Smt. Dr. K. Sarada

1 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

APVS030001912026

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION &

EXCISE ACTS, VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL

JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Excise),

Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 30 th day of March, 2026

C.C.No.103 OF 2026

Between:

The State Represented through the Station House Officer, Proh. and Excise station Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam

….. Complainant

And

Reddipalli Omkar Sainath, S/o.Venkata Seethapathi, A./39,

R/o.Flan No.301, Sri Bala Saraswathi Nivas, HDFC Bank back side, Abid nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

….. Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Learned APP and Sri M.Geetha Krishna, Learned Counsel for Accused and after having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise 2 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 (Amendment) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Excise Act) in Crime No. 58/2025.

2.1. The brief contents of the charge sheet are that -

On 06.08.2025, at about 08:35 hours based on credible information and under the instructions and supervision of the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition &

Excise, Visakhapatnam, LW.9 along with LW.7 and LW.8 and their staff (LW.3 to

LW.6) namely Ch. Rajeswari (Proh. & Excise Inspector), L. Aruna Kumari (Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector), P. Appa Rao (Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector), N. Thirupathi

Rao (EC), K.S. Veerabhadra (EC) and M. Maheswari (EC) of the Enforcement

Wing, Visakhapatnam, and in the presence of mediators LW.1 Eluru Durga and

Erusu Sai Prasad accompanied by LW.10 S. Sreenivas (Proh. & Excise Inspector,

Enforcement) proceeded to Flat No. 301, 3rd Floor, Sri Balasarswathi Nivas behind HDFC Bank, Abid Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

While conducting patrolling, after knocking on the door, one male person residing in the house opened it. He disclosed his name and details. LW.10 informed him that the team was there to conduct a search of the premises based on credible information that he was in possession of foreign liquor. LW.10 served a search notice to the individual in the presence of mediators and thereafter

LW.10 along with the staff searched the house in their presence.

The flat consisted of three bedrooms, one hall, one pooja room, one dining hall and one kitchen. Upon enquiry, the individual revealed that liquor bottles were kept in a cupboard in the hall. LW.10 with the assistance of the staff opened the cupboard in the presence of mediators and found a total of 31 bottles of foreign liquor as detailed below:

1. Johnnie Walker Double Black Blended Scotch Whisky, 1000 ml – 03

2. Chapelle de Siza Pauillac 2020 Grand Vin de Bordeaux, 750 ml – 01

3. Johnnie Walker Gold Label Reserve Blended Scotch Whisky, 1000 ml – 01 3 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

4. Bombay Sapphire London Dry Gin Premier Cru (Tuscan Juniper), 1000 ml – 01

5. Absolut Vodka (Swedish), 1000 ml – 03

6. Absolut Raspberri (Raspberry Flavoured Vodka), 375 ml – 01

7. Sierra Tequila Silver (Jalisco, Mexico), 1000 ml – 03

8. Chivas Regal Blended Scotch Whiskey (12 Years), 1000 ml – 04

9. Bushmills Original Irish Whiskey (Triple Distilled), 1000 ml – 03

10. Bushmills 10 Year Single Malt Irish Whiskey, 700 ml – 01

11. Dewar’s White Label Blended Scotch Whiskey (Double Aged),1000 ml – 03

12. Viña Albali Gran Reserva 2012, 750 ml – 01

13. Glenfiddich Single Malt Scotch Whiskey (18 Years), 700 ml – 01

14. Cabo White Rum with Coconut Liqueur, 750 ml (for sale in Goa) – 01

15. Johnnie Walker Gold Label Reserve Blended Scotch Whisky, 100 ml – 01

16. The Dalmore 15 Years Highland Single Malt Scotch Whisky, 700 ml – 01

17. Johnnie Walker Black Label Blended Scotch Whiskey, 200 ml – 02

18. Royal Ranthambore Heritage Collection Crafted Reserve Whiskey, 750 ml – 01

One iPhone 16 Pro Max (iOS Version 18.5), Rose Gold, Model No. MYW93LL/A, Serial No. KN7D2RNV46 was also seized for further investigation.

Upon further questioning, the accused failed to produce any receipts for the above property. He stated that he regularly consumes alcohol and often brings back bottles during his international travels and sometimes he consumes them himself and occasionally sells them.

LW.10 informed the accused that transportation from other countries and possession of unauthorized foreign liquor is an offence under the A.P. Excise Act.

Thereafter, LW.10 separated one bottle from each brand as samples for chemical analysis. Identification slips were affixed to both the sample bottles and the seized liquor bottles duly signed by all officers, mediators and the accused.

Subsequently, the accused along with the seized property was handed over to 4 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 the Prohibition & Excise Station, Seethammadhara.

2.2. Based on the above, LW.10 (S. Sreenivas, Proh. & Excise Inspector,

Enforcement) submitted the case file along with the accused, occurrence report and seized contraband. LW.11 registered a case in Cr. No. 58/2025 under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 on 06.08.2025 at 13:45 hours at the Prohibition & Excise Station, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. An FIR was issued, the original was forwarded to the Court and copies were submitted to all concerned officials. LW.11 also prepared a rough sketch. On 08.08.2025, the accused was sent to judicial custody for remand. Through a letter of advice (C.E. No.

2188/2025), LW.11 forwarded the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner,

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. The chemical analysis report stated that the samples bearing Serial Nos. 13572 to 13579 and 13581 to 13586 were liquor and samples at Serial Nos. 13569 and 13571 were diluted liquor and samples at Serial Nos. 13570 and 13580 were wine. LW.11 submitted destruction proposals to the Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Visakhapatnam, and obtained destruction orders vide Proceedings No. PE-STAOOTH/63/2025-

JA(B1)-DCP & EVSKP, dated 12.09.2025, from the Office of the Deputy

Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Visakhapatnam. After completion of the investigation, LW.11 filed the charge sheet against the accused.

03. Cognizance of the offence under Section 34(A) of the A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 was taken against Accused.

04. On appearance of Accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

05. When examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the substance of the accusation levelled against him. After perusing the material 5 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 available on record, a charge under Section 34(A) of the A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in

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

06. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5.

Mediators report dated 06.08.2025 is marked as Ex.P1. The original FIR dated 06.08.2025 is marked as Ex.P2. The rough sketch is marked as Ex.P3. The letter of advice is marked as Ex.P4. The chemical analysis report dated 14.08.2025 is marked as Ex.P5. The destruction orders vide Proceedings No.

PE-STAOOTH/63/2025-JA(B1)-DCP & EVSKP, dated 12.09.2025 are marked as

Ex.P6.

The following Eighteen sample bottles were marked as M.O.1 namely:

1. Johnnie Walker Double Black Blended Scotch Whiskey, 1000 ml – 03

2. Chapelle de Siza Pauillac 2020 Grand Vin de Bordeaux, 750 ml – 01

3. Johnnie Walker Gold Label Reserve Blended Scotch Whiskey, 1000 ml – 01

4. Bombay Sapphire London Dry Gin Premier Cru (Tuscan Juniper),1000 ml - 01

5. Absolut Vodka (Swedish), 1000 ml – 03

6. Absolut Raspberri Raspberry Flavoured Vodka, 375 ml – 01

7. Sierra Tequila Silver (Jalisco, Mexico), 1000 ml – 03

8. Chivas Regal Blended Scotch Whiskey (12 Years), 1000 ml – 04

9. Bushmills Original Irish Whiskey (Triple Distilled), 1000 ml – 03

10. Bushmills 10 Year Single Malt Irish Whiskey, 700 ml – 01

11. Dewar’s White Label Blended Scotch Whiskey (Double Aged),1000 ml – 03

12. Viña Albali Gran Reserva 2012, 750 ml – 01

13. Glenfiddich Single Malt Scotch Whiskey (18 Years), 700 ml – 01

14. Cabo White Rum with Coconut Liqueur, 750 ml (for sale in Goa) – 01

15. Johnnie Walker Gold Label Reserve Blended Scotch Whiskey, 100 ml – 01

16. The Dalmore 15 Years Highland Single Malt Scotch Whiskey, 700 ml – 01

17. Johnnie Walker Black Label Blended Scotch Whiskey, 200 ml – 02

18. Royal Ranthambore Heritage Collection Crafted Reserve Whisky, 750 ml 6 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

One iPhone (Rose Gold colour) with a navy blue phone cover was marked as M.O.2. The evidence of LW.2/Erusu Sai Prasad (mediator), LW.4 /K.S.

Veerabhadra (EC), LW.5/D. Devi Chandra (EC), LW.6/M. Maheswari (EC),

LW.8/P. Appa Rao (Proh. & Excise S.I.) and LW.9/Ch. Rajeswari (Proh. & Excise

Inspector, Enforcement, Visakhapatnam) was given up by the learned APP.

07. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against him which he denied. He did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8.1. Heard both sides.

8.2. The Learned APP submitted that there is corroboration between the prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P6 and M.O.1 & M.O.2 prove that the

Accused committed the said offence and so, the prosecution proved a guilt of the

Accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, considering the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 5, the Accused may be convicted for the charge leveled against him.

8.3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Accused argued that PW1 is stock mediator to the excise officials PW.2 to 5 are Excise police officials and that the sole testimony of PW.2 to 5 are not believable since they are police officials and interested witnesses and as such, Accused is entitled to be acquitted.

