Ms.L.Annapurnasri

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I­

CLASS (MOBILE)

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R.ACT CUM IX

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ­ CUM ­ IV ADDL. JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT : Ms.L.Annapurna Sri

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for trying P & E

Offences,Machilipatnam.

FAC/Spl.Judl.Magistrate Of I­Class (MOBILE) For Trial

Of Cases Under

P.C.R.Act Cum IX Metropolitan Magistrate ­Cum­ IV

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam

Tuesday, this the 31 st day of December, 2019

C.C.No.259 of 2015

Between:

State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluq Police Station. (Cr.No.105/2015) … Complainant.

And

Bommu Venkanna Babu, S/o Naga Pothu Raju, age 30 years, Thummala Cheruvu Village,

Bandar Mandal. ... Accused

This case is coming on 27.12.2019 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the Prosecution and of Sri B.Srinivasa, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following; 

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluq Police

Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.105/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 354­A of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short “IPC”).

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

02. The brief facts of the charge­sheet are as follows:­

(a)About one month back the accused came to

LW.1’s/Talupula Sandhya Rani’s house and given phone number of his wife on plea of dwakra work, but he did not left the house and noticed that none were present at the house.

On noticing the accused entered into her house, caught hold of her hand, pulled, LW.1 raised cries the accused escaped from the spot. On hearing her cries, LW.1 raised cries the accused escaped from the spot. On hearing her cries, LW.3 and 4 came and witnessed. LW.1 informed the facts to them. LW.1 put the matter before the LW.5 & 6, they called him, the accused agreed about his acts against LW.1 in the presence of LW.5 and 6 and requested to pardon him. But the accused did not change his attitude. On 26.05.2015 morning at about 7.30 a.m., LW.2 went to attend cooly works, LW.1 was present at her house. On seeing her loneliness, the accused who hand over an eye to fulfill his sexual lust, criminally trespassed into the house of LW.1, caught hold her hand, pulled. The accused demanded to fulfill his sexual lust. LW.1 raised cries, LW.3, 4, 7 & 8 rushed to the house, on seeing them, the accused escaped from the spot. LW.1 informed the matter to LW.2. On advice of LW.5 and 6, LW.1 turned to police station along with

LW.2 and presented written report. 

(b)Based on the report of the defacto complainant, LW.9 the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Bandar

Taluq P.S., registered the same as a case and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the same. On 28.05.2015, accused came to the P.S., and served notices to accused U/s. 41­A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

03. This case was taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 448, 354­A of IPC against accused and issued summons to accused.

04.This Court conducted examination under Sec.251

Cr.P.C for which he denied the charge sheet allegations for the offences under Sections 448, 354­A of IPC framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Ex.P1 to P4 and the same is after closure of the prosecution side evidence, examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating evidence appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, heard both side arguments and judgment pronounced and the same is accused is convicted under sec.354­D, 448 of IPC. He carried the matter to appellate Court vide CRLA 71/2017 the Honourable

Appellate Court with an observation that remanded the case for fresh Trial with a direction to frame charges (as the charges are not framed by the Trial Court), after hearing both sides and after framing of such charges if any, recall the witnesses already examined to record the evidence on the charges framed, if any, in addition to the evidence already

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

given, if any of the parties wish to do so, and to dispose of the matter afresh without being influenced by the observations made by this Court on factual aspects, if any. 

05. As per the order of Honourable Appellate Court when he was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C for which he denied the charges under Sections 448, 354­A of IPC framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned counsel for accused sought to dispose of the matter afresh.

06. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. 

07. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now the points for determination are:

“Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charge under Sections 448, 354­A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:­

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

(a)The case of prosecution is that the accused came to the house of PW.1 and gave phone number of his wife on a plea of dwakra work but he did not leave the house after noticing the absence of inmates of the house the accused caught hold of the hand of PW.1 and pulled her, PW.1 raised the cries the accused escaped from the spot. 

(b)The prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 448 IPC reads as follows:­

1. That the accused committed criminal trespass.

2. That such criminal trespass was committed by entering into, or remaining in, a building, tent, or vessel.

3. that such building tent, or vessel, was used as a human dwelling or as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property.

The prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 354­A IPC reads:­ (1) A man committing any of the following acts:­ (I) Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or 

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. 

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (I) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub­section (1)

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a temr which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3)Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub­section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fin, or with both.

11.The contention of the accused is that PW.1 was a dwakra leader, she did not distribute the amount properly to the dwakra members, the wife of accused is one of the members of the dwakra group and there are two political parties in their village and due to existing of political rivalry inbetween them PW.1 foisted a false case against the accused and the accused never committed any offence as alleged by the PW.1 as his wife was a member of dwakra group in order to pay the amount only he went to the house of PW.1 to give amount. Apart from these factors the co­sister of the PW.1 gives tuition to the school going children and PW.1, her in laws and her co­sister all are living together as such there is no possibility to occur this type of incident as alleged by the

PW.1. 

12.PW.1 is the person who set the criminal law into motion has stated that when PW.1 went to fetch water from the water tank at the time the accused used to tease her to come to his house as he is alone and misbehaved indecently, on one occasion he came to his house and gave his phone number to PW.1 as she is President of Dwakra group and his wife is a member of it. In the absence of LW.2, PW.1 misbehaved with her by caught holding of her hand. Then, she raised cries thereafter LW.3 & 4 came after noticing them, the

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

accused fled away. Thereafter accused admitted his guilt

before the Panchayat elders. After 10 days i.e, on 26.05.2015

in the morning at 7.30 a.m., in the absence of family members of PW.1 except her daughter about 8 months age, at that time the accused trespassed into his house scolded her and caught hold of her hand and behaved indecently. She escaped from him, thereafter she informed the same to her husband in the evening thereafter all the family members of the accused, fighted with their family members. The above said evidence discloses that one incident was occurred prior to 10 days of 26.05.2015 and another incident was occurred on 26.05.2015.

Despite matter is placed before elders there is no change in the attitude of accused and thereafter she gave report to police.

On perusal of the Ex.P1 it shows that on one occasion the accused caught hold of her hand, pulled her again on 26.05.2015 the accused came to PW.1 and questioned her who saves the PW.1, but Ex.P1 does not disclose on 26.05.2015. The accused came to PW.1 and pulled her and asked her when she is available without any work.

13.In the cross examination PW.1 has clearly stated she, her husband, brother in law, father in law all are residing in one house, her father in law, her co­sister and brother in law are residing in one portion, she along with her husband are residing in another portion. At the time of alleged incident her co­sister was giving tuition to the children. PW.2 who is husband of PW.1 has stated that the accused used to tease her and misbehaved indecently on one occasion the accused came to his house and gave phone number to PW.1 for the purpose

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

of dwakra group. After 10 days of the incident when he went attend work outside the accused came caught hold of hand of

PW.1 and behaved indecently and this matter is placed before village elders informed him that the accused did not heed their words told him approach the police. His cross examination reveals he was present at the time of this incident and he came to know through PW.1. 

