Kanchi Srinivas

1

APSR060007842017

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) SOMPETA

Present:- Sri. K.SRINIVAS,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Sompeta.

Friday, this the 21st day of November, 2025

O.S.No. 77 of 2017

Between: Palliboina Laxmi, W/o Nageswara Rao, age 37 years, House hold duties, R/o D.No. 7-2-187, Gandhipeta, Baruva Village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. Plaintiff

And : Pondara Rushi, S/o Basu, age 51 years, Agriculturist, R/o D.No. 1-4, Santoshimatadevi Colony, Baruva Village, Sompeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. Defendant

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, and K.

Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for defendant; and same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for seeking declaration of the plaint “C” Schedule property and for recovery of possession, permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint “C” schedule property and for costs of the suit.

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

2

2. Brief averments of the plaint as follows:

The plaint schedule property was a thatched house and vacant site originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff, namely Jennila Hemavathi. The plaintiff and her family members were in possession and enjoyment of the property. The mother of the plaintiff, out of love and affection, executed a registered settlement deed on 30.11.2001 and settled the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaint schedule property was a thatched house and vacant place measuring 20½ feet from East to West and 69 feet North to South. The possession of the property was delivered in favour of the plaintiff.

3.The plaintiff, having accepted the gift deed, was put in possession of the plaint schedule. After sometime, she obtained permission from the concerned

Panchayat authorities, removed the old thatched house and constructed a slab roofed house measuring 10½ feet East to West and 69 feet from North to South.

The reaming portion on the western side, measuring 10 feet from East to West and 69 feet North to South was kept for storing firewood and agricultural equipment.

The entire site covered by the old thatched house and also covered by the settlement deed is shown as “A” schedule property and the slab house shown as “B” schedule property. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire plaint schedule property.

4.In the last week of July 2017, during the temporary absence of the plaintiff, the defendant trespassed into a portion of the western side vacant site and occupied an area of 5 feet from East to West and 69 feet North to South, which described as plaint “C” schedule property and attempted to complete the constructions. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

5.The defendant filed written statement denying the material averments in the plaint. He contended that he purchased a vacant site measuring 9 feet from East to

West and 57 feet from North to South from Teppal Mohanrao under an unregistered

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

3 sale deed dated 09-03-2007, for a valid consideration of Rs.53,000/- and obtained possession of the vacant site and has been in possession and enjoyment of his property.

6.According to the defendant, the site on which he constructed the house was originally belonged to Teppal Mohanrao and a pathway an extent of 6 feet on East to West and 60 feet from North to South has situated towards the Eastern side of his vacant site. The pathway has been serving the communal purpose to ingress and engross to reach dry land and coconut gardens which situated towards the southern side of the plaintiff and defendant properties. After purchase, the defendant constructed a slab roofed house in his site.

7.The house of the plaintiff is situated beyond the pathway. The plaintiff in order to grab the pathway, filed this suit with forged and fabricated documents as if the plaint property is a width of 20½ feet. In fact, the plaintiff's house is not a width of 20½ feet and she has no right and title over the pathway. Therefore, the defendant never encroached any site for construction of his house. He further submitted that the construction of the said house was completed long back much prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, he prayed that the court dismiss the suit.

8.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of title over the plaint “C” Schedule suit?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery possession of

plaint “C” schedule site measuring East-West 5 feet and North -South

69 feet?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

5. if so,to what relief ?

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

4

9.During the court of trail, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and marked

Ex. A.1 to A.3 documents. The mother of the plaintiff was examined PW.2. The plaintiff was examined one witness namely A. Bhaskara Rao as PW.3.

10.The defendant himself was examined as DW.1 and marked EX.B1 to EX,B3 documents. The defendant was examined K. Joga Rao as DW.2 on his behalf.

11.Arguments of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff contended that she acquired the plaint schedule property from her mother who executed Ex.A.1 settlement deed dated 30-11-2001. There was a thatched house situated in the plant schedule along with a vacant site total extent of 20½ feet from East to West and 69 feet from North to South. Later the plaintiff constructed a slabbed roofed house admeasuring 10½ feet on East to West and 69 feet from North to South and kept the remaining site situated on the Western side of plaint “A” schedule house for storing fire wood. The defendant occupied an area of 5 feet from East to West and 69 feet North to South on the western side of the property. Therefore she filed this suit.