9. Now, the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

for offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt, or

not?” 7 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

10. ANSWER TO THE POINT :

“ Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act reads as follows “

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this

Act:

(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or “ 11.1. P.W.1 deposed that on 06.08.2025 at about 08:35 hours upon the instructions of the Tahsildar she acted as a mediator in this case. She stated that the offence occurred at Flat No. 301, 3rd Floor, Sri Balasarswathi Nivas, behind

HDFC Bank, Abid Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. Another person also acted as mediator. She further stated that at the scene, they found one male person who appeared perturbed on seeing them and the police officials apprehended him. She identified the accused present in the Court. She deposed that upon search, the accused was found in possession of about 30 foreign liquor bottles kept in a bag. She stated that she does not remember the details of the bottles. She further stated that the Excise officials seized the liquor bottles in her presence and interrogated the accused who stated that he brought the liquor from abroad and consumes alcohol. She also stated that the officials searched the house and seized a mobile phone from the accused. According to her, the officials prepared descriptive particulars, seized the liquor bottles, recorded the scene on a mobile phone, affixed identification slips on the bottles and prepared the mediators report. She stated that she signed the mediators report and another mediator also signed it. She identified Ex.P1 as the mediators report.

8 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 11.2. P.W.1, in her cross examination stated that, she read the contents of Ex.P1

before entering the Court. She stated that she did not go to the scene along with

Excise officials but went on her own bike and the officials guided her to the location. She denied the suggestion that she signed Ex.P1 before it was written.

She stated that she did not receive any written summons to act as mediator and that LW.10 Srinivas called her over the phone at about 7:30 AM. She further stated that she does not remember whether all the contents of her chief examination are reflected in Ex.P1. She deposed that she was present along with four other Excise officials but does not remember their names. She stated that it took about 40 to 50 minutes to reach the scene and that the procedure lasted nearly four hours. She further stated that she does not remember how many signatures she gave but that she gave several signatures and that four signatures are present on Ex.P1. She also stated that the crime number is mentioned on the identification slips affixed to the liquor bottles. She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely at the instance of the Excise officials.

12.1. P.W.2 deposed that he is working as Prohibition & Excise Constable in the

AC Enforcement Wing, Visakhapatnam. He stated that on 06.08.2025 at about 08:35 hours, upon credible information and under the instructions and supervision of the Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Visakhapatnam he along with other staff and mediators proceeded to Flat No. 301, 3rd Floor, Sri

Balasarswathi Nivas, Akkayyapalem. He stated that one person residing in the house opened the door and was found in possession of foreign liquor in bags. He further stated that LW.10 served a search notice in the presence of mediators. He deposed that upon questioning, the accused admitted that he was in possession of liquor bottles. He further stated that the house was searched in the presence of mediators and 32 foreign liquor bottles were found. According to him, the accused stated that he brings liquor from abroad consumes some of it and sells some of it.

He stated that LW.10 informed the accused that such possession is an offence.

9 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

He further stated that one bottle from each brand was separated as a sample, identification slips were affixed and all signed the same. He also stated that the mediators report was prepared and thereafter the accused and seized property were taken to the Excise Station.

12.2. P.W.2, in his cross examination stated that his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. He deposed that upon receiving information, they started from the station at about 7:45 AM and that about 10 staff members proceeded in two vehicles along with mediators. He stated that it took about 30 minutes to reach the scene and about 30 minutes for conducting the search. He stated that there were 18 brands of liquor bottles and that he remembers some of the brand names. He further stated that he does not know the batch numbers but knows other particulars. He stated that he signed Ex.P1 and the identification slips and that they were prepared at the scene of offence. He further stated that the crime number would be known to the staff who registered the case. He denied the suggestion that the case was filed falsely for statistical purposes and that he is deposing falsely.

13.1. In her chief examination,P.W.3 deposed that she is working as Prohibition &

Excise Sub-Inspector in the AC Enforcement Wing, Visakhapatnam. She stated that on 06.08.2025 at about 08:35 hours, upon credible information and under the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner she along with staff and mediators proceeded to the said flat. She stated that one person residing in the house opened the door and was found in possession of foreign liquor in bags. She further stated that LW.10 served the search notice to the accused in the presence of mediators. She deposed that upon questioning, the accused admitted possession of liquor bottles. She further stated that the house was searched in the presence of mediators and 32 foreign liquor bottles were found. She stated that the accused admitted that he brings liquor from abroad, consumes some and 10 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 sells some. She further stated that one bottle from each brand was separated as a sample, identification slips were affixed and signed and the mediators report was prepared. She stated that the accused and seized property were then taken to the Excise Station.

13.2. P.W.3, in her cross examination stated that her statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. She stated that she does not know the batch numbers of the seized property but knows other particulars and that there were 18 brands of liquor bottles. She stated that she drafted Ex.P1 on the dictation of the CI and read it before signing. She further stated that mediators were secured orally and no written summons was issued. She stated that they started from the station at about 7:45 AM and proceeded with 9 to 10 staff members. She admitted that the locality of the scene of offence is a busy area. She denied the suggestion that the case was falsely filed or that she is deposing falsely.

14.1. In his chief examination,P.W.4 deposed that he is working as Prohibition &

Excise CI, Enforcement, Visakhapatnam. He stated that on 06.08.2025 at about 08:35 hours, upon credible information and under the instructions and supervision of the Assistant Commissioner, he along with staff and mediators proceeded to the said flat. He stated that the accused opened the door and was found in possession of foreign liquor. He further stated that he served the search notice to the accused in the presence of mediators. He deposed that upon questioning, the accused admitted possession of liquor bottles. He further stated that the house was searched and 32 foreign liquor bottles were found. He stated that the accused admitted that he brings liquor from abroad and sometimes consumes and sells it. He further stated that he informed the accused that such possession is an offence. He stated that one bottle from each brand was separated as a sample, identification slips were affixed and signed and the mediators report was prepared. He further stated that he arrested the accused and produced him along 11 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 with the seized property before the Excise Station.

14.2. P.W.4, in his cross examination stated that he received information about the case on the previous day i.e., 05.08.2025. He stated that the details of the information are not mentioned in Ex.P1. He admitted that mediators were secured orally and no written summons was issued. He stated that they started from the station at about 7:45 AM. He further stated that the bag containing the liquor bottles was not produced before the Court. He stated that it took about 45 minutes to reach the scene and that the entire procedure took about 2½ hours.

He admitted that the barcode numbers of the seized liquor bottles are not mentioned in Ex.P1. He further stated that he does not remember the IMEI number of the seized mobile phone. He denied the suggestion that the case was falsely foisted or that he is deposing falsely.

15.1. In her chief examination,P.W.5 deposed that she is working as Prohibition &

Excise CI at Seethammadhara. She stated that on 06.08.2025 at about 13:45 hours, she received the case file along with the accused, occurrence report and seized contraband from P.W.4. She stated that based on the occurrence report, she registered a case in Cr.No.58/2025 under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act and issued FIR which is marked as Ex.P2. She further stated that on the same day, the accused was sent to judicial custody. She stated that by way of letter of advice, she forwarded the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner, Prohibition &

Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam and received the chemical analysis report which confirmed that the samples were liquor, diluted liquor and wine. She further stated that she sent destruction proposals and obtained destruction orders. She identified Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. She finally stated that after completion of investigation, she filed the charge sheet against the accused.

15.2. P.W.5, in her cross examination stated that she does not have personal 12 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 knowledge about the raid. She admitted that Ex.P2 does not mention from whom the case was received and that the complainant’s signature is blank. She stated that the case appears to be registered suo motu. She admitted that she did not examine any witnesses and did not record any statements in this case. She further admitted that details such as door number and exact location are not mentioned in the rough sketch or FIR. She stated that though destruction orders were received, destruction of property has not yet taken place. She admitted that she did not produce the entire seized property before the Court and that only sample bottles were produced. She denied the suggestion that the case is falsely filed or that the documents were fabricated.

16. Perused the material available on record. In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the accused was found in possession of unauthorized foreign liquor bottles in his residential premises and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the prosecution is required to prove, with cogent and reliable evidence, the factum of search, seizure, possession of the contraband by the accused and the integrity of the case property.

17. P.W.1 is as an independent mediator to the seizure proceedings. Though she supported the prosecution in chief examination to some extent, her cross examination discloses several circumstances which create doubt about the manner in which the seizure proceedings were conducted. She admitted that she did not go to the scene along with the Excise officials and that she went on her own bike after being called over phone by LW.10 at about 7:30 A.M. She also admitted that no written summons was issued to her for acting as mediator. She further stated that she does not remember whether the entire contents of her chief examination are reflected in Ex.P1. She also does not remember the names of the Excise officials present at the scene, the exact details of the liquor bottles 13 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 or the number of signatures made by her. These admissions materially weaken her evidentiary value as an independent mediator.

18. It is also significant that P.W.1 stated in chief examination that about 30 foreign liquor bottles were found whereas the charge sheet version refers to 31 bottles and P.Ws.2 to 4 consistently deposed about 32 foreign liquor bottles. This is not a minor discrepancy but it goes to the root of the prosecution case and the very quantity of contraband allegedly seized from the accused. When the prosecution case is founded upon a specific seizure, the number of bottles allegedly recovered assumes importance. Such variation between 30, 31 and 32 bottles creates a serious doubt as to whether the seizure proceedings were actually conducted in the manner alleged.

19. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, who are all Excise officials also does not inspire full confidence. Though official testimony is not to be discarded merely because the witnesses are official witnesses, the Court must still insist upon consistency, reliability and corroboration, particularly where the independent witness does not wholly support the prosecution in material particulars. In the present case, P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed about seizure of 32 bottles whereas the charge sheet states 31 bottles and P.W.1 stated 30 bottles. Further, while the charge sheet says that bottles were found in a cupboard in the hall, P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed that the accused was found in possession of foreign liquor in green and brown zip bags.