14.PW.3 is father in law of PW.1 categorically stated that the accused came to his house in which PW.1 & 2 are staying at the accused came to give phone number of his wife of PW.1 at the time he heard cries of PW.1 and he came outside of their room and saw the accused caught holding of the hand of PW.1, she shouted him on that he escaped from that place. The matter was referred to village elders and they admonished him thereafter the accused once again came to the house of PW.1 and abused her, despite matter is informed villager elders, the accused did not hear their words on that

PW.1 gave report to police. In his cross examination he stated her another daughter in law gives a tuition and totally six members were residing in their house. The wife of the accused is one of the members of dwakra group. He denied that PW.1 did not run the dwakra group property and she misappropriated dwakra group amount.

15.PW.4 who is elder of that village stated that he was present in a house PW.1 to 3 came to his stating that the accused came to the house of PW.1 to give phone number and at the time he caught hold of PW.1 on hearing cries PW.3 and

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

LW.4 rescued him. Then he called father of accused and the father of accused came apologize about his acts against PW.1 and accused gave assurance he would not repeat, after 15 days of incident the accused went to the house of PW.1 and caught hold of her. In his cross examination he sated that he is a village elder at about 2 years back he admonished the accused and he denied no panchayath was held.

16.PW.5 who is elder of that village has also stated that he admonished the accused when the accused caught hold of the hand of PW.1, after 15 days the accused once again misbehaved against PW.1, thereby he stated he is unable to control the accused and asked the family members of PW.1 to proceed against accused as they like. In his cross examination he denied that there is an enmity between him and accused party. Further he denied he does not know anything relating to this case. 

17.PW.6 who is mother in law of PW.1 categorically stated that while she was present in the house she heard cries he came out from her house and noticed the accused was going away from their house. On enquiry she came to know that accused caught hold of hand of PW.1. She denied due to existing of disputes in between dwakra group members with regard to distribution of amount to the members and due to existing of political rivalries in between her husband and father of accused, false case was foisted against the accused. 

18.PW.7 has stated he was not present at the time of alleged incident.

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

19.PW.8 has stated that she questioned the PW.1 while she was crying and came to know the accused caught hold of her hand at the time she saw the accused running away from that place. Thereafter once again the accused entered into the house of PW.1 and caught hold of her hand.

She denied that because PW.3 is her relative she is deposed false. 

20.PW.9 is Investigating officer who investigated this case and filed charge sheet. PW.9 denied that the woman police only have to enquire into the matter and further denied he did not examine the persons in that vicinity and he denied that he has not power to investigate the case. 

21.It is well settled law the evidence of victim stand on higher pedestal and there is no reason to either disbelieve her version or her presence at the place of occurrence. In the present case PW.1 is the victim to the incident, as such her evidence stand on higher pedestal compared with other evidence on record. Evidently, PW.1 trespassed into the house of PW.1 and misbehaved with

PW.1 Apart from these factors the evidence of PW.2 to 8 discloses that accused misbehaved with PW.1, though the elders admonished him he did not heed their words i.e.,

PW.5 & PW.6 thereafter PW.1 gave report to police. The contradictions under Ex.D.1 in the evidence of PW.3, could very well to separated by rejecting that part of evidence of

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

PW.3, since the substance of prosecution case is spoken by

PW.1 to PW.8 thoroughly against accused. The reading of evidence of PW.1 to 8 gives an impression that the witnesses are spoken honestly without inhibition and in cross examination also the witnesses fair well and did not show any sign of deposing false. The over all evidence of

PW.1 to 8 certainly show that the accused misbehaved with

PW.1. 

22.At this juncture referring section 134 of Indian

Evidence Act need to be made which states that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact. The Supreme Court has time and again held that it is the weight of evidence and not the number of witnesses which the Court ought to consider in Sheelam Ramesh Vs State of

AP AIR 2000 Supreme Court 118. The Apex Court ruled that it is the quality and not the quantity which matter. 

23.In the present case the quality of evidence came in the form of PW.1 as well as it is supported by Pws 2 to 8 and their evidence is a trustworthy, credible and reliable and inspires the confidence of Court, as such there is no question of extending benefit of doubt in favour of accused. The

Honoruable Supreme Court of India held that it is the totality

of the evidence, which matters and if the same creates a confidence of acceptability of such an evidence, question of rejection on being ascribed as interested witness could not be justifiably in Munshi Prasad Vs State of Bihar AIR 2001 SC 3031. 

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

24.In the present case, the investigation was done by

PW.9. The learned counsel for accused argued that due to existing of political rivalry false case is foisted, and PW.9 has no power to investigate the case and relied on 2014(2) ALD criminal 521 Supreme Court in RE: India Woman says gang raped on orders of village Court published in business and financial news, in Suo Motu WP (Criminal) number 24 of 2014 wherein it is observed that the statement of a woman against whom an offence under sec.354, Sec.354­A, 354­B, 354­C, 354­D, Sec.376, Sec.376­A, 376­B, 376­C, 376­D, 376­

E, or Sec.509 is alleged to have been committed are attempted, shall be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.

25.In the present case PW.9 has stated as no woman

PC is available, he recorded the statement of PW.1 and investigated into. It is well settled law that on technical ground the entire case of prosecution cannot be thrown away. 

So, in the circumspect with due respects to the principle laid down above said citation this Court in view currently it is not applicable to the facts on record. It is well settled law minor contradiction cannot go to the root of prosecution case, the evidence of witnesses cannot calculated in mathematical way. So in the circumstances this Court disinclines to throw away the evidence of PW.1 on the ground that the woman police not recorded the statement of PW.1. In the cross examination of PW.1 to 9 nothing is appeared to disbelieve the evidence as regards to the incident which is stated to have

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

taken place on 26.05.2015. PW.1 withstood the cross examination, the co­sister of PW.1 was giving tuitition at the time of alleged incident on that ground it cannot be said that no incident was occurred as stated by the PW.1 and PW.1 removed as leader of Dwakra as also not a ground to discredit the evidence of PW.1. 

26.On over all consideration of all the factors, meticulously and with the discussion as taken up above, this

Court is in view that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.354­A, 448 of IPC.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

27. Point No.2

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 354­A of IPC and he was convicted under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer by the corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 31 st day of December, 2019. Sd/­L.Annapoorna Sri Sd/­L.Annapurna Sri FAC/Spl.Judicial I­Class (Mobile) for trial of cases Under P.C.R Act Cum IX Metropolitan Magistrate Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

Hearing on Quantum of Sentence

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 354­A of IPC and he was convicted under Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. 

