Karthik Reddy T

1 CC No. 687 of 2025

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

WANAPARTHY

Monday the 25th day of August, 2025

Present: Sri T.Karthik Reddy, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Wanaparthy

CC No. 687 of 2025

Between: State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Wanaparthy.

...Complainant

AND

Mudavath Dhanni W/o Tholla, Age: 55 years, Occp: Agriculture, R/o: H. No. 74/3, Laxmi Thanda, Gopalpet mandal.

...Accused

Offence:: U/s. 7(A) r/w. 8 (e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 Plea of accused:: Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court :: Found not guilty Sentence or Order :: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. Any unmarked property or any property seized by the agency of the prosecution shall be disposed of by following the due procedure as contemplated under the Cr.P.C, 1973

***

This case came before me for final hearing on 20-08-2025 in the presence of Ld. APPO for the State and of Sri K. Chander Naik, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- 2 CC No. 687 of 2025

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Wanaparthy filed charge sheet in PCOR No. 151 of 2023 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

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

On 08-09-2023, at about 09:00AM, the LW3/Sri. G. Kalyan, Prohibition and Excise Inpspector (DTF), Wanaparthy along with staff proceeded to Laxmi

Thanda and there secured the presence of two mediators, stating that they got reliable information about the illegal sale, manufacture and possession of illicitly distilled (ID) liquor near the house of accused person in the above said

Thanda and requested i.e., LW1/M. Thaurya and LW2/M. Gaurya to act as mediators. Thereafter, they reached the Laxmi Thanda, found the suspected place i.e., the house of the accused where they found one woman who was suspiciously walking around her house with one bag. On seeing the P&E officials, she tried to escape from the scene of offence with a bag, but P&E officials stopped and caught hold of her. Then, the LW3 took the bag and on opening it, the LW3 found 02 liters bottle filled with liquor and on opening of the said bottle, the LW3 found and confirmed it as ID Liquor, which was possessed by the accused illegally. On enquiry about the ID liquor, the accused confessed that the bottle belongs to herself and she sells the said ID Liquor for her livelihood. On enquiry, the accused revealed her name as Mudavath

Dhanni. Upon enquiry, she failed to produce any valid license or permit to sell the ID liquor. Thereafter, the LW3 drew two samples into two bottles from the said bottle, and each sample containing 350ml of ID liquor seized property as per the procedure in the presence of LW1 and LW2, seized the property under the cover panchanama.

3.During the further course of the investigation, the LW4/Smt. B.

Chandrakala, P&E SI registered a case in PCOR. No. 151/2023, under section 3 CC No. 687 of 2025 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused and issued issued notice under section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973 to the accused and one sealed sample sent to Government Lab for chemical analysis and submitted the case papers before this Hon’ble Court vide

CPR No. 262/2023, dated: 14-09-2023. The remaining property deposited in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mahabubnagar for confiscation as per the rule.

4.The chemical examiner, vide the report No. 6518/2023/11, dated:

22-09-2023, opined that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”.After completing the investigation,

LW5/Smt. S. Sunitha, P&E SI filed charge sheet under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

5.This court took cognizance for the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), 1973 / Section 230 of Bharathiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS), 2023.

6.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C (section 262 of

BNSS) and upon hearing, charges framed under section 7A read with 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The Learned APPO gave up the evidence of LW4.

Prosecution evidence closed.

8.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. (Section 351 of BNSS) for the incriminating material 4 CC No. 687 of 2025 available in the prosecution evidence against the accused to which she denied the truthfulness of the same and reported no defense.

9. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

10. Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/s. 7A r/w.8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?

11.According to the prosecution case, this is a case of illegal possession and sale of ID liquor, wherein PW3 received credible information about the illegal sale of ID liquor at Laxmi Thanda, then, the PW3 found the accused was walking suspiciously around her house and on seeing them, the accused tried to fled away with one bag, on opening it, the PW3 found 02 liters of bottle filled with ID liquor in the suspected house. In the presence of PW1 and PW2, conducted Scene of offence panchanama and seized 02 liters of ID liquor from accused and drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama/Ex.P2. One of the said sample was sent to FSL for chemical analysis, Chemical Examiner issued report/Ex.P4 and opined that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. After completing the investigation, PW4 filed charge sheet under section 7A read with 8(e) of

Telangana State Prohibition Act, 1995.

12.The PW1 and PW2, who are panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama stated that they do not know anything about this case. The panch witnesses (PW1 and PW2) stated that Excise Police have obtained the signature and thumb impression respectively on the paper without knowing the contents of it. The PW1 identified his signature/Ex.P1 on Ex.P2 and they denied the knowledge as to the contents of it.

