Sri K. V. Chandra Shekar Rao

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

On this Friday, the 30 th day of November, 2018.

Present: Sri K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao, Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar. FAC, JMFC Kodangal

C.C.No.117 of 2012

In

Crime No.29 of 2012

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Doulathabad. …Complainant

And

Sailu S/o. Balappa, age 22 years, caste: Jandra, Occ: Driver, R/o.Imdapur village of Doulathabad Mandal. …Accused. -o0o-

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 23.11.2018 in the presence of .A.P.P. for the State and of Sri A.V. Anand, Counsel Advocate. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 379 of IPC and sec. 27/35 of AP Walta Act.

.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 17.5.2012, at 6:15 am, the informant/LW-1 Anjaiah lodged a report alleging that on 16.5.2012 at 7:00 pm, he received a reliable information that the sand is being transporting illegally for which he along with LW-2 Venkataiah PC 2213 and LW-3 Ravi,

PC 1253 rushed to Imdapur village of Doulathabad Mandal and saw one tractor bearing No. AP22W4209 in the outskirts of Imdapur village, which was proceeding to Imdapur from Kudurmalla rivulet. On enquiry, the driver revealed his name as mentioned in the charge sheet as accused and 2 failed to show the permission transport to the sand. Then while taking the tractor to the police station on the way the tyre got punctured and in the meanwhile the accused fled away from the place. Then they brought the tractor to the police station with the help of others after getting it repaired.

Basing on the report LW-6 C. Nagaiah, SI of police registered a case and issued FIR and also recorded the statements of LW-1 to LW-3 and conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of LW-4 K. Mogulappa and

LW-5 N. Chinna Pakirappa and seized the tractor and trolley bearing No.

AP22W 4210. On 17.5.2012, at 12:30 pm, the accused was arrested anat his village and on interrogation the accused confessed the guilt and LW-6 conducted confession and recovery panchanama in the presence of LW-4 and LW-5. The accused also revealed that the owner of the tractor is one

Pilli Gundappa who is no more on 12.5.2018. Then he effected the arrest of accused by following due procedure and produced him in the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4. My predecessor in office took the cognizance of the offences U/S.379 of IPC and sec. 27/35 of AP Walta Act against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused the copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

6. Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for offence U/Sec.

379 of IPC and sec. 27/35 of AP Walta Act read over the contents to him in Telugu for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 as documentary evidence.

8. Pw-1 who was working as VRO on the day of incident he stated that he received information from PS Doulathabad, that PW-5 and LW-3 3 caught hold the tractor while transporting the sand illegally without having licence, then he along with LW-3 and PW-5 went to Imdapur rivulet and found a tractor and trolley bearing No. AP22W 4209 and AP22W4210 loaded with sand. As the tyre of the tractor punctured they shifted the tractor after repair to PS Doulathabad. Ex.P1 is the report.

9. PW-2 and PW-3 who are the panch witnesses to the confession and recover of the above said tractor and trailer turned hostile and stated that they do not know anything about this case and stated that the police did not conduct any panchanama in the presence and obtained their signature on white papers. They identified their signatures on Ex.P5 which are Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

10. PW-4 who sis the investigation officer he stated the similar facts as mentioned in the charge sheet and got marked Ex.P4 is FIR, and Ex.P5 is confession and seizure panchanama.

11. PW-5 who is constable stated that on 16.5.2012, PW-4 received reliable information that some persons are transporting the sand illegally from Imdapur village stream. Then as per the instructions of PW-4 he along with PW-1 and LW-3 went to Imdapur village and saw one tractor and trailer loaded with sand, then they questioned the driver about the permission to transport the sand, but the driver failed to show any permission as such while they were shifting the sand loaded with tractor to PS Doulathabad on the way the tyre got busted and while repairing the tractor the driver of the tractor fled away, then with the help of another driver they brought the tractor to PS Doulathabad and handed over to

PW-4.

14. The accused is examined under sec. 313 Cr.PC read over the incriminating evidence appearing against him for which he denied and 4 reported no defence evidence on his side.

15. Heard learned counsel for the accused and learned Lr.A.P.P.

16. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offences U/Secs. 379 of IPC and sec. 27/35 of AP Walta

Act beyond reasonable doubt?

15. Perused the evidence on record, in this case PW-1, PW-5 and LW-3 on the instructions of PW-4 went to Imdapur village that one person is transporting the sand illegally from Kudurmalla rivulet but none of the witnesses stated at what time they caught the tractor driver while he was transporting the sand illegally without having any permission. Moreover

PW-1 did not state anything about the accused in his chief examination.