Hearing on the quantum of sentence, accused submitted that I have to take of my family I have old aged parents and accused requested to invoke the provisions of probations of

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

offenders act and released the accused on probation. The accused has committed an offence under Sec.354­A, 448 of IPC. Considering the facts in the present case this Court do not find any special reason for invoking for provision of probation of offenders act and releasing the accused on probation.

Considering the mitigating the circumstances submitting the accused and considering his status and representations made by him, it is observed that the circumstances stated are normal. The Court while sentencing the accused is required considered the pain and agony suffered by the victim at the hands of accused and balance aggregative and mitigating circumstances in sentencing the accused.

Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence punishable under Sec.448 of IPC in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 

Accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/­ for the offence punishable under Sec.354­A of IPC in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. 

Since accused did not undergo remand period there shall be no set off under Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. Since the crime weapon is not exhibited, there shall be no order as to the property. 

The bail bond of accused is stands cancelled subject to section 437–A Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment sentenced passed by this Court. Office is directed to furnish copy of judgment to the accused forthwith. 

Typed directly to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on mechanical process, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of December, 2019.

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

Sd/­L.Annapurna Sri FAC/Spl.Judicial I­Class (Mobile) for trial of cases Under P.C.R Act Cum IX Metropolitan Magistrate Cum IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

PW.1: T.Sandhya None PW.2: T.Jwala Narasimha Rao PW.3: Talupula Gopala Swami PW.4: A.Nancharaiah PW.5: T.Srinivasa Rao PW.6: T.Kasturamma PW.7: Arja Tatarao PW.8: Enkayamma PW.9: P.Uma Maheswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Report Ex.P.2: FIR Ex.P.3: Rough sketch

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D1: S.161 Cr.P.C., statement of witness i.e., Tatarao

MATERIAL OBJECTS 

­Nil­ Sd/­L.Annapurna Sri FAC/Spl.Judicial I­Class (Mobile) for trial of cases Under P.C.R Act Cum IX Metropolitan Magistrate Cum IV Addl.0Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

// True copy//

FAC/Spl.Judicial I­Class (Mobile) for trial of cases Under P.C.R Act Cum IX Metropolitan 

Magistrate

Cum IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.259/2015 Dt.31.12.2019

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I­

CLASS (MOBILE) 

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R.ACT CUM IX

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CUM IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT : Ms.L.Annapurna Sri

 Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class for trying P & E

Offences,

Machilipatnam.

FAC/SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I­CLASS (MOBILE) FOR

TRIAL OF CASES UNDER P.C.R.ACT CUM IX

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CUM IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM

Monday, this the 30 st day of December, 2019

C.C.No.345 of 2017

Between:

State : Sub­Inspector of police, Pedana Police Station

(Cr.No.37/2016) ... COMPLAINANT.

And

1. Perumalla Venkata Raju, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 30 years, Chegurukota Village, Mudinepalli Mandal.

2. Perumalla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Narayana Swamy, aged about 55 years, Chegurukota Village, Mudinepalli Mandal.

3. Perumalla Ramakrishna, W/o Venkateswara Rao, aged about 40 years, Chegurukota Village, Mudinepalli Mandal.

4. Pittu kamala, W/o Suryakondala Rao, aged about 25 years, 

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

P.Kanapuram Village, Dwarakatirumala. 

5. Athmuri Naga Rani, W/o Tagur Durga Prasad, aged about 20 years, Chinnaligala Village, 

Nandivada Mandal. ….. Accused .

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri.S.Balaji Rao, Counsel for A1 to A5, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following : 

J U D G M E N T 

01.The Sub­Inspector of police, Pedana Police Station filed a charge sheet against Accused in Cr.No.37/2016 under sections 498­A of of Indian Penal Code,1860 (herein after referred to as 'IPC' for the sake of brevity) and Sec.3 & 4 of

D.P.Act. 

02. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that:

On 01.08.2012 LW.1/Perumalla Swapna marriage was performed with A1 as per the Hindu rites and customs. At the time of her marriage, her parents given Rs.2,00,000/­ cash, 10 navars gold and given Rs.30000/­ rupees for aadapaduch lanchanam to the accused towards pasupu kumkum. After she resides to her husband house at Chegurukota Village with joint family with her mother in law and father in law. After some days A1 performed conjugal life with her. After some days A1 to A5 all are harassed the complainant both mentally and

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

physically and demand to bring an additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/­ and Ac.0.50 cents land from her parent’s house and beat her in one year back. A1 sent her into her parents house Nandamuru Village, Pedana Mandal. After her parents and village elders Parasa Venkateswara Rao, Naidu Srinivasa

Rao, Ganjala Venugopala Rao compromised them with the help of Mahila Mandali and sent her into her husband house.

But the accused did not change his attitude. He is doing head worker in Chegurukota tiles company. A1 performed 6 months conjugal life with her after he consumed alcohol and beat her and harassed her, he asked her to give her the divorce and he performed second marriage and got additional dowry. A1 to

A5 all are harassed her and do what they said otherwise they will fire her with kerosene. A1 fire her with cigarate and naked with knife in night times. In the year 2016 at

Sankranthi festival A1 asked motor cycle from her parents.

But her parents not buy the motor cycle due to loss in

Agriculture. In this A1 to A3 put her into a room and forced her to put sign in white papers. On 03.03.2016 at 21.00 hrs.,A1 to A3 put her in auto and shifted her in her parents house Nandamuru Village and put her hair and beat him with hands and that time her parents are interviewed and prevent them but they are also abused her parents and beat them with hands and legs. A1 to A5 harassed both mentally and physically to bring the additional dowry. The complainant turned up to the police station and presented a report.

b) Based on the report of the defacto complainant, the L.W.7­ the then Sub­Inspector of Police,

Pedana P.S., registered the same as a case and investigated

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

into. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the same. On 20.09.2016, accused came to the P.S., and he served notices to accused U/s. 41­A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

03.Originally, on receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under sections 498­A IPC and

Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act against A1 to A5.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity). 

05.When examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., A1 to

A5 denied the allegations levelled against them. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, charges had been levelled against A1 to A5 under sections 498­

A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act, which were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined out of the seven cited witnesses in the charge sheet and Ex.P1 was exhibited. The evidence of L.Ws.2 to 7 by names Ganjala Subramanyeswara

Rao, Parasa Venkateswara Rao, Naidu Srinivasa Rao, Ganjala

Venugopal, Pothuboyina Krishna, A.Ganesh Kumar/Sub­

Inspector of police, Pedana P.S was given up by the learned

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

07.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard both sides.

09.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution is

fruitful in bringing home the

guilt of accused for the

offences punishable under

sections 498­A IPC and Sec.3 &

4 of D.P.Act beyond reasonable

doubt?