Thus, there is inconsistency not only regarding the number of bottles but also regarding the place and manner of recovery.

20. P.W.2 admitted in cross examination that his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. P.W.3 also admitted that her statement was not recorded 14 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 by the Investigating Officer. P.W.5, the Investigating Officer admitted that she did not examine any witnesses and did not record any statements in this case. This omission goes to the root of the investigation. When the investigating officer does not record the statements of the material witnesses connected with the seizure, the Court is justified in drawing an adverse inference regarding the fairness and completeness of the investigation.

21. P.W.3 stated that she drafted Ex.P1 on the dictation of the Circle Inspector.

P.W.1, the mediator admitted that she read Ex.P1 before entering the Court and she was unable to say whether all the contents of her chief examination are reflected in Ex.P1. P.W.4 admitted that the details of the information allegedly received by him are not mentioned in Ex.P1. Thus, the mediators report which is the foundational document for the alleged search and seizure does not inspire confidence. The possibility of Ex.P1 prepared in a routine or mechanical manner rather than reflecting the actual events cannot be ruled out.

22. P.W.4 admitted that the mediators were secured orally and no written summons was issued. He further admitted that the bag in which the liquor bottles were allegedly found was not produced before the Court. He also admitted that the barcode numbers of the seized liquor bottles are not mentioned in Ex.P1 and that he does not remember the IMEI number of the seized mobile phone. These omissions assume significance because the prosecution case is based on seizure of specific branded foreign liquor bottles and a mobile phone. In the absence of proper identifying particulars of the seized articles, the possibility of interpolation or substitution cannot be fully ruled out.

23. Another important circumstance is that the scene of offence is admittedly 15 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 situated in a busy locality. P.W.3 admitted the same in her cross examination.

When the alleged search and seizure took place in a residential apartment located in a busy area, non examination of independent witnesses creates a further doubt regarding the prosecution version.

24. P.W.5, the Investigating Officer admitted in clear terms that she has no personal knowledge about the raid. She further admitted that Ex.P2 does not mention from whom the case was received and that the complainant’s signature in Ex.P2 is blank. She also admitted that the case appears to have been registered suo motu. She further admitted that no details such as the exact door number, address of location or connecting particulars are mentioned in the rough sketch or FIR. These admissions indicate that the investigation is not only perfunctory but also suffers from serious procedural infirmities.

25. P.W.5 admitted that the entire seized property was not produced before the

Court. Though destruction orders were received, she admitted that destruction not yet took place. Therefore, there was no impediment for production of the full seized property before the Court. Non-production of the bulk contraband in the present case assumes importance because there is already serious inconsistency regarding the number of bottles allegedly seized. In such circumstances, production of only sample bottles does not satisfactorily establish the identity and quantity of the entire seized property.

26. Ex.P5, the chemical analysis report only establishes that the sample bottles sent to the laboratory contained liquor, diluted liquor and wine. Ex.P5 does not by itself establish that those samples were drawn from the liquor allegedly seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Unless the seizure itself and the 16 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 safe and reliable linkage between the seized property and the sample bottles are satisfactorily proved, the chemical analysis report alone cannot cure the defects in the prosecution case.

27. The prosecution also relied upon the alleged statement of the accused before the Excise officials that he used to bring liquor from abroad, consume some and sell some. Such alleged confession made to Excise officials is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be treated as substantive proof of guilt particularly when the seizure itself is doubtful. In the absence of clear, cogent and independent evidence of conscious possession, the Court cannot place reliance upon such alleged statement of accused.

28. Another significant circumstance which creates serious doubt about the prosecution case is the non production of the alleged search notice. Though

P.Ws.2 to 4 consistently deposed that a search notice was served upon the accused prior to conducting the search, no such search notice is produced before this Court. On the other hand, only a search list is available on record and even the said document is not marked as an exhibit. When the prosecution specifically relies upon compliance of mandatory procedure of issuing a search notice before conducting the search, failure to produce the said notice creates a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. The alleged service of search notice, in the absence of documentary proof becomes doubtful. This lapse assumes greater significance in a case of this nature where the entire prosecution case rests upon the legality and credibility of the search and seizure proceedings. Therefore, this omission further weakens the prosecution case and creates reasonable doubt regarding the genuineness of the alleged search.

17 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

29. It is well settled that if two views are possible from the evidence on record, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. In the present case, the material on record does not inspire the confidence of the Court to hold that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in conscious and unauthorized possession of the alleged contraband.

30. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act.

31. In the result, this Court finds Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

M.Os 1 to 18 in Item No.01/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Mobile phone in M.O 2 in Item No.1/2026 shall be disposed by way of auction after expiry of appeal time and the auction amount shall be confiscated to the state by way of challan.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this 30 st day of March, 2026.

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

18 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

List of Witnesses

Prosecution Name of the witness Description witness No.

1Eluru DurgaEye witness 2N. Thirupathi RaoPolice Official 3L. Aruna KumariPolice Official 4S. SrinivasComplainant first information 5B. NagaveniInvestigating Officer (FIR registered)

For Accused: None

List of Exhibits

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibits Proved by attested by 1Mediators report dt.06.08.2025PW1 2Original FIR dt.21.04.2024 PW5 3Rough sketchPW5 4Letter of Advice PW5 5ChemicalanalysisreportPW5 dt.14.08.2025 6Destruction Proceedings Orders videPW5 proceeding PE-STA00TH/63/2025-

JA(B)- DCP&EVSKP,

Dt. 12.09.2025

Accused: NIL

List of Material Objects

Material Description of the Exhibits Proved

Object No. by/Attested by

1M.O.1: 18 sample bottles i.e., comprisingPW4 eighteen sample bottles i.e., Johnnie walker 19 C.C.No.103 OF 2026 double black blended scotch whiskey 1000ml – 03, 2) Chaplle de size palluilac 2020 grand vin de boarduaex 750ml – 01,

3) Johnnie walker gold label reserve blended scotch whiseky 1000ml – 01, 4) Bombay sapphire london dry gin premier cru special release tuscan juniper 1000ml – 01, 5) Absolut vodka sweedish vodka 1000ml – 03, 6) Absolut Raspberri Raspberry flavored vodka 375 ml – 01, 7) Jalisco mexico sierra tequila silver 1000ml – 03 , 8) Prince of whiskey chivas regal blended scotch whiskey 12 years 1000ml – 4, 9) Bushmills the original irish whiskey triple distilled finest blend 1000ml – 03, 10) Bushmills worlds oldest licensed whiskey distellery aquol 10 year single malt 700ml – 01, 11) Dewars true scotch white lable blended scotch whiskey double aged 1000ml – 03, 12) vina alabaligrain reserve 2012 criado Y embotellado en la propielad winery 750ml – 01,13) Glenfiddlch single malt scotch whiskey rad04 aged 18 years 700ml – 01, 14) Cabo white rum with coconut liquor 750ml (for sale in Goa) -01, 15) Johnnie walker gold label reserve blended scotch whiskey 100ml – 01, 16) The DALMORE aged 15 years Highland single malted scotch whiskey containing loose 700ml – 01, 17) Johnnie walker black label blended scotch whiskey 200ml – 02, 18) Royal Ranathambore heritage collection royal crafted reserve whiskey 750ml – 01 (for sale in AP).

2One I Phone : Ronegold colour I phonePW4 with navy blue colour phone cover

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

20 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

FORM A

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION & EXCISE

ACTS, VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Dr.K. Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

(FAC) S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Excise),

Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 30 th day of March, 2026

CALENDER CASE No:103 OF 2026

ComplainantThe State Represented through the Station House Officer, Proh. and Excise station Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor

AccusedReddipalli Omkar Sainath, S/o.Venkata Seethapathi, A./39,R/o.Flan No.301, Sri Bala Saraswathi Nivas, HDFC Bank back side, Abid nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

Represented by Sri M.G.K

FORM B

Date of Offence06.08.2025

Date of First Information Report06.08.2025

Date of Charge sheet12.01.2026

Date of framing of charges30.01.2026

Date of commencement of evidence23.02.2026

Date of which judgment is reserved30.03.2026

Date of the Judgment30.03.2026

Date of Sentencing Order, If any-

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

21 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

Accused Details

RankName of AccusedDateofDate ofOffencWheSentePeriod of theArrestReleaseesther nce of Accuson BailchargeAcqimposDetenti eds with uitteedon d or Underg convone ictedduring trial for purpos eof Section 428 Cr.P.C

Sole ReddipalliOmkar06.8.2025 06.8.2025 UnderAcqAcquit-- accusSectiouittetal Sainath, S/o.Venkata ednd Seethapathi, A./39,34(a) of A.P. R/o.Flan No.301, Sri Excise BalaSaraswathi Act, Nivas, HDFC Bank 2020. back side, Abid nagar,

Akkayyapalem,

Visakhapatnam.

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

22 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

FORM C

A.Prosecution

RANKNameNATURE OF

EVIDENCE

PW.1Eluru Durga, WWPS, Eye witness Sachivalayam, Akkayyapalem – 2, Mediator

PW.2 N. Thirupathi Rao, Proh. & ExcisePolice Official constable, AC Enforcement Wing, VisakhapatnamL.

PW.3L. Aruna Kumari, Proh. & ExcisePolice Official Sub Inspector, AC Enforcement Wing, Visakhapatnam.

