Smt.Dr.K.Sarada

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

(EXCISE), VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Dr. K. Sarada Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Excise, Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 7th day of April, 2017

C.C.No.360 of 2012

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram I Town PS. … Complainant. A n d : A1 Reddy Varam

A2 Althi Jagannadham

A3 Netheti Venkata Rao

A4 Sasubilli Eswar Rao

A5 Pinninti Rama Rao

A6 Karrothu Rama Rao

A7 Pappala Srinu

A8 Pinninti Ramarao

A9 Racharla Sudarsanarao... Accused.

This case coming on 06.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned APP for the State and of Sri Majji Suribabu, Advocate for A1, A4, A5 and A6 and of Sri K. S. Prakash, Advocate for A2 & A7 and of Sri Bellana Ravi, Advocate for A8 and of Sri P.V.Ganesh, Advocate for A9, A3 died and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A9 for the offence punishable u/s 120(B), 468, 471, 420, 409 R/w 34 IPC with the following allegations in brief:

2.That A1 to A7 are regular customers of Central bank of India,

Thotapalem village in Vizianagaram since 2004 and they approached the above bank through A8 who introduced them to the bank officials, particularly the Bank Manager (A9) and presented a crop loan/term loan applications through A8 to A9 Bank Manager and the same were sanctioned and A1 Reddy Varam received Crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, A2 Althi

Jagannadham received Crop loan Rs.80,000/-, Term loan Rs.50,000/-, A3

Netheti Venkatarao received Crop loan Rs.50,000/-, Term loan Rs.60,000/-, A4

Sasubilli Eswararao received Crop loan Rs.70,000/-, Term loan Rs.50,000/-, A5 2

Pinninti Ramarao received Crop loan Rs.,50,000/-, A6 received Crop loan

Rs.1,00,000/-, Term loan Rs.1,00,000/- and A7 received Crop loan Rs.50,000/- , Term loan Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter an anonymous phone call came to the above said bank informing that all the documents presented by A1 to A7 in connivance with A8 are fake documents. Then, A9 himself then made a show of verifying the truth or otherwise of the same by approaching the Tahsildar,

Merakamudidam and found that the signatures on Pattadarpass Books and title deed books presented by A1 to A7 do not belong to any of the revenue officials and they are forged and used by A1 to A7 to cheat the bank and obtained heavy loans with collusion and connivance of A9 who ought to have made necessary verifications before sanctioning the loans. Thereafter, A9 in order to absolve himself from the crime gave a report at I Town Police

Station, basing on which a case in Cr.No.73/2008 u/sec.468, 471, 420 r/w 34

IPC was registered and investigated into. After detection of the offence, A1 paid Rs.1,05,766/-, A4 paid Crop loan of Rs.71,731/-, Term loan Rs.51,205/-,

A6 paid Crop loan of Rs.1,01,163/- and Term loan of Rs.1,01,469/- in cash.

However, A2, A3, A5 and A7 did not pay any amount till now. At the time of presentation and sanction of loans A8 stood as a surety to A2 and A7. A3 stood as a surety for A6. For the rest of the accused, A9 did not even press for sureties which establish his collusion. The documents submitted by A1 to

A7 are sent to hand writing experts along with sample signatures and FPs for examination for opinion and it is established that the documents submitted by A1 to A7 are forged one. Thereafter, accused A2, A3 and A7 were arrested on 10.09.2008, A5 was arrested on 19.11.2008 and produced before the

Hon’ble court and A1, A4 and A6 surrendered before the court on 09.09.2008

vide Crl.M.P.No.443/2008. Hence, the charge.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, cognizance for the offence punishable u/sec.120B, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 of

IPC was taken against A1 to A9. On appearance of accused, they were supplied with the copies of case documents as required u/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure

Code and they are examined u/sec.239 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the 3 allegations made in the charge sheet. Then a charge u/sec. 120B, 468, 471, 409 and 420 of IPC was framed against the accused for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram I Town Police Station filed this case before the Hon’ble Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court,

Vizianagaram which is numbered as C.C.No.94/2011 and the same was made over to this court on 31.12.2011 as per the orders of Hon’ble District and

Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram vide Order P.R.No.363/2011-A dt.09.12.2011

communicated in Dis.No.8168 dt.12.12.2011 and re-numbered as

C.C.No.360/2012 on the file of this court.

5.The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused, has examined PW1 to PW24 and got marked Ex.P1 to P68 and Ex.C1. The evidence of LW19, LW25 is closed and LW21 died. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they denied the incriminating material against them from the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard the submissions of learned counsels appearing for the state and accused.

7.Now, the point for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the

accused for the offence with which they are charged u/sec. 120B,

468, 471, 420, 409 R/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8.The case against A3 was abated as he died as per docket order

dated: 02-09-2014.

9.The following specific charges were framed against A1 to A9:

The charge u/s 120B framed against A1 to A9, the specific charge was framed against A1 to A7 u/s 468 of IPC, the specific charge was framed against A1 to A9 u/s 471 of IPC, the specific charge was framed against A8 and A9 u/s 409 of IPC, the charge u/s 420 of IPC was framed against A1 to

A9.

4

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all cited 27 witnesses and examined PW1 to PW24 and got marked Ex.P1 to P68 and

Ex.C1.

11.The prosecution case against the accused 1 to 9 that they presented fake documents for applying loan and that they are illegal, found that the signatures of Tashildar in pattadar passbooks and title deeds does not belong to any of the revenue officials and that they presented forged pattadhar pass books and title deeds as valuable security to the bank for applying loan. A8 and A9 being servants in the bank and the documents which are entrusted to the bank are fake documents and they dishonesty cheated the bank and induced A1 to A7 to deliver forged documents for granting loan and that they all committed the above offences with which they were charged.

12.PW1 cited by the prosecution to prove the procedure for grant of loans and to prove the necessary records in this case. PW1 stated in his evidence that he does not know any facts of this case and that he was not examined by the police.

13.As per the prosecution case, PW1 is very important witness, but there is no incriminating material from this witness to connect the accused to this crime. In his evidence he stated that he does not know the contents of the documents and that he did not give any statement or paper to the police in this case. The evidence of this witness in no way connects the accused 1 to 9 for the alleged offences with which they were charged.

14.PW2 was cited by the prosecution to speak that the pattadar passbook, title-deed books etc are fake and forged. In his evidence, he stated that the signatures on the pattadar pass-books and title deed books are not known to him and he stated that the signatures on those books are not his signatures.

In his cross-examination he stated that, he has no personal knowledge in this case and that he cannot say on which date and in the month and the year he was examined by the police and that he did not issue 5 any papers to the police with proper acknowledgement and that he did not see any document or any book or any paper at the time of meeting police and that police did not shown any books or documents to him, and due to that reason, he did not give any statement or opinion. The evidence of this witness is silent regarding the issue that the above documents are fake and forged. There is no specific indication that the alleged pattadar passbooks and title deeds are forged by the accused themselves herein.

15.PW3, Mandal Revenue Officer cited by the prosecution to speak that the signatures in pattadar passbooks C148, 246 and C515, 300 do not contain his signatures and that they are forged. On oath he stated that the police called him in the year 2008. Police showed pattadar passbook relating to Verma and another. The police asked him to identify his signatures. Then he replied that such of those signatures are not of himself. Police obtained his signatures later on for the purpose of verification. Police did not record his statement. He stated that he has no personal knowledge of the facts of this case. He cannot say the exact time, date and month when the police obtained his signatures before the C.I. No any independent witnesses were available at the time of obtaining his signatures by the police. He stated that there may be possibility in respect of difference in strokes of the signatures signed by him on various occasions. The evidence of this witness is not cogent and convincing to show that the alleged pattadar passbooks and title- deeds etc., are forged by the accused herein and the accused herein are solely responsible for the alleged offences with which they were charged.

