Smt. Korikoppula Sravani

1

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JAGGAIAHPET.

Present:- Smt. K.Sravani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAIAHPET.

Monday, dated this the 03rd day of April, 2023.

Calendar Case No. 1550 / 2021.

Between: The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penuganchiprolu Police Station. ....Complainant

AND

Pasuboina Panduranga, S/o Ramulu, Hindu, aged 40 years, C/Gowda, R/o Sathram Center, Penuganchiprolu village and Mandal, NTR Dist. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 31.03.2023 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/ Complainant and of Sri M.Vijaya Kumari, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusal of record and hearing both the learned counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Penuganchiprolu police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.181/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution as per the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)Accused is the resident of Penuganchiprolu village and Mandal , he is living by doing agricultural coolie works and also doing illegal liquor business without having any valid license. On 06.06.2021 at about 09.30 hours, on receipt of credible information, LW.5 G.Rama Krishna, Sub-

Inspector of police along with staff and mediators reached near to the bypass road outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and Mandal and found one person coming one TVS XL AP 16 BU 3276 on suspicious manner, LW.5 taken him into custody. On enquiry, accused confessed that he purchased 2 the liquor bottles in wine shop at Madupalli Village of Madhira Mandal,

Khammam dist, Telangana State with a view to sold away the same to the knowing persons in their village at high price in order to earn huge profits illegally. Basing on the confession of accused, LW.5 seized Old Admiral company 180 ml - 100 bottles worth of Rs.12,000/- and also seized the motorcycle bearing No. TVS XL AP 16 BU 3276 under the cover of mediators report. After returning to the police station, LW.5 registered a case in

Cr.No.181/2021 under Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act and submitted the copies of First Information Report to all concerned.

(b)During course of investigation, LW.5 examined LW.1 and LW.2 namely B.Upendra PC 1967 and Ch.Hanumanthaurao HG 483 of

Penuganchiprolu PS, recorded their detailed statements. On the same day

LW.5 G.Rama Krishna, Sub-Inspector of police released the accused on station bail after serving a notice U/s 41 A Cr.P.C. notice and got acknowledgment to that effect.

(c)On 10.06.2021 LW.6/S.Hari Prasad assumed charge of police station and resumed further investigation. LW.6 sent the seized Mos for chemical examination at Regional Excise Laboratory, Kakinada, Andhra

Pradesh for analysis and received the same, wherein the expert opined that the sample is Indian made liquor. As per the instructions of the

Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam, the seized property were sent to Machilipatnam for destroy and orders are awaited. Later as per the orders of Superintendent of police, Krishna, Machilipatnam, the Sub-

Inspector of police, Penuganchiprolu PS was handed over the crime vehicle bearing No. TVS XL AP 16 BU 3276 to its owner and obtained acknowledgment to that effect. After completion of investigation, LW.6 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

3

3. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, this Court furnished copies of case documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.This Court examined accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for the substances of accusation levelled against him under charge sheet, for which, he denied the same. Having considered submissions made by him and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court, this

Court was of the opinion that there is ground to presume that accused has committed the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and as such, this Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claiming the case to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.6 S.Hari Prasad, S.I. of Police, Penuganchiprolu P.S., LW.3 L.Chaithanya,

VRO of Penuganchiprolu Village and Mandal and LW.5 G.Rama Krishna,

Sub-Inspector of police as PW.1,PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P3 and the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.1 B.Upendra PC 1967, LW.2 Ch.Hanumanthurao HG 483 and LW.4 P.Raju VRA of

Penuganchiprolu village and mandal respectively.

7.Prosecution evidence is closed, then, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the accused made total denial, no defence evidence is adduced.

Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:- 9.To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined LW.6 4

S.Hari Prasad, Sub-Inspector of police, Penuganchiprolu P.S. as PW.1. PW.1 deposed that, on receipt of entire record and investigation copies, he collected contraband samples and sent them for FSL report. On receipt of analysis report Ex.P1 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

10.During course of cross examination, the police department is the defacto complainant and investigation officer, he has not examined anybody from Telangana State, he further admitted that he has filed any separate seizure report, he has not examined any independent witness as they are not avaialable. PW.1 denied the suggestion that, he has filed the case against the accused only for statistical purpose and the accused is no way concerned to this case.

11.LW.3 L.Chaithanya, VRO of Penuganchiprolu village and Mandal, examined as PW.2. PW.2 deposed that on 06.06.2021, at about 09.30 hrs., the S.I. of police Penuganchiprolu Police Station along with his staff took him along with VRA and proceeded to the bypass road outskirts of

Penuganchiprolu village and Mandal. At that time they found one person tried to abscond from the scene of offence. Then Sub-Inspector of police stopped the said person and questioned him regarding his details. The accused stated his particulars as Pasuboina Panduranga, S/o Ramulu, R/o

Penuganchiprolu village and mandal, on searching they found 100 liquor bottles in his possession. Then Sub-Inspector of police has seized the said bottles. Accused stated that he purchased the liquor bottles from Telangana

State to sell them in Andhra Pradesh for higher price to get more profit in short time. Then Sub-Inspector of police took samples from the liquor bottles and prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence and obtained signatures him along with VRA. He know all the contents of occurrence report and he can identify the accused.

5

12.During cross examination, PW.2 admitted that he has acted as mediator in many cases, he was not issued any written intimation to act as mediator, he has not obtained any written permission from his higher authorities. He denied the suggestion that the mediators report was prepared at police station and obtained my signature at police station.