13.In this case, PW1 and PW2 turned hostile, nothing could be elucidated by the prosecution during their cross examination.

5 CC No. 687 of 2025

14.The PW3 is the detecting officer, who conducted the Exihibit

P2/confession and seizure panchanama and he deposed during his chief examination that, on 08.09.2023 at 09:00 AM, he along with staff proceeded to

Laxmi Thanda upon receving a credible information about illegal sale, manufacture and possession of ID liquor and there secured the presence of panch witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2 and proceeded towards the house of the accused, upon seeing the Excise Officials, the accused tried to escape in possession of bag and she was nabbed by the staff. On checking the bag, the

PW3 found two liters of ID liquor which was possessed by the accused illegally and drawn two samples each 350 ml of ID liquor under the cover of panchanama in the presence PW1 and PW2 and followed the due process of seizure. The PW3 further deposed that, later, the case file was handed over to

LW4.

15.During the cross examination of PW3, he deposed that he did not check with the village elders in the Thanda pertaining to the alleged offence. The

PW3 further stated that he did not produce the details of the house ownership of the accused and did not seize the material used for preparation of contraband and also not specify the details of the two litre bottle mentioned in the Ex. P2.

16.The PW4 is the another Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet deposed in her chief examination that she received the case diary and panchanama from LW4, who was given up by the Ld. APPO in this case. The

PW4 further deposed that the LW4 sent the samples for chemical analysis and the chemical examiner issued Ex.P4/Chemical Analysis Report. Later, the

PW4 filed charge sheet.

17.During the cross examination of PW4, she deposed that she did not conduct any further investigation on receipt of the case diary and panchanama from LW4. The PW4 admitted that the date of issuance of Section 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused is not mentioned. But, the PW4 adds that PW3 6 CC No. 687 of 2025 mentioned the date in the Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice copy which is annexed to the charge sheet.

18.Upon perusal of the oral evidences of both PW3 and PW4, during their cross examination, PW3 stated that he did not produce the details of the house ownership of the accused and did not seize the material used for preparation of contraband and also enquired from where the raw material brought by the accused for manufacturing of the said ID liquor and also not specify the details of the two litre bottle mentioned in the Ex. P2. Further, PW3 did not enquire any independent witnesses in the nearby surroundings pertainng to this case.

Without having all the above details, it raises doubt on the credibility of the

Scene of offence panchanama, as PW1 and PW2 also stated that they do not know anything about this case.

19.The panch witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2 are not supporting the prosecution case, there is no evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW3 and

PW4 about the accused was in possession of ID liquor.

20.It is settled fact that the confession made before Excise Officials is not a valid proof of evidence and the same is held by Honourable High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine AP 1457. Hence, the confession recorded in the presence of

LW3 is not a valid confession unless it is corroborated by PW1 and PW2 i.e., panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama. However, PW1 and PW2 did not support the version of agency of Prosecution.

Therefore, the PW3 and PW4 sole testimony cannot be considered for convicting the accused. Hence, the guilt of the accused is not proved for the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt, as, the illegal possession of ID liquor or it’s sale by the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

7 CC No. 687 of 2025

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. Any unmarked property or any property seized by the agency of the prosecution shall be disposed of by following the due procedure as contemplated under the Cr.P.C, 1973.

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1 Mudavath Thaurya None PW.2 Mudavath Gaurya PW.3 G. Kalyan PW.4 S. Sunitha

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P1. is the signature of PW1 on Nil Confession and seizure panchanama. Ex.P2. is the Panchanama. Ex.P3. is the PCOR Ex.P4. is the Chemical Analysis Report

Material objects marked

NILL

Sd/-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy

Page 1 of 7OS.No. 283 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

WANAPARTHY

Tuesday, the 12th day of May, 2026

Present:- Sri T.Karthik Reddy Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

OS.No. 283 of 2025

Between Puduru Maheshwari W/o Late Puduru Ravinder Reddy, Age: 35 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.5-53, Gatla Khanapuram, Peddamandadi mandal, Wanaparthy district ….Plaintiff. AND

1. Puduru Pulla Reddy S/o Late Puduru Balakista Reddy, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.5-53, Gatla Khanapuram village, Peddamandadi mandal, Wanaparthy district

2. Puduru Nagi Reddy S/o Late Puduru Balakista Reddy, Age: 38 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.5-53, Gatla Khanapuram village, Peddamandadi mandal, Wanaparthy district. ….Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 06-05-2026 in the presence of

Sri Ravi Kumar counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants were set ex-parte. Upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusal of the material on record and matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following.

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed Under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 Code of Civil

Procedure (CPC) 1908 for Perpetual Injunction.

The Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

1. The plaintiff is the absolute owner and in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the agricultural land situated at Gatla Khanapuram village, Peddamandadi

Page 2 of 7OS.No. 283 of 2025 mandal, Wanaparthy district in Sy.No.38/1 to an extent of Ac.0-27 gts, Sy.No.46/2/2 to an extent of Ac.0-27 gts, Sy.No.51/A2 to an extent of Ac.1-1050 gts, Sy.No.90/EE1 to an extent of Ac.0-10 gts, Sy.No.99/A1 to an extent of Ac.0-1650 gts. Total extent of Ac.3-11 gts. The particulars of which are more clearly and vividly given in the schedule annexed here to and herein after referred to as the suit schedule property for brevity. The plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property after death of her husband

Puduru Ravinder Reddy. The husband of plaintiff died on 29/04/2021 and later got mutated the suit schedule property in the name of plaintiff, as she is only class-I heir and they are issueless. Since then, the Plaintiff became absolute owner and possessor and pattadar of the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff is doing agriculture in the suit land and enjoying the fruits of the property since the death of her husband and earlier the husband of the Plaintiff was absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of the above suit schedule property. To prove ownership and possession, the Plaintiff is filing herewith the Bhubharathi Pattadar Passbook & Online ROR (1-B).

2. The Plaintiff further submits that the husband of Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 jointly purchased agricultural land in Sy.No.99/A to an extent of Ac.0.31 guntas situated at Gatla Khanapuram Village. Though the entire land to an extent of Ac.0.31 guntas is in the name plaintiff, the plaintiff is possession to an extent of Ac 0.1650 gts (which is clearly shown at item No.5) and remaining extent of land to an extent of Ac.

0-1650 gts is in possession of the Defendant No.2. Hence the plaintiff is not claiming item No.6 of pattadar pass book.

3. It is submitted that, except the plaintiff nobody has any sort of right or interest over the same. The plaintiff is in exclusive possession over the suit schedule property

Page 3 of 7OS.No. 283 of 2025 and enjoying the same with all attendant rights of ownership to the knowledge of one and all in the locality more particularly in the knowledge of the Defendants herein.

4. It is humbly submitted that, the defendant No.1 and defendant No. 2 are brothers in law of the plaintiff, and defendants do not have any semblance of right or concern over the suit schedule property, by feigning the non-existing rights they are making false claims by adopting the blackmail tactics which are being countered by the plaintiff time to time but they were bent upon to grab the same one way or other by adopting illegal methods particularly by way of physical interference with brutal force for wrongful gain.

5. It is humbly submitted that, in furtherance of their illegal object, on 10/07/2025 while the Plaintiff have been undertaking the labor work for sowing the seeds in the suit schedule property, the Defendants along with their yes-men and anti-social elements came to the suit schedule property and tried to disturb the works of the

Plaintiff, but due to the timely intervention of the neighbors the Plaintiff could resist them for the time being with great difficulty. But the Defendants and their men while leaving the suit schedule land openly taunted that they would certainly dispossess the from the suit schedule property under an 24/07/2025 and circumstances either hook or crook and at any point of time. It is humbly submitted that, again on 02/08/2025 the Defendants and their hired men, hooligans came and tried to stop the work of labor illegally and high handedly with a dishonest intention. As such due to the frequent hectic illegal efforts made by the Defendants and their men, the threat of disturbance/ interference is lurking in the mind of the Plaintiff day in and day out and thus unless they need to be restrained by way of permanent injunction else they will

Page 4 of 7OS.No. 283 of 2025 not keep quiet and certainly disturb the Plaintiff work over the suit schedule property with brutal force to grab the same.

6. The plaintiff being a widow and issueless submits that, since the defendants are men of having political power and support from unsocial elements there is every likelihood that, the defendants may take law into their hands to dispossess the

Plaintiff. As such the Plaintiff approached the Police, Peddamandadi and reported the illegal activities of the defendants and their men, but the Police expressed their inability by saying that, the matter is of civil nature so that the plaintiff is apprehending danger to her property as she being law abiding citizens is not in a position to counter their high handed acts at all times keeping vigil over the suit schedule property and if they succeed in their said illegal attempts the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and their legitimate rights will be infringed for construction work on no fault of her. In the above circumstances, the only remedy left with her is to file the present suit for perpetual injunction. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to sue and the Defendants is liable to be sued. Hence, this suit.

7. The summons was served by defendant no. 1 and 2 and they were set ex-parte vide docket order dated: 28-10-2025.

8. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

9. Now the points for consideration are,

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

2.To what relief?

The plaintiff filed her chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint and got examined her as PW1 and exhibited the documents, Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 as mentioned in the appendix of evidence. The Ex.A11 was received through an interlocutory application filed under Order 7 Rule 14.

