K Sai Monica Rao

1 CC.No.950/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.950/2026

01. Date of offence: 13.01.2021

02. Date of Complaint : 13.01.2021

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 13.01.2021

04. Release on bail: A1 & A2 21.01.2021 A3 02.02.2021

05. Commencement of trial: 07.05.2026

06. Closure of trial: 07.05.2026

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 14.05.2026

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the P&E Sub Inspector, P&E Korukonda. 09.Name of the accused : A1 Bandi Eswar, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 35 years, R/o Srirantapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal A2 Eepu Veeranjaneya, S/o Raju, Age 25 years, R/o Srirantapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal A3 Bobbilli Ramana, S/o Simhachalam, Age 34 years, R/o Srirantapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal

10. Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.950/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: MS.K.SAI MONICA RAO,

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 14 th DAY OF MAY, 2026.

C.C.No.950/2026

Between:

The state is represented by the Proh & Excise Sub Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda.

….. Complainant

And

A1 Bandi Eswar, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 35 years, R/o Srirantapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal A2 Eepu Veeranjaneya, S/o Raju, Age 25 years, R/o Srirantapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal A3 Bobbilli Ramana, S/o Simhachalam, Age 34 years, R/o Srirantapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal …… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.B.V.Raghavulu, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the P&E Sub Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.27/2021 or the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 13.01.2021 at about 05.00 A.M, the Sub Inspector of P&E station, Korukonda, along with staff were conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences in Srirangapatnam Village, Korukonda Mandal. On credible information, they reached the scene of offence and found three 3 CC.No.950/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

persons with a bag in their hand. On seeing the raid party, they tried to escape. On suspicion, the Sub Inspector detained them with the help of the staff and questioned her about the contents of the mica bag. They revealed that the mica bag contained ID Liquor. Then, the Sub Inspector sent one of his staff to secure the presence of mediators, but in vain. Then, the Sub Inspector, Korukonda examined the mica bag in the presence of staff and found 30 Ltrs of I.D.liquor in the mica bag. LW1 arrested the accused and registered the case against her for possession, selling and manufacturing of ID liquor as an offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and seized the contraband. Later, drew a sample of 300 ml of ID Liquor from the polythene covers and sent the same for chemical analysis. Then, seized the remaining ID Liquor on the spot and LW1 sealed the sample bottle, with his seal and affixed the identity slips duly signed by him under the cover of Special report, drafted on the spot and completed the entire procedure by 06.00 AM.

2a.Then the Sub Inspector returned to the station along with Special report, case property and registered the Special report as F.I.R. in Cr.No.27/2021 U/s 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned and the accused was sent to the Ho'ble VI AJFCM court, Rajamahendravaram for remand. Further accused was enlarged on bail. Further, the Sub Inspector sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the C,E, examined the Sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis in C.E.No. 572/2021, Sl.No.8814, dt.30.03.2021 in which he opined that the Sample is I.D.Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Remaining property was destroyed on 30.06.2021, Vide

Rc.No.122/2020/C, dt.25.06.2021, Orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner

of Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada.

2b.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing, possession, Transportation and selling of ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution prays the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to the law. Hence the Charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused were examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of 4 CC.No.950/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

the Code of Criminal Procedure Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 Y.Satyanarayana Constable, SEB Korukonda.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported that they have no evidence in their defence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the P&E Sub Inspector stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of independent mediators in the present case is not fatal in the present case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. PW1 is the Sub-Inspector, P&E station Korukonda.

5 CC.No.950/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

13.PW1, who is the Sub-Inspector, P&E Korukonda has deposed that on 13.01.2021 at about 05.00 AM, he received credible information about selling of ID liquor. On the same day, he along with his staff proceeded to Srirangapatnam Village of Korukonda mandal. On reaching the scene of offence, he observed two persons coming on a motorcycle with a mica bag. On suspicion, he detained them with the help of staff. Then, he sent LW.2 to secure the presence of mediators. He returned and informed that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, he examined the mica bag and found 30 Lits of ID liquor in 6 polythene covers. He drew a sample of 300 Ml of ID liquor into clean bottle. On interrogating A1 and A2 confessed that they purchased ID liquor from A3 and selling the same for profit. He drafted the special report at the scene of offence which was duly signed by himself and LW.2. The entire procedure was completed it. He returned back to the police station and registered an FIR in Cr.No. 27/2021 on the strength of Ex.P1 under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP prohibition amendment act of 2020. He forwarded the FIR to the court and concerned officials. The following day, he sent the sample to chemical examiner, Kakinada along with letter of advice.He received chemical analysis report with an opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption. On 30.06.2021, he destroyed the remaining contraband vide RC.No.122/2020. He forwarded him to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Srirangapatnam Village and seized 30 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 special report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 30 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows, “Before making a search under this chapter 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 is 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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32

AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

6 CC.No.950/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

17.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

18.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

19.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgements, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of the accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, 7 CC.No.950/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20. IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.07.05.2026:B.Appa Rao, Sub Inspector,-NONE- SEB Korukonda

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Dt.13.01.2021: Special report Ex.P2Dt.13.01.2021: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.30.03.2021: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 : Destruction order

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.1817/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.1817/2025

01. Date of offence: 24.08.2021

02. Date of Complaint : 24.08.2021

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 26.08.2021

04. Release on bail: 02.09.2021

05. Commencement of trial: 29.07.2025

06. Closure of trial: 29.07.2025

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 06.08.2025

08. Name of the complainant:

The State is represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Korukonda.

09.Name of the accused :

Guruju Samelu Raju, S/o Kondayya, Age: 25 Years, C/o SC-Mala, R/o

Srirangapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal.

10. Offence:

Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence:

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.1817/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:MS.K.SAI MONICA RAO

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 06 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.

C.C.No.1817/2025

Between:

The state is represented by the Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Korukonda.

….. Complainant

And

Guruju Samelu Raju, S/o Kondayya, Age: 25 Years, C/o SC-Mala, R/o Srirangapatnam village, Korukonda Mandal. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing on 05.08.2025 in the presence of Sri.O.MahalakshmiLearned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.B.V.Raghavulu, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Korukonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.634/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 24.08.2021 at about 7.00 A.M, the Sub Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau, Korukonda received credible information. On such information, he along with his staff conducted raid for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences in Srirangapatnam Village, Korukonda Mandal. They reached the scene of offence and noticed a person on a motorcycle with a mica bag. On seeing the men in uniform, he tried to escape. Then staff tried to catch him, but in vain. Then LW1 sent LW2 Md.Ghouse Mohiddin, Enforcement Constable, SEB Korukonda to secure the presence of mediators. After 20 minutes he came back said that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, LW1 examined the mica bag, in the presence of staff and found 10 Lt's of I.D. Liquor in four polythene packets each with 05 Lt's I.D Liquor capacity i.e., totally (5X2)=10 Lt's of ID Liquor. On reliable information about the accused details, registered a case against him for possession, selling and manufacturing of ID liquor as an offence under Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and seized the contraband. Drew 300 ml of ID Liquor from the Polythene covers for chemical analysis. Seized the remaining ID Liquor on the spot. LW1 sealed the sample bottles, with his seal and affixed the identity slips duly signed by 3 CC.No.1817/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

the LW1 & LW2. Drafted the special report in the scene of offence by the SEB, Sub-Inspector and completed the entire procedure by 8.00 PM.

2a.Then, the Sub-Inspector returned to the station along with Special report, case property and registered the Special report as F.I.R. in Cr.No.634/2021 under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned.

2b.Then, the Sub-Inspector sent the Sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the C,E, Examined the Sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis in C.E.No.2598/2021, SI.No.46794, dt.07.12.2021 in which he opined that the Sample is I.D.Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Further, the Sub Inspector arrested the accused and remanded him to custody on 26.08.2021. The remaining property was destroyed on 29.04.2022, Vide Rc.No. 281/ 2021/ C, dt.28.12.2021, Orders issued by the Dy.Commissioner of Special Enforcement bureau, Vijayawada.

2c.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing, possession, Transportation and selling of ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution prays the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to the law. Hence the Charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 Md.Mohiddin Ghouse, Constable, SEB Korukonda.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported that he has no evidence in his defence.

4 CC.No.1817/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the Enforcement Sub Inspector stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of independent mediators in the present case is not fatal in the present case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1. PW1 is the Enforcement Sub Inspector of SEB, Korukonda.