10. POINT:

(a)The case of prosecution is that all the accused persons harassed the PW.1 both physically and mentally for the sake of additional dowry.

a)The prosecution must prove the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498­A of IPC are as follows:­

(a)any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, reads as follows:­

Penalty for giving or taking dowry:­ If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more; If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more. Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years. Nothing in sub­section shall apply to, or in relation to, Nothing in sub­section shall apply to, or in relation to presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride without any demand having been made in that behalf Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act; presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom without any demand having been made in that behalf. Provided that such presents are entered in a list main­ tained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Pro­ vided further that where such presents are made by or on be­

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

half of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.

Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, reads as follows:­

Penalty for demanding dowry:­ If any person demands, di­ rectly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 

Penalty for demanding dowry. If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

11.PW.1 is the person who set the criminal law into motion under Ex.P1 and categorically stated that on 01.08.2012 her marriage was performed with A1 at his house situated at Chigurukota village as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of both side parents, elders and well wishers.

At the time of marriage her parents presented Rs.2 lakhs in cash and 10 sovereigns of gold to the A1 to A3 in presence of elders towards dowry and further presented Rs.20,000/­ each to A4 and A5 towards adapaduchulanchanam and also presented house hold articles for Rs.30,000/­ towards saresaman. Immediately after marriage she joined for

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

cohabitation at her matrimonial house at Chigurukota village and lived together A1 to A5 as joint family and lead married life for a period of 6 months and subsequent to that altogether

A1 to A5 started demanding for additional dowry to bring from her parents house i.e., to gift the landed property situated at

Nandamuru village measuring to an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents of land and also to bring Rs.1,00,000/­ and in the same A1 beat her and left her at the house of her parents at Nandamru village. At the instant of her parents herein Lws2 mediation taken place before elders herein Lws3 to 5 at Mahilamandali,

Pedana as such A1 by promising before elders on undergoing in written taken her to conjugal fold that he will look after her without further harassment and in order to that A1 taken her to conjugal fold and again started his harassment without changing his attitude used to visit house at late nights in a drunken state and beat her indiscriminately in demand of

additional dowry and also used to threatened her stating that

he will remarry another woman i.e., 2nd marriage would be performed for to obtain huge amount of dowry and demand her to give divorce to him. Further used to subject her to cruelty both physically and mentally and subsequently A1 to

A5 altogether used to threaten he with dire consequences stating that they would do out her by setting Kerosene and used to utter words against her as she is not a suitable wife to him and also used to abet her for to commit suicide such that

A1 used to harass her as sadist used to set cigarette marks over her body causing scars and also threatened her by stating that he will kill her by knife (penamkathi). Further 2016 on the eve of Sankranthi Festival A1 demanded Lw2 for to gift bike to

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

him for which Lw2 expressed his inability to fulfill the same for that A1 to A5 confined her in a dark room and not provided her food and water and obtained her signature over a blank white paper on 03.03.2016 and subsequent to that A1 to A3 taken her to her parents house at Nandamuru village in an auto and informed to her parents herein Lw2 that A1 given divorce to her and further while A1 to A3 beating her Lw2 and her mother intervened as such A1 to A3 beat them also indiscriminately with hands and legs and left from that place as such themselves requested accused to take her to conjugal fold through an elder and for the same they refused to do so and in order to that waited till 12.03.2016 she lodged report against accused.

12.In her cross examination she stated that there is no documentary proof that the Ac.1.10 cents of land with her.

Further cross examination she stated that the accused persons did not harass her and did not demand for additional dowry.

13.Obviously, on perusal of the above said evidence it is clear that PW.1 failed to withstood the cross examination, did not say anything against the accused persons. It is well settled law petty offences does not attract the cruelty defined under Sec.498­A I.P.C. PW.1 has not filed any documentary proof to show that she sustained injuries. 

14. Section 498­A :­ “The term “Cruelty” has been defined in explanation (a) to Section 498­A I.P.C. Explanation (a) provides that ‘cruelty’ means any willful conduct, which is of

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Hence, under clause (a) cruelty means any willful conduct, which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.”

15.In the present case also, the prosecution failed to establish that P.W.1 was subjected to cruelty. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1 as she was beaten by the accused for not bringing additional dowry she did not place any documentary evidence as she was treated by the Doctor for the injuries sustained by her in the hands of the accused. Her evidence does not attract the cruelty defined under Section 498­A I.P.C.

and it is well settled law that every harassment does not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498­A I.P.C.

It is not out of place to remember the principle laid down in:­

N.Swarna Vs. N.Surya Narayana and others

reported in 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 450 (AP)

“Solitary evidence of complainant not sufficient alleged harassment for dowry not true, when solitary evidence of complainant wife not clear, cogent, convincing and free from blemish, she did not specifically speak about purpose and amount of additional dowry demanded by her husband.”

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

“No doubt any unlawful demand by the husband or relatives of the husband is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498­ A IPC, but at the same time, bald allegation would not be sufficient.” P.W.1 did not specifically speak about the purpose of quantum of additional dowry demanded by A1.”

16.On an evaluation of testimony of P.W.1 it does attract the ingredients referred under Section 498­A I.P.C. as well as the cruelty defined under Section 498­A I.P.C, so in this court has came to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution failed to produce cogent and convincing evidence to inspire the judicial mind in establishing its case against the accused ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ for the charges leveled against them U/s 498­A r/w 34 IPC and consequently the accused are entitled for an order of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly, in favour of the accused and as against the prosecution.

17.There is no iota of evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

18. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498­A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted Under

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled. A1 to A5 shall furnish bonds u/s 437­A Cr.P.C, that they shall appear before the appellate court in the event they receive summons within six months from today.

Typed directly to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on mechanical process, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of December, 2019.

Sd/­ L.Annapurna Sri FAC/Spl.Judicial I­Class (Mobile) for trial of cases Under P.C.R Act Cum IX Metropolitan 

Magistrate

Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Perumalla Swapna None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Statement of PW.1

For Defence: ­­­Nil­­­ 

MATERIAL OBJECTS 

–­ Nil ­­ Sd/­ L.Annapurna Sri FAC/Spl.Judicial I­Class (Mobile) for trial of cases Under P.C.R Act Cum IX Metropolitan 

Magistrate

Cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.345 of 2017 Dt.12.12.2019

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION), VIJAYAWADA

Present: Ms. L. Annapurna Sri, V Additional Civil Judge (JD), Vijayawada. FAC/II Additional Civil Judge (JD), Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 28th day of March, 2025.

O.S. NO. 725 of 2018

Between:

Nannapaneni Koteswara Rao, S/o. Bapanaiah, aged about 80 years, R/o.

Shop No.8, Indira Gandhi Municipal Stadium Complex, M.G. Road,

Vijayawada rep by its GPA Holder Medida Vijaya Lakshmi @ Donga

Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Donga Murali, aged about 43 years, Business, R/o.

Rukmini Apartments, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. :: Plaintiff.