PW.4S.Sreenivas, Proh. & Excise C.I Complainant first Enforcement, Visakhapatnam information

PW.5B. Nagaveni, Proh. & Excise C.I, Investigating Proh. & Excise Seethammadhara, Officer (FIR Visakhapatnam.registered)

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

Explanation for delay : Nil

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Div)

(FAC)Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

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

23 C.C.No.103 OF 2026

1 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

APVS030016102020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION &

EXCISE ACTS, VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL

JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Ex.),

Visakhapatnam

Thursday, this the 26 th day of March 2026

C.C.No. 1027 OF 2020

Between:

The State Represented by the Proh. & Excise Inspector,

Proh. & Excise Station Gajuwaka,, Visakhapatnam

….. Complainant

And

A1 : Rajapu Nagesh, S/o. Thata Rao, A/37,

R/o. D.No. 23-142, Pydimamba colony, BC Road, New Gajuwaka.

A2 : Kornana Satish, S/o. Suriappadu, A/30, R/o. D.no. 9-1-164/1,

Pentayya nagar, New Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

A3: Surisetti Raju Naidu, S/o.Late Apparao, A/42,

R/o. Chinnabayugudu, Karrivanipalem, Gavarapalem, Anakapalli.

A4. Pentakota Mahesh @ Santhosh, S/o.Late Nageswara Rao,

A/30, R/o. Pallapuveedhi, Munagapaka (v) & (m), Visakhapatnam.

….. A1 to A4 2 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Learned APP and Sri TSR, Learned Counsel for A1 to A4 and after having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The State, represented by the Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise

Station of Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Excise Act) in Crime No. 130/2018.

2.1. The brief contents of the charge sheet are that -

On 14.08.2018, on receipt of credible information regarding illegal sale of liquor,

LW8/ the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Gajuwaka/L.W.8 L. Upendra along with staff consisting of LW3/N. Ramya Sree/Sub Inspector, Trainee, LW4/K. Ganga

Bhavani, LW5 /S. Pavan Murthy, LW6/D. Anil Kumar and LW7/R. Jai Bheem and in the presence of mediators LW1/Kaligetta Koteswara Rao and LW2/Senapathi

Surya Narayana proceeded to conduct a raid near the Fish Market at Kanithi

Road within Gajuwaka limits at about 06:00 a.m. On noticing the raid party, some persons fled away while A1 was found sitting near a polythene bag. On inspection by LW8 in the presence of LW1 and LW2, the said bag contained 30 liquor sachets, each containing about 90 ml. On questioning by LW8, A1 admitted that he was selling liquor sachets procured from A2 at Rs.50/- per sachet and selling the same at Rs.55/- per sachet and that he already sold some sachets prior to the raid. As A1 failed to produce any valid license or permit, LW8 seized the contraband in the presence of mediators LW1 and LW2 and drew samples for chemical analysis.

3 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

Based on the disclosure made by A1, LW8 along with the staff and mediators proceeded to the house of A2 at Pentayya Nagar, New Gajuwaka. Upon search conducted by LW8 in the presence of LW1 and LW2, 290 bottles of “Heaven’s

Door Whisky,” each containing about 180 ml, were found. The bottles bore labels indicating “For sale in Andhra Pradesh only.” On questioning by LW8, A2 admitted that he had procured liquor from A3 and repacked the same into sachets for illegal sale through A1. A2 also failed to produce any license or permit. LW8 seized the said liquor and drew samples in the presence of mediators.

During further investigation, LW8, along with staff/LW3 to LW7 and mediators/LW1 and LW2 proceeded to an iron godown situated behind Maniva

Marbles near RTC Complex Road, Anakapalli upon basing on the information furnished by A1 and A2. At the said premises, A3 and A4 were found and secured. On search conducted by LW8 in the presence of mediators, two cardboard boxes containing liquor were seized. One box contained 48 bottles of “Heaven’s Door Whisky,” each about 180 ml and another box contained 48 tetra packets of “Bangalore Malt Whisky.” On verification by LW8, it was found that 42 bottles bore tampered heal numbers which were noted and verified using the

Excise Department Application.

On interrogation by LW8 in the presence of mediators, A3 admitted that he was transporting liquor and supplying the same to A2 for illegal sale and that he procured liquor from licensed vendors and diverted it for unlawful distribution. A4 admitted that he assisted A3 in storing and transporting the liquor. Both A3 and

A4 failed to produce any valid license or authorization. LW8 seized the contraband and drew samples in the presence of mediators.

The seized samples were sent by LW8 to the Chemical Examiner, Regional

Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis. The Chemical Examiner opined that the samples were Indian Made Liquor fit for consumption thereby confirming the nature of the seized substance.

4 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

During the course of investigation, LW8 also initiated necessary departmental action against the concerned licensed wine shop holders connected with the source of the liquor and penalties were imposed as per law.

Thus, the investigation conducted by LW8 with the assistance of LWs 1 to 7 clearly establishes that A1 to A4 were in illegal possession, transportation and sale of liquor without any valid license or permit, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

2.2. Based on the report submitted by LW8, a case in Crime No.130/2018 was registered on 14.08.2018 for the offence under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise

Act, 1968. FIR was issued, the original FIR was forwarded to the Court and copies were submitted to the concerned authorities. On the same day, Accused

Nos.1 to 3 were produced and remanded to judicial custody after complying the due procedure prescribed under law. During the course of investigation, LW8 submitted a report on 16.08.2018 to the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent,

Gajuwaka. The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Anakapalli, issued show cause notice dated 18.08.2018 to the licensees of A4 shops namely M/s. Sri

Nookambica Wines (GSI No.265) and M/s. Sri Srinivasa Wines (GSI No.317).

After enquiry, reports were submitted on 09.09.2018 and proposals for compounding the case were forwarded on 15.10.2018. The Commissioner of

Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh imposed penalties of Rs.5,00,000/- on M/s.

Sri Nookambica Wines and Rs.2,00,000/- on M/s. Sri Srinivasa Wines.

Subsequently, the compounding was accepted on 26.10.2018 and revocation orders were issued. Samples of the seized liquor were sent to the Chemical

Examiner, Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam, vide letter dated 11.09.2018. The Chemical Examiner reported that the samples (Sl. Nos.15554 to 15557) were Indian Made Liquor.

Proposals were submitted for destruction of contraband property excluding samples and the same was destroyed on 13.12.2018 as per proceedings dated 5 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020 27.12.2018. After completion of investigation, LW8 filed the charge sheet against the accused.

03. Cognizance of the offence under Section 34(A) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was taken against Accused No.1 to 4.

04. On appearance of Accused No. 1 to 4, case copies furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

05. When examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, Accused No. 1 to 4 denied the substance of accusation levelled against them and after perusing the material available on record, charge under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was framed, read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, on 21.01.2026 death certificate of A4 filed and recorded. Hence, the case against A4 is abated.

06. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3.

Mediators Report dt.14.08.2018 at 06:00 AM is marked as Ex.P1. Mediators

Report dt.14.08.2018 at 09:15 AM is marked as Ex.P2. Mediators Report dt.14.08.2018 at 12:15 hrs is marked as Ex.P3. Original FIR dt.14.08.2018 is marked as Ex.P4. Letter of Advice is marked as Ex.P5. Chemical analysis report dt.11.09.2018 is marked as Ex.P6. Rough sketch dt. 14.08.2018 at 04.30 AM at

Gajuwaka is marked as Ex.P7. Rough sketch dt. 14.08.2018 at 11.30 A.M at

Anakapalli is marked as Ex.P8. Three Sachets is marked as M.O.1. One Mobile phone is marked as M.O2. Cash of Rs.1100/- is marled as M.O3. Two liquor bottles of HD 180ml each is marked as M.O4. One Mobile phone of one

Satish/Accused No.2 is marked as M.O5. One HD liquor bottle 180ml is marked as M.O6. One Tetra packet is marked as M.O7. One OPPO mobile phone is marked as M.O8. Gionee mobile phone is marked as M.O9. Aadhar card, Driving 6 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

License and PAN card of A4 is marked as MO.10.

The evidence of LW.2 / Senapathi Surya Narayana VRO Culster-21 – mediator,

LW.4 – K.Ganga Bhavani – P & EC, LW.5 S.Pavan Murthy – P & EC ESTF

Gajuwaka, LW.6 D.Anil Kumar – P & EI, LW.7 R. Jai Bheem – Proh. & Excise

Inspector ESTF Gajuwaka were given up by Learned APP.

07. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) with regard to the incriminating material against them, which they denied. They did not adduce any evidence on their behalf.

8.1. Heard Learned APP and Learned Defence Counsel.

8.2. The Learned APP submitted that the prosecution case is supported by consistent and reliable evidence of official witnesses and that minor discrepancies such as absence of identification slips, variation in signatures or inability of the mediator to recall details do not affect the core of the case. It is further submitted that non examination of independent witnesses is not fatal, as it is often difficult to secure their presence and the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded on that ground alone if found trustworthy. The alleged contradictions regarding quantity of liquor and sequence of events are stated to be minor in nature and not going to the root of the prosecution case.

It is also contended that the prosecution is not relying upon any inadmissible confession before police but on the recovery of contraband and other circumstantial evidence. The presence of the accused at the scene along with the seized liquor is argued to be sufficient to establish possession. Regarding the chain of custody, it is submitted that the seized property was properly handled and produced before the Court and in the absence of any proof of tampering, the defence cannot raise mere hypothetical doubts. The admissions of P.W.3 are 7 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020 stated to have been misinterpreted and not sufficient to discard the entire prosecution case. It is further argued that failure to investigate the source of liquor does not absolve the accused of illegal possession and that the delay in registration of FIR has been sufficiently explained and is not fatal. Hence, it is prayed that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted.