13.PW1, who is the Enforcement Sub Inspector of Police, SEB Korukonda has deposed that on 24.08.2021 at about 07.00 PM, he received credible information about selling of ID liquor by one Guruju Samelu Raju. On the same, he along with his staff proceeded to Srirangapatnam Village, Korukonda mandal. On reaching the scene of offence, he observed one person on a scooter with a mica bag. On seeing them, the accused dropped the mica bag and the scooter and ran away. Then, he sent LW.2 to secure the presence of mediators. He returned and informed that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, he examined the mica bag and found 10 Lits of ID liquor in 2 polythene covers. As per reliable information, he concluded that the accused is Guruju Samelu Raju. He drew a MO1 sample of 300 Ml into a clean bottle. He drafted Ex.P1 special report at the scene of offence which was duly signed by himself and LW.2. He seized the motor cycle bearing number AP 05 EW 8958. The entire procedure was completed by 08.00 PM. He returned back to the police station and registered an FIR in Cr.No. 634/2021 on the strength of Ex.P1 under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP prohibition amendment act of 2020. He forwarded Ex.P2 FIR to the court and concerned officials. The following day, he sent the sample to chemical examiner, Kakinada along with Ex.P3 letter of advice. He received Ex.P4 5 CC.No.1817/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

chemical analysis report with an opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption. On 29.04.2022, he destroyed the remaining contraband vide

RC.No.287/2021/C. He arrested the accused on 26.08.2021 and forwarded

him to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

14.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Srirangapatnam Village and seized 10 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 special report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 10 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows,

 “Before making a search under this chapter 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 is 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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information.

When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking

mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing

any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting

seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them

from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a

colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the

presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable independent

inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.,

but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing

asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The

object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the

6 CC.No.1817/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has

been made and incriminating material has been really found and not

planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a

search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other

locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the

prosecution case.”

16.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

17.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

18.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgements, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of the accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 06th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

7 CC.No.1817/2025 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.29.07.2025:T.Niranjan Rao, Enforcement-NONE- Sub Inspector of Police, SEB Korukonda.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Dt.24.08.2021: Special report Ex.P2Dt.24.08.2021: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.24.08.2021: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 : Destruction order

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

1 CC.No.955/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.955/2026

01. Date of offence: 23.02.2021

02. Date of Complaint : 23.02.2021

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: 23.02.2021

04. Release on bail: 02.03.2021

05. Commencement of trial: 07.05.2026

06. Closure of trial: 07.05.2026

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 14.05.2026

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the P&E Sub Inspector, P&E Korukonda. 09.Name of the accused : Kasireddy Lovaraju, S/o Manga, Age 30 years, C/ Turpukapu, R/o Gangapalem village, Gokavaram Mandal.

10. Offence: Under Section 7(B) r/w 8(A) & (B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) & (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 and MO2 sample bottles shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.955/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: MS.K.SAI MONICA RAO,

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 14 th DAY OF MAY, 2026.

C.C.No.955/2026

Between:

The state is represented by the Proh & Excise Sub Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda.

….. Complainant

And

Kasireddy Lovaraju, S/o Manga, Age 30 years, C/ Turpukapu, R/o Gangampalem village, Gokavaram Mandal. …… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.O.Mahalakshmi Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.R.Nagaraju, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the P&E Sub Inspector, P&E station, Korukonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.149/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) & (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 23.02.2021 at about 10.00 A.M, the Inspector of P&E station, Korukonda, along with staff were conducting raids for detection of Prohibition & Excise offences in Gangampalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal. On credible information, they reached the scene of offence and noticed one person sterling the plastic drums with full of FJ wash. Then, the Inspector sent one of his staff to secure the presence of mediators, but in vain. Then, LW1 Inspector examined the drums in the presence of staff and found 20 Ltrs of I.D.liquor and 3 CC.No.955/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

600 lts of FJ wash. LW1 arrested the accused and registered the case against him for possession, selling and manufacturing of ID liquor as an offence under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and seized the contraband. Later, drew a sample of 300 ml of ID Liquor and 500 ml of FJ wash from the polythene covers and sent the same for chemical analysis. Then, seized the remaining ID Liquor on the spot and LW1 sealed the sample bottle, with his seal and affixed the identity slips duly signed by him under the cover of Special report, drafted on the spot and completed the entire procedure.

2a.Then the Inspector returned to the station along with Special report, case property and registered the Special report as F.I.R. in Cr.No.149/2021 U/s 7-B r/w 8-A & B of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued copies of F.I.R. to all the concerned.

