Puttur filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20243 Dt.13-05-2026

4)Upon perusing the charge sheet and all the material filed along with the charge sheet this Court took cognizance for the offence

U/Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

5) On appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under

Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6) The accused is examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The charges framed for the offence U/Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was read over and explained to the accused in

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

Hence this Court issued summons to the prosecution witnesses for trial.

7) During the course of trial, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined LW2/T.Vajram and

LW1/P.Ramesh, who acted as mediators as PW1 and PW4,

LW3/S.Geetha, Constable as PW2 and LW4/N.Indrajith, Sub-Inspector as PW3 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and MO1. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on panchanama, dated 11.01.2021. Ex.P2 is the Panchanama,

dated 11.01.2021. Ex.P3 is the FIR in Crime No.14/2020 of Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Puttur. Ex.P4 is the Chemical Analysis

Report, dated 28.01.2021. Ex.P5 is the confiscation and destruction proceedings vide Rc.No.B1/274/2021/Chittoor-SEB, dated 08.04.2021.

Ex.P6 is the destruction panchanama, dated 04.05.2021. Ex.P7 is the signature of PW4 on panchanama, dated 11.01.2021. MO1 is the 180 ml sample bottle of ID arrack. The evidence of LW5/A.Nagaraja is given up

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20244 Dt.13-05-2026 by the prosecution. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

8)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The incriminating material available against the accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied and reported no defence evidence and further no documents were marked on their behalf.

9) Heard arguments of prosecution and defense. Perused the entire record.

10) The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused was in possession of ID Arrack and that no inconsistent statements were made by PW1 to PW4 and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

11)Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused was falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purpose and nothing else and no independent witnesses were examined to support the case of prosecution. Even though the prosecution examined PW1 and PW4 who acted as mediators at the time of detection of case, drawing of sample and seizure of property, attestation of signature in Panchanama, but the PW1 and PW4 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile against the prosecution case and that the entire proceedings were drafted in the

Police Station itself and prayed this Court to acquit the accused.

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20245 Dt.13-05-2026

12) Now the point that arose for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7B r/w

8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

13)In the case on hand in order to prove the case of prosecution the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4. PW1/T.Vajram and PW4/P.Ramesh are the Mediators. PW2/N.Indrajith is the

Enforcement Constable, who participated in the raid and assisted PW3 during the raid, PW3/N.Indrajith, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, who conducted raid and registered the case,

14)PW1/T.Vajram and PW4/P.Ramesh, who acted as mediators at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of contraband, deposed in one voice that police obtained their signatures on some drafted papers and they do not know the contents of Ex.P2. They further deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the present case. The signatures shown to them on Ex.P2 which are marked as Ex.P1 and

Ex.P7 are that of them. At this stage the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor declared the witnesses as hostile and sought permission to cross examine the witnesses. Even in the cross-examination the learned

APP could not elicit anything in favour of prosecution.

15)PW2/S.Geetha is the Enforcement Constable, who participated in the raid and assisted PW3 during the raid, deposed that on 11.01.2021, at about 11.40 am, upon receiving credible information he along with PW3 and other police staff along with panchayatdars i.e., PW1

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20246 Dt.13-05-2026 and PW4 proceeded to V.K.Palem Village of Narayanavanam Mandal.

There while they were conducting house check in Door No.2-66-1 they noticed one male person. On seeing them, he escaped from the scene of offence into nearby bushes. PW3 searched the scene of offence and they found one plastic can near washroom at the backyard of the said house. The said plastic can is of 10 liters capacity and they noticed 10 liters of ID arrack in that can. PW1 and PW4 informed to PW3 that the said house belongs to one person by name K.Raja i.e., accused. Then

PW3 informed that he is registering case against you and drawn sample of 180 ml from the said can for chemical analysis purpose. He drafted panchanama on dictation of PW3.Ex.P2 is the panchanama, dated 11.01.2021.

16)PW2 during her cross-examination admitted that they secured PW1 and PW4 from the scene of offence Village. She drafted

Ex.P2 on dictation of PW3. She categorically admitted that they have not seized the ID arrack from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence. PW2 denied that they never visited scene of offence and never seized any property from the possession of the accused and did table investigation and accused are no way connected to this case and accused are falsely implicated in this case.

17)PW3/N.Indrajith,EnforcementSub-Inspector,who conducted raid and registered the case deposed that on 11.01.2021 at about 11.40 a.m., as per the instructions of ASP, Chittoor he conducted raids and as part of raids he reached V.K.Palem Village at Door No.2-66- 1 and found one person infront of the house. On seeing them that person escaped from the scene of offence. In the presence of PW4 and

PW2 he verified the washroom and found one white colour plastic can

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20247 Dt.13-05-2026 and found 10 liters of ID arrack inside that can. Then upon verifying the

Village Revenue records he came to know that the escaped person name is K.Raja. Then, he has drawn 180 ml of ID arrack from the plastic can into sample bottles and duly sealed, labeled the sample bottle.

Then, PW2 drafted Ex.P2/Panchanama on his dictation. MO1 is 180 ml of ID arrack. Basing on Ex.P2, he registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2020 for the offences under Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition Act. He submitted copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned officials. On 11.01.2021 he arrested the accused and produced him before this Court for seeking judicial remand. On 28.01.2021 he sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis and received chemical analysis report vide C.E.No.66/2021,

dated 28.01.2021. On 04.05.2021 he destroyed the property in the

presence of panchayatdars by obeying the destruction proceedings issued by Superintendent of Police, Chittoor vide RC.No.B1/274/2021-

CTR-SEB, dated 08.04.2021. Then he handed over the CD file to

LW5/A.Nagaraja for further investigation. After completion of investigation, LW5/A.Nagaraja, Sub-Inspector filed charge sheet against the accused.