Page 5 of 7OS.No. 283 of 2025

Answer to point no. 1 :

10. The plaintiff is examined as PW1 and got exhibited documents A1 to A12 to support her claim.

Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of old ROR, Ex.A2 is the CC of new ROR, Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1962-63, Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 1975- 76, Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani for the year 1988-89, Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani for the year 1996-97, Ex.A7 is the CC of pahani for the year 2002-03, Ex.A8 is the CC of pahani for the year 2009-10, Ex.A9 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A10 is the CC of pahani for the year 2018-19, Ex.A11 is the original pass book of

Bhubharathi, Ex.A12 is the CC of document no. 10328/2012.

11. From the Ex.A11 it is manifest that, the plaintiff name is reflected as pattadar for the suit schedule lands and her evidence is unchallenged. Neither of the above

Ex.A1 to A12 documents were rebutted by the defendants by adducing any contrary evidence to the same.

12. As per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which states that entries in public or other official books, registers, or electronic records are relevant facts if they record a fact in issue or relevant fact and were made by a public servant in their official duty or by another person under a legal duty. These entries, such as land registry records, are considered relevant evidence because they are made in the discharge of an official or legally mandated duty, though their admissibility does not automatically presume the truth of their contents. Hence, the Ex.A1 to A12 are relevant to the fact in issue that the plaintiff being absolute owner of the property.

13. This Court placed reliance on judicial precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadhar vs Manik Rao and Others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573 wherein it observed that “when a party did not enter into the witness box and did not expose themselves for cross-examination, the Court can draw adverse inference against such party to the effect that what they pleaded is incorrect.”

14. In our case defendants did not file written statement and did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf by entering into witness box and subjecting

Page 6 of 7OS.No. 283 of 2025 themselves for the cross-examination. Hence this conduct of the defendants makes this Court to draw an adverse inference against the defendants as envisaged under the section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

15. Furthermore, the plaintiff was able to establish her case at least by the benchmark of the preponderance of probabilities by showing her possession over the suit schedule property via the documentary evidence of Ex-A11.

16. Hence, the evidence deposed by the PW1, coupled with the exhibits A1 to A12, prove the suit claim and therefore the point number 1 is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as the plaintiff was able to establish her lawful possession over the suit schedule property and her claim was not rebutted by the defendants.

Answer to point number 2:

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs restraining the defendant no. 1 and 2 from interfering/disturbing the lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property in the interest of justice and equity. Pending interlocutory applications if any stands closed.

Typed to my dictation computer by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy.

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW1. Puduru Maheshwari Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Plaintiff:

1. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of old ROR

2. Ex.A2 is the CC of new ROR

Page 7 of 7OS.No. 283 of 2025

3. Ex.A3 is the CC of pahani for the year 1962-63

4. Ex.A4 is the CC of pahani for the year 1975-76

5. Ex.A5 is the CC of pahani for the year 1988-89

6. Ex.A6 is the CC of pahani for the year 1996-97

7. Ex.A7 is the CC of pahani for the year 2002-03

8. Ex.A8 is the CC of pahani for the year 2009-10

9. Ex.A9 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11

10. Ex.A10 is the CC of pahani for the year 2018-19

11. Ex.A11 is the original pass book of Bhubharathi

12. Ex.A12 is the CC of document no. 10328/2012.

Defendants:

Nil

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Wanaparthy

1 CC No. 689 of 2025

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

WANAPARTHY

Monday the 25th day of August, 2025

Present: Sri T.Karthik Reddy, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Wanaparthy

CC No. 689 of 2025

Between: State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Wanaparthy.

...Complainant

AND

Jogu Nagaiah W/o J. Balaiah, Age: 68 years, Occp: Agriculture, R/o: H. No. 5- 117/A, Thadiparthy, Gopalpet mandal.

...Accused

Offence:: U/s. 7A r/w. 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 Plea of accused:: Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court :: Found not guilty Sentence or Order ::

***

This case came before me for final hearing on 20-08-2025 in the presence of Ld. APPO for the State and of Sri K. Chander Naik, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Wanaparthy filed a charge sheet in PCOR No. 164 of 2023 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

2 CC No. 689 of 2025

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

On 03-10-2023, at about 11:45AM, the LW3/Sri. G. Kalyan, Prohibition and Excise Inpspector (DTF), Wanaparthy along with staff proceeded to

Thadiparthy and there secured the presence of two mediators, stating that they got reliable information about the illegal sale, manufacture and possession of

Illicitly Distilled (ID) liquor near the house of accused person in the above said

Thanda and requested LW1/Katika Hanmanthu and LW2/Thalari Kurmaiah to act as mediators. Thereafter, they reached the Thadiparthy, found the suspected place i.e., the house of the accused where found one person who is suspiciously walking around his house with one bag. On seeing the Excise