13.LW.5 G.Rama Krishna, Sub-Inspector of police who is investigating officer is examined as PW.3. PW.3 deposed in his chief examination that on 06.06.2021 at about 09.00 hrs., he along with his staff and mediators went to the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and Mandal, at that time they found one person was trying to escape from the scene of offence on suspicion manner. He was stopped and questioned with regard to his identity particulars, he stated that his name is Pasuboina Panduranga,

S/o ramulu, r/o Penuganchiprolu village and mandal. On further questioning, he stated that he purchased the liquor bottles from Telangana

State for lower price and sell the same at AP for higher price to get more profit in short time. On searching the bag of the accused, he found 100 bottles of Old Admiral 180 ml, then he seized the liquor bottles and obtained the sample and pasted the slip over the seized the liquor bottles and he prepared the occurrence report/Ex.P2 in the presence of mediators.

Later he returned to the police station along with the accused and seized property and registered the occurrence report as FIR in Cr.No.

181/2021/Ex.P3, U/sec. 34 (a) of AP Excise Act., and sent the FIR to the

Honble Court, accused sent to Judicial remand. Later, after assuming the

charge of the post of Penuganchiprolu Police Station, his successor sent the sample seized liquor bottles for chemical examination to the Regional

Excise Laboratory, Kakinada. On receiving of chemical analysis report under Ex.P1, his successor filed charge sheet.

14.During cross examination, PW.3 admitted that he is the defacto complainant and investigation officer, he has not examined anybody from 6

Telangana State, he has not filed any separate seizure report. He further admitted that he sent the samples to excise department. He denied the suggestion that, he has filed this case for statistical purpose only, he has not examined any individual witness in the entire investigation.

15. On perusal of the entire evidence of record, PW.3 is the investigating officer and PW.2 is mediator for seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused, hence, the evidence of PW.3 being the police official is to be scrutinized with great caution as they may have interest to get conviction with a view to make their investigation fruitful. During cross examination, PW.2 categorically admitted that he has acted as mediator in many cases and he was not issued any written intimation to act as mediator and he has not obtained any written permission from his higher authorities.

Hence, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PW.2, as he being an official witness and stock mediator to the police officials, as he categorically admitted in his cross examination that he has acted as mediator in many cases.

16.Moreover, as per the Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitance of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. But here in the present case, PW.2 is not the inhabitant to the scene of offence of the locality and the police was secured the presence of PW.2 before going to raid and the

PW.2 is also the official witness and not the common man and in the entire investigation report, PW.3 deposed in his evidence that the accused was sent for Judicial custody, there is no descriptive particulars about the seized liquor bottles.

7

17.For the foregoing reasons, this Court find that it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of official witness i.e., P.W.3, when it is not supported by any other independent witness. Hence, in any way there is no credibility to the prosecution witness to establish the guilt of the accused and his evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. It is settled principle that penal statutes should be strictly construed and benefit of any lacuna in the case of prosecution is to be given to the accused. There are latches in the part of the investigating agency, there is no corroboration in the evidence of witnesses to prove the seizure of property from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused and also the prosecution failed to mark any material object to prove the case of prosecution. In view of the above infirmities, this Court find that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution, when it is not complete to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

18. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03 rd day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

8

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution:For defence: P.W.1/LW.6 : S.Hari Prasad, SI of Police, Penuganchiprolu P.S. P.W.2/LW.3 : L.Chaithanya, VRO of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal. P.W.3/LW.5 : G.Rama Krishna, S.I. of Police, Penuganchiprolu P.S.

Documents marked: For prosecution:For defence: Ex.P.1/dt.24.07.2021 : Chemical analysis Report - NIL- Ex.P.2/dt.06.06.2021 : Occurrence report Ex.P.3/dt.06.06.2021 : First Information Report

Material objects marked: For prosecution:For defence: Nil-NIL-

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

CLASS AT JAGGAIAHPET.

C.C.No.1550 of 2021.

Date of: Offence on orComplaint Apph. ofReleased onCommencementClosure of TrialResult

beforeaccusedBailof Trial

06.06.202106.06.202106.06.202106.06.202120.04.202220.03.202303.04.2023

Between: The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penuganchiprolu Police Station. ....Complainant

AND

Pasuboina Panduranga, S/o Ramulu, Hindu, aged 40 years, C/Gowda, R/o Sathram Center, Penuganchiprolu village and Mandal, NTR Dist. … Accused

Offence:under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh ExciseAct. Plea of accused: Not guilty Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay: The case was taken on file under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on 21.08.2021. On 20.04.2022 case copies furnished to the accused and on the same day, accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charge under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act was framed against the accused, the same was explained, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 22.04.2022 PW.1, on 05.05.2022 PW.2, and on 06.05.2022 PW.3 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P3, the prosecution evidence was closed. On 20.03.2023 accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material, for which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. On 31.03.2023 heard arguments and on 03.04.2023 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to: The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jaggaiahpet.

1

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JAGGAIAHPET.

Present:- Smt. K.Sravani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAIAHPET.

Friday, dated this the 14th day of July, 2023.

Calender Case No. 1786/2022.

Between:

The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vatsavai Police Station. ....Complainant

AND

1.Maruboina Koteswara Rao, S/o Srinviasa Rao, Hindu, aged 26 years, C/Mudiraju, R/o KVP Street, Guntur.