2b.Further, the Inspector sent the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada and the C,E, examined the Sample and issued a Laboratory Analysis in C.E.No.573/2021, Sl.No. 7998 & 7999, dt.23.02.2021 in which he opined that the Sample is I.D.Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and fermented wash fit for distillation. Further, the Inspector arrested the accused and sent him to judicial remand and further released on bail. Remaining property was destroyed on 30.06.2021, Vide

Rc.No.122/2020/C, dt.25.06.2021, Orders issued by the Special Enforcement

Bureau, Vijayawada.

2b.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing, possession, Transportation and selling of ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) & (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The prosecution prays the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to the law. Hence the Charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) & (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) & (B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 CC.No.955/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 and MO2 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW2 L.Krishnarjuna Rao Enforcement Constable, Korukonda.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported that he has no evidence in his defence.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that he prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the P&E Inspector stated that the accused has committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 and MO2. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued that the absence of independent mediators in the present case is not fatal in the present case. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) & (B) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 and MO2. PW1 is the P&E Sub Inspector, P&E station Korukonda.

13.PW1, who is the Sub Inspector, P&E Korukonda has deposed that on 23.02.2021 at about 10.00 AM, he received credible information about selling of ID liquor. On the same day, he along with his staff proceeded to 5 CC.No.955/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

Gangapalem Village of Gokavaram mandal. On reaching the scene of offence, he observed one person sterling a plastic drum with wooden stick. On suspicion, he detained him with the help of staff. Then, he sent LW.2 to secure the presence of mediators. He returned and informed that no one came forward to act as mediators. Then, he examined the mica bag and found 20 Lits of ID liquor and 800 lts of FJ wash. He drew a sample of 300 Ml of ID liquor and 500 ml of FJ wash into clean bottles. He drafted the special report at the scene of offence which was duly signed by himself and LW.2. The entire procedure was completed it. He returned back to the police station and registered an FIR in Cr.No. 149/2021 on the strength of Ex.P1 under section 7(B) r/w 8(A) & (B) of AP prohibition amendment act of 2020. He forwarded the FIR to the court and concerned officials. The following day, he sent the sample to chemical examiner, Kakinada along with letter of advice.He received chemical analysis report with an opinion that the sample is unfit for human consumption. On 30.06.2022, he destroyed the remaining contraband vide RC.No.122/2020. He forwarded him to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Gangampalem Village and seized 20 litres of ID arrack and 600 lts of FJ wash and drawn MO1 and MO2 sample bottles under the cover of Ex.P1 special report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 20 litres of ID arrack and 600 lts of FJ wash at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

16.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows, “Before making a search under this chapter 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 is 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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32

AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them 6 CC.No.955/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

17.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

18.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

19.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgements, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO1 and MO2, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of the accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) & (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7 CC.No.955/2026 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) & (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case properties i.e., MO1 and MO2 sample bottles shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.07.05.2026:B.Appa Rao, Sub Inspector,NONE P&E Korukonda

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Dt.23.02.2021: Special report Ex.P2Dt.23.02.2021: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.23.03.2021: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 : Destruction order

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack. MO2 : Sample bottle of FJ wash.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.12/2022

01. Date of offence: 14.05.2020

02. Date of Complaint : 17.05.2020

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: A1 to A3 41 A Cr.P.C notice

04. Release on bail: A1 to A3 ----------

05. Commencement of trial: 04.08.2025

06. Closure of trial: 04.08.2025

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 06.08.2025

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the Sub-Inspector, Bommuru Police Station. 09.Name of the accused :

1) Thuvvakula Sathibabu, S/o Adinarayana, 35 years, Reddilu, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

2) Chiliki Veeranna, S/o Sudhakar, 20 years, Madiga, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

3) Dasari Balaji, S/o Yedukondalu, 27 years, Gowda, R/o Raghunadhapuram village, Rajanagarain Mandal.

10. Offence: U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 2020. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:SMT.N.REDDY PRASANNA

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 06 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.

C.C.No.12/2022

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Bommuru PS.

….. Complainant

And

1) Thuvvakula Sathibabu, S/o Adinarayana, 35 years, Reddilu, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

2) Chiliki Veeranna, S/o Sudhakar, 20 years, Madiga, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

3) Dasari Balaji, S/o Yedukondalu, 27 years, Gowda, R/o Raghunadhapuram village, Rajanagarain Mandal.

…… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing on 05.08.2025 in the presence of Sri.O.MahalakshmiLearned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.K.S.S.Mahadeva, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the Sub-Inspector, Bommuru PS filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.380/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 14-5-2020 at 9-00 am, near Durgamma Temple, Sainagar Rajamahendravaram Rural, where the complainant K.Jagan Mohan Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police station received credible information about the possession and transportation of the ID arrack near Durgamma Temple, Sainagar Rajamahendravaram Rural, and caught hold of the accused 1) Thuvvakula Sathibabu, S/o Adinarayana, 35 yrs, Reddilu, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram, 2) Chiliki Veeranna, S/o Sudhakar, 20 yrs, Madiga, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram were arrested where Dasari Balaji of Raghunadhapuram village as they were in possession and transporting of 30 liters of ID arrack which was contained in a black tin on a

Honda Dio moped with engine bearing no: JF39EG0012592. Hence 30 liters

of ID Arrack packed in a black coloured plastic tin which was transported

Honda Dio moped with engine bearing no: JF39EG0012592 was drafted

under the occurrence report.

3 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

2a.LW-3 K.Jagan Mohan Rao, SI of Police, Bommuru PS brought the seized property to Bommuru Police Station on 14-05-2020 at 10-30 am and registered the occurrence report as a FIR in Cr. No.380/2020 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition act of Bommuru Police Station and investigated into.

2b.LW-3 had sent the seized samples to the Chemical Analysis report from the Government Chemical Examiner, Proh. & Excise, Kakinada and received the Chemical Analysis report from the Governemnt Chemical Examiner, Proh. & Excise, Kakinada, wherein the Chemical Examiner opined that the seized sample is "Illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health" vide report C.Es.No. 1301/2020 and SI.No.24690.

2c.On 16-05-2020 the absconding accused came to the police station and introduced him as the absconded accused. Hence he was issued 41(1) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and with this the investigation in this case was completed.

2d.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7-A r/w 8-e of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. The prosecution prays to the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to law. Hence the charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act against accused.

4.On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.Accused were examined under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW1 Ch Somesh, Police Constable, Bommuru Police station and LW2 G.L.Satyanarayana, Police Constable, Bommuru Police Station.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported that they have no evidence in their defence.

4 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the Sub Inspector stated that accused had committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. Hence, he prayed to convict accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of A1 to A3 for

the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of Accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 along with Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. PW1 is the Sub Inspector, Bommuru Police Station.

13. PW1, who is the Sub Inspector, Bommuru PS has deposed that on 14.05.2020, at about 8.30 AM, he received credible information about illegal transportation of ID arrack. On which, he secured his staff and proceeded near Durgamma temple, Sai Nagar, Pidimgoyya village, Rajamahendravaram Rural. On reaching, they found three persons coming in the opposite direction towards them on a Hero Deo motorcycle bearing Engine No. JF 39 EG 0012592 with a black colour tin. On seeing the police in uniform, the three persons tried to flee away. He caught hold of the two persons and the third person escaped. He questioned them about their names and the contents of the tin. They revealed their identity particulars as Tuvakula Sathi Babu and Chiliki Veeranna. The two persons confessed that they are transporting ID arrack along with Dasari Balaji. On inspection of the tin, They found that it was 30 liters of ID arrack. he drew a MO.1 sample of 350 ml into a plastic container and affixed identity slips. He seized the remaining contraband. Ex.P1 occurrence report was drafted at the scene of offence since mediators did not come forward. The entire procedure was completed by 10.00 AM. They came back to the police station along with the contraband and the accused and lodged Ex.P2 FIR in Cr.No.380/2020 under Section 7-A r/w 8-e of the APP Act. He forwarded the FIR to the concerned court and visited the scene of offence. He forwarded the MO1 to chemical examiner Kakinada along with Ex.P3 letter of advice. He served 5 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to the accused and he complied with the same. He received the Ex.P4 chemical analysis report with an opinion that the contraband is illicit liquor unfit for human consumption. The third person surrendered before him and he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice and he complied with the same. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

14.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Pidimgoyyi Village and seized 30 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 occurence report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 30 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows,

 “Before making a search under this chapter 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 is 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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information.

When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking

mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing

any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting

seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them

from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a

colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the

presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable independent

inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.,

but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing

asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The

object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the

neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has

6 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

been made and incriminating material has been really found and not

planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a

search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other

locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the

prosecution case.”