Police, he left the bag and stand aside, then, the LW3 took the bag and on opening it, the LW3 found 02 liters bottle filled with liquor and on opening of the said bottle, the LW3 found and confirmed it as a ID Liquor, containing 02 liters, which was possessed by the accused illegally. On enquiry about the ID liquor, the accused confessed that the bottle belongs to himself and she sold the said ID Liquor for his livelihood. On enquiry, the accused revealed his name as Jogu Nagaiah. Upon enquiry, he failed to produce any valid license or permit to sell the ID liquor. Thereafter, the LW3 drew two samples into two bottles from the said bottle, and each sample containing 350ml of ID liquor seized property under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and

LW2.

3.During the further course of the investigation, the LW4 registered a case in PCOR. No. 164/2023, under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused and issued Sec. 41A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and one sealed sample sent to Government Lab for chemical analysis and submitted the case papers before this Hon’ble Court vide CPR No.

279/2023, dated: 12-10-2023. The remaining property deposited in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mahabubnagar for confiscation as per the rule.

3 CC No. 689 of 2025

4.The chemical examiner, vide the report No. 7264/2023/09, dated:

21-10-2023, opined that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”.After completing the investigation, LW5 filed charge sheet under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

5.This court took cognizance for the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), 1973 / Section 230 of Bharathiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS), 2023.

6.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C (section 262 of

BNSS) and upon hearing, charges framed under section 7A read with 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exihibits P1 to P3. The panch witnesses i.e., LW1/K. Hanmanthu and LW2/T. Kurmaiah died during the pendency of the trial and their death certificates were also filed by the agency of the prosecution. The Learned APPO gave up the evidence of LW4. Prosecution evidence closed.

8.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. (Section 351 of BNSS) for the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence against the accused to which he denied the truthfulness of the same and reported no defense

9. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

4 CC No. 689 of 2025

10. Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/s. 7A r/w.8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?

11.According to the prosecution case, this is a case of illegal possession and sale of ID liquor, wherein the PW1 received credible information about the illegal sale of ID liquor at Thadiparthy, then, the PW1 found the accused was walking suspiciously around his house (i.e., suspected house) and on seeing the Excise Police the accused left the bag and stand aside, then, on opening it, the PW1 found 02 liters of ID liquor filled in a 2 liter bottle in the suspected house. In the presence of LW1 and LW2, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized 02 liters of ID liquor from accused and drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama/Ex.P1. One of the said sample was sent to FSL for chemical analysis, Chemical Examiner issued report/Ex.P3 and opined that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. After completing the investigation, PW2 filed the charge sheet under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition

Act, 1995.

12.In this case, the LW1 and LW2, who are panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama died and the agency of prosecution failed to produce any witnesses to identiy the signatures on the Ex.P1 so as to prove the veracity of the Ex.P1 as per the mandate of the Sec. 47 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 41 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023).

13.The PW1, the investigating officer, who conducted the Ex.P1 deposed during his chief examination that, on 03.10.2023 at 11:45 AM, PW1 along with staff proceeded Thadiparthy upon receving a credible information about illegal sale, manufacture and possession of ID liquor and there secured the presence of panch witnesses i.e., LW1 and LW2 and proceeded towards the house of the accused, and found the accused was in possession of bag, on checking the bag, the PW1 found two liters of ID liquor which was possessed by the accused 5 CC No. 689 of 2025 illegally and PW2 drew two samples each 350 ml of ID liquor under the cover of

Ex.P1 in the presence LW1 and LW2 and followed the due process of seizure.

The PW1 further deposed that, later, the case file was handed over to LW4.

14.During the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that he did not check with the village elders in the Thadiparthy pertaining to the alleged offence. The

PW1 further stated that he did not produce the details of the house ownership of the accused and did not seize the material used for preparation of contraband and also not specify the details of the two litre bottle mentioned in the Ex. P1.

15.The PW2 is the another Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet deposed in her chief examination that she received the case diary and panchanama from LW4, who was given up by the Ld. APPO in this case. The

PW2 further deposed that the LW4 sent the samples for chemical analysis and the chemical examiner issued Ex.P4/Chemical Analysis Report. Later, the

PW2 filed charge sheet.

16.Upon perusal of the oral evidences of both PW1 and PW2, during their cross examination, PW1 stated that he did not produce the details of the house ownership of the accused and did not seize the material used for preparation of contraband and also enquired from where the raw material brought by the accused for manufacturing of the said ID liquor and also not specify the details of the two litre bottle mentioned in the Ex. P1. Further, PW1 did not enquire any independent witnesses in the nearby surroundings pertainng to this case.