And:

The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner,

Vijayawada. :: Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 17.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Dhara Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri

P. Ravi, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, it’s men associates, representatives, associates, agents etc., from ever interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and 2 enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, except under due process of law and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint as follows :

The defendant inducted the plaintiff as a tenant in shop No.8 Indira

Gandhi Municipal Stadium Complex, MG road, Vijayawada i.e., the plaint schedule property. The present monthly rent of Rs.17,250/- apart from the electrical charges. At the time of mutation the defendant collected an amount of Rs.30,720/- towards mutation fee and six months rent advance at Rs.15,360/-. Subsequently, the plaintiff has been continuation occupation and possession of the plaint schedule property by paying monthly rents to the defendant regularly without default. The plaint schedule property has been paying necessary taxes to the departments concerned. After bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the defendant hatched a plan that they necked out of the tenants from the schedule property and will allot to others for higher rate of rents. The staff of the defendant frequently visiting the plaint schedule property and demanding the plaintiff to vacate and handover the plaint schedule property. While matter the stood thus, on 28.07.2018 at about 11.00 AM, the men and associates of the defendant, came to the plaintiff threatened him to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and further the defendant warned the plaintiff that they would throw him and the samans out of the plaint schedule property as the 3 defendant is a Government body. Therefore, the defendant has been continuously threatening and trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Hence this plaint.

3. The brief averments stemming out from the written statement as follows :

The defendant denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint schedule property. The defendant corporation used to allot the shops on lease basis by conducting open auction and with the approval of standing committee u/sec. 148(3) of HMC Act, While so, Sri S.Lakshman Kumar had made a request stating that he is doing join business with his partner

Sri N.Koteswara Rao in the said shop and due to losses, he is withdrawing from the business and thereby asked to change the lease of shop No.8 in the name of his partner Sri N.Koteswara Rao by canceling his name as lessee. Hon’ble High Court of AP issued orders and directed to put the lease of all shops for public auction which was completed 25 years of lease period. It is clear that the defendant corporation made their efforts as prescribed by Law only for evicting the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property with an intention to conduct the public auction of the plaint schedule property and other shops. The defendant corporation and their employees did not try to evict the plaintiff unlawfully at any point of time much less on 28.07.2018 at about 11.00 AM and they did not 4 threat the plaintiff to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. He is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the plaint. Hence he requested to dismiss the suit.

4.After considering the entire material in the plaint and written statement, the following issues were settled for trial on 11.03.2019:

I) Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property?

II) Whether defendants interfered with possession of plaintiff or

not ?

III) Whether plaintiff entitled for permanent injunction as prayed

for?

IV) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 examined and got marked Exs. A.1 to A.3. Ex.A.1 is the Mutation order

dated 04.09.2001. Ex.A.2 is the lease pass book dated 08.05.2006.

Ex.A.3 is the rent payment receipt dated 06.10.2021. On behalf of defendant, D.W.1 examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

7. ISSUE NO’S.1 TO 3 : -

As the issues 1 to 3 are inter-related, this Court inclines to discuss them jointly.

The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has been continuation occupation and possession of the plaint schedule property 5 by paying monthly rents to the defendant regularly without default. On 28.07.2018 at about 11.00 AM, the men and associates of the defendant, came to the plaintiff threatened him to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property.

8.In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the GPA Holder of the plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and she has reiterated the suit facts in her chief-examination affidavit and she placed reliance on Exs.A1 to A3.

Ex.A.1 is the Mutation order dated 04.09.2001. Ex.A.2 is the Lease pass book dated 08.05.2006. Ex.A.3 is the Rent payment receipt dated 06.10.2021.

9.In cross-examination of the cross-examination of the PW-1 she has stated that as per Ex.A2 the lease period is from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2009 for a period of 3 years and she has a document to show that the lease is extended from 31.03.2009. At present there are 2 shops under her control i.e., shop No’s.8 and 15. The present suit is filed by her as GPA Holder. Shop No.15 is mutated in her name from Sajja Lakshman

Kumar. Shop No.8 is mutated in the name of N. Koteswara Rao from one

Sk. Bashir in the year 2002. She denied that from 2018 onwards there are no documents to show that she is doing business in the plaint schedule property. Further, she has denied that she has no labour license at the time of filing of this case. She further denied that successful bidder can only continue tenancy for a period of 25 years only and further denied that 6 as original allotment was made in the year 1987, the period of 25 years lease is lapsed.

In support of the claim of the plaintiff, the PW-2 is examined and he has stated that on 28.07.2018 at about 11.00 a.m., the men and associates of the defendant corporation came to the plaintiff and threatened her to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property. The staff of the defendant corporation, warned the plaintiff that they would thrown out the articles/ samans illegally and highhandedly from the schedule premises as they are the government body. During the cross-examination of PW-1 he has stated that he knew the plaintiff, she is residing in the same complex in which he is running shop. The shop number in which the plaintiff is doing business is shop

No.15 and 8. On 28.07.2018 the corporation railway lady constable, SI male constable and 10 members municipal staff came to the complex in which they are doing business. He denied that he is deposing false hood.

10.On behalf of the defendant side DW-1 is examined and in his cross-examination he categorically admitted that the plaintiff in continuously paying the rent to the defendant corporation till today.

Further, admitted that without expiration of lease period of plaintiff, the defendant corporation tried to evict the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant corporation. Further admitted that the plaintiff is paying the rents as per enhanced amount for every three years 7 by the defendant corporation and the plaint schedule property was constructed about 45 years back. He expressed his ignorance that he does not know personally whether the defendant corporation forcibly tried to evict the plaintiff on 28.07.2018 at 11.00 AM. He denied that he does not know anything about the case facts and that to help the Municipal

Commissioner, he is giving false evidence though he does not have knowledge about this case. So, the admissions made by the DW-1 itself strengthens the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has been paying the rents continuously without any default and the DW-1 has not denied with regard to cause of action dt: 28.07.2018. The DW-1 has stated that he does not know personally whether the defendant corporation forcibly tried to evict the plaintiff on 28.07.2018 at 11.00 AM. The evidence of PW’s-1 and 2 establish the claim of the plaintiff. The circumstances clearly go to show that the defendant and it’s men are causing interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

Absolutely, the defendant has no manner of right to cause interference till the plaintiff is evicted from the suit schedule property under due process of law. From the foregoing reasons, this Court is in view that the plaintiff has proved his claim that the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and there is a cause of action for the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit of 8

Permanent Injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11. ISSUE NO.4 :

In the result, the suit is decreed granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant restraining the defendant, its men, associates, representatives, agents etc., from ever interfering plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property except under due process of law and each party do bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of March, 2025.

V Addl. Civil Judge, (JD), FAC/II Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW.1- Media Vijaya Lakshmi @ Donga Vijaya Lakshmi. PW.2- Varre Venkata Appa Rao.