8.3. The Learned Defence Counsel also submitted written arguments stating that the mediator (P.W.1) is unreliable, as there were no identification slips on the seized items, signatures do not match, no written notice was issued to act as a mediator and the witness is unable to properly describe the seized property, making the alleged seizure highly doubtful. Further, no independent witnesses were examined although the raid was conducted in a public place, only excise or police officials were presented which raises concerns about fairness and transparency. There are also clear contradictions in the evidence, including discrepancies in the quantity of liquor seized and lack of clarity regarding the timing and sequence of the raids, thereby weakening the prosecution’s version.

Additionally, any confession made before the police is legally inadmissible and

cannot be relied upon. The prosecution has also failed to establish possession, as there is no proof of ownership or control over the premises and mere presence is insufficient to establish guilt. The chain of custody is broken, with no proper evidence of sealing, storage, or handling of the seized property leaving room for possible tampering. Crucially, P.W.3 has made serious admissions, including that the mediators were not independent, no prior written information was recorded, the General Diary (GD) entry was not produced and that the material objects (MOs) were planted and that these admissions are fatal to the prosecution’s case. Moreover, the source of the liquor was not investigated and no action was taken against the wine shop owners, creating a gap in the prosecution’s story.

8 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

There is also an unexplained delay in registering the FIR suggesting the possibility of afterthought or fabrication.

In light of all these deficiencies, the prosecution has clearly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused no. 1,2&3 are entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.

9. The point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

for offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise

Act, 1968 beyond reasonable doubt, or not?”

10. ANSWER TO THE POINT:

“ Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act reads as follows “

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this

Act:

(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or “ 11.1. In his chief examination, P.W.1 deposed that he is working as Senior

Assistant (Acquisition), Visakhapatnam. On 14.08.2018 at about 4:30 a.m., he received a call from the MRO requesting him to act as a mediator for the Excise officials. At about 5:30 a.m., he went to Gajuwaka Excise Station and along with police officials and another mediator proceeded to the fish market area at

Gajuwaka. At the scene of offence, some persons fled on seeing the raid party.

One person, later identified as A1 was found sitting with a polythene bag. On verification, 30 liquor sachets (90 ml each) were found. A1 admitted that he was selling sachets purchased from A2 at Rs.50/- and selling them at Rs.55/-. He also stated that he already sold some sachets and that cash of Rs.1100/- and a mobile phone were seized. Thereafter, they proceeded to the house of A2. Upon search, 9 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020 they found 290 liquor bottles. A2 admitted purchasing liquor from A3.

Subsequently, they went to Anakapalli where A3 and A4 were secured. Liquor stock was seized from an iron godown, including bottles and tetra packs.

Samples were drawn and mediator reports were prepared. PW1 identified A1 to

A4.

11.2. P.W.2, in his cross examinationadmitted that there were no identification slips on M.O.8 to M.O.10 to show seizure in his presence. He stated that he did not know whether Aadhaar card should be seized. He admitted that signatures on

MOs and reports belong to him. He further stated that he did not receive any written summons from Excise officials and that he came to know about the accused names only later. He could not recall exact timings and number of persons present at the scene. He stated that he does not know who drafted

Ex.P1 or how many pages it contains. P.W.1 denied the suggestions put to him.

12.1. In her chief examination,PW2 deposed that she is presently working as

Sub Inspector of Police and earlier worked as Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector (Trainee). On 14.08.2018 at about 6:00 a.m., upon receiving reliable information, she along with LW7, LW5, LW6, LW8 and staff and mediators proceeded to Fish

Market, Kanithi Road, Gajuwaka. On seeing the raid party, some persons fled and A1 was found with a polythene bag. On verification, 30 liquor sachets were found. A1 admitted that he purchased sachets from A2 and sold them for profit.

Samples were drawn and property was seized. They then proceeded to A2’s house where 290 liquor bottles were seized. A2 admitted purchasing liquor from

A3. Later, they went to Anakapalli and found A3 and A4. From the godown, liquor bottles and tetra packs were seized. A3 admitted transporting liquor and supplying it to A2. PW2 stated that samples were drawn, identification slips were affixed and mediator reports were prepared.

10 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020 12.2. P.W.2, in her cross examination denied the suggestion that she did not participate in the raid. She also denied that the accused were falsely implicated or that she is deposing falsely as an Excise official.

13.1. In his chief examination, P.W.3 deposed that he is working as Prohibition &

Excise Inspector. On 14.08.2018, upon receiving credible information he along with staff (LW4, LW5, LW6, LW7, PW2) and mediators proceeded to Fish Market,

Gajuwaka.

At the scene, A1 was found with a polythene bag containing 30 liquor sachets. A1 admitted purchasing sachets from A2 and selling them. He also admitted selling some sachets and producing Rs.1100/-. Samples were drawn, identification slips were affixed, and the property was seized. They proceeded to A2’s house, where 290 liquor bottles were seized. A2 admitted purchasing liquor from A3 and repacking it into sachets. Later, they proceeded to Anakapalli and secured A3 and

A4. From an iron godown, liquor stock including 48 bottles and 48 tetra packs was seized. A3 admitted transporting liquor and selling it to A2. Details of purchase from licensed shops were also stated. PW3 registered the case, issued

FIR (Ex.P4), and sent samples for chemical analysis (Ex.P6). The report confirmed the seized liquor as Indian Made Liquor. Contraband was later destroyed. After completion of investigation, PW3 filed the charge sheet.

13.2. P.W.3, in his cross examination stated thatmediators were secured at about 5:30 a.m and that they proceeded to the scene within 20 minutes. He admitted that he received only oral information and that GD entry was made before the raid. P.W.3 denied the suggestions put to him.

14. Perused the material available on record.The case of the prosecution rests mainly upon the evidence of P.W.1/Mediator and P.Ws.2 and 3 who are official witnesses connected with the raid and investigation. Though P.W.1, in his chief 11 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020 examination supported the prosecution version with regard to the alleged seizure of liquor sachets from A1 and subsequent recoveries from A2 and A3, his testimony in cross examination discloses several material infirmities in the case of prosecution. He admitted that no written notice was issued to him to act as a mediator and that he came to know about the names of the accused only subsequently, thereby creating doubt regarding proper identification of the accused at the time of the alleged raid. He further expressed ignorance as to who prepared the mediator reports and could not state the number of pages or details thereof. His inability to recall crucial aspects such as the exact timings of the proceedings, number of persons present and sequence of events renders his testimony unreliable. Significantly, he admitted that certain material objects do not bear identification slips to show that they were seized in his presence, thereby casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the seizure and the link between the accused and the contraband.

15. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are excise officials though consistent in their version does not receive corroboration from any independent source. The alleged seizure from A1 is stated to have taken place at a fish market which is a public place yet no independent witness from the locality was examined to support the prosecution case. Similarly, the alleged recoveries from the house of

A2 and from the godown at Anakapalli are also not supported by independent local witnesses. The failure of the prosecution to secure such independent witnesses without offering any satisfactory explanation creates a serious dent in the credibility of the prosecution case. While it is true that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their official status, such evidence must inspire confidence and be free from suspicion. In the present case, the absence of independent corroboration coupled with the doubtful testimony of P.W.1, renders the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

12 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

The prosecution further relied upon the alleged confessional statements of the accused before the excise officials. However, such confessions are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used to fasten criminal liability upon the accused.

Except for these inadmissible statements, there is no reliable evidence to establish the alleged nexus between A1, A2 and A3 or to prove that A2 and A3 were involved in supplying or transporting the liquor. The prosecution did not not place any convincing material to establish the exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband by the accused.

Further, the record discloses several procedural lapses which affect the prosecution case. The non examination of material witnesses cited in the charge sheet, lack of clarity regarding preparation of mediator reports, absence of proper identification marks on the seized property and failure to satisfactorily establish the chain of custody of the material objects create reasonable doubt about the manner of investigation and the authenticity of the alleged seizure. These lapses are not trivial in nature but strike at the root of the prosecution case.

Though the Chemical Analysis Report marked as Ex.P6 confirms that the seized substance is Indian Made Liquor, the said report only establishes the nature of the substance and does not by itself prove that the accused were in illegal possession of the same. In the absence of reliable and convincing evidence connecting the accused with the contraband, the said report does not advance the case of the prosecution.

P.W.1 clearly admitted that M.O.8 to M.O.10 do not contain identification slips.

Though MO’s 1 to 10 are marked, the prosecution failed to clearly establish as to which specific material object was seized from which accused. The evidence of

P.W.1 itself discloses absence of identification slips on certain material objects. In the absence of proper identification and clear linkage between the accused and the seized property, the evidentiary value of the material objects becomes doubtful.

13 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

It is also contended by the learned defence counsel that the prosecution failed to establish the source of the liquor bottles allegedly seized. Admittedly, no investigation appears to be conducted to trace the origin of the contraband or to identify the persons from whom it was procured. This aspect assumes significance, as it creates a gap in the prosecution case and affects the completeness of the chain of circumstances sought to be established.

Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 was in possession and sale of illicit liquor or that Accused Nos.2 and 3 were involved in the alleged procurement, storage or transportation of the same. The evidence on record is not of such quality as to inspire confidence and accordingly, the accused no. 1 to 3 are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

16. It is a settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution's case, the benefit of doubt should be given to Accused. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence under

Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of Accused No. 1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

17.In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968. Accordingly, Accused

No.1, 2, 3 are acquitted Under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

M.Os 1,4,6 and 7 in Item No.12/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

M.O 3 the seized cash of Rs.1,100/- in Item No.12/2023 (Rupees Eleven hundred only) shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

14 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

Mobile phones in M.Os 2, 5, 8, 9 in Item No.12/2023 shall be disposed by way of auction after expiry of appeal time and the auction amount shall be confiscated to the state by way of challan.