17.Since, LW1 and LW2 died, the agency of prosecution failed to produce any witnesses to identiy the signatures of LW1 and LW2 on the

Ex.P1/panchanama. Hence, there is no evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW1 and PW2 about the accused, who was in possession of ID liquor.

18.It is settled fact that the confession made before Excise Officials is not a valid proof of evidence and the same is held by Honourable High Court of 6 CC No. 689 of 2025

Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine AP 1457. Hence, the confession recorded in the presence of

PW1 is not a valid confession unless it is corroborated by LW1 and LW2 i.e., panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama.

Therefore, the PW1 and PW2 sole testimony cannot be considered for convicting the accused. Hence, the guilt of the accused is not proved for the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt, as, the illegal possession of ID liquor or it’s sale by the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. Any unmarked property or any property seized by the agency of the prosecution shall be disposed of by following the due procedure as contemplated under the Cr.P.C, 1973.

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1 G. Kalyan None PW.2 S. Sunitha

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P1. is the Panchanama. Nil Ex.P2. is the PCOR Ex.P3. is the Chemical Analysis Report

Material objects marked

NILL

Sd/-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy

1 CC No. 686 of 2025

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

WANAPARTHY

Monday the 25th day of August, 2025

Present: Sri T. Karthik Reddy, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Wanaparthy

CC No. 686 of 2025

Between: State through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Wanaparthy.

...Complainant

AND

Mudavath Manemma W/o M. Govind, Age: 57 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Laxmi

Thanda, Gopalpet mandal. ...Accused

Offence:: U/s. 7A r/w. 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 Plea of accused:: Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court :: Found not guilty Sentence or Order :: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. Any unmarked property or any property seized by the agency of the prosecution shall be disposed of by following the due procedure as contemplated under the Cr.P.C, 1973

***

This case came before me for final hearing on 20-08-2025 in the presence of Ld. APPO for the State and of Sri K. Chander Naik, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- 2 CC No. 686 of 2025

J U D G M E N T

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Wanaparthy filed a charge sheet in PCOR No. 150 of 2023 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

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

On 08-09-2023, at about 08:30AM, the LW3/Smt. B. Chandrakala, P&E

SI along with staff proceeded to Laxmi Thanda and there secured the presence of two mediators, stating that they got reliable information about the illegal sale of Illicitly Distilled (ID) liquor and near the house of accused person in the above said Thanda and requested LW1/M. Thaurya and LW2/M. Gaurya to act as mediators. Thereafter, reached Laxmi Thanda, found the suspected place i.e., the house of the accused where found one woman in the suspected house.

Upon searching, the LW3 found one plastic bottle filled with some liquid near the stairs of the suspected house. On opening of the said bottle, the LW3 found and confirmed that it was a ID Liquor, which is containing 1.5 litres which was possessed by the accused illegally. On enquiry about the ID liquor, the accused confessed that the bottle belongs to herself and she sold the said

ID Liquor to the people of Thanda for her livelihood. On enquiry, the accused revealed her name as Mudavath Manemma. Upon enquiry, she failed to produce any valid license or permit to sell the ID liquor. Thereafter, the LW3 drew two samples into two bottles from the said bottle, and each sample containing 350ml of ID liquor seized property as per the procedure in the presence of LW1 and LW2, seized the property under the cover of the panchanama and registered PCOR. No. 150/2023, under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995. Then, the LW3 issued notice under section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973 to the accused and submitted the case papers before this Hon’ble Court. The chemical examiner, vide the report No. 6518/2023/10, dated: 22-09-2023, opined that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”.

3 CC No. 686 of 2025

After completing the investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.This court took cognizance for the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), 1973 / Section 230 of Bharathiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (BNSS), 2023.

4.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C (section 262 of

BNSS) and upon hearing, charges framed under section 7A read with 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The Learned APPO gave up the evidence of LW3.

Prosecution evidence closed.

6.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. (Section 351 of BNSS) for the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence against the accused to which she denied the truthfulness of the same and reported no defense.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

8. Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/s. 7A r/w.8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?

9.According to the prosecution case, this is a case of illegal possession and sale of ID liquor, wherein LW3 received credible information about the sale of

ID liquor at Laxmi Thanda, then LW3 found the accused in the suspected 4 CC No. 686 of 2025 house and also one plastic bottle filled with ID liquor of 1.5 liters near the staris of the suspected house. In the presence of PW1 and PW2, conducted

Scene of offence panchanama and seized 1.5 liters of ID liquor from accused and drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama/Ex.P2. One of the said sample was sent to FSL for chemical analysis, Chemical Examiner issued report/Ex.P4 and opined that “the sample is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health”. After completing the investigation, PW3 filed charge sheet under section 7A read with 8(e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

10.The PW1 and PW2, who are panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama stated that they do not know anything about this case. The panch witnesses (PW1 and PW2) stated that Excise Police have obtained their signature and thumb impression respectively on the paper without knowing the contents of it. The PW1 identified his signature/Ex.P1 on Ex.P2 and they denied the knowledge as to the contents of it.