16.PW4 the then revenue inspector, cited by the prosecution to speak that the signatures in pattadar pass-books in question are not made by him and that they are forged. He stated in his evidence on oath that the police obtained his signatures and initials with big signatures and small signatures on white papers. He cannot say in whose presence he provided his signatures on white papers and except his signatures no statement is recorded by the police. He stated that he does not know the facts of this case and that he does not know the accused shown to him in the court. The 6 evidence of this witness is silent on the issue that the accused herein forged the signatures of the revenue officials and the documents shown to him are fake and forged.

17.PW5 another witness cited by the prosecution to speak that he owned 47 cents of land in S.No 41 part etc., His evidence on oath that he has no lands. He do not know the land acquired with its extent by his father during his life time, he sold away the lands during his childhood and he does not know the survey numbers of the land and that he did not pledge the property to anybody. He specifically stated in his cross-examination that the police did not record his statement. He does not know any particulars of this case. The evidence of this witness is not acceptable to connect the accused with this crime and that the accused forged the documents and obtained loans from the bank using them as security for their loans.

18.PW6 cited by the prosecution to speak that he owned lands in

S.No.66 in Garbam panchayat and pattadar passbooks were issued to him.

His evidence on oath in Court is that he was not present when police visited the village. He does not know the facts of this case and why he came to the court. Police never examined him in this case. He does not know the survey numbers. The evidence of this witness does not specifically indicate that the accused herein forged the documents of this witness.

19.PW7 another witness cited by the prosecution for the same purpose as PW6 cited. He stated in his evidence on oath that he does not know anything about the facts of this case. Their lands are not mortgaged to anybody. Police did not examine him. The evidence of this witness is no way helpful to the prosecution.

20.PW8 was cited by the prosecution for the same purpose as PW7.

His evidence on oath is in the same line as that of PW7 and his evidence is also no way helpful to the prosecution.

21.The evidence of PW9 is in the same line of the evidence of PW8.

He stated in his evidence that he does not know the survey number of the land. He was not examined by the police in this case. He does not know 7 anything about the facts of this case. His evidence is also no way helpful to the prosecution case.

22.PW10 the then Village Revenue Officer cited by the prosecution to speak about the I.O taking the signatures of the accused in their presence turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

23.PW11 the then Revenue Inspector stated that he was not examined by the police and turned hostile and he also did not support the prosecution case.

24.PW12 the then M.R.O of Merakamudammandal, cited by the prosecution to speak that the pattadar passbooks, title deeds are fake and forged specifically admitted that he cannot say the exact details of the alleged pattadar pass books and title deeds and 10(1) adangals which were said to have been sent to him by the bank for verification purpose. He did not remember the statement of the police recorded from him. He cannot say the details of his statement which was recorded by the police. He further stated that the pattadar passbooks and title deeds cannot be available in open market. Further, he admitted that such books are coming into the market. He do not have the personal knowledge of this case. The evidence of this witness is silent on the issue that the alleged documents are forged and fake.

25.PW13 another witness stated in her evidence on oath that police obtained her sample signatures and informed her that they will send the same to FSL for report. She was not asked by any of the branch manager to verify the pass book of any individual at any point of time.

26.PW14 who worked as Manager of the bank turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any angle.

27.PW15 who worked as V.R.O in M.R.O office, Merakamudidam. He stated in his evidence that the police shown him one pattadar passbook and asked him to identify the signature. He stated that his signature in pattadhar pass books is clearly to have been forged. Ex.P4 is the Passbook, Ex.P5 is the 8 title deed as they are forged. No passbook was shown to him and no other any type of paper shown to him by the police pertaining to this case. His evidence in no way indicates that the accused themselves forged the documents.

28.PW16 who worked as V.R.O stated in his evidence that he has no idea about the receipts for land revenue. He do not remember the particulars of the said receipts. He further stated in his evidence that police did not seize any of the revenue records either from him or from their office. His evidence in no way helpful to the prosecution case to connect the accused to this crime.

29.PW18 the then V.R.O stated in his evidence that the police obtained his sample signatures for sending to RFSL for comparison. He stated in his evidence that police did not record any of his statement. The evidence of this witness is no way helpful to the prosecution case that the accused herein are responsible for the alleged forgery of documents.

30.PW19 stated on oath that he was not examined by the police.

This witness declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any angle.

31.PW20 also declared hostile and he did not support the prosecution case.

32.PW21 who worked as headmaster in M.P.P school stated that no police approached him in relation to the present case and that he does not know any particulars of this case. He never handover any original admission forms of the daughter of A4 to the police. This witness also declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

33.PW22 the Investigating Officer. He stated in his evidence that he registered the FIR in this case, then he examined the complainant and recorded his statement. Then he addressed the letter to the bank manager,

Central bank of India to furnish all the original documents regarding this case. He received certain documents as an Ex.P18, P20, P21, P4, P5, P22,

P23, P24, P25, P26, P27, P28, P29 to P42 and other documents which are 9

Ex.P44 to P56 and he recorded the statements of the witnesses. In his cross- examination, he stated that his investigation made out no allegations on A9 and nowhere it is mentioned that A9 has committed the offence along with other accused.

34.PW23 another witness who worked as Chellapur village panchayat as in charge of that village stated that he was never called by police and he was never examined. This witness declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case in any angle.

35.PW24 is another investigating officer who completed his part of investigation. He stated in his evidence that he examined PW1 and he also obtained financial transaction statements of A4, A6 and he obtained bank account opening applications of A3 and A6 and he obtained the school certificates of A4 for the purpose of comparison. He forwarded the original documents along with admitted and specimen signatures of all the accused to FSL Hyderabad and he received FSL report which is marked as Ex.C1.

36.During pendency of this case, the prosecution filed petition under section 311 Cr.P.C to get the evidence of LW27 and that LW25 who gave his opinion on hand writing and signatures of the accused is no more and the prosecution would like to get marked the opinion of the expert as exhibit because it is very essential for drawing inference and for just decision of the case. The presence of the person who worked as Assistant to LW25 who is acquainted with the hand-writing of LW25 is required as it is relevant under section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the prosecution requires to issue summons to director FSL Hyderabad for sending any person as witness for letting the evidence on the above opinion. This court observed in this petition that the evidence of expert is a weak type of evidence and the courts do not generally consider as conclusive proof. It is unsafe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. This court further observed that some of the so called mediators who were present at the time of taking the alleged sample signatures were declared hostile. If necessary this court will consider the above papers, if any reliable and 10 acceptable independent evidence for corroboration through the evidence of any independent witnesses. Under section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, the ordinary method by proving a document is by calling as a witness who is the author of the document. Under section 73 of evidence act, if necessary the court can compare the alleged signatures of the accused in the above said documents.

37.The disputed signatures of the accused and the alleged forged documents as relied by the prosecution were compared by this court exercising its powers under section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and they are found to be inconsistent. However, in the absence of independent evidence for corroboration in this regard, it is unsafe to rely upon them.

38.In the absence of cogent and independent evidence to connect the accused with this crime, it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of the investigating officers and report of RFSL which is marked as Ex.C1. The report of RFSL and the observations there on by an expert have to be tallied and coincide with that of the independent nature of evidence. Herein it is lacking.