2. Thrivedi Naveen, S/o Venu Babu, Hindu, aged 23 years, C/Kamma, R/o Arandalpet, Guntur. … Accused

This case is came before me for final hearing on 11.07.2023 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/ Complainant and of Sri Md. Ameen, Learned Counsel for the accused No.1 and 2, upon perusal of record and hearing both the learned counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vatsavai police station filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No.343/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise amendment Act., 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

(a)The accused No.1 and 2 are resident of Guntur, both are living by doing coolie works. The price of the liquor in AP is very high and it is very low at Telangana State. They intend to purchase the liquor bottles from Telangana State to sell the same at AP, with a view to get more price in short time. Accordingly, both the accused are went to Bonakallu village and purchased 1. Mansion House 750 ml - 21 bottles, 2. Mansion House 180 2 ml – 18 bottles, 3. Blenders Pride 180 ml – 02 bottles, 4. Aristoctrat 180 ml 01 bottle, 5. Old Admiral 180 ml – 118 bottles, total bottles are 160, worth of Rs. 31,430/- and bringing the same on Motor cycle bearing No.AP 39 BL 0920, they reached near outskirts of Vemulanarva village of Vatsavai mandal, police caught hold of them.

(b)On 07.07.2020, at about 17.30 hrs., on receiving credible information, LW.3/S.L.R.Someswara Rao, S.I of police Vatsavai Police Station along with his staff went to outskirts of Vemulanarva village of Vatsavai

Mandal, while conducting vehicle checking, they caught hold the accused

No.1 and 2 and seized the above said liquor bottles along with the crime vehicle under the cover of occurrence report at the scene of offence and registered the same as FIR in Cr.No. 343/2020, for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of AP Excise amendment, Act., 2020. On the same day LW.3/S.I of police, Vatsavai Police Station visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch to that effect, examined LW.1 and LW.2 prepared statements U/s 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and issued notice U/section 41 (A) Cr.P.C. to both the accused by explaining the terms and conditions, but the accused were failed to comply the provisions of the notice U/s 41 (A) Cr.P.C. on 08.07.2020, LW.3/S.I of police, arrested both the accused and sent them for Judicial custody. They are released on bail on 10.07.2020.

(c) LW.3/S.L.R.Someswara Rao, S.I of police, sent the seized MO’s for chemical examination at Regional Excise Laboratory, Kakinada, wherein the expert examined the sample and issued his opinion, as the samples are

Indian made liquor.

(d)LW.3/S.I of police, submitted requisition to the confiscation authority Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam, with a request to issue confiscation orders to the Crime Vehicle ie., Motor bike bearing

No. AP 39 BL 0920. LW.3/ S.I of police, served show cause notice to the owner of the crime vehicle and handed over the crime vehicle to its owner.

3

Process of the crime vehicle is pending with confiscation authority and orders are awaited.

(e) After receiving chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation, LW.4/S.I of police, Vatsavai P.S., filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/section 34 (a) of AP Excise amendent Act., 2020.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise amendment Act., 2020.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, this Court furnished copies of case documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.This Court examined accused No.1 and 2 under Section 239 of

Cr.P.C for the substances of accusation leveled against them under charge sheet, for which, they denied the same. Having considered submissions made by them and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court, this Court was of the opinion that there is ground to presume that accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise amendment Act., 2020, and as such, this Court framed charge against the accused for the offense under Section 34(a) of

AP Excise Act, 1968, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claiming the case to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.3/S.L.R.Someswara Rao, Sub-Inspector of police, Vatsavai PS as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and the learned APP has given up the evidence of Lws.1 and 2, LW1 is HC 2381/ Madhusudhana Rao and LW.2 is PC 2501/

Sk.Sulthan are police constables and LW.4 /G.Mahalakshmudu, S.I of police of Vatsaavai P.S., respectively.

4

7.Hence, Prosecution evidence is closed, then, the accused No.1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the accused No.1 and 2 made total denial, no defence evidence is adduced.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise amendment Act., 2020 beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined LW.3.

S.L.R.Someswara Rao, presently working as Sub-Inspector of police,

Veerulapadu P.S., Previously he worked as S.I. of Police, Vatsavai P.S. On 07.07.2020 at about 17.30 hrs., on reliable information he along with his staff LW1 is HC 2381/ Madhusudhana Rao and LW.2 is PC 2501/ Sk.Sulthan of Vatsavai P.S. went to the outskirts of Vemulanarva village of Vatsavai

Mandal, conducting the vehicle checking, while checking, they found two persons coming on Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 39 BL 0920 on suspicion manner, on seeing the police, the accused were stopped their vehicle at some distance and thrown the bags on the road side bushes and trying to skulk away, then with the assistance of his staff, he caught hold of them and questioned with regard to their particulars, then the first person stated that, his name as 1. Maruboina Koteswawra Rao, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 26 years, r/o Guntur and another person revealed his identity as

Thrivedi Naveen, S/o Venu Babu, aged 23 years, R/o Guntur, both are living by doing coolie works. On further questioning they stated that, The price of the liquor at AP is very high and it is very low at Telangana State.

Hence, they purchased the liquor bottles at Telangana State to sell the sme at AP for higher price to get more profit in short time. On searching, they 5 found 1. Mansion House 750 ml - 21 bottles, 2. Mansion House 180 ml – 18 bottles, 3. Blenders Pride 180 ml – 02 bottles, 4. Aristoctrat 180 ml 01 bottle, 5. Old Admiral 180 ml – 118 bottles, total bottles are 160, worth of

Rs. 31,430/- and seized the liquor bottles along with crime vehicle under the cover of occurrence report under Ex.P1 and went to police station registered the case in Cr.No. 343/2020 for the offense punishable under section 34 (a) of AP Excise amendment Act., 2020, under Ex.P2 and examined LW1 and

LW.2 at police station and issued notice U/section 41 (A) Cr.P.C. to both the accused, but they failec to comply the same. Hence, on 08.07.2020, at

Lingala village center he arrested both the accused and sent them for

Judicial custody. He sent the sample bottles for chemical examination to the

RFSL Kakinada for report. After receiving chemical analysis report under

Ex.P3, his successor LW.4/G.Mahalakshmudu filed charge sheet.