The documents in M.O 10 shall be returned to the legal heirs of accused No.4, if claimed, after due identification and proper acknowledgment, failing which, they shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this 26 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

List of Witnesses

Prosecution Name of the witness Description witness No.

1K.Koteswara RaoEye witness 2N.Ramya SreePolice Official 3L.UpendraComplainant first information & Investigating Officer (FIR registered)

For Accused: None

15 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

List of Exhibits

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibits Proved by attested by 1Mediators Report dt.14.08.2018 atPW-1 06:00 AM 2Mediators Report dt.14.08.2018 atPW-1 09:15 AM 3Mediators Report dt.14.08.2018 atPW-1 12:15 hrs 4Original FIR dt.14.08.2018PW-3 5Letter of AdvicePW-3 6ChemicalanalysisreportPW-3 dt.11.09.2018

7.Rough sketch dt. 14.08.2018 at 04.30PW-3 AM at Gajuwaka 8Rough sketch dt. 14.08.2018 at 11.30PW-3 A.M at Anakapalli

Accused: NIL

List of Material Objects

Material Object No. Description of the Exhibits Proved by/Attested

by 1Three SachetsPW-1 2One Mobile phonePW-1 3Cash of Rs.1100/-PW-1 4Two liquor bottles of HDPW-1 180ml each 5One Mobile phone of onePW-1 Satish/Accused No.2 6One HD liquor bottle 180mlPW-1 7One Tetra packetPW-1 16 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020 8One OPPO mobile phonePW-1 9Gionee mobile phonePW-1 10Aadhar card, Driving LicensePW-1 and PAN card of A4

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

17 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

FORM A

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION & EXCISE

ACTS, VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Dr.K. Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Ex.),

Visakhapatnam

Thursday, this the 26 th day of March, 2026

CALENDER CASE No:1027 OF 2020

ComplainantThe State Represented by the Proh. & Excise Inspector,

Proh. & Excise Station Gajuwaka,, Visakhapatnam

Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor

AccusedA1 : Rajapu Nagesh, S/o. Thata Rao, A/37,

R/o. D.No. 23-142, Pydimamba colony, BC Road, New

Gajuwaka.

A2 : Kornana Satish, S/o. Suriappadu, A/30, R/o. D.no.

9-1-164/1, Pentayya nagar, New Gajuwaka,

Visakhapatnam.

A3: Surisetti Raju Naidu, S/o.Late Apparao, A/42,

R/o. Chinnabayugudu, Karrivanipalem, Gavarapalem,

Anakapalli.

A4. Pentakota Mahesh @ Santhosh, S/o.Late

Nageswara Rao, A/30, R/o. Pallapuveedhi, Munagapaka

(v) & (m), Visakhapatnam.

Represented by Sri T.S.R 18 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

FORM B

Date of Offence14.08.2018

Date of First Information Report14.08.2018

Date of Charge sheet07.12.2019

Date of framing of charges20.06.2022

Date of commencement of evidence30.09.2022

Date of which judgment is reserved26.03.2026

Date of the Judgment26.03.2026

Date of Sentencing Order, If any-

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

19 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

Accused Details

RankName of AccusedDateofDate ofOffencWheSentePeriod of theArrestReleaseesther nce of Accuson BailchargeAcqimposDetenti eds with uitteedon d or Underg convone ictedduring trial for purpos eof Section 428 Cr.P.C

A1Rajapu Nagesh, S/o.14.8.2018 14.8.2018 UnderAcqAcquit-- Sectiouittetal Thata Rao, A/37, nd R/o. D.No. 23-142,34(A) of A.P. Pydimamba colony, Excise BC Road, NewAct, 1968. Gajuwaka.

Kornana Satish, A2 S/o.Suriappadu,

A/30, R/o. D.no. 9-1- 164/1, Pentayya nagar,New

Gajuwaka,

Visakhapatnam.

A3: Surisetti Raju

Naidu,S/o.Late

Apparao, A/42, 20 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

R/o.

Chinnabayugudu,

Karrivanipalem,

Gavarapalem,

Anakapalli.

A4. Pentakota

Mahesh @ Santhosh,

S/o.Late Nageswara

Rao, A/30, R/o.

Pallapuveedhi,

Munagapaka (v) &

(m), Visakhapatnam.

Kancharapalem,

Visakhapatnam.

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

FORM C

A.Prosecution

RANKNameNATUREOF

EVIDENCE

PW.1 K. Koteswara Rao Eye witness Sr. Asst., Acquisition VSP , Mediator

PW.2N. Ramya Sree, Proh. &Police official Excise S.I, Proh. & Excise Kothavalasa 21 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

PW.3L. Uppendra, Proh. &Complainant first Excise Inspector, Proh. &information & Excise V.MadugulaInvestigating Officer (FIR registered)

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

Explanation for delay : Nil

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

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

22 C.C.No.1027 OF 2020

1 CC.No. 575 OF 2024 APVS030015972024

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

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACTS,

VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Ex.), Visakhapatnam

FRIDAY, this the 6 th day of February, 2026

C.C.No. 575 OF 2024

Between:

The State Represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam City.

….. Complainant

And

Maddu Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Neelam Naidu, A/46, R/o.D.No.9-7-19/1, Shivajipalem, 6 taps Velpair Building P & T colony, GMC, Visakhapatnam.

….. Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Learned APP and Sri K.K.P Learned Counsel for Accused and after having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The State Represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station Maharanipeta filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020 (hereinafter called as A.P. Excise Act) in Cr.No. 80/2024 2.1. The brief contents of the charge sheet are that -

On 19.03.2024 at about 05.00 p.m., LW.3/ ECI, SEB Maharanipeta along with his staff LW.1 and LW.2/ D.Srikanth EC and K. Nookaratnam EC proceeded to Beside 2 CC.No. 575 OF 2024 Shivaji Park, Shivajipalem village, GVMC limits Visakhapatnam. While conducting patrolling they found one male person who is carrying one bag in his hand. Upon suspicion, they detained the said person. That the said person is none other the accused. Upon questioning, accused confessed that he is in possession of IML bottles in a plastic gunny bag. Then, LW.3 deputed LW.1 for securing mediators, but in vain. Upon that LW.3 verified the said bag and found 11 liquor bottles i.e., 6 nip bottles of Southern blue elite whiskey each 180ml and 5 nip bottles of Royal Right Grain whiskey each 180ml. Upon further questioning, accused revealed his identity particulars and further confessed that he purchased two or three bottles from nearest Government outlets and pooled them for sale near his residential area and selling the same for profit for eking his livelihood without having any valid license or permit. Upon that LW.3 separated two bottles as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis. That LW.3 also affixed identification slips to the sample bottles and also upon the seized liquor bottles which were duly signed by all of them along with the accused. Upon dictation of LW.3, LW.2 drafted the occurrence report. After informing the grounds of arrest, LW.3 arrested the accused. Then, all of them along with accused and seized property returned to SEB station, Maharanipeta.

2.2. Basing on occurrence report, LW.3 registered a case in Cr.No.. 80/2024 under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968, issued FIR, forwarded original FIR to this Court and submitted copies to all the concerned officials and LW.3 issued notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to accused. By way of letter of advice C.E.No.1169/2024, dated.

01.05.2024. LW.4 forwarded the sample bottle to Chemical examiner of Prohibition and

Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. LW.4 received chemical analysis report opined that the said sample bottle in serial No. 2628, 2629 are Indian liquor. During the Course of investigation, for remaining property produced before the Deputy Commissioner of

Special Enforcement Bureau, Visakhapatnam for confiscation u/s. 46(2) of A.P Excise

Act, 1968 and orders are to be awaited for destruction. After completion of investigation, LW.3 filed charge sheet against accused.

03. Cognizance of the offence under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 was taken against the accused.

3 CC.No. 575 OF 2024

04. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

05. When examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, accused denied the substance of accusation levelled against him and after perusing the material available on record, charge under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1& 2. Occurrence report dt.19.03.2024 is marked as Ex.P1. Original FIR dt. 19.03.05.2024 is marked as

Ex.P2. Letter of advice is marked as Ex.P3. Chemical analysis report dt. 06.06.2024 is marked as Ex.P4. Two sample bottles i.e., Southern blue elite whiskey 180ml Royal

Right Grain whiskey 180ml is marked as M.O.1. The evidence of LW.2 – K.

Nookaratnam / EC were given up by Learned APP.

07. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material against him for which he denied. He did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard both sides.

09. The Learned APP submitted that there is corroboration between the prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and M.O.1 prove that the accused committed the said offence and so the prosecution proved a guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, the accused may be convicted for the charge leveled against him.

10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that Excise officials did not try to secure independent witnesses and the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is not believable since they are police officials and interested witness and as such accused is entitled to be acquitted.

4 CC.No. 575 OF 2024

11.The point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt, or not?”

12. A nswer to Point :

“ Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act reads as follows “

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act:

(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or “ 13.1. In their chief examination, P.Ws.1 & 2 reiterated the contents mentioned in Para

No.2.1 and 2.2.

13.2. P.Ws.1 & 2, in their cross examination denied other formal suggestions put to them.

14. Upon perusing the entire material available on record, there is no investigation in the lines to detect from where the accused purchased the alleged liquor bottles in which he was in possession.

15. Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses to the case of prosecution. P.Ws.1 & 2 stated that they tried to secure mediators but went in vain. According to Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is obligation on the part of the officer who conducted the search and seizure has to secure local inhabitants to prove the seizure.

When the Official failed to secure independent witnesses, the search and seizure is doubtful. Moreover, the evidence P.Ws.1 & 2 are mechanical in nature and does not inspire the confidence of this Court.