18)During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he secured

PW4 and PW1 at the scene. He has not arrested the accused on the date of alleged offence. He came to know the details of accused through panchayatdars. He denied that PW4 and PW1 are not residents of same

Village. He obtained the signatures of PW4 and PW1 at scene of offence. PW3 denied that they never visited scene of offence and never seized any property from the possession of the accused and they did table investigation and accused is no way connected to this case and accused is falsely implicated in this case.

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20248 Dt.13-05-2026

19)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020, the prosecution should prove that the accused is in possession of any material, stills, utensils, implements, or apparatuses for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant.

20)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, it is necessary to have a look at section 7B and 8A of the A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 which deals with regard to the selling, buying, manufacturing, transporting, storing of any alcoholic liquor. The said Sections reads as follows; “Sec.7B: Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities - The manufacturing, transporting, setting, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.” “Sec.8-A: Penalty for manufacture or storage of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor: - whoever in contravention of Section 7-B of this Act indulges in the manufacture or storage of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend up to eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less

than rupees five lakhs for the second offence;”

21)Section 8-A of the Act provides for punishment to any person who acts in contravention to Section 7B of this Act.

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 20249 Dt.13-05-2026

22)The above said sections would make it clear that whoever manufactures, transports, (or) stores any alcoholic liquor and supplies (or) transports any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of A.P. Excise

Act, 1968 is prohibited. It is the case of prosecution that the accused allegedly was in illegal possession of ID arrack. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was in illegal possession of

ID arrack. To prove the same prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4.

23)In the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was in illegal possession of ID liquor and on seeing the police party the accused escaped from the scene of offence, on verification of the scene of offence PW3 found 10 liters of ID arrack. On enquiry about the ownership details PW1 and PW4 stated that the scene of offence house is belongs to the accused. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4. PW1 and PW4 who are alleged mediators at the time of arrest and seizure under Ex.P2 deposed that they do not know the contents of Ex.P2 and that they do not know anything about the facts of the present case and they both identified their signatures under Ex.P1 and Ex.P7 on Ex.P2. However stated that police obtained their signature on some drafted papers. Except the evidence of official witnesses i.e., PW2 and PW3, there is nothing on record to prove the case of prosecution. Though PW1 and PW4 were examined they did not support the case of prosecution. This itself creates doubt about the case of prosecution.

24)Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of

Section 100 of Cr.P.C, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 202410 Dt.13-05-2026 locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer.

Moreover in the present case, though independent witnesses are examined as witnesses in whose presence, the police seized the contraband they did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile to the prosecution case.

25)At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in

1994 (2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the

Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle. Wherein it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

26)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7B r/w 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 202411 Dt.13-05-2026

27)The case property in C.P.R.No.82 of 2024 which is marked as MO1 – One 180 ml sealed sample bottle of ID liquor, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 13 th day of May, 2025.

Sd/- K. Ramya Sai,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : T.Vajram, Independent witness.-None-

PW.2 : S.Geetha, Excise Constable.

PW.3 : N.Indrajith, Investigating Officer.

PW.4 : P.Ramesh, Independent witness.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 :Signature of PW1 on panchanama, dated 11.01.2021.

Ex.P2 :Panchanama, dated 11.01.2021.

Ex.P3 :FIR in Crime No.14/2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Puttur.

Ex.P4 :Chemical Analysis Report, dated 28.01.2021.

Ex.P5 :Confiscation and destruction proceedings vide Rc.No.B1/274/2021/Chittoor-SEB, dated 08.04.2021.

Ex.P6 :Destruction panchanama, dated 04.05.2021.

Ex.P7 :Signature of PW4 on panchanama, dated 11.01.2021.

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 202412 Dt.13-05-2026

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

MO.1 : 180 ml sealed sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- K. Ramya Sai,

A.J.M.F.C. Puttur.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 202413 Dt.13-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT:: SMT. K. RAMYA SAI,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

Wednesday, this the Thirteenth (13th) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.380 of 2024

(Crime No.14 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Puttur.)

ComplainantState Represented by the Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Puttur.

Represented by Kum Y.Sireesha, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Accused K.Raja, aged 39 years, S/o. Rosaiah, R/o. D.No.2-66-1, V.K.Palem H.Wada, Narayanavanam Mandal.

Represented by Sri N.Ramamoorthi

FORM B

Date of Offence11.01.2021

Date of FIR11.01.2021

Date of Charge sheet02.11.2022

Date of Framing of Charges13.06.2025

Date of Commencement of evidence26.11.2025

Date of which judgment is reserved11.05.2026

Date of the Judgment13.05.2026

Date of the sentencing Order, if any-------

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 202414 Dt.13-05-2026

Accused details: -

Rank Name ofDate ofDate ofOffencesWhetherSentencePeriod of of AccusedArrestRelease charged withAcquittedimposedDetention theon bailorUnder- Accusedconvictedgone during Trial for purpose of section 428 of Cr.P.C. 1K.Raja17.02.202119.02.2021U/Sec.7B r/wAcquitted------- 8A of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

FORM C

LIST OF PROSECUTION /DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution:-

RankNameNature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness)

PW1T.VajramIndependent witness.

PW2S.GeethaExcise Constable.

PW3N.IndrajithInvestigating Officer.

PW4P.RameshIndependent witness.

B. Defence Witnesses, if any

RankNameNature of evidence (Eye witness,

APCH0C0007132024

C.C.No.380 of 202415 Dt.13-05-2026

Police witness, Medical witness,

Panch witness, other witness) ---NIL---

C. Court Witnesses, if any

RankNameNature of evidence ---NIL---

Sd/- K. Ramya Sai,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20221Dt.14-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT:: SMT. K. RAMYA SAI,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

Thursday, this the Fourteenth (14th) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.724 of 2022

(Crime No.214 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Karvetinagaram.)

Between:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Karvetinagaram.... Complainant.

And

Sangindha Kuppam Chinnabba, Aged 55 years, S/o. Late Muthaiah, R/o. Pedda Thayur Village, S.R.Puram Mandal.…Accused.