11.During course of cross examination, PW.1 deposed that the scene offense is the main road but not busy locality and he admitted that he was not prepared any seizure report at the scene of offense and also not examined any independent witnesses, and reported that the witness are not available and he filed case for statistical purpose and he has not seized the contraband from the accused.

12. On perusal of the entire evidence of record, PW.1 is the defacto- complainant and investigating officer of the entire case,. hence, the evidence of PW.1 being the police official is to be scrutinized with great caution as they may have interest to get conviction with a view to make their investigation fruitful. Therefore this Court finds a doubtful whether it is from the possession of the accused, the said liquor bottles were seized. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused contended that the police officials foisted the false case against the accused for statistical purpose 6 and as there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution side, benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused.

13.Moreover, as per the Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitance of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. But in the present case, it is clear that police officials had not taken the steps as per the Code, even though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality as admitted by

PW.1 during his cross examination, and there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution side, benefit of doubt is may be extended to the accused.

14. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. It is settled principle that penal statutes should be strictly construed and benefit of any lacuna in the case of prosecution is to be given to the accused. There are latches in the part of the investigating agency, there is no corroboration in the evidence of witnesses to prove the seizure of property from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused and also the prosecution failed to mark any material object to prove the case of prosecution. In view of the above infirmities, this Court find that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution, when it is not complete to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

7

15. In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise amendment Act, 2020 and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stands canceled after expiry of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JAGGAIAHPET.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution:For defence:

P.W.1/LW.3 : S.L.R.Someswara Rao -None- Sub-Inspector of police.

Documents marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

Ex.P.1/dt. 07.07.2020 : Occurrence report - NIL- Ex.P.2/dt. 07.07.2020 : First Information Report Ex.P.3/dt. 28.07.2022 : Chemical Analysis Report

Material objects marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JAGGAIAHPET.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

CLASS AT JAGGAIAHPET.

C.C.No.1786 of 2022.

Date of: Offence on orComplaint Apph. ofReleased onCommencementClosure of TrialResult

beforeaccusedBail/ Stationof Trial

Bail 07.07.202007.07.202008.07.202010.07.202027.12.202211.07.202314.07.2023

Between: The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vatsavai Police Station. ....Complainant

AND

1.Maruboina Koteswara Rao, S/o Srinviasa Rao, Hindu, aged 26 years, C/Mudiraju, R/o KVP Street, Guntur.

2. Thrivedi Naveen, S/o Venu Babu, Hindu, aged 23 years, C/Kamma, R/o Arandalpet, Guntur. … Accused Offence:under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise amendment Act., 2020 Plea of accused: Not guilty Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence of Order :

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stands canceled after expiry of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Explanation for the delay: The case was taken on file under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on 26.08.2022. On 27.12.2022 case copies furnished to the accused and on the same day, accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charge under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act was framed against the accused, the same was explained, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 06.07.2023 PW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P3, the prosecution evidence was closed. On 11.07.2023, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence, for which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence and on the same day heard arguments. On 14.07.2023 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JAGGAIAHPET.

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to: The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jaggaiahpet.

9

1

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JAGGAIAHPET.

Present:- Smt. K.Sravani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAIAHPET.

Thursday , dated this the 13th day of July, 2023.

Calender Case No. 1354 /2022.

Between:

The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vatsavai Police Station. ....Complainant

AND

Gajja Munaiah, S/o Rangaswamy, Hinud, aged 56 years, C/Gowda,R/o Singavaram village, Vatsavai Mandal, NTR District.

… Accused

This case is came before me for final hearing on 10.07.2023 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/ Complainant and of Sri D.Santhosh, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusal of record and hearing both the learned counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vatsavai police station filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.636/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise amendment Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

(a)The accused is resident of R/o Singavaram village of Vatsavai

Mandal, NTR District and he is living by doing coolie works. The earnings came from his work was not sufficient to meet his vices. Hence, the accused decided to do illegal business of liquor. Accordingly, he went to

Bonakallu villge of Telangana State and purchased Old Admiral 180 ml – 72 bottles, worth of Rs.8,640/- and bringing the same, while he reached outskirts of Singavaram village, police caught hold of him.

2

(b)On 06.11.2021 at about 19.00 hrs., LW.5/ G.Mahalakshmudu, S.I of Vatsavai police Station, along with his staff and mediators, conducting vehicle checking at outskirts of Singavaram village of Vatsvai Mandal, while checking, the accused coming by walk on suspicion manner, on checking, they found 1. Old Admiral 180 ml – 72 bottles, worth of Rs.8,640/- with the possession of the accused, they caught hold the accused and seized the contraband under the cover of mediators report at the scene of offence.

Later they came to the police station and registered the mediators report as

FIR in Cr.No. 636/2021, for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of

AP Excise amendment, Act., 2020. On the same day, LW.5/S.I of police

Vatsavai Police station visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, examined LW.1 and LW.2 got prepared their staements U/s 161 (3) Cr.P.C.

and issued notice U/section 41 (A) Cr.P.C. to the accused by explaining the terms and conditions, but the accused failed to comply the provision of the notice U/s 41 (A) Cr.P.C. On 09.11.2021, LW.5/S.I of police, arrested the accused at Singavaram village center and sent him for Judicial custody.

Later the accused was released on bail 10.11.2021.

(c)Subsequently, LW.3/ S.I of police, sent the seized the MO’s for

Chemical Examination at Regional Excise Laboratory, Kakinada, wherein the expert examined the samples and issued his opinion by stating that the samples are Indian made liquor.