5 CC.No. 575 OF 2024

16. It is a settled law that the police official who participated in the raid, arrested the accused and the police official who registers the crime, investigates into cannot be the same. But in this case, PW.2 himself arrested the accused and drafted Ex.P1 and PW.2 only registered the case and conducted further investigation. This is a gross violation of the procedure prescribed under law.

17. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

18. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

19.In the result, this Court found accused not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused with that of his sureties shall remain in force until expiry of appeal time from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 is Two sample bottles i.e., Southern blue elite whiskey 180ml and Royal

Right Grain whiskey 180ml in C.P.R.Item No.152/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this 6 th day of February, 2026

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1 : D.Srikanth, EHC, Proh. & Excise Station Sabbavaram 6 CC.No. 575 OF 2024 P.W.2 : B.Madhu Kumar, ECI BMPP V.Madugula

For Accused: Nil.

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Occurrence report dt.19.03.2024 Ex.P.2 : Original FIR dt.19.03.2024 Ex.P.3 : Letter of advice. Ex.P.4 :Chemical Analysis report dt. 01.05.2024.

Accused: NIL

No. of Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: Two sample bottles i.e., Southern blue elite whiskey 180ml and Royal Right Grain whiskey 180ml.

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

7 CC.No. 575 OF 2024

FORM A

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

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACTS,

VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION):: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Dr.K. Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Ex.), Visakhapatnam

FRIDAY, this the 6 th day of February, 2026

CALENDER CASE No:575 OF 2024

ComplainantThe State Represented by the Enforcement Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau Station Maharanipeta Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor AccusedMaddu Bhaskar Rao, S/o. Neelam Naidu, A/46, R/o.D.No.9- 7-19/1, Shivajipalem, 6 taps Velpair Building P & T colony, GMC, Visakhapatnam. Represented by Sri K.K.P

FORM B

Date of Offence19.03.2024 Date of First Information Report19.03.2024 Date of Charge sheet25.05.2024 Date of framing of charges18.09.2024 Date of commencement of evidence06.02.2025 Date of which judgment is reserved06.02.2026

Date of the Judgment06.02.2026 Date of Sentencing Order, If any-

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

8 CC.No. 575 OF 2024

Accused Details

RankName of AccusedDateofDateofOffencWhetSentenPeriod of theArrestRelease onesher ce of AccusBailchargeAcquimposeDetentio eds with itted dn or Underg conviTwoduri ctedng trial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C SoleMaddu Bhaskar Rao,19.03.2024 19.03.2024 UnderAcquAcquitt-- accusSectionittedal S/o. Neelam Naidu, ed34(a) A/46, R/o.D.No.9-7- of A.P. 19/1, Excise Shivajipalem, Act, 6 taps Velpair Building 2020. P & T colony, GMC, Visakhapatnam.

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

FORM C

A. Prosecution

RANKNameNATURE OF

EVIDENCE

PW1D.Srikanth, EC, Excise official Proh. & Excise Station Sabbavaram PW2B. Madhu Kumar, ECI Excise official BMPP V.Madugula 9 CC.No. 575 OF 2024

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

Explanation for delay : Nil

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

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

1 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024 APVS030036192024

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

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACTS,

VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Ex.), Visakhapatnam

MONDAY, this the 19 th day of January, 2026

C.C.No. 1694 OF 2024

Between:

The State Represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam City.

….. Complainant

And

jami Devendra Rao, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, A/55, R/o.H.No. 38-30-259, Green Garden, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam

….. Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Learned APP and Sri M.G.K Learned Counsel for Accused and after having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The State Represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station Gopalapatnam filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020 (hereinafter called as A.P. Excise Act) in Cr.No.100/2024 2.1. The brief contents of the charge sheet are that -

On 10.04.2024 at about 04.45 p.m., LW.3/ ESI, SEB Gopalapatnam along with his staff LW.1 and LW.2/ N. Rambabu EHC and S.Narayana Rao EHC proceeded to Near 2 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024 East Park, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. While conducting patrolling they found one male person who is carrying one polythene carry bag in his hand. Upon suspicion, they detained the said person. That the said person is none other the accused. Upon questioning, accused confessed that he is in possession of IML bottles in a plastic gunny bag. Then, LW.3 deputed LW.1 for securing mediators, but in vain. Upon that LW.3 verified the said bag and found liquor bottles i.e., 14 bottles of Boom superior strong beer each 650ml. Upon further questioning, accused revealed his identity particulars and further confessed that he purchased two or three bottles from nearest Government outlets and pooled them for sale near his residential area and selling the same for profit for eking his livelihood without having any valid license or permit. Upon that LW.3 separated one bottle as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis. That LW.3 also affixed identification slips to the sample bottles and also upon the seized liquor bottles which were duly signed by all of them along with the accused. Upon dictation of LW.3,

LW.2 drafted the occurrence report. After informing the grounds of arrest, LW.3 arrested the accused. Then, all of them along with accused and seized property returned to SEB station, Gopalapatnam.

2.2. Basing on occurrence report, LW.3 registered a case in Cr.No.. 100/2024 under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968, issued FIR, forwarded original FIR to this Court and submitted copies to all the concerned officials and LW.3 issued notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to accused. By way of letter of advice C.E.No.1319/2024, dated.

04.05.2024. LW.4 forwarded the sample bottle to Chemical examiner of Prohibition and

Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. LW.4 received chemical analysis report opined that the said sample bottle in serial No. 4409 is beer. During the Course of investigation, for remaining contraband confiscation proposals were submitted to the Deputy

Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Visakhapatnam and the remaining contraband property was confiscated as per the orders issued by the Deputy

Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Visakhapatnam vide Rc.No.

521/2022/A1, dated 07.05.2024. After completion of investigation, LW.4 filed charge sheet against accused.

03. Cognizance of the offence under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 was taken against the accused.

3 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024

04. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

05. When examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, accused denied the substance of accusation levelled against him and after perusing the material available on record, charge under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1& 2. Occurrence report dt.10.04.2024 is marked as Ex.P1. Original FIR dt.10.04.2024 is marked as

Ex.P2. Letter of advice is marked as Ex.P3. Chemical analysis report dt. 04.05.2024 is marked as Ex.P4 and Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings vide Rc.No.

521/2022/A1, dated 07.05.2024 is marked Ex.P5. One sample bottle i.e., Boom superior strong bira 91 beer 650ml is marked as M.O.1. The evidence of LW.2 – S.Narayana Rao / EC and LW.4 L. Upendra, / EC.I SEB Gopalapatnam were given up by Learned APP.

07. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material against him for which he denied. He did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard both sides.

09. The Learned APP submitted that there is corroboration between the prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 prove that the accused committed the said offence and so the prosecution proved a guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, the accused may be convicted for the charge leveled against him.

10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that Excise officials did not try to secure independent witnesses and the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is not believable since they are police officials and interested witness and as such accused is entitled to 4 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024 be acquitted.

11.The point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt, or not?”

12. A nswer to Point :

“ Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act reads as follows “

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act:

(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or “ 13.1. In their chief examination, P.Ws.1 & 2 reiterated the contents mentioned in Para

No.2.1 and 2.2.

13.2. P.Ws.1 & 2, in their cross examination denied other formal suggestions put to them.

14. Upon perusing the entire material available on record, there is no investigation in the lines to detect from where the accused purchased the alleged liquor bottles in which he was in possession.

15. Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses to the case of prosecution. P.Ws.1 & 2 stated that they tried to secure mediators but went in vain. According to Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is obligation on the part of the officer who conducted the search and seizure has to secure local inhabitants to prove the seizure.

When the Official failed to secure independent witnesses, the search and seizure is doubtful. Moreover, the evidence P.Ws.1 & 2 are mechanical in nature and does not 5 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024 inspire the confidence of this Court.

16. It is a settled law that the police official who participated in the raid, arrested the accused and the police official who registers the crime, investigates into cannot be the same. But in this case, PW.2 himself arrested the accused and drafted Ex.P1 and PW.2 only registered the case and conducted further investigation. This is a gross violation of the procedure prescribed under law.

17. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

18. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

19.In the result, this Court found accused not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused with that of his sureties shall remain in force until expiry of appeal time from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 is One sample bottle i.e., Hyderabad blue reserve whiskey 180ml in

C.P.R.Item No.144/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this 19 th day of January, 2026

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1 : N. Rambabu, EHC, Proh. & Excise Station Yelamanchili 6 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024

P.W.2 : G.Dasu, ECI Proh. & Ex. station Saluru

For Accused: Nil.

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Occurrence report dt.10.04.2024 Ex.P.2 : Original FIR dt.10.04.2024 Ex.P.3 : Letter of advice. Ex.P.4 :Chemical Analysis report dt. 04.05.2024.

Accused: NIL

No. of Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: One sample bottle i.e.,Boom superior strong bira 91 beer 620ml.

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

7 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024

FORM A

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

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACTS,

VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION):: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Dr.K. Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Ex.), Visakhapatnam

MONDAY, this the 19 th day of January, 2026

CALENDER CASE No:1715 OF 2024

ComplainantThe State Represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau Station Gopalapatnam Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor AccusedJami Devendra Rao, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, A/55, R/o.H.No. 38-30-259, Green Garden, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam Represented by Sri M.G.K

FORM B

Date of Offence10.04.2024 Date of First Information Report10.04.2024 Date of Charge sheet23.09.2024 Date of framing of charges04.12.2024 Date of commencement of evidence13.02.2025 Date of which judgment is reserved19.01.2026

Date of the Judgment19.01.2026 Date of Sentencing Order, If any-

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

8 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024

Accused Details

RankName of AccusedDateofDateofOffencWhetSentenPeriod of theArrestRelease onesher ce of AccusBailchargeAcquimposeDetentio eds with itted dn or Underg conviTwoduri ctedng trial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C SoleJami Devendra Rao, 10.04.2024 10.04.2024 UnderAcquAcquitt-- accusSectionittedal S/o. Late ed34(a) Suryanarayana, A/55, of A.P. R/o.H.No. 38-30-259, Excise Green Garden, Act, Marripalem, 2020. Visakhapatnam..