39.The first charge against A1 to A9 herein under section 120B I.P.C, the charge of criminal conspiracy must be established beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case there are other charges under section 468, 471, 409, 420 of I.P.C. But herein there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with this crime under those charges. The essential ingredients “fraudulent” and “dishonest” are not proved against the accused. No offence under sections 420, 468 or 471 of I.P.C was made out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses as noted above. There is no tangible evidence on record on behalf of the prosecution to connect the accused with this crime. Before the court can convict accused for any offence, the court has to accept the evidence of the prosecution as cogent, convincing and reliable and then only the court can convict the accused.

11

40.Therefore, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with which the accused were charged.

In the result, the case against A3 was abated as died as per docket order dated 2-9-2014. A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8 and A9 are found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 120B, 468, 471, 420, 409 of IPC with which they are specifically charged and they are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, shall stand cancelled. A1, A2, A4, A5,

A6, A7, A8 and A9 are directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- each u/sec.437-

A Cr.P.C., to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. A5 is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

Typed on my laptop, and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Dr. K. Sarada

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

EXCISE, VIZIANAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined. For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Sri Pilla Chandra Sekhar Rao None PW2: Sri Yejjala Prasad Rao PW3: Sri K. Poleesu PW4: Sri M. Sanyasi Raju PW5: Sri K. Appalanaidu PW6: Sri S. Haridasu PW7: Sri S. Ramu PW8: Sri S. Thirupathi PW9: Sri S. Kalidas PW10: Sri Pyla Kumarswamy PW11: Sri M. Jaganmohana Rao PW12: Sri V.S.L.N.Sharma PW13: Sri K. L. Kameshwaramma PW14: Sri A. Chandra Mouleswara Rao PW15: Sri Althi Suryanarayana PW16: Sri Koppala Ramunaidu PW17: Sri P. Siva Prasad Rao PW18: Sri Tadi Raji Naidu PW19: Sri Paddeda Appala naidu PW20: Sri Mittireddy Laxmum PW21: Sri Mantri Srinivasarao PW22: Sri M.V.V.Ramana Murthy PW23: Sri Ch. Tavitinaidu PW24: Sri G. Ramakrishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pyla Kumarswamy Ex.P2 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Ch. Jaganadharao Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of A.Chandramouleswa Rao 12

Ex.P4: Pass Book B327548 Ex.P5: Title deed B140731 Ex.P6: 10-1 Adangal. Ex.P7, P8 and P9: Forged Signatures of PW17. Ex.P10: Title deed C 515284. Ex.P11: Pass book C 148147. Ex.P12: Pass book C 148246 Ex.P13: Title deed C 522918 Ex.P14: Pattadhar pass book P 142902 Ex.P15: Title deed book B 173213 Ex.P16: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Palleda Appalanaidu Ex.P17: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Mantri Srinivasa Rao Ex.P18: Loan Application Form A4 Ex.P19: Mortgage deed No.2707107 Ex.P20: V.A.Adangal No.3 Ex.P21: Savings Accounts Form No.6131 Ex.P22: Original confirmation letter of Central Bank of India dt.05.10.2007. Ex.P23: Loan Application Form of A1. Ex.P24: Mortgage deed No.2325/07 Ex.P25: Savings Account No.6041 Ex.P26: Original Title deed pass book No.C14853 in respect of patta number 72. Ex.P27: Original pattapass book in respect of patta number 72 of C515300. Ex.P28: Loan Application Form of A6. Ex.P29: SBI Account Opening Form 6182 Ex.P30: Original Tax Receipt No.238673 of VRO, Garbham Ex.P31: Original confirmation letter of Central Bank of India dt.19.11.07. Ex.P32: Loan application form of A2. Ex.P33: Mortgage deed number 2709 dt.17.02.2007. Ex.P34: Duplicate Tax Receipt No.23866 of VRO, Garbham. Ex.P35: SBI Account opening form No.6132. Ex.P36: Original title deed pass book No. B189377 in respect of Patta No.210. Ex.P37: Original pattadhar pass book in respect of patta number 210 B 420664. Ex.P38: Original conformation letter of Central Bank of India dt.05.10.2007. Ex.P39: Loan Application form of A7. Ex.P40: Mortgage deed number 3443/2007. Ex.P41: 10-1 Adangal issued by VRO, Garbham. Ex.P42: SBI Account opening Form 6109. Ex.P43: Original confirmation letter of Central Bank of India dt.29.11.2007. Ex.P44: Loan Application form of A3. Ex.P45: Mortgage deed No.2708/07 Ex.P46: SBI Account opening Form No.6149. Ex.P47: Original Conformation letter of Central Bank of India dt.10.12.07. Ex.P48: Loan Application Form of A5. Ex.P49: 10-1 Adangal issued by VR, Viswanadhapuram. Ex.P50: SBI Account opening form no.6133 Ex.P51: Title deed pass book no.B 189374 Ex.P52: Title deed pattanumber 115 Ex.P53: Duplicate Tax receipt no.238660 of VRO, Viswanadhapuram. Ex.P54: Original pattadar pass book patta no.115 B 420663. Ex.P55: Revenue receipt bearing No.23866 of A7. Ex.P56: V.A.No.3 Adangal copy of A6. Ex.P57: Document vide RC.No.321/2007 A dt.27.08.2008 & requisition of Tahsildar, Merakamudidam. Ex.P58: Letter issued by Thasildar, Merakamudidam vide RC.No321/07 dt.14.11.2008. Ex.P59: Original FIR. Ex.P60: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Palleda Taviti Naidu (PW23). Ex.P61: Entire Sheets 5 and 7 admitted signatures of PW12. Ex.P62: Admitted signatures 6 pages PW21. Ex.P63: Treasury challan and 6 signatures sheets. Ex.P64: Sample Signatures of 6 sheets relating to PW17. Ex.P65: Sample Signatures of 6 sheets of PW15. Ex.P66: Sample Signatures of 6 sheets of PW4. Ex.P67: Application form of PW3 Koyyana Poleesu 13

Ex.P68: 6 signatures of PW18. Ex.C1 FSL Report. For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- Dr. K. Sarada

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

EXCISE, VIZIANAGARAM

1

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

EXCISE COURT AT VIZIANAGARAM

Present : Dr. K.Sarada., BDS., LL.M., Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court :: Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 27th day of April, 2018.

CC No.29/2017

Between : State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Bhogapuram Police station

..Complainant.

And. Koyya Sattibabu, S/o Venkatarao, 27 years, Reddika, Koyyapeta village, Bhogapuram mandal.

..Accused.

This case coming on 23-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri N.Sureshkumar, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Police station filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 in Crime

No.61/2016 of Bhogapuram Police station.

02.The conspectus of the case of the prosecution is that on credible information, on 15.4.2016 at about 20.00 hours P.W.3 followed by P.W.1 and

P.W.2 raided on the shop of accused situated adjacent to Aparna meals hotel at Bhogapuram village and arrested the accused who was in possession of

Imperial Blue 375 ml., - 2 bottles, Breezer 275 ml., - 2 bottles, knock out Beer 330 m.l. - 4 bottles, Knock Out Beer 650 m.l., 6 bottles, King fisher beer 650 m.l. - 16 bottles, Mansion House 180 ml.m – 4 bottles, Officers Choice 180 ml., whisky – 20 bottles, AC Premium 180 ml. - 5 bottles, gold Riband 180 m.l.