16.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

17.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

18.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgment, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of Accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 06th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

7 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.04.08.2025:K.Jagan Mohan Rao, Sub--NONE- Inspector, Bommuru PS.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Dt.14.05.2020 : Occurrence report Ex.P2Dt.14.05.2020: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.23.07.2020: Chemical analysis report.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

1 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.No.12/2022

01. Date of offence: 14.05.2020

02. Date of Complaint : 17.05.2020

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: A1 to A3 41 A Cr.P.C notice

04. Release on bail: A1 to A3 ----------

05. Commencement of trial: 04.08.2025

06. Closure of trial: 04.08.2025

07. Date of Sentence /Order: 06.08.2025

08. Name of the complainant: The State is represented by the Sub-Inspector, Bommuru Police Station. 09.Name of the accused :

1) Thuvvakula Sathibabu, S/o Adinarayana, 35 years, Reddilu, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

2) Chiliki Veeranna, S/o Sudhakar, 20 years, Madiga, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

3) Dasari Balaji, S/o Yedukondalu, 27 years, Gowda, R/o Raghunadhapuram village, Rajanagarain Mandal.

10. Offence: U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Reasons for delay : NIL

14. Sentence: IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 2020. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:SMT.N.REDDY PRASANNA

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 06 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025.

C.C.No.12/2022

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Bommuru PS.

….. Complainant

And

1) Thuvvakula Sathibabu, S/o Adinarayana, 35 years, Reddilu, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

2) Chiliki Veeranna, S/o Sudhakar, 20 years, Madiga, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram.

3) Dasari Balaji, S/o Yedukondalu, 27 years, Gowda, R/o Raghunadhapuram village, Rajanagarain Mandal.

…… Accused

This calendar case is coming before me for final hearing on 05.08.2025 in the presence of Sri.O.MahalakshmiLearned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant/State and of Sri.K.S.S.Mahadeva, Learned counsel for the accused upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The state represented by the Sub-Inspector, Bommuru PS filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.380/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that :

On 14-5-2020 at 9-00 am, near Durgamma Temple, Sainagar Rajamahendravaram Rural, where the complainant K.Jagan Mohan Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Bommuru Police station received credible information about the possession and transportation of the ID arrack near Durgamma Temple, Sainagar Rajamahendravaram Rural, and caught hold of the accused 1) Thuvvakula Sathibabu, S/o Adinarayana, 35 yrs, Reddilu, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram, 2) Chiliki Veeranna, S/o Sudhakar, 20 yrs, Madiga, R/o Thadithota, Rajamahendravaram were arrested where Dasari Balaji of Raghunadhapuram village as they were in possession and transporting of 30 liters of ID arrack which was contained in a black tin on a

Honda Dio moped with engine bearing no: JF39EG0012592. Hence 30 liters

of ID Arrack packed in a black coloured plastic tin which was transported

Honda Dio moped with engine bearing no: JF39EG0012592 was drafted

under the occurrence report.

3 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

2a.LW-3 K.Jagan Mohan Rao, SI of Police, Bommuru PS brought the seized property to Bommuru Police Station on 14-05-2020 at 10-30 am and registered the occurrence report as a FIR in Cr. No.380/2020 under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition act of Bommuru Police Station and investigated into.

2b.LW-3 had sent the seized samples to the Chemical Analysis report from the Government Chemical Examiner, Proh. & Excise, Kakinada and received the Chemical Analysis report from the Governemnt Chemical Examiner, Proh. & Excise, Kakinada, wherein the Chemical Examiner opined that the seized sample is "Illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health" vide report C.Es.No. 1301/2020 and SI.No.24690.

2c.On 16-05-2020 the absconding accused came to the police station and introduced him as the absconded accused. Hence he was issued 41(1) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and with this the investigation in this case was completed.

2d.As per the investigation, it was concluded that the accused had wilfully committed the offence of manufacturing ID liquor. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 7-A r/w 8-e of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. The prosecution prays to the Hon'ble court to examine the witnesses listed and to proceed against the accused according to law. Hence the charge.

3.Based on the allegations made in the charge sheet and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act against accused.

4.On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.Accused were examined under Section 239 Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the charge U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1. Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW1 Ch Somesh, Police Constable, Bommuru Police station and LW2 G.L.Satyanarayana, Police Constable, Bommuru Police Station.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reading over and explaining the same in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported that they have no evidence in their defence.