(d)After completion of investigation, LW.5/S.I. of police, Vatsavai

Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 34 (A) of AP Excise amendment Act., 2020.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section U/s 34 (a) of AP Excise amendment Act., 2020.

4.On appearance of the accused, this Court furnished copies of case documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3

5.This Court examined accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for the substances of accusation leveled against him under charge sheet, for which, he denied the same. Having considered submissions made by him and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court, this Court was of the opinion that there is ground to presume that accused has committed the offence under Section U/s 34 (a) of AP Excise amendment

Act., 2020. and as such, this Court framed charge against the accused for the offense under Section U/s 34 (a) of AP Excise amendment Act., 2020.

read over and explained its contents in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claiming the case to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.5/G.Mahalakshmudu, Sub-Inspector of police, Vatsavai PS, examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and the learned APP has given up the evidence of Lws.1, 2 and LW.3, LW.4, LW1 is PC 311/ P.Butchaiah and LW.2 is PC 1005/ B.Narendra Kumar are Police Constables of Vatsavai Police

Station, LW.3 is K.Sridhar and LW.4 is the M.Naresh are the mediators in this case, respectively.

7.Hence, Prosecution evidence is closed, then, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the accused made total denial, no defence evidence is adduced.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused person for the offence punishable under Section U/s 34 (a) of AP Excise amendment Act., 2020. beyond reasonable doubt?

4

POINT:-

10.To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined

LW.5/G.Mahalakshmudu, S.I. of police of Veerulapadu police Station.

Previously he worked as S.I. of Police, Vatsavai P.S. On 06.11.2021 at about 19.00 hrs., on reliable information he along with his staff LW1 is PC 311/ P.Butchaiah and LW.2 is PC 1005/ B.Narendra Kumar were went to outskirts of Singavaram village of Vatsavai Mandal, while conducting vehicle checking, one person coming by walk on suspicion manner. On seeing the police, accused trying to skulk away. Then with the assistance of his staff, he caught hold of him and questioned with regard to his particulars, then the person stated that, his name as Gajja Munaiah, S/o Rangaswamy,

Hindu, aged 56 years, R/o Singavaram village of Vatsavai Mandal and he is living by doing coolie works. On further questioning, the accused stated that, the earnings came from the coolie works are not sufficient to meet his vices, the price of the liquor in AP is very high and it is very low at

Telangana State, he intend to purchase liquor bottles from Telangana.

Accordingly, he purchased the liquor bottles from Telangana State ie., 1.

Old Admiral 180 ml – 72, worth of Rs.8,640/- and bringing the same police caught hold of the accused and seized the liquor bottles under the cover of mediators report under Ex.P1 and went to police station registered the case in Cr.No. 636/2021 for the offense punishable under section U/s 34 (a) of AP

Excise amendment Act., 2020, under Ex.P2 and examined LW1 and LW.2 at police station and recorded their statements 161 (3) Cr.P.C. later he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P3 to that effect. On the same day, he issued notice U/s 41 A Cr.P.C. to the accused, but the accused failed to comply the same. On 09.11.2021, he arrested the accused at Singavaram village center and sent him for Judicial custody.

He sent the sample bottles for chemical examination to the FSL Kakinada 5 for report. After receiving chemical analysis report under Ex.P4, he filed charge sheet.

11.During course of cross examination, PW.1 deposed that the scene offense is the main road but not busy locality and he admitted that he was not prepared any seizure report at the scene of offense and also not examined any independent witnesses, and reported that the witness are not available. and he filed case for statistical purpose and he has not seized the contraband from the accused.

12. On perusal of the entire evidence of record, PW.1 is the defecto- complainant and investigating officer of the entire case,. hence, the evidence of PW.1 being the police official is to be scrutinized with great caution as they may have interest to get conviction with a view to make their investigation fruitful. Therefore this Court finds a doubtful whether it is from the possession of the accused, the said liquor bottles were seized. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused contended that the police officials foisted the false case against the accused for statistical purpose and as there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution side, benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused.

13.Moreover, as per the Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitance of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. But in the present case, it is clear that police officials had not taken the steps as per the Code, even though the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality as admitted by 6

PW.2 during his cross examination, and there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution side, benefit of doubt is may be extended to the accused.

14. Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. It is settled principle that penal statutes should be strictly construed and benefit of any lacuna in the case of prosecution is to be given to the accused. There are latches in the part of the investigating agency, there is no corroboration in the evidence of witnesses to prove the seizure of property from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused and also the prosecution failed to mark any material object to prove the case of prosecution. In view of the above infirmities, this Court find that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution, when it is not complete to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section U/s 34 (a) of AP Excise amendment Act., 2020 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled after expiry of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution:For defence:

LW.5: G.Mahalakshmudu -None- Sub-Inspector of police.

Documents marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

Ex.P.1/dt.06.11.2021: Occurrence report - NIL- Ex.P.2/dt.06.11.2021: First Information Report Ex.P.3/dt.06.11.2021: Rough Sketch Ex.P.4/dt.27.11.2021 : Chemical Analysis Report

Material objects marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

Nil-NIL-

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

CLASS AT JAGGAIAHPET.

C.C.No.1354 of 2022.

Date of: Offence on orComplaint Apph. ofReleased onCommencementClosure of TrialResult

beforeaccusedBailof Trial

06.11.202106.11.202109.11.202110.11.202102.01.202310.07.202313.07.2023

Between:

The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vatsavai Police Station. ....Complainant

AND

Gajja Munaiah, S/o Rangaswamy, Hinud, aged 56 years, C/Gowda,R/o Singavaram village, Vatsavai Mandal, NTR District.