11.In this case, PW1 and PW2 turned hostile, nothing could elucidate by the prosecution during their cross examination.

12.During the chief examination of the PW3, she deposed that she received the case diary form LW3 along with panchanama/Ex.P2 and PCOR/Ex.P3.

She further deposed that the samples are sent for chemical analysis and report and the examiner issued the report No. 6518/2023/10, dated: 22-09-2023.

13.During the cross examination of PW3, she deposed that she did not conduct any further investigation after receiving the case diary from the LW3.

PW3 further admitted that the date was not mentioned in 41A Cr.P.C notice which was issued to accused. PW3 stated that in the confession and seizure panchanama, she did not mention the place of the offence, house number, did not collect the details of the ownership of the house, no boundaries of the said scene of offence. Without having all the above details, it raises doubt on the 5 CC No. 686 of 2025 credibility of the Scene of offence panchanama, as PW1 and PW2 also stated that they do not know anything about this case.

14.It is settled fact that the confession made before Excise Officials is not a valid proof of evidence and the same is held by Honourable High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine AP 1457. Hence, the confession recorded in the presence of

LW3 is not a valid confession unless it is corroborated by PW1 and PW2 i.e., panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama. However, PW1 and PW2 did not support the version of agency of Prosecution.

Therefore, PW3 sole testimony cannot be considered for convicting the accused. Hence, the guilt of the accused is not proved for the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995, beyond reasonable doubt, as, the illegal possession of ID liquor or it’s sale by the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7A read with 8(e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec. 437A of Cr.P.C. Any unmarked property or any property seized by the agency of the prosecution shall be disposed of by following the due procedure as contemplated under the Cr.P.C, 1973.

Typed by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of August, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy 6 CC No. 686 of 2025

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: PW.1 Mudavath Thaurya None PW.2 Mudavath Gaurya PW.3 S. Sunitha

::Exhibits marked for::

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P1. is the signature of PW1 on Nil Confession and seizure panchanama. Ex.P2. is the Panchanama. Ex.P3. is the PCOR Ex.P4 is the Chemical Analysis Report

Material objects marked

NILL

Sd/-

Prl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy FAC I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy

Page 1 of 6CC.No. 71 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

WANAPARTHY

Tuesday the 12th day of May, 2026

Present: Sri. T.Karthik reddy, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

CC. No. 71 of 2018

Between: The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Pebbair.

...Complainant

And

Bathula Ramulu S/o Savaraiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Lab technician, R/o Pebbair village and mandal …Accused.

*** This case came before me for final hearing on 07-05-2026 in the presence of the learned APPO for State and Sri. MD.Mahamood Counsel for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pebbair, Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime

No. 21 of 2018 against the accused for the offence under section 326 of Indian Penal

Code (IPC) 1860.

The brief facts of the charge sheet are that :

1. On 30-01-2018 at 19:00 hours the LW1/informant/Bathula Narasimha came to police station and lodged a Telugu written petition in which he stated that on 27- 01-2018 in the morning at 11:00 hours his younger brother B.Ramulu came to

Page 2 of 6CC.No. 71 of 2018 informant without any reason picked up quarrel with LW1 and beat him. As a result, his left hand got fractured and he received blunt injuries on other parts of body.

Further he stated that he has life threat from him. Hence, the informant requested for necessary legal action into the matter.

2. Based on the contents of the petition the LW7/OD.Ramesh, Sub inspector of police registered a case in Crime no.21 of 2018 under section 324 of IPC and issued

First information report (FIR) to all concerned and took up the investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, the LW7 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 at police station under section 161 r/w 162 of Code of Criminal procedure (Cr.P.C.) 1973 in case diary part II. Further the LW7 visited the scene of crime situated at the house of LW1 at Pebbair. There the LW7 examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Bathula Savaraiah and LW3/Bandari Narasimha under section 161 r/w 162 of Cr.P.C. in case diary part-II. After that the LW7 secured the presence of two mediators LW4/Askani Bhanu and LW5/Dhupam Sarveshwar and conducted the scene of crime panchanama and also drew the rough sketch of scene in crime detail form.