- 7 bottles, total 66 liquor bottles, under cover of occurrence report drafted from 20.00 hours to 20.45 hours. Out of seized property one bottle from each were separated as samples to be forwarded to Excise Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam and accused was brought to police station along with property at 21.15 hours and basing on the occurrence report, a case in crime

No.61/2016 u/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.3 served notice against accused u/sec.41(A)(1) 2

Cr.P.C. on 15.4.2016 and later P.W.4 verified investigation made by P.W.3 and forwarded seized sample wine bottles to Assistant Chemical Examiner,

Regional Proh. & Excise Laboratory, Visakahapatnam (L.W.3) who opined that the wine samples were tested and the test for Ethyl Alcohol, caramel, sugars and CO2 are positive and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused.

03.This case was taken on file under Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 against the accused and numbered as CC 29/2017.

04.On appearance of accused copies of case documents were furnished to the accused in compliance of Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charge under

Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu under Sec. 240(2) Cr.P.C and having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 4. PW 1 is Sri V.Jagadeeshbabu, PC 1611, Bhogapuram P.S., P.W.2 is

Sri B.Santhosh, PC 399, Bhogapuram PS, P.W.3 is D.Deenabandu, SI of Police,

Bhogapuram PS, P.W.4 is Sri J.Tarakeswararao, SI of Police, Bhogapuram P.S.

Prosecution got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 to M.O.6. Ex.P1 is the

Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is the First Information Report, Ex.P.3 is Analysis

Report. MO 1 is Sample bottle of Imperial Blue 180 m.l, MO2 is sample bottle of Breezer 180 m.l., MO3 is sample bottle of Knockout beer 180 m.l, MO4 is sample bottle of Knockout beer 180 m.l, MO5 is sample bottle of Kingfisher beer 180 m.l., MO6 is sample bottle of Mansion House whiskey 180 m.l., MO7 is sample bottle of Officers Choice whiskey 180 m.l., MO8 is sample bottle of

AC Premium liquor 180 m.l., and MO9 is sample bottle of Gold Riband 180 ml.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. After 3 having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating material in Prosecution evidence and stated that the said evidence is false. Accused reported no evidence in defence.

08. Heard arguments from both the sides.

09. Now the point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT NO.1

10. To prove their case, the prosecution has examined, PW1 to PW4 and

Ex.P1 to P3 and MO-1 to MO-9 were marked.

11. PW1 is PC 1611, Bhogapuram Police station and in his chief examination PW1 deposed that on 15.04.2016 at about 7.45pm on receiving credible information over phone about illegal selling liquor, he and PW.2 accompanied PW3 to the scene of offence situated at Bhogapuram village near Aparna hotel and Reddy hotel which is a pan shop of the accused

Koyya Sattibabu and raided on his shop and found two cardboard boxes containing liquor bottles. That on seeing them accused tried to escape but he along with PW.2 caught hold him and enquired about his identity and possession of the contraband on that he revealed his identity and also stated that he purchased the said liquor bottles from a shop situated at

Bhogapuram with a view to sell them for higher price and also stated about his inability of possession licence. Thereupon PW.3 seized the said property containing 2 bottles of Imperial Blue each 375 ml, 2 bottles of Breezer each 275 ml, 4 bottles of Knockout beer each 330ml, 6 bottles of Knockout beer each 650 ml, 16 bottles of Kingfisher beer each 650 ml, 4 bottles of mansion house whisky each 180 ml, 20 bottles of Officers choice whisky each 180 ml, 5 bottles of AC premium each 180 ml and 7 bottles of Goldriband each 180 ml in total 66 bottles from the possession of accused which were kept in his shop after informing the grounds of arrest under the cover of occurrence report which was drafted by him on the dictation of PW.3 at the scene of 4 offence, where he along with their staff and accused made signatures. That

PW.3 also separated sample bottles each one from each brand for the purpose of chemical analysis. Since nobody come forward to act as mediators, they prepared the occurrence report. PW.3 also affixed identity slips containing our signatures on the seized property as well as on the sample bottles. That after completion of the entire procedure they along with the accused and case property returned to Bhogapuram PS.

12. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that the scene of offence is located adjacent to National Highway and that it is a busy locality and that they did not examine the shop owner from whom the accused purchased the said liquor bottles and that they did not write the date on the identification slips affixed to M.Os 1 to 9 and that they did not prepare any seizure list.

13. In his chief examination PW2 deposed in the same lines as

PW1.

14. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that the scene of offence is located adjacent to National Highway and that it is a busy locality and that they did not examine the shop owner from whom the accused purchased the said liquor bottles and that they did not write the date on the identification slips affixed to M.Os 1 to 9 and that they did not prepare any seizure list.

15. In his chief examination PW3 deposed in the same lines as

PWs1&2. He further stated that after completion of the entire procedure they along with the accused and case property returned to our Bhogapuram PS and registered a case in Cr.No.61/2016 U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act at about 21.50 hours on the same day and that he forwarded the original FIR to this court and issued copies to all concerned and that on the same day he also issued Sec.41-A CrPC notice to the accused. That on 21.07.2016 he sent samples to the chemical examiner to Regional Chemical laboratory, 5

Visakhapatnam with a letter of advise. Later the investigation took up by

PW.4 on his transfer.

16. In his cross examination PW3 admitted that the scene of offence is located adjacent to National Highway and that they did not prepare any rough sketch regarding the scene of offence and that they did not examine the owner of Sai Chandini liquor shop and owner of Reddy hotel and that in Exhibit P.1 it was written as only one bottle was separated as sample from the entire seized property and that they did not seize any documents showing that the said pan shop belongs to the accused. He further admitted that there is a delay of three months in sending the sample bottles to the chemical analysis.

17. In his chief examination PW4 deposed that on 26-12-2016 he received chemical Analysis report CE No 1336/2016 dated 27-7-2016 opined that the samples at serial No 11489 to 11493 are Indian liquor and the samples at serial No 11494 to 11497 are beer .That basing on which he filed charge sheet against the accused U/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

18. Prosecution witnesses deposed that they received information by phone about illegal selling of liquor at around 07:45 PM. On perusal of occurrence report, it was mentioned as at around 08:00 PM they noticed the accused. Prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that it takes nearly 10 minutes to reach the scene of offence from their PS. Taking consideration into all the evidence available on record this Court opines that it is impossible to reach the scene of offence by 08:00PM when they received information at 07:45 PM. This raises a doubt in the version of prosecution.

19. Admittedly, the date of offence is on 15.04.2016. On perusal of Exhibit P3 i.e., the chemical analysis report, it was mentioned as they received sample bottles on 25-07-2016. So, there is an abnormal delay of 100 days in sending the sample bottles to chemical examiner. The 6 prosecution failed to explain the reasons for such delay. Further, there is every chance to sample bottles to change its nature if it was examined by

Analyst with such delay.

20. Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses to the caseof prosecution. PWs1,2&3 stated that they tried to secure mediators but went in vain but admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality. According to

Sec.100(4) of CrPC, 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. Though the scene of offence is a busy locality, the officials failed to secure independent witnesses for the reasons best known to them. When the officials failed to secure independent witnesses, the search and seizure is doubtful.

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

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds from the accused shall stand cancelled. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear

before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. MO-1 to MO-9 shall be

destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by me on my laptop, and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April, 2018.

Sd/-K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Vizianagaram 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence:- P.W.1: V.Jagadeshbabu - Costable

P.W.2: B.Santhoshkumar - Constable

P.W.3: D.Deenabandu – SI of Police

P.W.4: J.Tarakeswararao – SI of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: Occurrence Report dated 15.04.2016 Ex.P.2: Original FIR, dt. 15.04.2016 Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report CE No. 1336/2016 dt. 27.7.2016.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO 1 is Sample bottle of Imperial Blue 180 m.l, MO2 is sample bottle of Breezer 180 m.l., MO3 is sample bottle of Knockout beer 180 m.l, MO4 is sample bottle of Knockout beer 180 m.l, MO5 is sample bottle of Kingfisher beer 180 m.l., MO6 is sample bottle of Mansion House whiskey 180 m.l., MO7 is sample bottle of Officers Choice whiskey 180 m.l., MO8 is sample bottle of AC Premium liquor 180 m.l., MO9 is sample bottle of Gold Riband 180 ml.