… Accused

Offence:under Section 34 (A) of AP Excise amendment Act., 2020 Plea of accused : Not guilty Finding : Found not guilty. Sentence of Order :

In the result, Accused is not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (A) of AP Excise amendment Act., 2020 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds the accused and his sureties shall stands canceled after expiry of six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Explanation for the delay: The case was taken on file under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on 14.07.2022. On 14.12.2022 case copies furnished to the accused. On 02.01.2023 accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charge under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act was framed against the accused, the same was explained, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 22.06.2023 PW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P4, the prosecution evidence was closed. On 10.07.2023, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence, for which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence, on the same day heard arguments, on 13.07.2023 Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to: The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jaggaiahpet.

9

1

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JAGGAIAHPET.

Present:- Smt. K.Sravani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAIAHPET.

Thursday, dated this the 06th day of April, 2023.

Calendar Case No. 2191 / 2021.

Between:

The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District.

....Complainant

AND

Damala Ravi, S/o Yesobu, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o Old Vemavaram village of Vatsavai Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 06.04.2023 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/ Complainant and of Sri K. Narasimha Rao, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusal of record and hearing both the learned counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vatsavai police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.645/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution as per the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The accused are the resident of Old Vemavaram village of

Vatsavai Mandal, NTR dist. The accused is working as coolie to eking his livelyhood, the earning through coolie work are not sufficient to him, hence, with a view to get more profit in short time, he decided to sell liquor bottles illegally purchasing liquor for lower price in Telanagana to sell the same for higher price at Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, he went to Bonakallu village of Telangana State and purchased Old Admiral 180 ml – 29 bottles, worth of Rs.3,480/-, from Shekar wine shop and bringing the same by walk police 2 caught him. On 08.12.2020, at about 20.00 hrs., on receiving credible information LW.3, regarding illegal transportation of liquor bottles, secured his staff LW.1 PC 1825 and LW.2 PC 1005 rushed to outskirts of

Vemulanarva village of Vatsavai Mandal, conducted vehicle checking, while checking, taken the accused into custody while he is having the illegal possession of liquor bottles Old Admiral 180 ml – 29 bottles, worth of

Rs.3,480/-, the police seized the above said liquor bottles under the cover of occurrence report after lifting the sample bottle. LW.3 returned to police station along with occurrence report, seized property and accused, registered the occurrence report as First Information Report in

Cr.No.645/2020, on 08.12.2020 at about 20.00 hrs., under Section 34(a) of

AP Excise Act, 1968 and submitted the original First Information Report to the Hon'ble JFCM Court, Jaggaiahpet and copies to all the concerned and took up investigation.

b)During course of investigation, LW.3 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch to that effect and secured the witnesses LW.1 and

LW.2 who accompanied him in patrolling duty at Station Jurisdiction and examined them and got prepared their Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C in his laptop. On 07.12.2020, LW.3 served notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C to the accused with an instructions to appear before the Hon'ble Court or police, whenever his presence is required, otherwise, action will be taken against him according to Law. But the accused not complied the same.

Hence, on 15.12.2020, on credible information LW.3 along with his staff surprised Vatsavai center and found the accused in the center, then he arrested the accused at 07.00 hrs., and brought him to P.S. at 07.15 hrs., and kept him under police lock up at 07.30 hrs., and handed over to centry

PC. After that sent the accused to Judicial custody for period of 14 days.

Later, LW.3 sent the sample to Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise 3

Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis, and obtained chemical analysis report, in which it is opined that the sample is Indian made foreign liquor.

After completion of investigation, LW.4 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968.

3. This case was taken on file against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, this Court furnished copies of case documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.This Court examined accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for the substances of accusation levelled against him under charge sheet, for which, he denied the same. Having considered submissions made by him and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court, this

Court was of the opinion that there is ground to presume that accused has committed the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and as such, this Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claiming the case to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.3 Ch.Prabhakara Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of police, Vatsavai PS as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.1/PC 1825 and LW.2/ PC 1005 and LW.4/G.Mahalakshmudu, S.I. of

Police, Vatsavai PS respectively.

7.Prosecution evidence is closed, then, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the accused made total denial, no defence evidence is adduced.

Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

4

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined LW.3

Ch. Prabhakara Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of police as PW.1. PW.1 who is the investigating officer deposed that on reliable information on 08.12.2020 at about 08.00 P.M., he along with his staff LW.1/PC 1825 and LW.2/PC 1005 went to Vemulanarva village of Vatsavai Mandal , found one person was coming by walk, on seeing the police, he thrown his bag into bushes and try to skulck away, then the police stopped him and verified the bag along with him, on enquiry, he revealed his identities as 1. Damala Ravi, S/o

Yesobu, R/o Patha vemavaram village of Vatsavai Mandal. On verifying the bag along with him, they found 1.Old Admiral 180 ml – 29. On further questioning he stated that he has purchased the liquor bottles in Telangana for lower price and sell to higher price in Andhra Pradesh. They have seized the liquor bottles and collected the samples and then tried to secure the mediators but in vain. So he has prepared the occurrence report under

Ex.P1. After going to police station, he registered a case in Cr.No.645/2020, at about 09.30 pm, on 08.12.2020, under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act under Ex.P2 and sent the original First Information Report to the

Hon'ble Court and later he took up investigation and he has issued notice

U/section 41(A) Cr.P.C. accused not complied the notice U/section 41 A

Cr.P.C. Hence, PW.1 arrested the accused and sent him for Judicial custody on 15.12.2020. later he sent the sample bottles for analysis report and prepared rough sketch which is marked as Ex.P3 and examined the witnesses. On receipt of analysis report under Ex.P4, his S.I. of police,

VatsavaiPoliceStation,filedchargesheet.