This case is came before me on this day i.e., 11.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.Purushotham, Learned counsel for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Karvetinagaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.214/20201 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Karvetinagaram for the offence punishable under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20222Dt.14-05-2026

2)The brief facts of the prosecution are that, on 12.05.2021 at about 9.30 AM during the raids conducted by the Sub-Inspector, STF,

Chittoor, Enforcement Team, Chittoor along with their staff reached and raided at Vanka Kaluva near Poramboku land situated on East South 1

Km distance to the Pedda Thayyur Village of S.R.Puram Mandal and found one male person while putting in fire wood at the brewery. On seeing the uniformed officials he tried to escape from the scene of offence. On suspicion, LW1/S.Varun Kumar, Sub-Inspector along with his staff surrounded and detained him. When questioned, the detained person disclosed his identity and admitted that the can kept beside the bewery contain ID arrack. Then LW1/S.Varun Kumar tried to secure mediators from Pedda Thayur Village, but in vain. On verification of the can, found it is 5 liters capacity white can containing with 5 liters of ID arrack. The accused disclosed the identity as Sangindha Kuppam

Chinnabba and his address particulars and he did not give reply about the ID arrack. Then LW1/S.Varun Kumar has drawn 180 ml sample from the seized contraband for chemical analysis purpose, duly sealed and labelled. Later, LW1/S.Varun Kumar arrested the accused after informing the grounds of arrest and seized the remaining property under the cover of Special report drafted on the spot. Then they returned back to the police station at about 5.30 PM along with sample bottle and

LW1/S.Varun Kumar, Sub-Inspector, registered the case in Crime

Number 214 of 2021 under Section 7B r/w 8B of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and the accused was produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand.

3)During the course of investigation, LW5/S.Varun Kumar,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector sent the sample bottle to the Chemical

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20223Dt.14-05-2026

Examiner, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor to analyze the sample bottle and the Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample and opined that the sample is “illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health” vide C.E.No.847/2021,

Dated 26.06.2021.

4)Further it is averred in the charge sheet that LW4/K.Bhaskar, submitted confiscation proposals to the Superintendent of Police,

Chittoor District for confiscation of the seized property in this crime. Later on 06.12.2021, he destroyed the seized contraband in the presence of

Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, SEB, Chittoor as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor vide

Rc.No.B1/1062/2021/CHITTOOR-SEB, dated 21.10.2021 and prepared destruction panchanama. After completion of investigation,

LW4/K.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Karvetinagaram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence

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

5)Upon perusing the charge sheet and all the material filed along with the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance for the offence

U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

6) On appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s 207 of Cr.PC.

7) The accused is examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The charges framed for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20224Dt.14-05-2026

8) During the course of trial, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined LW3/V.Rajesh, Enforcement

Constable, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Karvetinagaram,

LW4/K.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Karvetinagaram, LW1/S.Varuna Kumar, Sub-Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Karvetinagaram as PW1 to PW3 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO1. Ex.P1 is the Special Report, dated 12.05.2021. Ex.P2 is the Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P3 is the confiscation and destruction proceedings. Ex.P4 is the destruction panchanama. Ex.P5 is the FIR. MO1 is the 180 ml sealed sample bottle of ID arrack. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW2/AG.Alexander, Head Constable. On the other hand, no witnesses were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of accused.

9)After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. The incriminating material available against the accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied and reported no defence evidence and further no documents were marked on his behalf.

10) Heard arguments of prosecution and defense. Perused the entire record.

11)Heard arguments on both the sides. Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW3 in order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and further no inconsistent statement is made by any of the witnesses. Therefore, the accused is

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20225Dt.14-05-2026 liable to be punished under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

12)On the other hand, the learned Defence Counsel advanced his arguments and submitted that though the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW3, none of the independent witnesses were examined in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Mere examining the official witnesses is not suffice to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and therefore, since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, prays to acquit the accused.

13) Now the point arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

14)In the case on hand in order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3. PW1/V.Rajesh is the Enforcement Constable who assisted PW3 during the raid,

PW2/K.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector, who filed charge sheet against the accused and PW3/A.Varun Kumar is the Enforcement Sub-Inspector, who conducted raid, arrested the accused and registered the crime.

15)PW1/V.Rajesh is the Enforcement Constable who assisted

PW3 during the raid deposed that on 12.05.2021 at about 9.30 am, PW3 received credible information about the transportation of ID Arrack.

Immediately himself, PW3, LW2/AG.Alexander along with other staff

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20226Dt.14-05-2026 members proceeded to the scene of offence place situated near

Vankacanal by the side of Poramboku land in Peddathayyuru Village of

S.R. Puram Mandal and found the accused while putting fire wood at country made stove and on seeing the police party the accused tried to escape from scene of offence. On suspicion himself and his staff stopped the accused and on enquiry he voluntarily revealed his name and address particulars and confessed that he used to living by doing coolie work and also manufacturing the ID liquor and selling the same to general public to gain unlawfully. Then PW3 went to Peddathayuru village to secure the mediators. After some time he returned and stated that nobody came forward to act as mediators and the villagers, VRO,

VRAs are not available in the villages. They verified the plastic can and found the 5 liters of ID liquor in 5 liters capacity can. PW3 took one 180ml of ID liquor into MO1 sample bottle and explained the grounds of offence and arrested accused under cover of Ex.P1/Special report drafted by him. He attested on Ex.P1. The witness identified his signature in Ex.P1. They returned to the PS along with arrested accused and seized property. Further investigation done by PW3.

16)PW1 during his cross examination testifies that the scene of offence place is at a distance of 25 kms from Excise K.Nagar police station. There are government offices in the surrounding places of our excise police station. He further admitted that accused is not having agricultural land surrounded by the scene of offence place. PW1 denied that they did not went to the scene of offence and no property was seized from the possession of accused and they registered a false case against both the accused for statistical purpose.