Sd/-K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Vizianagaram 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CASES TRIED BY THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, EXCISE COURT AT VIZIANAGARAM

Date of offence: 15-04-2016

Date of report or complaint: 15-04-2016

Date of apprehension of accused: 15-04-2016 (Sec. 41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C.notice was served to accused) 27-06-2017 (on execution ofNBW)

Date of release, if any on bail: - 28-06-2017

Date of commencement of trial: 19-02-2018

Date of close of trial: 23-04-2018

Date of sentence or order: 27-04-2018

Explanation for delay and remarks : Several Adjournments weretaken due to non production of witness by both sides in time. Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.29/2017 on the file of Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court at Vizianagaram.

Complainant State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Police station, in Cr.No.61/2016 of Bhogapuram Police station.

============================================== === Name of the accused, Father’sname, age, calling, village, Mandal etc.

Koyya Sattibabu, S/o Venkatarao, 27 years, Reddika, Koyyapeta village, Bhogapuram mandal. ============================================= OFFENCE:Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects of possesses or sells any intoxicant Under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968.

FINDING: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

SENTENCE: The accused is acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds from the accused shall stand cancelled. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- each Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. MO-1 to MO-9shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Vizianagaram 9 10

1

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

EXCISE COURT AT VIZIANAGARAM

Present : Dr. K.Sarada., BDS., LL.M., Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court :: Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 27th day of April, 2018.

CC No.29/2017

Between : State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Bhogapuram Police station

..Complainant.

And. Koyya Sattibabu, S/o Venkatarao, 27 years, Reddika, Koyyapeta village, Bhogapuram mandal.

..Accused.

This case coming on 23-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri N.Sureshkumar, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Police station filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 in Crime

No.61/2016 of Bhogapuram Police station.

02.The conspectus of the case of the prosecution is that on credible information, on 15.4.2016 at about 20.00 hours P.W.3 followed by P.W.1 and

P.W.2 raided on the shop of accused situated adjacent to Aparna meals hotel at Bhogapuram village and arrested the accused who was in possession of

Imperial Blue 375 ml., - 2 bottles, Breezer 275 ml., - 2 bottles, knock out Beer 330 m.l. - 4 bottles, Knock Out Beer 650 m.l., 6 bottles, King fisher beer 650 m.l. - 16 bottles, Mansion House 180 ml.m – 4 bottles, Officers Choice 180 ml., whisky – 20 bottles, AC Premium 180 ml. - 5 bottles, gold Riband 180 m.l.

- 7 bottles, total 66 liquor bottles, under cover of occurrence report drafted from 20.00 hours to 20.45 hours. Out of seized property one bottle from each were separated as samples to be forwarded to Excise Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam and accused was brought to police station along with property at 21.15 hours and basing on the occurrence report, a case in crime

No.61/2016 u/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.3 served notice against accused u/sec.41(A)(1) 2

Cr.P.C. on 15.4.2016 and later P.W.4 verified investigation made by P.W.3 and forwarded seized sample wine bottles to Assistant Chemical Examiner,

Regional Proh. & Excise Laboratory, Visakahapatnam (L.W.3) who opined that the wine samples were tested and the test for Ethyl Alcohol, caramel, sugars and CO2 are positive and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused.

03.This case was taken on file under Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 against the accused and numbered as CC 29/2017.

04.On appearance of accused copies of case documents were furnished to the accused in compliance of Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

05.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charge under

Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu under Sec. 240(2) Cr.P.C and having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 4. PW 1 is Sri V.Jagadeeshbabu, PC 1611, Bhogapuram P.S., P.W.2 is

Sri B.Santhosh, PC 399, Bhogapuram PS, P.W.3 is D.Deenabandu, SI of Police,

Bhogapuram PS, P.W.4 is Sri J.Tarakeswararao, SI of Police, Bhogapuram P.S.

Prosecution got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 to M.O.6. Ex.P1 is the

Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is the First Information Report, Ex.P.3 is Analysis

Report. MO 1 is Sample bottle of Imperial Blue 180 m.l, MO2 is sample bottle of Breezer 180 m.l., MO3 is sample bottle of Knockout beer 180 m.l, MO4 is sample bottle of Knockout beer 180 m.l, MO5 is sample bottle of Kingfisher beer 180 m.l., MO6 is sample bottle of Mansion House whiskey 180 m.l., MO7 is sample bottle of Officers Choice whiskey 180 m.l., MO8 is sample bottle of

AC Premium liquor 180 m.l., and MO9 is sample bottle of Gold Riband 180 ml.

07.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. After 3 having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating material in Prosecution evidence and stated that the said evidence is false. Accused reported no evidence in defence.

08. Heard arguments from both the sides.

09. Now the point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT NO.1

10. To prove their case, the prosecution has examined, PW1 to PW4 and

Ex.P1 to P3 and MO-1 to MO-9 were marked.

11. PW1 is PC 1611, Bhogapuram Police station and in his chief examination PW1 deposed that on 15.04.2016 at about 7.45pm on receiving credible information over phone about illegal selling liquor, he and PW.2 accompanied PW3 to the scene of offence situated at Bhogapuram village near Aparna hotel and Reddy hotel which is a pan shop of the accused

Koyya Sattibabu and raided on his shop and found two cardboard boxes containing liquor bottles. That on seeing them accused tried to escape but he along with PW.2 caught hold him and enquired about his identity and possession of the contraband on that he revealed his identity and also stated that he purchased the said liquor bottles from a shop situated at

Bhogapuram with a view to sell them for higher price and also stated about his inability of possession licence. Thereupon PW.3 seized the said property containing 2 bottles of Imperial Blue each 375 ml, 2 bottles of Breezer each 275 ml, 4 bottles of Knockout beer each 330ml, 6 bottles of Knockout beer each 650 ml, 16 bottles of Kingfisher beer each 650 ml, 4 bottles of mansion house whisky each 180 ml, 20 bottles of Officers choice whisky each 180 ml, 5 bottles of AC premium each 180 ml and 7 bottles of Goldriband each 180 ml in total 66 bottles from the possession of accused which were kept in his shop after informing the grounds of arrest under the cover of occurrence report which was drafted by him on the dictation of PW.3 at the scene of 4 offence, where he along with their staff and accused made signatures. That

PW.3 also separated sample bottles each one from each brand for the purpose of chemical analysis. Since nobody come forward to act as mediators, they prepared the occurrence report. PW.3 also affixed identity slips containing our signatures on the seized property as well as on the sample bottles. That after completion of the entire procedure they along with the accused and case property returned to Bhogapuram PS.

12. PW1 in his cross examination admitted that the scene of offence is located adjacent to National Highway and that it is a busy locality and that they did not examine the shop owner from whom the accused purchased the said liquor bottles and that they did not write the date on the identification slips affixed to M.Os 1 to 9 and that they did not prepare any seizure list.

13. In his chief examination PW2 deposed in the same lines as

PW1.

14. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that the scene of offence is located adjacent to National Highway and that it is a busy locality and that they did not examine the shop owner from whom the accused purchased the said liquor bottles and that they did not write the date on the identification slips affixed to M.Os 1 to 9 and that they did not prepare any seizure list.