For Defendant:

D.W.1- P. Uma Maheswara Rao.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff : Ex.A1 is the Mutation order dated 04.09.2001.

9

Ex.A2 is the Lease pass book dated 08.05.2006.

Ex.A3 is the Rent payment receipt dated 06.10.2021.

For Defendant : NIL

V Addl. Civil Judge, (JD), FAC/II Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Vijayawada.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri P. Ramana Reddy, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 21st day of October, 2014.

O.S. NO. 179/2013

Between:

Sanka Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Late S. Adinarayana, Hindu, aged about 85 years, Housewife & property, resident of D.No.54-14/5-10, Srinivasa Nagar, Bank Colony-3, Vijayawada – 8. :: Plaintiff.

And:

Sanka Venkata Rajeswara Rao, s/o. Adinarayana Rao, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Resident of Plot No.28, Upstairs, Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony-3, Vijayawada-8. :: Defendant.

Suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and his men restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 26.02.2013.

Plaint numbered on 26.02.2013.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.10,000/- under S.50(1) of APCF and SV.Act on which a Court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under S.20 of the said act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 28.12.1977 when the said Sanka Adinarayana Rao who is the husband of the plaintiff and father of the defendant purchased the property of an extent of 373 sq.yds., including the plaint schedule property herein under registered sale deed 11 bearing Document No.3737/1977 on the file of SRO, Vijayawada, subsequently on 11.03.2005 when the said Sanka Adinarayana Rao gifted the property of an extent of 181.33 sq. yds out of 373 sq. yds to his second son Sanka Venkateswara Rao by way of executing and registering a Gift deed bearing Document No.867/2005 on the file of SRO Vijayawada. On 28.07.2005 when the said Sank Adinarayana Rao died intestate leaving behind him the plaintiff herein as his legal heir and when the plaint schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff. On 08.07.2005 when the second son of Sanka Adinarayana Rao namely Sanka Venkateswara Rao sold his property to one D. Ramesh Babu under registered sale deed bearing document No.2701/2005, subsequently on 29.03.2007 when the defendant fraudulently obtained a gift deed from the plaintiff by playing fraud and misrepresentation, subsequently on 28.12.2012 when the defendant got issued a legal notice to the plaintiff with all false and frivolous allegations. On 17.01.2013 when the plaintiff got issued a reply notice with all true and correct facts. On 20.02.2013 when the defendant along with some unruly elements came to plaint schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and highhandedly for which the plaintiff lodged a complaint before Police at Vijayawada where the plaint schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit is coming before me on 15.10.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Chiranjeevi, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri U. Prakasam, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and decree:

i) that the defendant his men are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property ; and ii) that there be no order as to costs.

//Copy of schedule attached to the decree//

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court this the 21st day of October, 2014.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

MEMO OF COSTS

12

NO BILL OF COSTS FILED.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Note : The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be able to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 1 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITIONL AND

EXCISE OFFENCES, MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Ms.L.Annapurna Sri,

Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate for Trying Proh.& Excise Offences, Machilipatnam.

Monday, this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

CALENDER CASE No.2445 of 2021

Between:­ State: Prohibition and Excise SEB, Sub­Inspector of Police

Machilipatnam ...Complainant.

And

Shaik Jilani, S/o.Yakobu, Muslim, age 44 years, R/o.Sulthannagaram Village,

Machilipatnam Mandal. ...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Matta Venkata Ramaiah, Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and matter have stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Machilipatnam Station, filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.184/2020 for the offence punishable under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act against the accused.

02. The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that:

a)On 26.08.2020, at about 09.00 A.M.,

L.Ws.3 and 4 along with mediators went to

Sulthananagaram Village of Machilipanam Mandal for detection of Proh. & Excise offences and found one person

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 2 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

holding one Plastic bottle, and he tried to escape; then

L.W.3 detained him and on enquiry, it came to their Notice, the plastic bottle contained ID liquor. Then L.W.3 got opened the plastic bottle and found 02 of ID liquor. He questioned about the identity particulars of him, on that he disclosed his particulars and confessed that he purchased the ID liquor from an unknown person in his village outskirts and selling the ID liquor at Sulthannagaram

Village for higher price. Then, L.W.3 arrested him and seized the ID liquor, drew the sample, for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and affixed identity slips duly signed by L.Ws.1 to 4 and accused to the sample bottle under the cover of mediators report. Then, L.W.3 returned to Proh. & Excise station, Machilipatnam along with records, contranbad and accused and he registered the special report as case in Cr.No.184/2020, U/s.7­A r/w 8(e) of Andrha Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act and issued

FIR against the accused. He sent the sample to the

Government Chemical examiner, Kakinada for chemical analysis and the chemical examiner who analysed the sample opined in his letter in C.E.No.2446/2020, dt.06.11.2020 that the sample at S.No.43163 is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.During the course of investigation L.W.3 received the Chemical Analysis report, confiscation orders from the

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 3 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

Superintendent of Police, Krishna District and on 17.12.2020, after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment

Act.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7­A r/w 8(e)

A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act, against the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations levelled against him. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, a charge had been framed against him under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, which was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 are exhibited on behalf of prosecution.

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 4 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

07.On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, his plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard.

a)The learned Defence Counsel argued that mediators were present at the time of seizure of contraband, they obtained the signatures of mediators on report in police station. Only for statistical returns the SHO, Proh. & Excise

Police filed false charge sheet against the accused. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

09. The point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against him under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?” POINT:

a)The case of prosecution is that the accused is in unauthorized possession of 02 Liters of ID liquor, to sell it to the public for higher price. He contravened the

Section 7­A of AP Prohibition Amendment Act. Hence he is liable for punishment under section 8­e of Andra Pradesh

Prohibition Amendment Act. 

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 5 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

b)In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, L.W.3/P.W.1 who is Sub­Inspector of

Prohibition and Excise Police, Machilipatnam deposed that “he caught hold of the accused on 26.08.2020, at 09.00 AM, while he was in illegal possession of the ID liquor for sale, he arrested him and seized the 02 liters of ID liquor drew the sample, under the cover of mediators report in the presence of L.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and returned to Proh. & Excise

Station, Machilipatnam along with accused and he registered the case against the accused U/s.7­A r/w 8(e) of

AP Prohibition Amendment Act. Thereafter, he sent the sample for Chemical Analysis and after receipt of the analysis report, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

P.W.2/L.W.4 has also stated on the same lines as P.W.1 has deposed.

c)P.W.3/L.W.1 who is the Women Protection

Secretary, Sulthanangaram, Machilipatnam has stated that the SI of Police P & E, Machilipatnam informed her he caught hold of one person in that jurisdiction and asked her to sign on papers. He did not seize any contraband under the cover of meditors report in her presence. P.W.2 who is working as volunteer of Sulthanangaram, Machilipatnam also stated that the SI of P & E, Machilipatnam did not seize contraband from the possession of accused under the cover of mediators report in his presence.