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20227Dt.14-05-2026

17)PW2/K.Bhaskar, Sub-Inspector, who filed charge sheet against the accused deposed that on 14.06.2021 he received CD file from PW3. On 26.06.2021, he received chemical analysis report vide CE

No.847/2021, dated 26.06.2021. Ex.P2 is Chemical analysis report. On receiving confiscation and destruction proceedings from S.P. of police

Chittoor, he destroyed the property on 06.12.2021 in the presence of mediators under the cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

18)PW3/A.Varun Kumar is the Enforcement Sub-Inspector, who conducted raid, arrested the accused and registered the crime deposed that on 12.05.2021 at about 9.30 am, he conducted general raids along with police staff at Pedda Thayyuru Village of S.R. Puram Mandal. At 4.30 p.m., while conducting raids, he found one male person who is preparing ID arrack. He tried to secure mediators, but no one came forward to act as mediator due to Covid-19 pandemic. Then he enquired that person who revealed his identity particulars by name Chinnabba and further confessed that in order to get more money he is preparing ID arrack. On verifying the scene of offence he found 5 liters of ID arrack in one plastic can. Then he has drawn sample of 180 ml in order to send the same for chemical analysis property and seized the remaining property. He prepared special report at the scene. Then he arrested the accused and brought him to the police station along with seized property.

Basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.214 of 2021 under

Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act, 1995. He issued Ex.P-5/F.I.R. The original

F.I.R was submitted to this Court and copies of F.I.R to all concerned officers. Later, he forwarded the sample bottle along with the letter of

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20228Dt.14-05-2026 advice for chemical analysis. Later he handed over the CD file to PW2 for further investigation.

19)PW3 during his cross examination testifies that the distance between their station to scene of offence is 20 Kms. There are MPDO office, Sachivalayam near scene of offence. He further admitted that they did not secure mediators along with them, due to Covid-19 pandemic no one were available to act as mediators. The accused tried to escape on seeing them from 100 meters. He denied that the accused is no way connected and they filed false case for statistical purpose.

20)In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 the prosecution should prove that the accused is in possession of any material, stills, utensils, implements, or apparatuses for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant.

21)Before adverting to the rival contentions made on both sides and also before delving into the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, it is necessary to have a look at section 7A and 8(e) of the

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 which deals with regard to the prohibition of production of ID Arrack and punishment thereof. The said Sections reads as follows;

Sec.7(A): - Prohibition of Production etc., of arrack: –

The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

Section 8(e) deals withpunishment in contravention of

Section 7(A).

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 20229Dt.14-05-2026

22)Therefore, on reading the above sections, it is clear that whoever manufactures, produces, stores, purchases, sells (or) whoever keeps ID liquor arrack in their possession are liable for punishment provided under Section 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

23)Therefore, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that accused is in illegal possession of ID liquor.

In the given case, it is the case of prosecution that they conducted raids at scene of offence and found the accused was in possession of 5 liters of ID arrack at the scene of offence. Therefore, PW3 registered case against the accused.

24)Now, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, it is the case of prosecution that Police officials i.e., PW1 to PW3 conducted raids at scene of offence and there they found 5 liters of ID arrack. The accused was caught hold by the police at the scene of offence. Further they have not examined any witnesses at the scene of offence to establish that the accused was in possession of ID arrack at the scene of offence on the date of offence. Admittedly PW1 to PW3 categorically stated that, they tried to secure mediators at Pedda Thayyur Village, but due to Covid-19 period nobody came forward to act as mediators.

25)Before conducting any search as per sub-section (4) of

Section 100 of Cr.P.C., 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 of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search to attend and witness the search and may issue

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 202210Dt.14-05-2026 an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The above said section would deal about before making the search under that chapter i.e., Chapter VII the procedure to be followed by the Investigating Officer.

Moreover, in the present case, except the police officials, no independent witness is examined (or) cited as witness either during conducting the raids or during the seizure of property

26)At this juncture it is pertinent to refer a decision made in

1994(2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP) Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the

Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle. Where in it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

27)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of

Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

28)The case property entered in CPR.No.347/2022 i.e., MO1 –

One 180 ml sample bottle of ID liquor, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K. Ramya Sai,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttur.

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 202211Dt.14-05-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : V.Rajesh, Excise Head Constable-None-

PW.2 : K.Bhaskar, Excise Sub-Inspector.

PW.3 : A.Varun Kumar, Excise Sub-Inspector.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 :Special report, dated 12.05.2021.

Ex.P2 :Chemical Analysis Report, dated 26.06.2021.

Ex.P3 :Confiscation and destruction proceedings issued by Superintendent of Police, Chittoor vide Rc.No.B1/1062/2021 CHITTOOR SEB, dated 21.10.2021.

Ex.P4 :Destruction panchanama, dated 06.12.2021.

Ex.P5 :FIR in Crime No.214 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Karvetinagaram

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

MO.1 : 180 ml sealed sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- K. Ramya Sai,

A.J.M.F.C. Puttur. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 202212Dt.14-05-2026 APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 202213Dt.14-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT:: SMT. K. RAMYA SAI,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

Thursday, this the Fourteenth (14th) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.724 of 2022

(Crime No.214 of 2021 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Karvetinagaram.)

ComplainantState Represented by the Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Karvetinagaram Station.

Represented by Kum Y.Sireesha, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Accused Sangindha Kuppam Chinnabba, Aged 55 years, S/o. Late Muthaiah, R/o. Pedda Thayur Village, S.R.Puram Mandal.