15. In his chief examination PW3 deposed in the same lines as

PWs1&2. He further stated that after completion of the entire procedure they along with the accused and case property returned to our Bhogapuram PS and registered a case in Cr.No.61/2016 U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act at about 21.50 hours on the same day and that he forwarded the original FIR to this court and issued copies to all concerned and that on the same day he also issued Sec.41-A CrPC notice to the accused. That on 21.07.2016 he sent samples to the chemical examiner to Regional Chemical laboratory, 5

Visakhapatnam with a letter of advise. Later the investigation took up by

PW.4 on his transfer.

16. In his cross examination PW3 admitted that the scene of offence is located adjacent to National Highway and that they did not prepare any rough sketch regarding the scene of offence and that they did not examine the owner of Sai Chandini liquor shop and owner of Reddy hotel and that in Exhibit P.1 it was written as only one bottle was separated as sample from the entire seized property and that they did not seize any documents showing that the said pan shop belongs to the accused. He further admitted that there is a delay of three months in sending the sample bottles to the chemical analysis.

17. In his chief examination PW4 deposed that on 26-12-2016 he received chemical Analysis report CE No 1336/2016 dated 27-7-2016 opined that the samples at serial No 11489 to 11493 are Indian liquor and the samples at serial No 11494 to 11497 are beer .That basing on which he filed charge sheet against the accused U/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

18. Prosecution witnesses deposed that they received information by phone about illegal selling of liquor at around 07:45 PM. On perusal of occurrence report, it was mentioned as at around 08:00 PM they noticed the accused. Prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that it takes nearly 10 minutes to reach the scene of offence from their PS. Taking consideration into all the evidence available on record this Court opines that it is impossible to reach the scene of offence by 08:00PM when they received information at 07:45 PM. This raises a doubt in the version of prosecution.

19. Admittedly, the date of offence is on 15.04.2016. On perusal of Exhibit P3 i.e., the chemical analysis report, it was mentioned as they received sample bottles on 25-07-2016. So, there is an abnormal delay of 100 days in sending the sample bottles to chemical examiner. The 6 prosecution failed to explain the reasons for such delay. Further, there is every chance to sample bottles to change its nature if it was examined by

Analyst with such delay.

20. Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses to the caseof prosecution. PWs1,2&3 stated that they tried to secure mediators but went in vain but admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality. According to

Sec.100(4) of CrPC, 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. Though the scene of offence is a busy locality, the officials failed to secure independent witnesses for the reasons best known to them. When the officials failed to secure independent witnesses, the search and seizure is doubtful.

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

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and he is acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds from the accused shall stand cancelled. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear

before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. MO-1 to MO-9 shall be

destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by me on my laptop, and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April, 2018.

Sd/-K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Vizianagaram 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For ProsecutionFor Defence:- P.W.1: V.Jagadeshbabu - Costable

P.W.2: B.Santhoshkumar - Constable

P.W.3: D.Deenabandu – SI of Police

P.W.4: J.Tarakeswararao – SI of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: Occurrence Report dated 15.04.2016 Ex.P.2: Original FIR, dt. 15.04.2016 Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis report CE No. 1336/2016 dt. 27.7.2016.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO 1 is Sample bottle of Imperial Blue 180 m.l, MO2 is sample bottle of Breezer 180 m.l., MO3 is sample bottle of Knockout beer 180 m.l, MO4 is sample bottle of Knockout beer 180 m.l, MO5 is sample bottle of Kingfisher beer 180 m.l., MO6 is sample bottle of Mansion House whiskey 180 m.l., MO7 is sample bottle of Officers Choice whiskey 180 m.l., MO8 is sample bottle of AC Premium liquor 180 m.l., MO9 is sample bottle of Gold Riband 180 ml.

Sd/-K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Vizianagaram 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CASES TRIED BY THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, EXCISE COURT AT VIZIANAGARAM

Date of offence: 15-04-2016

Date of report or complaint: 15-04-2016

Date of apprehension of accused: 15-04-2016 (Sec. 41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C.notice was served to accused) 27-06-2017 (on execution ofNBW)

Date of release, if any on bail: - 28-06-2017

Date of commencement of trial: 19-02-2018

Date of close of trial: 23-04-2018

Date of sentence or order: 27-04-2018

Explanation for delay and remarks : Several Adjournments weretaken due to non production of witness by both sides in time. Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.29/2017 on the file of Special Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court at Vizianagaram.

Complainant State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Police station, in Cr.No.61/2016 of Bhogapuram Police station.

============================================== === Name of the accused, Father’sname, age, calling, village, Mandal etc.

Koyya Sattibabu, S/o Venkatarao, 27 years, Reddika, Koyyapeta village, Bhogapuram mandal. ============================================= OFFENCE:Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects of possesses or sells any intoxicant Under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act,1968.

FINDING: Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

SENTENCE: The accused is acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds from the accused shall stand cancelled. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- each Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. MO-1 to MO-9shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-K.Sarada

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Vizianagaram 9 10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARVATHIPURAM.

Present: Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram.

Friday, this the 29th day of March, 2019.

C.C.No.201 of 2018

Between: State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police Station. … Complainant

And:

Ippili Maheswara Rao, s/o.Malleswara Rao, 36 years, Buddivari junction, Business, Vizianagaram District. Uma Sankar Theater,N/o. Rayagada village and district.

... Accused

This case is coming on 27-03-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Complainant/State represented by the police, and of Sri T.Joga Rao, Learned counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police Station filed charge sheet against sole Accused for the offence under Sections 270,273 of Indian Penal Code in

Cr.No.20/2018 of Komarada Police Station.

02.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that –

On 23.02.2018 at about 16.00 hours, on receipt of credible information by the

Sub-Inspector of Police/L.W.3, he along with L.W.1/K.Srinu and L.W.2/P.Shivakumar,

Police Constable of Komarada Police Station conducted vehicle checking at opposite

Komarada Police Station and that they noticed the accused, who is in possession of

Meeraj khaini, Deluxe, Rajakhaini on seeing the police party the accused started running away and that they caught the accused. That when questioned the accused he disclosed his identity and he further stated that he purchased the Meeraj khaini, Deluxe,

Rajakhaini in Rayagada, Odissa state and brought the same to Visakhapatnam for sell the same in his shop and when verified the bags the Sub-Inspector of Police found Miraj khaini packets-36 thoranalu all worth Rs.5,400/- and that further the accused voluntarily 2 confessed that he sells tobacco products without any valid license for profit. That basing on the occurrence report L.W.3/P.Dinakar/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.20/2018 u/sec. 270 and 273 of I.P.C and investigated into. That during the course of investigation the Sub-Inspector of Police served notice under section 41(a) Cr.P.C against accused. That after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

03. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence under sections 270 and 273 of IPC against Accused.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section sections 270 and 273 of IPC for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to

P.W.3 and got marked mediators report along with CD and photos as Ex.P.1, occurrence report as Ex.P.2 and Original First Information Report as Ex.P.3. M.O.1 is sample packet of Meeraj Khaini.

06. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined u/sec.313 of

Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence against him and stated no defence evidence on his behalf.

07. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

08.The learned APP submitted that prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 3 who are eye witnesses to the incident and all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and Investigating Officer evidence is corroborated as to registering of crime against accused and so the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of accused for the alleged offence under Section 270 and 273 of IPC. Hence, to punish the accused as per law.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that there is no piece of evidence before this court to connect the accused with the offence leveled 3 against him and that there are no other independent witnesses supporting the prosecution case, hence there is no material before this court to convict the accused for alleged offence under section 270 and 273 of IPC and so the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, to acquit the accused.