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

FORM C

A. Prosecution

RANKNameNATURE OF

EVIDENCE

PW1N. Rambabu, EHC, Excise official Proh. & Excise Station Yelamanchili PW2G.Dasu, ECI Excise official Proh. & Ex. Station Saluru 9 CC.No. 1694 OF 2024

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

Explanation for delay : Nil

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

(FAC) Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

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

1 C.C.No.584 OF 2024

APVS030016062024

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

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACTS,

VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:- Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Ex.), Visakhapatnam

MONDAY, this the 21st day of April 2025

C.C.No.584 OF 2024

Between:

The State Represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Maharanipeta.

….. Complainant

And

Bunga Sathyam, S/o.Appanna, A/45, R/o.D.No. 3-1-222, Vsavanipalem, Near

Ramulavari Temple, Jalari Endada, L.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam District.

….. Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Learned APP and Sri M.Geetha Krishna Learned Counsel for Accused and after having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

2 C.C.No.584 OF 2024

J U D G M E N T

01. The State Represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station,Maharanipeta filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020 (hereinafter called as A.P. Excise Act) in Cr.No.89/2024.

2.1. The brief contents of the charge sheet are that -

On 27.03.2024 at about 04.30 p.m., LW1 and LW.2/ S.Balaraju and

K.Nookaratnam accompanied LW.3/M.Mohan Rao, ESI, SEB, Maharanipeta and proceeded to Jalari Endada junction, GVMC Limits, Visakhapatnam. While conducting patrolling they found one male person who is carrying one hand bag in his hand. Upon suspicion, they detained the said person. That the said person is none other the accused. Upon questioning, accused confessed that he is in possession of IML bottles in a polythene bag. Then, LW.3 deputed LW.1 for securing mediators, but in vain. Upon that LW.3 verified the said bag and found 09 liquor bottles i.e., nip bottles of Party

Special deluxe whiskey 180ml each – 05 Nos., and nip bottles of Royal Right Grain whiskey 180ml each – 04 Nos., and noticed HEALs nos. were tore off and on the labels printed as For Sale in Andhra Pradesh only. Upon further questioning, accused revealed his identity particulars and further confessed that he purchased two or three bottles from nearest Government outlets and pooled them for sale near his residential area and selling the same for profit for eking his livelihood without having any valid license or permit. Upon that LW.3 separated one bottle as samples from each brand for the purpose of chemical analysis. That LW.3 also affixed identification slips to the sample bottles and also upon the seized liquor bottles which were duly signed by all of them along with the accused. Upon dictation of LW.3, LW.2 drafted the occurrence report.

After informing the grounds of arrest, LW.3 arrested the accused. Then, all of them along with accused and seized property returned to SEB station, Maharanipeta.

2.2.That basing on occurrence report, LW.3 registered a case in Cr.No.89/2024 under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968, issued FIR, forwarded original FIR to this Court 3 C.C.No.584 OF 2024 and submitted copies to all the concerned officials. On the same day i.e., on 27.03.2024,

LW.3 issued notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to accused. By way of letter of advice

C.E.No. 1169/2024 dt.01.05.2024, LW.3 forwarded the sample bottle to Chemical examiner of Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam. That received chemical analysis report opined that the said sample bottle in serial No.2646 & 2647 are Indian liquor and LW.4 produced the remaining property produced before the Deputy

Commissioner of Special Enforcement, Visakhapatnam for confiscation u/s. 46(2) of AP

Excise Act, 1968 and orders are to be awaited for destruction. LW.4/ Enforcement

Inspector verified the investigation done by LW.3 and found to be in correct lines. After completion of his investigation, LW.4 filed charge sheet against accused.

03. Cognizance of the offence under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 was taken against the accused.

04. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

05. When examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, accused denied the substance of accusation levelled against him and after perusing the material available on record, charge under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1& 2. Occurrence report dt.27.03.2024 is marked as Ex.P1. Original FIR dt.27.03.2024 is marked as

Ex.P2. Letter of advice is marked as Ex.P3. Chemical analysis report dt.01.05.2024 is marked as Ex.P4. Two sample bottles i.e., Party special deluxe whiskey 180ml and

Royal right grain whiskey 180ml is marked as M.O.1. The evidence of LW.1 –

S.Balaraju/ EC SEB - Maharanipeta and LW.4 B. Madhu Kumar/EC.I, SEB -

Maharaniepta were given up by Learned APP.

4 C.C.No.584 OF 2024

07. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material against him for which he denied. He did not adduce any evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard both sides.

09. The Learned APP submitted that there is corroboration between the prosecution witnesses and Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and M.O.1 prove that the accused committed the said offence and so the prosecution proved a guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, the accused may be convicted for the charge leveled against him.

10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that Excise officials did not try to secure independent witnesses and the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is not believable since they are police officials and interested witness and as such accused is entitled to be acquitted.

11.The point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for ofence punishable under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt, or not?”

12. A nswer to Point :

“ Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act reads as follows “

Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act:

(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or “ 13.1. In their chief examination, P.Ws.1 & 2 reiterated the contents mentioned in Para

No.2.1 and 2.2.

5 C.C.No.584 OF 2024 13.2. P.Ws.1 & 2, in their cross examination denied other formal suggestions put to them.

14. Upon perusing the entire material available on record, there is no investigation in the lines to detect from where the accused purchased the alleged liquor bottles in which he was in possession.

15. Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses to the case of prosecution. P.Ws.1 & 2 stated that they tried to secure mediators but went in vain. According to Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is obligation on the part of the officer who conducted the search and seizure has to secure local inhabitants to prove the seizure.

When the Official failed to secure independent witnesses, the search and seizure is doubtful. Moreover, the evidence P.Ws.1 & 2 are mechanical in nature and does not inspire the confidence of this Court.

16. It is a settled law that the police official who participated in the raid, arrested the accused and the police official who registers the crime, investigates into cannot be the same. But in this case, PW.2 himself arrested the accused and drafted Ex.P1 and PW.2 only registered the case and conducted further investigation. This is a gross violation of the procedure prescribed under law.

17. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

18. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

19.In the result, this Court found accused not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 34 (A) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused with that of his sureties shall remain in force 6 C.C.No.584 OF 2024 until expiry of appeal time from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 is Two sample bottles i.e.,Party special deluxe whiskey and Royal right grain whiskey a in C.P.R.Item No.98/2025 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 21st day of April, 2025

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1 :K.Nooka Ratnam Proh. & Ex. Seethammadhara

P.W.2 : M.Mohan Rao E.S.I Proh. & Ex., Gopalapatnam

For Accused: Nil

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Occurrence report dt.27.03.2024 . Ex.P.2 : Original FIR dt.27.03.2024. Ex.P.3 : Letter of advice. Ex.P.4 :Chemical Analysis report dt. 01.05.2024. Accused: NIL

No. of Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: Two sample bottles i.e., Party special deluxe whiskey and Royal right grain whiskey

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

7 C.C.No.584 OF 2024

FORM A

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

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACTS,

VISAKHAPATNAM-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION):: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. Dr.K. Sarada

S pecial Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Proh. & Ex.), Visakhapatnam

MONDAY, this the 21st day of April 2025

CALENDER CASE No:584 OF 2024

ComplainantThe State Represented by the Enforcement Sub Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau Station,Maharanipeta Represented byAssistant Public Prosecutor AccusedBunga Sathyam, S/o.Appanna, A/45, R/o.D.No. 3-1-222,

Vsavanipalem, Near Ramulavari Temple, Jalari Endada,

L.B.Colony, Visakhapatnam District. Represented by Sri M.Geetha Krishna

FORM B

Date of Offence27.03.2024 Date of First Information Report27.03.2024 Date of Charge sheet25.05.2024 Date of framing of charges09.10.2024 Date of commencement of evidence06.02.2025 Date of which judgment is reserved08.04.2025

Date of the Judgment21.04.2025 Date of Sentencing Order, If any-

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

8 C.C.No.584 OF 2024

Accused Details

RankName of AccusedDateofDateofOffencWhetSentenPeriod of theArrestRelease onesher ce of AccusBailchargeAcquimposeDetentio eds with itted dn or Underg conviTwoduri ctedng trial for purpose of Section 428 Cr.P.C SoleBunga Sathyam, 27.03.2024 27.03.2024 UnderAcquAcquitt-- accusSectionittedal S/o.Appanna, A/45, ed34(a) R/o.D.No. 3-1-222, of A.P. Excise Vsavanipalem, Near Act, Ramulavari Temple, 2020.

Jalari Endada,

L.B.Colony,

Visakhapatnam District

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

FORM C

A .Prosecution

RANKNameNATUREOF

EVIDENCE

PW1K.Nooka Ratnam, Excise official Proh. & Ex.Seethammadhara PW2M.Mohan Rao, ESI,Excise official Proh. & Ex. Gopalapatnam 9 C.C.No.584 OF 2024

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

C. Court Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAMENATURE OF

EVIDENCE

------

Explanation for delay : Nil

Sd/- Dr.K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Visakhapatnam.

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