Represented by Sri K.Purushotham

FORM B

Date of Offence12.05.2021

Date of FIR12.05.2021

Date of Charge sheet27.07.2022

Date of Framing of Charges25.11.2024

Date of Commencement of evidence21.01.2025

Date of which judgment is reserved11.05.2026

Date of the Judgment14.05.2026

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 202214Dt.14-05-2026

Date of the sentencing Order, if any-------

Accused details: -

Period of Detention Undergon Rank Whether Date ofe during of Name ofDate ofOffencesAcquittedSentence Release Trial for theAccusedArrestcharged withorimposed on bailpurpose of Accusedconvicted section 428 of Cr.P.C. 1Sangindha12.05.202115.05.2021u/s 7(A) r/wAcquitted------- Kuppam8(e) of A.P. ChinnabbaProhibition Act, 1995.

FORM C

LIST OF PROSECUTION /DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution:-

RankNameNature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness)

PW1V.RajeshPolice Witness

PW2K.BhaskarInvestigation officer

PW3A.Varun KumarInvestigation officer

B. Defence Witnesses, if any

Nature of evidence (Eye witness,

RankNamePolice witness, Medical witness,

Panch witness, other witness)

APCH0C0010882022

C.C.No.724 of 202215Dt.14-05-2026 ---NIL---

C. Court Witnesses, if any

RankNameNature of evidence ---NIL---

Sd/- K. Ramya Sai,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20191Date: 11.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: PUTTUR.

PRESENT: SMT. K.RAMYA SAI,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.376 of 2019

(Crime No.22 of 2019 of Narayanavanam Police Station)

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Narayanavanam Police Station.... Complainant

And:

A-1:G.Venkatesh, aged 32 years, S/o. Late G.Krishnamachari, Residing at Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal.

A-2:G.Kamalakshamma, aged 55 years, W/o. Late G.Krishnamachari, Residing at Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal.

A-3:G.Murali, aged 34 years, S/o. Late G.Krishnamachari, Residing at Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal.

A-4:G.Pallavi, aged 32 years, W/o. G.Murali, Residing at Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal.

A-5:T.Haimavathi, aged 47 years, S/o. T.Sathyanarayana, Residing at Padmavathipuram Circle, Tirupati.

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20192Date: 11.05.2026

A-6:T.Sathyanarayana, aged 56 years,The case against Accused No.6 is abated as per S/o. T.Ananthachari, docket order, dated Residing at Padmavathipuram Circle, 04.05.2026 as he is dead. Tirupati.

A-7:P.Munaiah Achari, aged 58 years, S/o. Late P.Muni Kanniah, Residing at Padmavathipuram Circle, Tirupati.

A-8:P.Armugachari, aged 57 years, S/o. Late P.Muni Kannaiah, Residing at Kannali Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal.

A-9:T.Sarathchandra Prasad, aged 29 years, S/o. T.Sathyanarayana, Residing at Tirumandyam Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal.

A-10: A.Eswaraachari, aged 36 years, S/o. A.Lokanadam Achari, Residing at Padavathipuram, L.V.Kalyanamandapam backside, Tirupati. … Accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 10.

This case coming before me on 04.05.2026, for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri I.Ramesh, LearnedCounsel for the accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 10 and upon hearing arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanavanam Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.22 of 2019 against the accused Nos.1 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as A1 to A10) alleging that the accused Nos.1 to 10 committed the offences punishable under Sec.498(A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20193Date: 11.05.2026

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for the sake of brevity) and

Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as D.P. Act).

2.The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:

(a)LW1/K.Dhanuja Kumari @ Gomathi got arranged marriage with

A1 on 07.08.2017 at Padmavathi Kalyanamandapam, Tirupati according to the

Hindu rites and customs in the presence of both side elders. At the time of marriage, her parents gave 20 sovereigns of gold and cash of Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry to the accused No.1. After one and half year the accused Nos.2 to 10 visited the house of accused No.1, harassed the complainant for want of

additional dowry of Rs.6,00,000/-. On the instigation of A2 to A10, so many

times the accused No.1 confined the complainant in their house by locking the door. On 12.05.2019, A1 to A10 visited the paternal house of the complainant

K.Dhanuja Kumari @ Gomathi, bet her with hands and kicked with legs and caused dumb injuries. Basing on the complaint of L.W.1 K.Dhanuja Kumari @

Gomathi, a case in Cr.No.22 of 2019 for the offences punishable under

Sec.498(A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 was registered and investigated into.

(b)During the course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements. At the scene of offence LW9/K.Dhasthagiri,

Sub-Inspector of Police, seized the marriage photos and wedding card of the complainant/K.Dhanuja Kumari @ Gomathi and accused No.1 under cover of police proceedings. As the prima facie case made out against the accused

Nos.1 to 10 LW10/A.Hanumanthappa, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Narayanavanam PS, served notices as contemplated under Sec.41(A) of

Cr.P.C., to A1 to A10 with instructions to appear before the Hon’ble Court or

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20194Date: 11.05.2026 the Police whenever required. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offences punishable under Sec.498(A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961.

3.This Court took cognizance against the accused Nos.1 to 10 for the offences punishable under Sec.498(A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 10 before this

Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused Nos.1 to 10 are examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C.

The charges framed for the offences under Sec.498(A), 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 was read over and explained to them in

Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to

PW3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. PW1 is the defacto complainant and PW2 and PW3 are the father and mother of PW1. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in the report, dated 13.05.2019. Ex.P2 is the Sec.161

Cr.P.C., statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2.

Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3. At the stage of trial, the case against accused No.6 is abated as per docket order, dated 04.05.2026 as he is dead.

6.As there is no incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses against the accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 10, and they turned hostile, examination of accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20195Date: 11.05.2026

7.Now, the point that has arisen for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 10, beyond all reasonable

doubt for the offences punishable under Sec.498(A),

342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961.

POINT:

8.Coming to the case in hand, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as PW1. PW1 deposed that on 07.08.2017, she got married to accused No.1 at Padmavathi Kalyanamandapam, Tirupati. Their marriage is performed as per Hindu rites and customs and it was an arranged marriage. There were no exchange of gifts in the marriage. After their marriage, she joined accused No.1 at Kotala Village. She categorically admitted that there are small disputes between her and accused No.1. Except this, she do not know anything about this case. Witness identified her signature in the report, dated 13.05.2019. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 in the report, dated 13.05.2019. As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat the witness as hostile and to cross examine her. During her cross- examination, PW1 admitted that she compromised this case with the accused.