4. On 01-02-2018 the LW7 along with staff apprehended the accused at his home and brought to police station. On interrogation he confessed his guilt. As such the

LW7 issued notice under section 41A of Cr.P.C. The LW6 medical officer, Navodaya institute of medical sciences, Mahabubnagar treated the LW1 and furnished medical certificate in which the LW6 opined that the injuries received by the LW1 are “Grievous”. Based on the strength of medical certificate LW7 altered the section of law from 324 of IPC to 326 of IPC. After completion of investigation the investigating officer filed the charge sheet.

Page 3 of 6CC.No. 71 of 2018

5. This Court took cognizance for the offence under section 326 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused, case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).

6. The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and upon hearing, charges framed under section 326 of IPC, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1. The LW2 and LW3 died and their death certificates filed by the agency of the prosecution vide docket order dated: 13-03-2026. This court was constrained to closed the evidence of LW1 vide docket order dated 21-11-2025 and LW4 to 7 vide docket order dated 29-01-2026. The learned APPO moved a petition under section 311 of

Cr.P.C to recall the prosecution witnesses LW1, LW4 to LW7 and the same was allowed. The agency of prosecution could not secure the presence of LW4 to LW7 even after recall vide Crl.M.P.No. 298 of 2026. Hence their evidence stands closed.

Prosecution evidence closed.

8. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence against the accused to which he denied the truthfulness of the same and reported no defense.

9. Heard arguments of both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

10. Now the point for determination is: - “Whether prosecution established guilt of the accused for

offence under section 326 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

Page 4 of 6CC.No. 71 of 2018

11. During chief examination of PW1, he testified that on 27-01-2018 the PW1 was attacked by his younger brother by name Ramulu as the accused doubted the PW1 that the PW1 misappropriated the amount which was given as compensation for land acquisition for Ranga Samudram project. The compensation for land acquisition was given in the name of PW1’s father for acquiring his land the accused apprehended that the PW1 took all the amount given as compensation to his father and hence attacked him. As a result, the PW1 received several injuries on his head and left hand was broken above the wrist. PW1 was referred for medical examination by SI of police, pebbair. Later, the PW1 lodged a Ex.P1/petition at police station pebbair.

12. During cross examination of PW1, the PW1 testified that he mentioned in the

Ex.P1 that his left hand was broken above his wrist and also mentioned in the Ex.P1, the PW1 received injuries on his head. The Ex.P1 was lodged on 30-01-2018. The PW1 stated that the SHO did not give any reference letter while referring the PW1 to hospital. The PW1 first approached RMP doctor Venugopal for medical advice and on his advice, he came to a private hospital at Wanaparthy and took a CT-scan. Later, the PW1 went to Navodaya hospital at Mahabubnagar as in patient for 3 days but since they did not respond, the PW1 came back to pebbair and lodged Ex.P1 and the

PW1 further testified that he went to the non-medical persons (Natu vaidyulu) for treatment of his hand swelling. After lodging of Ex.P1 the police did not referred PW1 for any medical examination. PW1 denied that he and the accused have disputes pertaining to land since many years. The PW1 admitted that he did not submit any documentary evidence to show that his father received compensation for land acquisition in lieu of Ranga Samudram Project. PW1 admitted that in the Ex.P1 he did not specify about the dispute pertaining to monetary compensation raised by the

Page 5 of 6CC.No. 71 of 2018 accused. The PW1 further testified that the police might have written his section 161

Cr.P.C. statement based on Ex.P1.

13. The accused and PW1 are own brothers. There is not even an iota of whisper in the Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 that the accused attacked him pertaining to monetary transaction of land compensation given to the father of PW1 and accused. The PW1 in the Ex.P1 merely stated that the accused attacked him without any reason whereas in the examination in chief the PW1 tried to attribute a motive to the accused so as to strengthen his version and such conduct of PW1 leads to drawn an adverse inference as to the veracity of the evidence deposed by PW1.

14. The evidence deposed by PW1 is full of omissions, embellishments and improvements which are going to the route of the case of the prosecution. The PW1 evidence is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses as the prosecution failed to secure the presence of prosecution witnesses before this Court and by not making them to depose before this Court so as to prove the veracity of their version deposed by PW1. Such failure of the agency of prosecution to secure its witnesses is fatal to their case. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused.

15. For the foregoing reasons, there is absolutely no reliable material against the accused in proving the ingredients of section 326 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Thus, the point is answered against the prosecution. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 326 of

IPC 1860. The accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. 1973. The accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437A(1) of Cr.P.C. 1973. Any unmarked property or any

Page 6 of 6CC.No. 71 of 2018 property seized by the agency of the prosecution shall be disposed of following the due procedure as contemplated under Cr.P.C. 1973.

Typed to my dictation on computer by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 12th day of May, 2026.

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Bathula Narasimha Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the petition Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.