10.Now, the point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 270 and 273 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt, or not ?

11. Point:-

In his chief examination P.W.1 deposed that on 23.02.2018 at about 16.00 hours, upon receiving credible information by P.W.3, they proceeded to Komarada junction and that there they noticed the accused, who is present in the Court dock. That on suspicion upon questioning by P.W.3 the accused revealed his identity particulars and further stated that he purchased the said tobacco products from an unknown person in

Rayagada for lower prices with a view to sell them for higher prices for his livelihood without any valid license or permit to sell the same. That he verified the said gunny bag and found Meeraj khini – 36 Toranas all worth of Rs.5,400/- and the same was seized by Sub-Inspector of Police under the cover of occurrence report as nobody came forward to act as mediators which was drafted by P.W.3 at the scene of offence which was duly signed by him along with P.w.3 and accused.

12.P.w.1, in his cross examination stated that the scene of offence is a busy locality and that they did not mention the description of gunny bag in occurrence report but it is a white colour plastic gunny bag and he deposed that they did not mention the description of property in occurrence report. P.W.1 further admitted that the scene of offence is surrounded by government offices, residential school and houses and that they did not try to secure mediators from any of those places.

13.P.W.2/M.Rajesh/Sub-Inspector of Police is added as a witness vide Crl.MP. No 350/2019 filed by the prosecution under section 311 of Cr.P.C. In his chief examination,

P.W.2 Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that after obtaining permission from this Court for destruction of case property vide Crl.MP.NO.207/2019 in Cr.No.20/2018, on 4 04.03.2019 he secured D.Ch.Appalanaidu/VRO/Komarada and Tamarakanti Pratap/

VRO/Gummada as mediators and that at about 11.00 a.m he along with mediators,ASI- 431 and P.C.530 reached near river bank of Nagavali located in southern direction of

Kuneru village and that there they opened the seized property and took samples out of them and affixed identification slips on the samples on which he along with mediators gave their signatures and that the remaining case property is destroyed and that they took photographs of the case property before and after destruction and that they drafted

Mediators report.

14. In his cross examination P.W.2 admitted that the crime number and details of seized property are not mentioned in the said photographs to state that they belong to this case property.

15.In his chief examination P.W.3 deposed in the same lines as PW1. PW3 further deposed that after informing the grounds of arrest he arrested the accused and proceeded to their police station along with accused and seized property and released the accused after issuing 41-A Cr.P.C notice. That basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Cr.No.20/2018, u/sec.270 and 273 of IPC of Komarada P.s and send the original FIR to the Court. That after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

16 P.W.3, in his cross examination stated that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.2 about the manufacturing date and costs of the seized property separately. P.w.3 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and that he did not try to secure village officials or revenue authorities.

17. Sections 270 and 273 of IPC are reads as follows:

“270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life:-

Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

18.273. Sale of noxious food or drink:- Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or 5 is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

19. The essential ingredient to be proved for the offence under section 270 of IPC is that the act attributed to the accused which constitutes the offence must be shown as likely to spread disease which is both infectious and dangerous to life. In this case, the allegation is that the accused illegally possessed the above mentioned tobacco products with a view to sell them. Hence, the elements of Section 270 of IPC are conspicuously absent as there is no question of spreading any disease or infection.

20.To bring home guilt of the accused u/s 273 of IPC, the prosecution is to prove - -that the accused sold or offered or exposed for sale an article o food or drink -that article of food or drink has been rendered noxious or has become unfit for food or drink -that during the sale or offering for sale or exposing for sale he knew the article of food or drink to be noxious or has been reason to believe so.

21. So, the adulteration rendering the food noxious is punishable u/s 273 of IPC.

What is punishable under this section is the sale of noxious articles as food or drink and not the mere sale of a noxious article.

22.Though tobacco products are noxious to health, they are not sold as food or drink to come under the purview of Section 273 of IPC.

23.Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses to the case of prosecution. PWs1 and 3 stated that they tried to secure mediators but in vain, but they categorically admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. According to Sec.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. Though the scene of offence is a busy locality, the officials failed to secure independent witnesses 6 for the reasons best known to them. When the officials failed to secure independent witnesses, the search and seizure is doubtful.

24. So, there is no cogent and reliable evidence from any of the prosecution witnesses or from Exhibits P1, P2 and P.3 that accused is in possession of tobacco products without any authorization and permit with a view to sell them.

25. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 270,273 of IPC.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 270 and 273 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under

Section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code M.O.1 sample packet of Meeraj Khaini shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for

Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thou sand only) under section 437- Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of March, 2019.

. Sd/-Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence P.W.1 :- K.Srinivasa Rao, Police Constable. - None – P.W.2 :- M.Rajesh, S.I of Police P.w.3:- P.Dinakar, S.I of Police. Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 is the mediators report along with CD and photos, dated 04.03.2019 Ex.P.2 is occurrence report dated 23.02.2018 Ex.P.3 is original First Information Report, dated 23.02.2018. For Defence - NIL. Material Objects Marked M.O.1 is sample packet of Meeraj Khaini.

Sd/-Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PARVATHIPURAM.

Date of Offence:: 23.02.2018 Date of Report or Complaint: 23.02.2018 Date of Apprehension of Accused: 23.02.2018 Date of release on bail, if any: U/sec.41(1)(a) Cr.P.C 23.02.2018 Date of Commencement of Trial: 07-03-2019 Date of close of Trial: 26-03-2019 Date of Sentence or other order : 29-03-2019 _______________________________________________________________ Explanation for delay and remarks : Several Adjournments were taken by both the parties for producing their evidence ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.201 /2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Parvathipuram and the same was transferred to this court ie., Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram.-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram

Complainant :- State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police Station in Cr.No.20/2018.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Name of the accused, Father’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Residence & Mandal

Ippili Maheswara Rao, s/o.Malleswara Rao, 36 years, Buddivari junction, Business, Vizianagaram District. Uma Sankar Theater,N/o. Rayagada village and district =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Offence : Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life U/Sec.270 of IPC. Sale of noxious food or drink U/Sec.273 of IPC.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 270 and 273 of IPC.

Sentence Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 270 and 273 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code M.O.1 is sample packet of Meeraj Khaini shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thou sand only) under section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear

before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/-Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARVATHIPURAM.

Present: Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Parvathipuram.

Friday, this the 29th day of March, 2019.

C.C.No.103 of 2017

Between: State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police Station. … Complainant

And:

Subuddi Ramesh, S/o. Krishna Rao, age 30 years, Kancharapalem, Babujinagar, Visakahapatnam.

... Accused

This case is coming on 27-03-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Complainant/State represented by the police, and of Sri S.Uma Maheswara Rao, Learned counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police Station filed charge sheet against sole Accused for the offence under Sections 270,273 of Indian Penal Code in

Cr.No.02 /2017 of Komarada Police Station.

02.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that –

On 27.01.2017 at about 17.30 hours, on receipt of credible information by the

Sub-Inspector of Police/L.W.3, he along with L.W.1/J.Satyanarayana, A.S.I of Police and

L.W.2/K.Rajesh, Police Constable of Komarada Police Station reached

Ramabadrapuram village junction and that they noticed the accused, who is in possession of Meeraj khaini, on seeing the police party the accused started running away and that they caught the accused. That when questioned the accused he disclosed his identity and he further stated that he purchased the Meeraj Khainee packets in Rayagada, Odissa state and brought the same to Visakhapatnam for sell the same in his shop and when verified the bags the Sub-Inspector of Police found 02 bags of Meeraj khainees, total 3000 packets all worth Rs.12,000/- and that further the 2 accused voluntarily confessed that he sells tobacco products without any valid license for profit. That basing on the occurrence report L.W.3/P.Dinakar/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.02/2017 u/sec. 270 and 273 of I.P.C and investigated into.