She further denied that she stated before the police as in her Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement/Ex.P2.

9.PW2 and PW3, who are the father and mother of the defacto complainant/PW1 deposed on the same lines as stated by PW1. They categorically deposed that there are small disputes between PW1 and accused No.1. Except this, they do not know anything this case. As these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat the witnesses as hostile and to

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20196Date: 11.05.2026 cross examine them. During their cross-examination, PW2 and PW3 admitted that PW1 compromised this case with the accused. PW2 and PW3 denied that they are deposing false, as the accused threatened them. They further denied that they stated before the police as in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statements/Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.

10.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 10. As there is no incriminating evidence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, it is fact that PW1 and A1 got married on 07.08.2017 as per rites and customs prevailing in their community. However, in order to constitute an offence under Sec.498-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused harassed the complainant both physically and mentally for want of

additional dowry from her parents. On going through the evidence of

prosecution witnesses no ingredients under Sec.498-A, 342, 323 of IPC are made out by the prosecution, this might be due to the compromise between both the parties. Moreover, PW1 to PW3 deposed that there are no disputes between PW1 and accused. It shows that both parties compromised the matter. In view of the hostility of the prosecution witnesses especially defacto complainant, accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 10 cannot be convicted as prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt against the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 for the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 are entitled for acquittal.

11.In view of the above discussion, without there being any hesitation, I hold that, the material brought on record is not sufficient and the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20197Date: 11.05.2026 to 5 and 7 to 10 for the offences levelled against them and consequent thereto, they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered.

12.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and

Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 and their sureties shall remain in force till six months as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

(Sd/- K.Ramya Sai)

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1:K.Dhanuja Kumari, Defacto complainant.None PW2:K.Chenchuramachari, Father of PW1.

PW3:K.Padmavathi, Mother of PW1.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1:Signature of PW1 in the report, dated 13.05.2019.

Ex.P.2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1.

Ex.P.3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2.

Ex.P.4:Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence:- Nil

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20198Date: 11.05.2026

Material objects Marked: Nil // True Copy // (Sd/- K.Ramya Sai)

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -– cum -

cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Puttur.

Puttur.

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 20199Date: 11.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PUTTUR.

PRESENT:: SMT. K. RAMYA SAI,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of May, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No.376 of 2019

(Crime No.22 of 2019 of Narayanavanam Police Station)

ComplainantState Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narayanavanam Police Station.

Represented by Kum. Y.Sireesha, Assistant Public Prosecutor

Accused A-1:G.Venkatesh, aged 32 years, S/o. Late G.Krishnamachari, Residing at Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal.

A-2:G.Kamalakshamma, aged 55 years, W/o. Late G.Krishnamachari, Residing at Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal.

A-3:G.Murali, aged 34 years, S/o. Late G.Krishnamachari, Residing at Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal.

A-4:G.Pallavi, aged 32 years, W/o. G.Murali, Residing at Kotala Village, Chandragiri Mandal.

A-5:T.Haimavathi, aged 47 years, S/o. T.Sathyanarayana, Residing at Padmavathipuram Circle, Tirupati.

A-6:T.Sathyanarayana, aged 56 years, S/o. T.Ananthachari,

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 201910Date: 11.05.2026

Residing at Padmavathipuram Circle, Tirupati.

The case against Accused No.6 is abated as per docket order, dated 04.05.2026 as he is

dead.

A-7:P.Munaiah Achari, aged 58 years, S/o. Late P.Muni Kanniah, Residing at Padmavathipuram Circle, Tirupati.

A-8:P.Armugachari, aged 57 years, S/o. Late P.Muni Kannaiah, Residing at Kannali Village, Srikalahasthi Mandal.

A-9:T.Sarathchandra Prasad, aged 29 years, S/o. T.Sathyanarayana, Residing at Tirumandyam Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal.

A-10:A.Eswaraachari, aged 36 years, S/o. A.Lokanadam Achari, Residing at Padavathipuram, L.V.Kalyanamandapam backside, Tirupati.

Represented by Sri I.Ramesh

FORM B

Date of OffencePrior to 13.05.2019

Date of FIR13.05.2019

Date of Charge sheet30.08.2019

Date of Framing of Charges06.04.2021

Date of Commencement of evidence08.12.2025

Date of which judgment is reserved04.05.2026

Date of the Judgment11.05.2026

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 201911Date: 11.05.2026

Date of the sentencing Order, if any-------

Accused details:-

Rank ofName ofDate ofDate ofOffencesWhetherSentencePeriod of theAccusedArrestReleasecharged withAcquittedimposedDetention Accusedon bailorUndergon convictede during Trial for purpose of section 428 of Cr.P.C 1G.Venkatesh----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 2G.Kamalaksham----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, ma 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 3G.Murali----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 4G.Pallavi----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 5T.Haimavathi ----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 6T.Sathyanaraya The case against Accused No.6 is abated as per docket order, dated na

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 201912Date: 11.05.2026 04.05.2026 as he is dead.

7P.Munaiah----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 8P.Armugachari----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 9T.Sarathchandr----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, a Prasad 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 10A.Eswarachari----Acquitted------- U/Sec.498-A, 342, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961

FORM C

LIST OF PROSECUTION /DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES

A. Prosecution:-

RankNameNature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Medical witness, Panch witness, other witness)

PW1K.Dhanuja Kumari @ Defacto complainant. Gomathi

PW2K.ChenchuramachariFather of PW1.

PW3K.PadmavathiMother of PW1.