10.During course of cross examination, PW.1 deposed that the scene of offence is busy locality and he has not mentioned the specific 5 boundaries of the land in Ex.P3 and occurrence report. He further admitted that he has not examined any independent witness and he has not sighted any VRO or VRA to act as mediators and he denied the suggestion that he registered the case for statistical purpose only, he has not examined the accused about the details of the contraband and where they purchased and he further denied the suggestion that the accused is no way connected to this case and he falsely implicated the accused in this case.

11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, PW.1 is one and only witness and he is the investigation officer and also defacto- complainant. There is no other independent witness to prove the prosecution case. Hence the evidence of PW.1 is being police official, is to be scrutinized with great caution as they may have interest to get conviction with a view to make their investigation fruitful.

12.Moreover, as per the Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitance of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

13.Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. It is settled principle that penal statutes should be strictly construed and benefit of any lacuna in the case of prosecution is to be given to the accused. There are latches in the part of the investigating agency, there is no corroboration in the evidence of witnesses to prove the seizure of property from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused and also the prosecution failed to mark any material object to prove the case of prosecution. In view of the above infirmities, this Court find that it is not 6 safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution, when it is not complete to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution:For defence:

P.W.1/LW.3 : Ch.Prabhakara Rao,-None- Asst.Sub-Inspector of police.

Documents marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

Ex.P.1/dt.08.12.2020 : Occurrence report- NIL- Ex.P.2/dt.08.12.2020 : First Information Report Ex.P.3/dt.08.12.2020 : Rough sketch Ex.P.4/dt.22.01.2021 : Chemical Analysis Report

Material objects marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

Nil-NIL-

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

CLASS AT JAGGAIAHPET.

C.C.No.2191 of 2021.

Date of: Offence on orComplaint Apph. ofReleased onCommencementClosure of TrialResult

beforeaccusedBailof Trial

08.12.202008.12.202008.12.202008.12.202025.07.202204.04.202306.04.2023

Between:

The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District.

....Complainant

AND

Damala Ravi, S/o Yesobu, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o Old Vemavaram village of Vatsavai Mandal. … Accused

Offence:under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay: The case was taken on file under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act on 21.09.2021. On 25.07.2022 case copies furnished to the accused and on the same day, accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charge under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act was framed against the accused, the same was explained, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 17.03.2023 PW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P4, the prosecution evidence was closed. On 04.04.2023 accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material, for which, accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. On 06.04.2023 heard arguments and on the same day Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to: The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jaggaiahpet.

1

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: JAGGAIAHPET.

Present:- Smt. K.Sravani,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAGGAIAHPET.

Thursday, dated this the 06th day of April, 2023.

Calendar Case No. 2170 / 2022.

Between:

The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District.

....Complainant

AND

1.Mundra Venkaiah, s/o Ramaiah, Hindu, aged 75 years, C/Kamma, R/o Konakanchi village of Penuganchiprolu Mandal., NTR Dit.

2. Nallepalli Sriram (Juvenile) … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 06.04.2023 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/ Complainant and of Sri P.S.Srinivasa rao, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon perusal of record and hearing both the learned counsels and having stood over the matter to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vatsavai police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.643/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution as per the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The accused are the resident of Konakanchi village of

Penuganchiprolu Mandal, NTR dist. The accused A1 and Juvenile is in conflict with law decided to purchase liquor illegally from Telangana and to sell in A.P for more price illegally to gain more profit. Accordingly, on 07.12.2020, accused purchased liquor in Choppakatlavaripalem village of

Telangana State and kept the contraband on Motor cycle bearing No. AP 16

EX 0457, while on returning back to their village via Makkapeta, LW.3 at 2 21.00 hrs., on receiving credible information regarding illegal transportation of liquor bottles, secured his staff LW.1 PC 1825 and LW.2 PC 1005 rushed to Makkapeta village of Vatsavai Mandal, conducted vehicle checking, while checking, taken the accused into custody while they are having the illegal possession of liquor bottles 1.Mansion House 180 ml – 12 bottles and 2. Old Admiral 180 ml – 80 bottles, total bottles are 92 in number, worth of Rs.11,500/-. while he is transporting liquor bottles purchased at choppakatlavaripalem village of Telanaga State bring the same illegally and without having license. The A.S.I. of police seized the liquor bottles ie., 1.Mansion House 180 ml – 12 bottles and 2. Old Admiral 180 ml – 80 bottles, total bottles are 92 in number, worth of Rs.11,500/-.

under the cover of occurrence report along with motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 EX 0457. LW.3 returned to police station along with occurrence report, seized property, accused along with motor cylce and registered the occurrence report as First Information Report in Cr.No.643/2020, on 07.12.2020 at about 22.30 hrs., under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, 1968 and submitted the original First Information Report to the Hon'ble JFCM

Court, Jaggaiahpet and copies to all the concerned and took up investigation.

b)During course of investigation, LW.3 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch to that effect and secured the witnesses LW.1 and

LW.2 who accompanied him in patrolling duty at Station Jurisdiction and examined them and got prepared their Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C in his laptop. On 07.12.2020, LW.3 served Section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice to the accused and Juvenile with an instructions to appear before the Hon'ble

Court or police, whenever his presence is required, otherwise, action will be taken against him according to Law.

Further LW.4 took up further investigation in this case. On 14.12.2020, the accused violated the provisions under section 41 A Cr.P.C..

3

Hence, LW.4 the then S.I of Vatsavai P.S., arrested the accused and sent him for Judicial custody.