4 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

8.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for accused.

9.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW1 who is the Sub Inspector stated that accused had committed the offence and the same is substantiated by Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. Hence, he prayed to convict accused with maximum sentence under the said sections.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and there are no independent mediators as required by provision of law and therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the scene of offence and the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of A1 to A3 for

the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the case of the prosecution and the guilt of Accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 along with Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. PW1 is the Sub Inspector, Bommuru Police Station.

13. PW1, who is the Sub Inspector, Bommuru PS has deposed that on 14.05.2020, at about 8.30 AM, he received credible information about illegal transportation of ID arrack. On which, he secured his staff and proceeded near Durgamma temple, Sai Nagar, Pidimgoyya village, Rajamahendravaram Rural. On reaching, they found three persons coming in the opposite direction towards them on a Hero Deo motorcycle bearing Engine No. JF 39 EG 0012592 with a black colour tin. On seeing the police in uniform, the three persons tried to flee away. He caught hold of the two persons and the third person escaped. He questioned them about their names and the contents of the tin. They revealed their identity particulars as Tuvakula Sathi Babu and Chiliki Veeranna. The two persons confessed that they are transporting ID arrack along with Dasari Balaji. On inspection of the tin, They found that it was 30 liters of ID arrack. he drew a MO.1 sample of 350 ml into a plastic container and affixed identity slips. He seized the remaining contraband. Ex.P1 occurrence report was drafted at the scene of offence since mediators did not come forward. The entire procedure was completed by 10.00 AM. They came back to the police station along with the contraband and the accused and lodged Ex.P2 FIR in Cr.No.380/2020 under Section 7-A r/w 8-e of the APP Act. He forwarded the FIR to the concerned court and visited the scene of offence. He forwarded the MO1 to chemical examiner Kakinada along with Ex.P3 letter of advice. He served 5 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to the accused and he complied with the same. He received the Ex.P4 chemical analysis report with an opinion that the contraband is illicit liquor unfit for human consumption. The third person surrendered before him and he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice and he complied with the same. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

14.It is the specific case of the prosecution that, PW1 along with staff members proceeded to Pidimgoyyi Village and seized 30 litres of ID arrack and drawn MO1 sample bottle under the cover of Ex.P1 occurence report. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 30 litres of ID arrack at the scene of offence from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.With regard to seizure, the Hon'ble High Court observed that if any seizure is made in contravention of Sec.100(4) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973, the entire seizure proceedings are deemed to have been vitiated.

Sec.100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as follows,

 “Before making a search under this chapter 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 is 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 observations of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in the case of S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP, are very much relevant which are extracted hereunder:

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from

Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information.

When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking

mediators along with them where there is no possibility of securing

any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting

seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them

from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a

colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the

presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition

officers are bound to take the local respectable independent

inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.,

but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing

asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The

object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the

neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has

6 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

been made and incriminating material has been really found and not

planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a

search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other

locality would not only weakened but sometimes destroy the

prosecution case.”

16.The prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality surrounded by residential houses. Although presence of VRO, VRA, village secretaries, village volunteers could be secured, the same was not done. The entire case of the prosecution relies on the testimony of PW1, who is a Police official. If no independent persons were examined as mediators then it is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why it could not secure any independent witnesses. The prosecution failed to mention reasons for not securing independent witnesses.

Also in 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) P.69 (A.P.) Between

Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circlie.

Where it was held that the conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested and independent witnesses.

17.Further, other witnesses who participated in the raid also did not depose supporting the prosecution's case to reasons best known to them.

18.Hence, in the light of the foregoing discussions, the material on record and the above referred judgment, this court finds that though the prosecution examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MO1, it failed to prove the seizure of the contra-bands from the possession of Accused on which the entire case of the prosecution rests. The prosecution has therefore, failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused will be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 (A) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The case property i.e., MO1 sample bottle shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 06th day of August, 2025.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

7 CC.No.12/2022 VI AJFCM/RJVM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1Dt.04.08.2025:K.Jagan Mohan Rao, Sub--NONE- Inspector, Bommuru PS.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Dt.14.05.2020 : Occurrence report Ex.P2Dt.14.05.2020: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of advice. Ex.P4Dt.23.07.2020: Chemical analysis report.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO1 : Sample bottle of ID arrack.

Sd/- K.Sai Monica Rao

VI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.