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 6 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

d)Absolutely, P.Ws.1 and 2 are Proh. &

Excise Official witnesses. They have categorically stated that they found accused, while he was in possession of 02 liters of ID liquor. P.W.1 seized the contrabad from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P1 – Mediators report.

Obviously, P.Ws.1 & 2 are interested witnesses. Though,

P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that contraband was seized in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 under Ex.P1, but P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and clearly stated that they signed on mediators report in Excise Police

Station. Evidently, the seizure of ID liquor from the possession of the accused under the cover of mediators report in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is not proved. The presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 with P.Ws.1 and 2 at scene is not established. 

 e)The prosecution has not photographed the scene, and not filed any prhotograph pertaining to the scene. P.W.1 did not examine the village elders to establish the identity particulars of the accused that he belonged to

Sulthannagaram Village of Machilipanam Mandal. Apart from that they did not examine the customers who purchased the ID arrack from the accused. P.Ws.3 and 4 categorically stated that the SHO, Proh. & Excise Police obtained signatures on papers. So, their evidence manifests

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 7 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

that they were not present at the time of seizure contraband from the possession of the accused, the confession before P.Ws.3 and 4 is not established by the prosecution. 

f) The complainant normally expects to seek material in support of his complaint. P.W.2 who is sub­ ordinate to P.W.1, naturally, depose as per the tunes of his higher official i.e., P.W.1. So in the circumstances, the evidence of independent witnesses is very much crucial, but

P.Ws.3 and 4 not supported the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

g) It is well settled law that the complainant cannot be permitted to act as Investigating Officer against the accused. If he himself is the Investigating Officer, the entire concept of independent and unbiased investigation would be jeopardized. If the complainant is the Investigating

Officer, it has adversely affects the credibility of prosecution case. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not worthy of credit.

The prosecuting agency failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, this court is inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed in bringing home the guilt of the accused persons for the charge framed against the accused persons under section 7­

A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act and hence, accused are entitled for an order of acquittal on

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 8 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

the ground of benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused persons and against the prosecution.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. The accused shall furnish a bond under

Sec.437­A Cr.P.C, that he shall appear before the Appellate court in the event he receive summons within the six months from today. The case property i.e., M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed on lapse of appeal time.

Typed directly to my dictation by the Personal Assistant of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11 th day of April, 2022. 

Spl.Judl.I­Class Magistrate, For trial under Proh. & Excise Act, Machilipatnam. 

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :­

PW1 – J.Nagaraju Dora, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise Police Station, Machilipatnam PW2 – T.Ramesh, Constable of Proh. & Excise Police Station, Machilipatnam. PW3 – Nukala Rama Krishna, Mahila P.S., Sulthannagaram. PW4 – M.Rama Swamy, Voluteer, Sulthannagaram.

For Defence:­ None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 9 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

For Prosecution :­ Ex.P1 :Mediators report Ex.P2 :FIR Ex.P3 :Analysis report For Defence:­ ­­Nil­­

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 : Sample bottle

Spl.Judl.I­Class Magistrate, For trial under Proh. & Excise Act, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 10 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

OFFENCES :: MACHILIPATNAM

C.C. No.2484 of 2021

1. Offence : 26.08.2020

2. Filing: 28.12.2021

3. Apprehension of Accused: 26.08.2020

4. Commencement of Trial : 14.03.2022

5. Closure of Trial : 30.03.2022

6. Judgment: 11.04.2022

7. Complainant: The State Prohibition & Excise, Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam.

8. Name of accused : Shaik Jilani, S/o.Yakobu, Muslim, age 44 years, R/o.Sulthannagaram Machilipatnam Mandal. 

9. Offence: Under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act

10. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

11. Finding: Found not guilty

12. Sentence or Order : In the result,the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. The accused shall furnish a bond under Sec.437­A Cr.P.C, that he shall appear before the Appellate court in the event he receive summons within the six months from today. The case property i.e., M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed on lapse of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay : After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 25.02.2022 and he was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Amendment Act. On 14.03.2022, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1 are exhibited. On 28.03.2022, P.W.2

C.C.No.2445/2021 Page No. 11 of 11 Dt.11.04.2022

was examined. On 30.03.202, P.Ws.3 and 4 was examined and on the same day, the prosecution evidence was closed. The accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, for which, he denied and reported no defence. Heard both sides arguments on 11.04.2022. Judgment pronounced on 11.04.2022. Hence, the delay. 

Spl.Judl.I­Class Magistrate,

For trial under Proh. & Excise Act, Machilipatnam. Copy submitted to :  The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Krishna,Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING

PROHIBITIONL AND EXCISE OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Ms.L.Annapurna Sri,

Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate for Trying Proh.& Excise Offences, Machilipatnam.

Monday, this the 11 th day of April, 2022.

CALENDER CASE No.2445 of 2021

Between:­ State: Prohibition and Excise SEB Sub­Inspector of Police

Machilipatnam ...Complainant.

And

Posina Ramu, S/o.China Venkateswararao, Hindu, age 21 years, R/o.Kotavanipalem 

Pedana Mandal....Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Matta Venkata Ramaiah, Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and matter have stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Prohibition and Excise Sub­Inspector,

Machilipatnam Station, filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.191/2020 for the offence punishable under

Page No. 1 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

section 7­A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment

Act against the accused.

02. The conspectus of the case of prosecution is that:

a)On 26.08.2020, at about 09.00 A.M.,

L.Ws.3 and 4 went to Sulthannagaram Village of

Machilipatnam Mandal for detection of Proh. &

Excise offences and found one person holding one bag, after noticing the officials that person (accused), tried to escape; then L.W.1 detained him and on enquiry, it came to their Notice, the bag containing two Plastic covers, in each cover containing 10 liters each in total 20 liters of ID liquor. Then, L.W.1 sent the L.W.2 to secure mediators, but no body came forward to act as mediators. Then L.W.1 got opened the bag and found 20 liters of ID liquor in that bag.Then, L.W.1 questioned about the identity particulars of him, on that he disclosed his particulars and confessed that he purchased the ID liquor from an unknwon

Page No. 2 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

person in his village outskirts and selling the ID liquor at Gokavaram Village for higher price. Then,

L.W.1 arrested him and seized the ID liquor bottle and can, drew the sample, for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and affixed and identity slips duly signed by L.Ws.1 to 3 and accused, to the can as well as sample under the cover of special report on the spot. Then, L.W.1 returned to Proh. &

Excise station, Machilipatnam along with records, contranbad and accused, and handed over to L.W.3 – J.Nagaraju Dora, Sub­Inspector of Proh. & Excise

Police, Machilipatnam.

c)L.W.3 registered the special report as case in Cr.No.191/2020, U/s. 7­A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act and issued FIR against the accused. He sent the sample to the

Government Chemical examiner, Kakinada for chemical analysis and the chemical examiner who analysed the sample opined in his letter in

Page No. 3 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

C.E.No.2446/2020, dt.16.11.2020 that the sample at S.No.43168 is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

During the course of investigation L.W.3 received the Chemical Analysis report, confiscation orders from the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District and on 17.12.2020, after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7­A r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act.