Later, LW.4/prepared letter of advise and sent the sample to

Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis, and obtained CE No. 37/2021, in which it is opined that the sample at serial number 1436 to 1437 are Indian made liquor.

As separate charge sheet is being filed against the Juvenile child in conflict with law before the Hon’ble Juvenile Justice court, Vijayawada.

As per the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Krishna,

Machilipatnam, the seized property were sent to Machilipatnam for destroy, the orders are awaited. After completion of investigation, LW.4 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act, 1968.

3. This case was taken on file against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, this Court furnished copies of case documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.This Court examined accused under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for the substances of accusation levelled against him under charge sheet, for which, he denied the same. Having considered submissions made by him and also taking into consideration the material placed before this Court, this

Court was of the opinion that there is ground to presume that accused has committed the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and as such, this Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act, read over and explained its contents in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claiming the case to be tried.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined

LW.3 Ch.Prabhakara Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of police, Vatsavai PS as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and the learned APP has given up the evidence 4 of LW.1/PC 1825 and LW.2/ PC 1005 , LW.4/S.L.R.Someswara Rao former S.I of police Vatsavai Police Station and LW.5/G.Mahalakshmudu, S.I. of Police,

Vatsavai PS respectively.

7.Prosecution evidence is closed, then, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C based on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the accused made total denial, no defence evidence is adduced.

Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined LW.3

Ch. Prabhakara Rao, Asst. Sub-Inspector of police as PW.1. PW.1 who is the investigating officer deposed that on reliable information on 07.12.2020 at about 09.00 P.M. hours, he along with his staff LW.1/PC 1825 and LW.2/PC 1005 went to Makkapeta village of Vatsavai Mandal , found two persons were coming on Motor Cycle bearing NO. AP 16 EX 0457, they stopped them and verified the bag along with them on enquiry, they revealed their identities as 1. Mundra Venkaiah , s/o Ramaiah, r/o Konakanchi village and another person Nallapati Sri Ram, S/o Ramesh, Aged 17 years. On verifying the bag along with them, they found 1.Old Admiral 180 ml – 80 bottles 2.

Mansion House 180 ml – 12 bottles, Total bottles are 92 worth of

Rs.11,500/-. On further questioning they stated that they purchased the liquor bottles in Telangana for lower price and sell to higher price in Andhra

Pradesh. They have seized the liquor bottles and collected the samples and then tried to secure the mediators but in vain. So he has prepared the occurrence report under Ex.P1. After going to police station, he registered a case in Cr.No.643/2020, at about 10.30 pm, on 07.12.2020, under Section 5 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act under Ex.P2 and sent the original First

Information Report to the Hon'ble Court and later he took up investigation and he has issued notice U/section 41(A) Cr.P.C. Later sent the sample bottles for analysis report and prepared rough sketch which is marked as

Ex.P3 and examined the witnesses. On receipt of analysis report under

Ex.P4, his S.I. of police, Vatsavai Police Station, filed charge sheet.

10.During course of cross examination, PW.1 deposed that the scene of offence is busy locality and he has not mentioned the specific boundaries of the land in Ex.P3 and occurrence report. He further admitted that he has not examined any independent witness and he has not sighted any VRO or VRA to act as mediators and he denied the suggestion that he registered the case for statistical purpose only, he has not examined the accused about the details of the contraband and where they purchased and he further denied the suggestion that the accused is no way connected to this case and he falsely implicated the accused in this case.

11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, PW.1 is one and only witness and he is the investigation officer and also defacto- complainant, PW.1 deposed in his chief examination as the accused were complied the notice under section 41 A Cr.P.C. perusing the record it show that the accused was sent to Judicial custody. Hence, it is clearly shows that, PW.1 has no sufficient knowledge on this present case. There is no other independent witness to prove the prosecution case. Hence the evidence of PW.1 is being police official, is to be scrutinized with great caution as they may have interest to get conviction with a view to make their investigation fruitful.

12.Moreover, as per the Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitance of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if 6 no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

13.Therefore, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. It is settled principle that penal statutes should be strictly construed and benefit of any lacuna in the case of prosecution is to be given to the accused. There are latches in the part of the investigating agency, there is no corroboration in the evidence of witnesses to prove the seizure of property from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused and also the prosecution failed to mark any material object to prove the case of prosecution. In view of the above infirmities, this Court find that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution, when it is not complete to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 34(a) of AP

Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution:For defence:

P.W.1/LW.3 : Ch.Prabhakara Rao,-None- Asst.Sub-Inspector of police.

Documents marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

Ex.P.1/dt.07.12.2020 : Occurrence report- NIL- Ex.P.2/dt.07.12.2020 : First Information Report Ex.P.3/dt.07.12.2020 : Rough sketch Ex.P.4/dt.22.01.2021 : Chemical Analysis Report

Material objects marked:

For prosecution:For defence:

Nil-NIL-

Sd/- Smt. K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

CLASS AT JAGGAIAHPET.

C.C.No.2170 of 2022.

Date of: Offence on orComplaint Apph. ofReleased onCommencementClosure of TrialResult

beforeaccusedBailof Trial

07.12.202007.12.202014.12.202015.12.202007.12.202204.04.202306.04.2023

Between:

The State – Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District.

....Complainant

AND

1.Mundra Venkaiah, s/o Ramaiah, Hindu, aged 75 years, C/Kamma, R/o Konakanchi village of Penuganchiprolu Mandal., NTR Dit.

2. Nallepalli Sriram (Juvenile) … Accused

Offence:under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months as per under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay: No delay.

Sd/- Smt.K.Sravani

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JAGGAIAHPET.

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to: The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Jaggaiahpet.