12. Arguments of the defendant.

The learned counsel for the defendant contended that he purchased a vacant site in an extent of 9 feet from East to West and 57 feet from North to South equal to 57 Sq. yards from Teppala Mohana Rao, under an unregistered sale deed dated 09-03-2007. In said site, he had constructed his house and that he never encroached any site. The mother of the plaintiff had executed EX.A.1 settlement deed and shown 20½ feet on East to West and 69 feet from North to South, but the mother of the plaintiff only purchased 12½ cubits width of site. Hence he prays the court to dismiss the suit. In support of his contention he relied on judgment of

Honorable Supremen court S. Sarojini Amma VS V.P Sree Kumar, 2018(6) ALT

38(S.C).

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

5

13.Issue No.2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of title over

the plaint “C” Schedule suit?

PW.2 is the mother of the plaintiff. She filed her chief examination affidavit that the plaint schedule property was a thatched house along with a vacant site.

She purchased the same from Ganta Krishna Rao, under a registered sale deed

dated 28-04-1973, which is Ex.A.3. Since the date of purchase, she has been in

possession and enjoyment. PW.1 is the daughter of PW.2, out of love and affection,

PW.2 executed Ex.A.1 settlement deed.

14.Perused the Ex.A.3, registered sale deed dated 28-04-1973, shows that

PW.2 had purchased two items. One item is a thatched hut for an extent of 10 cubits from East to West and 35 cubits from North to South.

15.Item No.2 is vacant site for an extent of 2½ cubits from East to West and 35 cubits from North to South. Therefore, PW.2 purchased a total 12½ cubits on East to West and 35 cubits from North to South. Therein a thatched hut was situated.

16.As seen from EX.A.3, it can be observed that PW.2 was purchased only 18¾ feet from East to West and 52½ feet from North to South. But PW.2 executed

Ex.A.1 settlement deed and settled 20½ feet from East to West and 69 feet from

North to South.

17.PW.2 executed EX.A.1 settlement deed in favour of her daughter and settled the property more then what she had herself purchased from her vendor Ganta

Krishna Rao. On perusal of EX.A.1 settlement deed, it is mentioned that PW.2 acquired the Ex.A.1 property from her parents and the original document is not available with her at the time of execution of Ex.A.1. Therefore, it is clear that as on execution of EX.A.1, EX.A.3 sale deed is not available with PW.2. In such

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

6 circumstances, how PW.2 executed EX.A.1 settlement deed and conveyed 20½ feet from East to West and 69 feet from North to South.

18.The evidence of PW.2 is silent about on which document she verified before execution of EX.A.1 settlement deed in respect of extent and boundaries. It is the evidence of the PW.1 that her mother got measured the property and executed

EX.A.1. However, no evidence on record to show that PW.2 measured the property

before execution of EX.A.1 settlement deed. Further the pleading of the PW.1 is

contra to the EX.A.3.

19.PW.1 contended that she constructed a slab roofed house in 10½ feet by leaving 10 feet on the western side. But PW.2 acquired only 18¾ feet (12½ cubits) width of property through Ex.A3 sale deed, which was later settled in favour of her daughter. in such circumstances, PW.1 after constructing her house has only 8¾ feet of site but not 10 feet. However no evidence was adduced by PW.1 that she constructed her house in 10½ feet site.

20. PW.2 in her cross examination, stated that there is a vacant portion of 4 cubits in between the her property and the defendant. Further there is a Gorji of 2½ cubits in width and 35 cubits length on the western side of the house. So, it is clear that there is a vacant site of 2½ cubits only situated on the western side of the plaint “B” schedule house and a vacant site of 6 feet exists between the property of the plaintiff and the defendant.

21.PW.3 in his cross examination stated that there is vacant site of 10 feet between the slabbed house and western side boundary. But in Ex.A.3 sale deed there are two items total width of 12½ feet from East to West. According to PW.3 a thatched house was situated in the entire 21 feet. About 9 to 10 year ago PW.1 constructed a slabbed house in 10½ feet leaving the vacant site of the western side. PW.2 neither saw Ex.A.1 nor Ex.A.3 sale deed and he did not know the exact

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

7 extent of the plaint schedule. Therefore the evidence of the PW.3 is no way helpful to PW.1. It is the case of the defendant that there is a 6 feet of path way is exist between the property of the plaintiff and defendant and the same was admitted by

PW.2 in her cross examination. Further no evidence on record to show that the plaint schedule property is a width of 20½ feet on East to West. Assuming for sake of argument, if really PW.1 has constructed her house in a width of 10½ feet, later she only has 8 feet site on the western side, but not 10 feet. There is a discrepancy in Ex.A.1. In fact PW.2 purchased Ex.A.1 site at a length of 35 cubits equal to 52½ feet, but she claiming 69 feet on South to North. Thus the plaintiff has failed to prove that she has right over 5 feet on East to West and 69 feet from North to

South on the western side of her house. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered against the plaintiff.