03. On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Section 7­A r/w 8(e) A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act, against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as 'Cr.P.C.' for the sake of brevity).

Page No. 4 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

04.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations levelled against him. After perusing the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, a charge had been framed against him under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Amendment Act, which was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 are exhibited on behalf of prosecution. 

06. On closure of evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against him, for which, his plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence.

06.Heard.

Page No. 5 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

a)The learned Defence Counsel argued that no local mediators were secured at the time of seizure of contraband, the entire case is depending upon the case proceedings which is an infirmity. Hence, prays to acquit the accused on the ground of benefit of doubt.

09. The point for determination is : 

“Whether the prosecution is

successful in bringing home

the guilt of accused for the

charge framed against him

under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Amendment

Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

POINT:

a)The case of prosecution is that the accused is in possession 20 Liters of ID liquor.

He is selling the same unauthorizedly, thereby he contravened the Section 7­A of AP Prohibition

Amendment Act, Hence he is liable for punishment under section 8­e of Andra Pradesh Prohibition

Amendment Act. 

Page No. 6 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

b)In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, L.W.1/P.W.1 who is SEB Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam deposed that “he found one person coming on his motor bike along with mica bag and on seeing him and L.W.2, that person tried to escape, then he detained him and on enquiry he came to know the said bag contained 20

ID liquor, then he sent L.W.2 to secure the mediators but in vain. Thereby, he got opened the gunny bag and found two polythene covers, each polythene cover contains 10 liters of ID liquor in total 20 liters of ID liquor. Thereafter, he confessed it, he purchased the ID liquor from unknown persons, to sell it for higher price. Thereby, he arrested him informed the grounds of arrest and prepared the special report under Ex.P1. Thereafter, he took the sample (Mo.1). Thereafter, he returned to P & E station, Machilipatnam along with accused, contraband and handed over to L.W.3, i.e.,

Sub­Inspector of Proh. & Excise Station,

Page No. 7 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

Machilipatnamforfurtherinvestigation.

L.W.2/P.W.2 has also stated on the same lines.

d)L.W.3/P.W.3 had stated that he received Ex.P1 – Special report from P.W.1 and he registered the Ex.P1 under Ex.P2 ­ FIR against the accused U/s.7­A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Amendment Act. Thereafter, he sent the sample for chemical analysis and after receipt of the analysis report, he filed charge sheet against the accused. 

e)P.Ws.1to 3 are official witnesses.

P.Ws.1 and 2 are the persons who went to the scene and they have categorically stated that they caught hold of the accused, while he was in possession of the ID liquor unauthorizedly, then P.W.1 seized the contrabad from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P1 – Special report. Later, he returned to

P & E Station and handed over the contraband, accused, to P.W.3 on that P.W.3 sent the same for expert’s opinion and after receipt of the report under Ex.P3, he filed charge sheet against the

Page No. 8 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

accused, he did not visit the scene and did not examine any person in Gokavaram Village. 

f) Obviously, P.Ws.1 and 2 are official witnesses. Though, P.W.1 had an oppoturnity, he did not summon any one of the village elders at the time of seizure of MO.1 from the possession of accused. Absolutely the prosecution has not filed any photograph pertaining to the scene. PW.1 did not try to secure the mediators at scene and he did not examine the village elders to establish the identity particulars of the accused person. 

g) The prosecution has not secured any independent witnesses in support of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. The evidence of independent witnesses is very much crucial, but prosecution did not secure the mediators at the time of seizure of the contraband from the possession of accused. Absolutely, the evidence available on record is not worthy of credit. 

Page No. 9 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

h) The burden heavily lies on the prosecution to prove every ingredient of the offence with which the accused stood charged.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are not worthy of credit. The prosecuting agency miserably failed to produce evidence to show that the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused and that the prosecution has failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 100 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, this court is inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against the accused under

Sec.7­A read with 8­e of AP Prohibition Amendment

Act. Hence, accused is entitled for an order of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7­

Page No. 10 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. The accused shall furnish a bond under Sec.437­A

Cr.P.C, that he shall appear before the Appellate court in the event he receive summons within the six months from today. The case property i.e.,

M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed on lapse of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 01 st day of

April, 2022. 

Spl.Judl.I­Class Magistrate, For trial under Proh. & Excise Act, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :­

PW1 – Ch.V.Rama Krishna, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise Police Station, 

Machilipatnam

PW2 – V.V.V.Venugopalarao, Proh. & Excise Head 

Constable, Machilipatnam.

Page No. 11 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

PW3 – J.Nagaraju Dora, the then Sub­Inspector of

Police, Proh. & Excise Police Station, 

Machilipatnam

For Defence:­ None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :­ For Defence:­

Ex.P1 :Special report­­Nil­­

Ex.P2 :FIR 

Ex.P3 :Analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Sample bottle

Spl.Judl.I­Class Magistrate, For trial under Proh. & Excise Act, Machilipatnam.

Page No. 12 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRYING

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES ::

MACHILIPATNAM

C.C. No.2444 of 2021

1. Offence : 29.08.2020

2. Filing: 28.12.2021

3. Apprehension of Accused: 29.08.2020

4. Commencement of Trial  : 08.03.2022

5. Closure of Trial : 28.03.2022

6. Judgment: 01.04.2022

7. Complainant: The State Prohibition & Excise,Sub­Inspector of Police,Machilipatnam.

8. Name of accused:Posina Ramu, S/o.China Venkateswararao, Hindu, age 21 years, R/o.Kotavanipalem Pedana Mandal.

9. Offence: U/s.7­A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P.Amendment Act.

10. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty

11. Finding: Found not guilty

12. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7­A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. The accused shall furnish a bond under Sec.437­A Cr.P.C, that he shall appear before the Appellate court in the event

Page No. 13 of 14

C.C.No.2445/2021 Dt.11.04.2022

he receive summons within the six months from today. The case property i.e., M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed on lapse of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay : After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 25.02.2022 and he was examined U/sec.239

Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 7­A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P.Amendment Act. On 08.03.2022, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 and MO.1 are exhibited. On 14.03.2022, P.W.3 was examined and Exs.P2 and P3 are exhibited and on the same day, the prosecution evidence was closed. The accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, for which, he denied and reported no defence. Heard both sides arguments. Judgment pronounced on 01.04.2022. Hence, the delay.

Spl.Judl.I­Class Magistrate, For trial under Proh. & Excise Act, Machilipatnam.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna,Machilipatnam.

Page No. 14 of 14