PW-1 further admitted that he did not visit Imdapur rivulet along with LW- 3 and PW-5 and found the tractor loaded with sand on 16.5.2012. He further admitted that he do not know the name of the person who repaired the tyre of the tractor. Hence, the evidence of PW-1 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

PW-5 another eye witness and crucial witness stated that when they caught the tractor driver he revealed his name and particulars as mentioned in the charge sheet, but while shifting the tractor to the police station it got punctured and while getting it repair the accused fled away.

On this aspect what prevented PW-5 and also LW-3 who are the constables along with PW-1 went to Imdapur village and caught the accused failed to catch him while fleding away for which no reasons are given by PW-1, PW- 5 and also PW-4, hence the evidence of PW-5 becomes doubtful and cannot be believed. Moreover, the panch witnesses Ex.P5 did not support the case of prosecution to show that the tractor and trailer was recovered by PW-4 under the cover of panchanama by admitting the guilt, hence in view of 5 the about discussion facts the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence U/Sec.

379 of IPC and sec. 27/35 of AP Walta Act and he is acquitted U.Sec 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e., tractor and trailer as above mentioned in the charge sheet which was deposited in the court vide CP

No.194/12 and given to its owner Pili Pedda Narsimulu in interim custody vide order passed ion Cr.M.P. No. 962/12 dt.25.6.2012 shall be retained with him and become absolute after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall been force for a period of six months from today as for the sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30th day of November, 2018.

Spl. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Proh. & Excise Court, Mahabubnagar.

FAC JMFC Kodangal

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW-1: Anjaiah, Complainant

PW-2: K. Mogulappa Panch for Ex.P5

PW-3: L. Chinna Pakirappa Panch for Ex.P5

Pw-4: C. Nagaiah Investigation Officer

Pw-5: Venkataiah, PC 2213 Eye witness

For Defence: Nil

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: is report

Ex.P2: is signature of PW-2 on Ex.P5.

Ex.P3: is signature of PW-3 on Ex.P5.

EX.P4: is FIR 6

Ex.P5: is confession and recover panchanama

For Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked -NIL-

JFCM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

Present: ­ Sri. K.V. Chandrashekar Rao,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Proh. & Excise, Court, Mahabubnagar FAC, JMFC Kodangal.

Dated, this the 30th day of November, 2018

C.C. No.126 of 2018

Between: State: Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Kosgi.

…Complainant AND Edigi Narsimulu S/o. Hanmanthu goud, age 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bapanpally village of Damaragidda Mandal. ….Accused

This case is coming on 30­11­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Yadaiah, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Venkataiah, advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Sub­Inspector, Pargi filed this case against the accused vide PCOR No.1566/2014­15 of his station alleging that accused had committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on dt. 30.8.2015, about 4:30 pm, while PW­3 along with his staff conducing route watch at tank bund of Bapanpally village of Damaragidda Mandal. On seeing them one person fled away from the spot by leaving one plastic can, then PW­3 went there and observed said can and open it lid. PW­3 identified I.D liquor in the said plastic can containing about 5 lits. On enquiry, PW­3 knows that ran away person name as Edigi Narsimulu S/o. Hanmanthu.

PW­3 had drawn two samples each of 350 ml and seized under cover of panchanama by pasting sign chits in the presence of PW­1 and PW­2.

Basing on panchanama, PW­3 registered case in PCOR.No.1566/2014­ 15, dt. 30.3.2015, for the offence U/sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition

Act. PW­3 deposited the sample bottles before the court vide CPR

No.1316/15, dt.26.5.2015 with a request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis. The remaining contraband was deposited before the

Dy. Commissioner of P&E, Mahabubnagar for confiscation. The CE 2 report vide No.3329/2015/43, dt.11.9.2015 denotes the sample as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. On 11.9.2015, PW­3 apprehended the accused at his house and brought to excise station and produced him before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand. On completion of investigation, PW­3 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP

Prohibition Act. 

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused, on dt.17.3.2018. On appearance of accused, copies of documents as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

4.Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for which, he denied the offence. A charge framed U/Sec. 7(A) R/W 8(e) of AP. Prohibition Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs­1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. MO.1 is sample bottle of 350 ml I.D.

Liquor.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence. 

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8.The point for determination is__

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point:­ In order to establish its case, as already noted, prosecution has examined PW­1 to PW­3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. MO­1 is sample bottle of 350 ml ID liquor. PW­1 and PW2 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence­cum­seizure panchanama. PW­3 is the

Investigating Officer of the case. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW­2 on the scene of offence­cum­seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is the scene of offence­ cum­seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is PCOR, and Ex.P4 is CE report.

3

10.Upon perusal of prosecution evidence, it is apparent that PW­1 and

PW­2 panch witnesses for Scene of Offence­Cum­Seizure Panchanama totally turned hostile. In their evidence, PW­1 and PW­2 deposed that excise police obtained their signature/thumb impressions on white papers without disclosing any purpose. Except Ex.P1 signature, nothing can be taken from the evidence of PW­2 against the accused. As such,

Ex.P2 panchanama remains doubtful.