22.Issue No.1 and 4 answered together:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

Ex.A.2 is tax receipt relating to house of PW.1. In the present case there was no dispute that after obtaining EX.A.1 settlement deed, PW.1 has constructed a house in the plaint Schedule property. Ex.B1 is an unregistered sale deed dated 09-03-2007. The defendant sent Ex.B1 to the District Registrar, Srikakulam and paid stamp duty penalty. Therefore EX.B1 document is admissible in evidence, through Ex.B1, DW.1 acquired vacant site for an extent of 9 feet from East to West and 57 feet from North to South, which equal to 57 Sq.Yards.

23.PW.1 in her cross examination deposed as follows:

My mother purchased the suit schedule property from Ganta Krishna

Rao in the year 1973. I cannot say the month.

In the present case, Ex.A3 is not disputed by the defendant, but the pleadings of the plaintiff is silent about Ex.A.3, in which manner the mother of the

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

8 plaintiff acquired the plaint schedule. It is not the case that PW.2 has disputing the execution of Ex.A.1. Therefore the Judgment relied upon by the defendant in

Sarojini Amma Supra case is not applicable to present case on hand.

24.PW.1 in her cross examination deposed as follows:

The thatched house in the suit schedule property used to be 20½ feet in

width.

But Ex.A.3 goes to shows that the thatched house situated in item No.1 an extent of 10 cubits (15 feet) on East to West and 35 cubits from North to South. No documentary evidence to show that thatched house was consist of 20½ feet. But

Ex.A.3, it is clear that the thatched house was situated 15 feet which is item No.1 and item No.2 is the vacant site of 2½ cubits equal to 3¾ feet. Therefore adjacent to thatched house PW.1 has only a vacant site of 3¾ feet which equal to 2½ cubits.

25.PW.1 in her further cross examination deposed as follows:

The property of the Pandra Rushi(Defendant) on the western side of the

plaint schedule. There is some open space in between newly constructed

house and the property of the defendant. The defendant is having the site on the western side since my childhood.

26.As seen from the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, it can observed that adjacent to the Western side boundary a path way of 6 feet is situated. As already stated earlier there is no evidence was adduced by PW.1, that she constructed house after leaving the 10 feet on the western side of the plaint schedule. Therefore PW.1 has failed to prove her possession over the plaint “C” Schedule property.

Accordingly, Issue No.1 and 4 are answered against the plaintiff.

27.Issue No.3.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery possession of

plaint “C” schedule site measuring East-West 5 feet and North -South

69 feet?

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

9

Item No. 1 and 2 of Ex.A.3 are consist of 12½ cubits, which equal to 18¾ feet, but the schedule in Ex.A.1 was mentioned as 20½ feet from East to West and 69 feet from North to South. PW.1 in her cross examination admitted that there is a open place width of 5½ feet between the house of the plaintiff and defendant, which is a path way. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for to seek the recovery of excess of property what she actual acquired from her mother under Ex.A.3 sale deed. According Issue No.3 is answered against the plaintiff.

28.IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in Open Court, this the 21st day of November, 2025.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: - PW1: Palliboina Laxmi

PW2: Jannela Hemavathi

PW3: Anangi Bhaskara Rao

FOR DEFENDANT: -

DW1: Pondara Rushi

DW2: Kalla Jeja Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -

Ex.A1:Registered Settlement deed dated 30-11-2001, executed by the mother of plaintiff, Jennila Hymavathi in favour of plaintiff.

EX.A2:House Tax Receipt for the year 2015-2016 issued by Gram Panchayt, Baruva in favour of plaintiff.

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

10

EX.A3:Registered sale deed dated 28-04-1973, executed by the Ganta Krishna Rao in favour of plaintiff.

FOR DEFENDANTS: -

Ex.B1:Unregistered sale deed, dated 09-03-2007, executed by Teppala Mohana Rao.

EX.B2:House tax receipts 2 in number in the name of the defendant.

EX.B3:Electrical bill and receipt in the name of the defendant.

KANCHIDigitally Signed by

KANCHI SRINIVAS

SRINIVAS

Date: 2025.11.21 17:00:05 +0530

APSR060005592023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SOMPETA.

PRESENT:- Sri K. Srinivas,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sompeta

Friday, this the 26th day of September, 2025.