APCH0C0006632019

C.C.No.376 of 201913Date: 11.05.2026

B. Defence Witnesses, if any

RankNameNature of evidence(Eye witness,

Police witness, Medical witness,

Panch witness, other witness) ---NIL---

C. Court Witnesses, if any

RankNameNature of evidence ---NIL---

Sd/- K. Ramya Sai,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PUTTUR.

// True Copy //

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur.

APCH0C0011212025

O.S.No.362 of 20251Dt.11-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PUTTUR.

Present : SMT. K.RAMYA SAI,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

Monday, the Eleventh (11th) day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.362 of 2025

Between:

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, Palasamudram Branch, Previously known as Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Represented by its Chief Manager Sri K.Venkata Rao, aged about 57 years, holding his office at Chittoor, Head Office is situated at Guntur. … Plaintiff

And

1. R.Chinna Dorai, S/o. Late Rajaiah, aged about 79 years.

2. C.Moses, S/o. R.Chinna Dorai, aged about 39 years.

Both are residing at D.No.5-44, Veerlagudi Village, Vengalrajukuppam Post, Palasamudram Mandal, Chittoor District. … Defendants

This suit is came before me on 28.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Modi Sanjeevi, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff Bank and the Defendants is set ex-parte and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)This is a suit filed by the plaintiff Bank against the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 with a prayer to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff Bank against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 (a) directing the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 to pay the sum of Rs.70,578/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Five

APCH0C0011212025

O.S.No.362 of 20252Dt.11-05-2026

Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) with further interest @ 12.5% from the date of suit to till realization; (b) directing the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay the costs of this suit.

2)The brief averments of the plaintiff Bank are that the plaintiff’s

Bank is a Regional Rural Bank constituted under an Act of parliament. The plaintiff’s Bank among other Banking and allied business, advances moneys for individuals at an agreed rate of interest as per the rules of the Board of the

Bank.

3)It is further submitted that at the request of defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly, the plaintiff’s Bank sanctioned a crop Loan for the amount received as detailed in the loan account, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed Demand promissory note on 21.10.2022 for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) undertaking to repay the same with interest at 7% per annum and with half yearly rests. In addition to it the defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly has also executed Hypothecation Agreement for the loan amount on the even date and agreed to repay the loan amount and at varied rates from time to time fixed by the Reserve Bank of India and the present rate of interest i.e., being charged on loan as per the RBI or at 12.5% Half yearly rests.

4)It is further submitted that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff’s Bank, the defendants did not choose to repay the suit amount, hence the plaintiff Bank issued legal notice on 06.09.2025 to the defendants.

After receiving notice also the defendants did not pay any amount to the plaintiff’s Bank. The plaintiff’s Bank maintaining account in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 under KCC Loan Account No.50051017751 and as per the Loan account the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are due Rs.70,578/-. Since

APCH0C0011212025

O.S.No.362 of 20253Dt.11-05-2026

the defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to pay the said sum this suit is filed for recovery fo the same and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were liable to pay the said sum and with interest and costs. Hence, the suit.

5)On the other hand, inspite of service of summons defendant

Nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before this Court and therefore, they were set exparte to the suit proceedings on 25.11.2025.

6)The Branch Manager of plaintiff Bank i.e., Sapthagiri Grameena

Bank, Palasamudram Branch by name M.Vinod Kumar himself examined as

P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents. Ex.A1 is the Demand promissory note, dated 21.10.2022 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s Bank by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ex.A2 is the Agreement of Hypothecation, dated 21.10.2022 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s Bank by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ex.A3 is the Loan ledger extract vide A/C.No.50051017751. Ex.A4 is the Office copy of the legal notice, dated 06.09.2025 issued to the defendants. Ex.A5 is the served acknowledgment card of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

7)Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff Bank.

Perused the plaint and material on the record.

8)Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled for suit claim as

prayed for?”

9)The plaintiff Bank represented by M.Vinod Kumar, Branch

Manager of Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Now renamed as Andhra Pradesh

Grameena Bank, Palasamudram Branch, filed his chief examination affidavit

APCH0C0011212025

O.S.No.362 of 20254Dt.11-05-2026

in-lieu of chief examination and admitted the contents of the same on oath, hence the same is taken as chief examination of P.W.1. The P.W.1 in his chief-examination affidavit reiterated the contents of the plaint and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents.

10)As seen from Ex.A1 Demand promissory note, dated 21.10.2022 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s Bank by defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ex.A2 is the Agreement of Hypothecation, dated 21.10.2022 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s Bank by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ex.A3 is the Loan ledger extract vide A/C.No.50051017751 shows that defendant Nos.1 and 2 has approached the plaintiff Bank and obtained crop loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty thousand only) and agreeing to repay the same with an interest at 7% per annum with half years/yearly rests to the Bank and also agreed to pay interest at varies rates from time to time as per the rules of Reserve Bank of

India. Though the suit summons sent to the defendant through the Hon’ble

Court were received, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before this

Court. Therefore, service of summons to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 is held sufficient, as the defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before this Court, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte to the suit proceedings.

11)On perusal of the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents, it clearly shows that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 has approached the plaintiff Bank and obtained crop loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) agreeing to repay the same with an interest at 7% per annum with half years/yearly rests to the Bank and also agreed to pay interest at varies rates from time to time as per the rules of Reserve Bank of India.

Therefore the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the suit amount but the defendants neither appeared before this Court nor paid any amount to the

APCH0C0011212025

O.S.No.362 of 20255Dt.11-05-2026

plaintiff Bank and it appears that they have no objection to pass a decree and judgment against them for the suit amount. The evidence of PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, the testimony of PW1 and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 documents, is remained unchallenged and the claim of plaintiff Bank is proved and presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is drawn in favour of the plaintiff Bank. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff

Bank deserves to be decreed. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff Bank and against the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

12)In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff Bank against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and directing the defendant

Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.70,578/- (Rupees

Seventy Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Eight Only) with an interest @ 12.5% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with an interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of the decree till the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

Only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, signed, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Ramya Sai.