11.It is the case of prosecution that PW­3 received reliable information about the sales of ID liquor at Bapanpally village, but, he did not whisper the names of persons through whom he learnt such information.

According to PW­3, on search of the premises, he found 5 lts of ID liquor, at the scene of offence and seized the ID liquor, in the presence of panch witnesses. As already noted, PW­1 and PW­2 panch witnesses did not support the case.

12.Evidence of PW­3 Investigating Officer is replica of his charge sheet. From his cross­examination, learned counsel for defence elicited that he did not mention the boundaries of scene of offence. Admittedly, the samples were not deposited in the court within the prescribed period of 24 hours, and that the alleged I.D liquor can be easily procured from the market. Further, PW­3 did not file any documents to establish depositing of remaining contraband before Dy. Commissioner, P&E,

Mahabubnagar. Adding to it, PW­3 did not examine the persons from whom he came to know about the particulars of accused. In these circumstances, argument of defence attracts the attention of this court. If really, PW­3 visited the scene of offence nothing would prevent him from drawing rough sketch and mentioning the boundaries or land marks of scene of offence to identify it.

13.Now, it is clear that except the evidence of PW­3 interested witness, prosecution does not have any other evidence on record. Testimony of

PW­3 creates doubt as he could not deposit the sample bottles in court within the prescribed period of 24 hours. More so, PW­3 failed to examine the staff members who accompanied him to show the possession of ID liquor by the accused. Further, no details were brought on record showing the fate of remaining contraband. Adding strength to this view, procedure adopted by PW­3 in sealing the sample bottles was also not described in Ex.P2 Panchanama. Under AP Prohibition Act, it is mandatory to follow certain procedure to seal the sample bottles.

4

14.It is pertinent to mention here that except the panchanama, no further investigation, i.e., examination of neighbours of the scene of offence was done. In these circumstances, when the seizure of alleged contraband itself is not established by the prosecution, Ex.P4 C.E report does not help the prosecution. In that view of the matter, this Court opines that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence with which he is charged and accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) R/W 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed U/Sec.437­A of

Cr.P.C. MO­1 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on my personal computer, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2018.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kodangal

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW­1: Kavali Narsappa.None. PW­2: Nakka Basappa. PW­4: K.E Nathaniel, P&ESI 

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW­2 Nakka Basappa on scene of offence­cum­ seizure Panchanama, Dt.30.3.2015 Ex.P2: Scene of offense­cum­seizure panchanama, Dt. 30.3.2015. Ex.P3: PCOR, Dt.30.3.2015. Ex.P4: CE Report, Dt.6.6.2015.

For Defence: ­Nil­

JFCM

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KODANGAL

This the 30 th day of November, 2018

Present: Sri.D.Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

KODANGAL.

M.C.No. 30 OF 2018

Between:

1) Mudavath Mothilal R/o- Chettupally Tanda Bomraspet Mandal

Petitioner

A n d.,

Mudavath Jaipal naik R/o- Angadiraichur village of Kodangal Mandal vikarabad district

...Respondent.

* * *

This case is coming up before me for hearing on 30-11-2018 in the presence of Sri.,Advocate for the petitioner and Sri , advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:-

: O R D E R :

Learned APP filed petition U/Sec 321 Cr.P.C. Seeking permission to withdraw the case against A1to A4 for the offenced u/Sec 3 and 4

DP Act 1961 in view of compromise the same is permitted and A1to

A4 are discharged under sec 321 Cr.P.c. for the offence U/Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act, vide orders permit is CrlMp No 1370/2018 DEfacto complainant/Victim present A1to A4 present They submitted that she is residing along with her husband A1 and leading happy marital life.

She reported no objection and reported compromise Accordingly their compromise is recorded. Perused the record the observation period of 90 days already passed in accordance with their terms of compromise lA1 to A4 are acquitted u/Sec 320(8) of Cr.P.c. for the offence u/Sec 498-A of IPC Bail bonds of A1to A4 stands canceled.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of

November,2018.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class

Kodangal.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIST CLASS Magistrate 

KODANGL

On this the 31st of November ,2018

Present: Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kodangal.

EOP 01 of 2013

Between:

Sunitha Bai W/o Ragavender Rao aged about 42 years Occu: House hold

R/o Chinna nandigamma village of Kodangal Mandal Mandal ,Vikarabad

District. 

….Complainant 

AND 1.Chidiri Meghamala W/o vijayakumar age 45 years Occu: House hold R/o china Nandigamma village of Kodangal Mandal Vikarabad District.

...Accused 

ORDER.

Petitioner counsel absent no representation on premise of pronounced order evidence memo the EOP is dismissed for pronouncing

Pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 30th day of

Novemmber ,2018

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kodangal