That during the course of investigation the Sub-Inspector of Police served notice under section 41(a) Cr.P.C against accused. That after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

03. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence under sections 270 and 273 of IPC against Accused.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section sections 270 and 273 of IPC for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to

P.W.3 and got marked mediators report along with CD and photos as Ex.P.1, occurrence report as Ex.P.2 and Original First Information Report as Ex.P.3. M.O.1 is sample packet of Meeraj Khaini.

06. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined u/sec.313 of

Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence against him and stated no defence evidence on his behalf.

07. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

08.The learned APP submitted that prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 3 who are eye witnesses to the incident and all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and Investigating Officer evidence is corroborated as to registering of crime against accused and so the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of accused for the alleged offence under Section 270 and 273 of IPC. Hence, to punish the accused as per law.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that there is no piece of evidence before this court to connect the accused with the offence leveled 3 against him and that there are no other independent witnesses supporting the prosecution case, hence there is no material before this court to convict the accused for alleged offence under section 270 and 273 of IPC and so the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, to acquit the accused.

10.Now, the point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 270 and 273 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt, or not ?

11. Point:-

In his chief examination P.W.1 deposed that on 27.01.2017 at about 5.30 p.m, upon receiving credible information by P.W.3, they proceeded to Ramabadrapuram village junction and that there they noticed the accused, who is present in the Court dock. That on suspicion upon questioning by P.W.3 the accused revealed his identity particulars and further stated that he purchased the said tobacco products from an unknown person in Rayagada for lower prices with a view to sell them for higher prices for his livelihood without any valid license or permit to sell the same. That he verified the said gunny bag and found Meeraj khini 3000 packets, worth of Rs.12,000/- and the same was seized by Sub-Inspector of Police under the cover of occurrence report as nobody came forward to act as mediators which was drafted by P.W.3 at the scene of offence which was duly signed by him along with P.w.3 and accused.

12.P.w.1, in his cross examination stated that the scene of offence is a busy road and they did not secure any mediators near the scene of offence, they did not prepare any rough sketch at scene of offence. P.W.1 further admitted that he do not know who drafted Ex.P.2 occurrence report.

13.P.W.2/M.Rajesh/Sub-Inspector of Police is added as a witness vide Crl.MP. No 358/2019 filed by the prosecution under section 311 of Cr.P.C. In his chief examination,

P.W.2 Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that after obtaining permission from this Court for destruction of case property vide Crl.MP.NO.81/2019 in Cr.No.02/2017, on 04.03.2019 he secured D.Ch.Appalanaidu/VRO/Komarada and Tamarakanti Pratap/

VRO/Gummada as mediators and that at about 07.00 a.m he along with mediators,ASI- 4 431 and P.C.530 reached near river bank of Nagavali located in southern direction of

Kuneru village and that there they opened the seized property and took samples out of them and affixed identification slips on the samples on which he along with mediators gave their signatures and that the remaining case property is destroyed and that they took photographs of the case property before and after destruction and that they drafted

Mediators report.

14. In his cross examination P.W.2 admitted that the crime number and details of seized property are not mentioned in the said photographs to state that they belong to this case property.

15.In his chief examination P.W.3 deposed in the same lines as PW1. PW3 further deposed that after informing the grounds of arrest he arrested the accused and proceeded to their police station along with accused and seized property and released the accused after issuing 41-A Cr.P.C notice. That basing on the occurrence report he registered a case in Cr.No.02/2017, u/sec.270 and 273 of IPC of Komarada P.s and send the original FIR to the Court. That after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

16 P.W.3, in his cross examination stated that it is not mentioned in Ex.P.2 about the manufacturing date and costs of the seized property separately. P.w.3 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and that he did not try to secure village officials or revenue authorities.

17. Sections 270 and 273 of IPC are reads as follows:

“270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life:-

Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

18.273. Sale of noxious food or drink:- Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 5 description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

19. The essential ingredient to be proved for the offence under section 270 of IPC is that the act attributed to the accused which constitutes the offence must be shown as likely to spread disease which is both infectious and dangerous to life. In this case, the allegation is that the accused illegally possessed the above mentioned tobacco products with a view to sell them. Hence, the elements of Section 270 of IPC are conspicuously absent as there is no question of spreading any disease or infection.

20.To bring home guilt of the accused u/s 273 of IPC, the prosecution is to prove - -that the accused sold or offered or exposed for sale an article o food or drink -that article of food or drink has been rendered noxious or has become unfit for food or drink -that during the sale or offering for sale or exposing for sale he knew the article of food or drink to be noxious or has been reason to believe so.

21. So, the adulteration rendering the food noxious is punishable u/s 273 of IPC.

What is punishable under this section is the sale of noxious articles as food or drink and not the mere sale of a noxious article.

22.Though tobacco products are noxious to health, they are not sold as food or drink to come under the purview of Section 273 of IPC.

23.Admittedly, there are no independent witnesses to the case of prosecution. PWs1 and 3 stated that they tried to secure mediators but in vain, but they categorically admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. According to Sec.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. Though the scene of offence is a busy locality, the officials failed to secure independent witnesses for the reasons best known to them. When the officials failed to secure independent witnesses, the search and seizure is doubtful.

6

24. So, there is no cogent and reliable evidence from any of the prosecution witnesses or from Exhibits P1, P2 and P.3 that accused is in possession of tobacco products without any authorization and permit with a view to sell them.

25. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 270,273 of IPC.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 270 and 273 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under

Section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code M.O.1 sample packet of Meeraj Khaini shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for

Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thou sand only) under section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of March, 2019.

. Sd/-Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence P.W.1 :- K.Rajesh, Police Constable. - None – P.W.2 :- M.Rajesh, S.I of Police P.w.3:- P.Dinakar, S.I of Police. Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 is the mediators report along with CD and photos, dated 04.03.2019 Ex.P.2 is occurrence report dated 27.01.2017 Ex.P.3 is original First Information Report, dated 27.01.2017. For Defence - NIL. Material Objects Marked M.O.1 is sample packet of Meeraj Khaini.

Sd/-Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram. //true copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, 7

Parvathipuram

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PARVATHIPURAM.

Date of Offence:: 27.01.2017 Date of Report or Complaint: 27.01.2017 Date of Apprehension of Accused: 27.01.2017 Date of release on bail, if any: U/sec.41(1)(a) Cr.P.C 27.01.2017 Date of Commencement of Trial: 07-03-2019 Date of close of Trial: 26-03-2019 Date of Sentence or other order : 29-03-2019 _______________________________________________________________ Explanation for delay and remarks : Several Adjournments were taken by both the parties for producing their evidence ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.103/2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Parvathipuram and the same was transferred to this court ie., Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram.-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram

Complainant :- State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarada Police Station in Cr.No.02/2017.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Name of the accused, Father’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Residence & Mandal

Subuddi Ramesh, S/o. Krishna Rao, age 30 years, Kancharapalem, Babujinagar, Visakahapatnam =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Offence : Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life U/Sec.270 of IPC. Sale of noxious food or drink U/Sec.273 of IPC.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 270 and 273 of IPC.

Sentence Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 270 and 273 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code M.O.1 is sample packet of Meeraj Khaini shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. The accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thou sand only) under section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code to appear

before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Sd/-Smt.Dr.K.Sarada,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

-cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Parvathipuram.