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

P.W.1 : M.Vinod Kumar Ex-parte.

APCH0C0011212025

O.S.No.362 of 20256Dt.11-05-2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1:Demand promissory note, dated 21.10.2022 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s bank by defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Ex.A-2:Agreement of Hypothecation, dated 21.10.2022 executed in favour of the plaintiff’s bank by the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

Ex.A-3:Loan ledger extract for Account No.50051017751.

Ex.A-4:Office copy of legal notice, dated 06.09.2026 issued to the defendants.

Ex.A-5:Served acknowledgment card of defendant Nos.1 and 2.

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:- Nil

Sd/- K.Ramya Sai.

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

// True copy //

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.362 of 2025, Dt.11-05-2026.

APCH0C0012732025

O.S.No.404 of 20251Dt. 13-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PUTTUR.

Present : SMT. K.RAMYA SAI,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

Wednesday, the Thirteenth (13th) day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.404 of 2025

Between:

R.Murali, S/o. Late R.Nadhamuni Mandadi, aged 59 years, residing at D.No.1- 46, Pudi Village and Post, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Tirupati District. … Plaintiff

And

M.Ramulamma, W/o. Aliyar, aged about 35 years, residing at D.No.31-4, Nettham Harijanawada, Cherlopalli Post, Puttur Mandal, Tirupati District.

… Defendant

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 28.04.2026 in the presence of Sri J.Dasaradha, Learned counsel for the plaintiff; and the defendant having been remained ex-parte and upon perusing records and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.This suit is filed for recovery of suit amount basing on registered simple mortgage deed, dated 18.02.2021 by the plaintiff which was executed by the defendant and for costs.

2.The brief averments appended to the plaint are that, on 18.02.2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at the

APCH0C0012732025

O.S.No.404 of 20252Dt. 13-05-2026

rate of 24% per annum. Further the defendant also executed registered simple mortgage deed vide Doc.No.568/2021, dated 18.02.2021 by mortgaging the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted by the plaintiff that inspite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under the registered simple mortgage deed and postponed the payment of the amount due on some pretext or the other. Thereafter the plaintiff issued legal notice, dt.09.05.2025 by demanding the defendant to discharge her debt liability. However the defendant received the same and failed to comply the demands of the plaintiffs. Therefore the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit basing on the registered simple mortgage deed for recovery of amount of Rs.4,28,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

Twenty Eight Thousand Only).

3.On the other hand despite of service of summons the defendant failed to appear before this Court and hence she was set ex-parte to the suit proceedings on 07.01.2026.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is the original Registered simple mortgage deed, dated 18.02.2021 vide Doc.No.568/2021 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the original sale deed, dated 30.11.2019 vide Doc.No.2898/2019 executed by B.Santhamma in favour of the defendant. Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 09.05.2025 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt. Ex.A4 is the acknowledgment card. On the other hand the defendant remained exparte.

Further, the plaintiff also examined K.Damodharam as PW2 by way of filing chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Perused the material available on record.

APCH0C0012732025

O.S.No.404 of 20253Dt. 13-05-2026

6.Now, the point for consideration is:-

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount

based on registered simple mortgage deed, dated

18.02.2021, as prayed”?

POINT:-

7.In support of their contentions, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 by way of filing chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that on 18.02.2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with an interest @ 24% per annum and on the even date the defendant executed registered simple mortgage deed by mortgaging the suit schedule property which stands in her name as security for payment of amount borrowed by her. In order to prove their contentions the plaintiff got exhibited Ex.A1 which is registered simple mortgage deed. As seen from the Ex.A1 it discloses that on 18.02.2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% per annum. Ex.A3 i.e., legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, dt.09.05.2025 shows that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the amount due under Ex.A1. However inspite of service of summons and inspite of having knowledge about the present suit the defendant neither appeared before this Court nor adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff.

8.Here it is pertinent to discuss about Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act which deals with proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. As per the said section if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness has been

APCH0C0012732025

O.S.No.404 of 20254Dt. 13-05-2026

called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.

In the case on hand in order to prove the case of the plaintiff, he examined

PW2 who stood as attestor at the time of execution of Ex.A1. PW2 who is attestor categorically deposed that the defendant received an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff.

9.Moreover, Ex.A1 i.e., registered simple mortgage deed is a registered document and the same is proved by the plaintiff. Moreover Ex.A3 shows that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the amount due under

Ex.A1. But it seems that inspite of receipt of Ex.A3, the defendant has not discharged the amount due under Ex.A1. As the defendant failed to appear

before this Court inspite of service of summons, an adverse inference can be

drawn against the defendant and it can be taken as that the defendant admitted the case of the plaintiff. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is unchallenged and unrebutted.

10.The oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence clearly shows that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff and inspite of demanding the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Therefore, in view of above discussion, this Court is inclined to believe the version of plaintiff. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11.In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.4,28,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Only) being the

principal and interest due under the registered simple mortgage deed together

with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

APCH0C0012732025

O.S.No.404 of 20255Dt. 13-05-2026

decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only), in default of the payment of the suit debt, enable the plaintiff to apply for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged plaint schedule property. The time for redemption is 3 months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Ramya Sai.

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW-1 : R.MuraliNone

PW-2 : K.Damodharam

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A-1:Original registered simple mortgage deed, dated 18.02.2021 vide Doc.No.568/2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A-2:Original sale deed, dated 30.11.2019 vide Doc.No.2896/2019 executed by B.Santhamma in favour of the defendant.

Ex.A-3:Office copy of legal notice, dated 09.05.2025 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with postal receipt.

Ex.A-4:Acknowledgment card.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

- NIL –

Sd/- K.Ramya Sai.

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

APCH0C0012732025

O.S.No.404 of 20256Dt. 13-05-2026

// True copy //

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Puttur.

Fair Judgment in O.S.No.404 of 2025, Dt.13-05-2026.