C.C.No.90/2023

Between:

State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Sompeta. ……. Complainant

And:

Mediboyina Vijayalakshmi, W/o late Venkata Rao, age 48 years, R/o Veerabadrapuram, Haripuram, Mandasa Mandal, Srikakulam District ……. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22-09-2025 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. S. Lavanya

Chowdary , Advocate for Accused and upon hearing and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the SEB- Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Sompeta filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.255/2018 for the offence Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968.

2

2.The sum and substance of the prosecution case:

On 08-10-2018 at about 11.15 PM, PW.2, LW.3-T. Chandrasekhara Rao,

Excise Sub inspector and his staff proceed to Haripuram Junction, Mandasa

Mandal, at that time the accused was found with one polythene cover. Due to suspicion LW.3 detained the accused and on verification 7 bottles of Officer choice

Whisky each 180 ML were found in the bag. The accused confessed that she purchased liquor bottles from Liquor shops at Haripuram, then LW.3 separated one bottle and pasted Identity slips. The entire seizure and arrest cover under occurrence report. Later a case in crime No.255/2018 was registered Under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968. LW.3 sent the sample bottle to chemical examination. As per chemical examination report the contraband which was seized by LW.3 is Indian Made liquor. After completion of investigation PW.1 filed a charge sheet was filed.

3.The Cognizance was taken for the offence Under Section 34(a) of AP Excise

Act 1968 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused copies of case documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined Under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The charge has been framed Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 explained to her in Telugu language for which she denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and Mo.1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence leveled against her, for which she 3 denied and reported no defence evidence and no documents are marked on her behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of the prosecution as well as accused.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10. P O I N T :

LW.3-T. Chandrasekhara Rao, Excise Sub inspector is the investigation officer, who detected the offence. On 08-10-2018 at 11.15 AM, PW.2, LW.3-T.

Chandrasekhara Rao and his staff proceed to Haripuram Junction, Mandasa

Mandal. At that time LW.3 noticed the accused who arrived to scene by holding one polythene bag at her hand. When the accused tried to ran away from spot, LW.3 detained her and found 7 bottles of Officers choice Whiskey each 180 ml. Then lifted one bottle for chemical analysis. The accused gave confession statement to

LW.3 that she purchsed liquor bottles from Liquor shop at Haripuram Village.

However no women police officer participated in the raid to arrest the accused.

11.PW.1 has received Ex.P1 report from LW.3. It is a well settled principal of law that the investigation agency should joint independent witness at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and failed to do so, in such a situation caste a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case, admittedly independent witness were available at the time of recovery. But they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. According to LW.3 he instructed one constable to pickup mediators, but no one come forward to act as a mediators. This explanation does not inspire confidence, because the investigation officer must have proceeded against them under relevant provision of law. LW.3-T.

Chandrasekhar, Excise Sub inspector being the investigation officer entitled ask 4 any person to join the investigation and on refusal by a person LW.3 can take action against such a person under the law. The Excise officials who are only the witness examined in a case. It is not a case that LW.3-T. Chandrasekhar, made sincerer efforts to secure independent witness. In the instance case there is no evidence on record that seizure was made before the independent witness. No independent witness as witnessed the search and seizure. The lame explanation given by LW.3-

T. Chandrasekhar, it self is not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused. Because in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Under there circumstance, it is unsafe to convict the accused. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly the point is answered.

12. In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable Under

Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 and she is acquitted Under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remained in force for a period of six months as contemplated Under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of September, 2025.

Sd/- Sri K. Srinivas

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : T. Venkata Appalanaidu P.W.2 : N. Krishna Rao

FOR DEFENCE: NIL 5

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1/ : Original FIR in Crime No.255/2018 dated: 08-10-2018. Ex.P-2/ : Letter of Advice Ex.P-3/ : Chemical analysis report. Ex.P-4/ : Occurrence report, dated 08-10-2018

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Sd/- Sri K. Srinivas

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta 6

APSR060005592023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Srikakulam Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SOMPETA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offenceReport or complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08-10-2018 08-10-201808-10-2018 08-10-2018 (41-A CrPC) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16-07-2025 22-09-2025 26-09-2025 Due to non production of witness ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment of Calendar Case No. 90/2023 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division )-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complainant: State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Sompeta. in Crime No.255/2018 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Husband’s Name Age Village Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mediboyina Vijalakshmi late Venkate Rao, 48 Veerabadrapuram Mandasa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence: Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable

Under Sections 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 and she is acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remained in force for a period 7 of six months as contemplated Under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Sri K. Srinivas

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sompeta

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

// True Copy //

Sd/- Sri K. Srinivas

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sompeta

APSR060004212022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SOMPETA.

PRESENT:- Sri K. Srinivas,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sompeta

Friday, this the 26th day of September, 2025.

C.C.No.262/2022

Between:

State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Sompeta. ……. Complainant

And:

Manchupalli Govindu, S/o Venkanna, age 19 years, Sompeta Village and mandal, Srikakulam District.……. Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 24-09-2025 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. N.S.Vijay

Kumar , Advocate for Accused and upon hearing and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector,

Sompeta filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 148/2020 for the offence Under Sections 7-A r/w 8-e of AP Prohibition Act 1995.

2

2.The sum and substance of the prosecution case:

On 27-04-2020 at about 11.00 AM, PW.1 along with his staff conducting route watch at Pathaleswara Temple, Basubajeeru, Kanchili Mandal. There raid party found the accused with one polythene bag at his right shoulder. On seeing raid party, the accused tried to ran away, Immediately PW.1 detained the accused and on interrogation, the accused confessed that he carrying ID arrack. On verification, said polythene bag is having 10 liters of ID arrack. The accused further confessed that he purchased said ID arrack from unknown person at hill area and selling the same to get easy money. Then PW.1 separated 180 ML ID liquid and lifted in a separate bottle for chemical analysis and pasted Identity slips with the signature of the accused and raid party. Subsequently a case in Crime No.148/2020 was registered Under Sections 7-A r/w 8-e of AP Prohibition Act 1995. PW.1 issued 41-A

CrPC notice to accused. The contraband which seized by PW.1 is distilled ID arrack and unfit for human consumption. After collection of documentary evidence LW.5-

T.V.Appalanaidu filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The Cognizance was taken for the offence Under Sections 7-A r/w 8-e of AP

Prohibition Act 1995 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined Under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. The charge has been framed Under Sections 7-A r/w 8-e of AP Prohibition Act 1995 explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 and MO.1 3

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence leveled against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence and no documents are marked on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of the prosecution as well as accused.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence Under Sections 7-A r/w 8-e of AP Prohibition Act 1995

beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. P O I N T :

PW.1 is the investigation officer, on 27-04-2020 he received information, then he along with his staff proceed to Basubanjeeru Village. There he observed the accused found with polythene bag. Further he detained the accused and seized 10 liters of ID arrack, separated 180 Ml of ID arrack for chemical analysis. But the identity slips which was affix to MO.1 are not having signature of the accused.

11.It is a well settled principal of law that the investigation agency should joint independent witness at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and failed to do so, in such a situation caste a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case, admittedly independent witness were available at the time of recovery. But they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. According to PW.1 he instructed one constable to pickup mediators, but no one come forward to act as a mediators. This explanation does not inspire confidence, because the investigation officer must have proceeded against them under relevant provision of law. PW.1 being the investigation officer entitled ask any person to join the investigation and on refusal by a person PW.1 can take action against such a person under the law. The police officials who are only the witness examined in a case. It is not a case that PW.1, made sincerer efforts to secure 4 independent witness. In the instance case there is no evidence on record that seizure was made before the independent witness. No independent witness as witnessed the search and seizure. The lame explanation given by PW.1, it self is not sufficient to prove the guilty of the accused. Because in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Under there circumstance, it is unsafe to convict the accused. Thus the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

12. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under

Sections 7-A r/w 8-e of AP Prohibition Act 1995 and he is acquitted Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated Under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of September, 2025.

Sd/- Sri K. Srinivas

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE: P.W.1 : S. Dharma Rao NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1/ : Occurrence report, dated 27-04-2020. NIL Ex.P-2/ : Original FIR in Crime No.148/2020 dated: 27-04-2020 Ex.P-3/ : Letter of Advice Ex.P-4/ : Chemical analysis report.

5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 : one Sample bottle

Sd/- Sri K. Srinivas

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta 6

APSR060004212022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of Srikakulam Calendar of Cases tried by PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SOMPETA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offenceReport or complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27-04-2020 27-04-2020 27-04-2020 27-04-2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19-04-2024 24-09-2025 26-09-2025 Due to non production of witness ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment of Calendar Case No. 262/2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division )-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complainant: State represented by the Special Enforcement Bureau Inspector, Sompeta in Crime No.148/2020 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father’s Name Age Village Mandal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manchupalli govindu Venkanna 19 Sompeta Sompeta -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence: Under Sections 7-A r/w 8-e of AP Prohibition Act 1995

Finding: Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

Under Sections 7-A r/w 8-e of AP Prohibition Act 1995 and he is acquitted Under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a 7 period of six months as contemplated Under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Sri K. Srinivas

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sompeta

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

// True Copy //

Sd/- Sri K. Srinivas

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-

cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sompeta