L.gopinath

CC 7/2026 JMFC Court

1

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: PRATHIPADU

Present: Sri L.Gopinath

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu

Tuesday, the 12 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.07/2026

Between:-

State represented by Prohibition & Excise PS, Prathipadu. …Complainant.

And

Mogili Ammaji, W/o.Dharmaraju, A/35 years, R/o.Vommangi village, Prathipadu Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri L.B.K.Sivakumar counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused person is arrayed before this court for the offence punishable

U/s.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act in Cr.No.438/2024 of Prohibition & Excise .,

Prathipadu PS.

2) The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

a) On 23.06.2025 at about 4.00 P.M, PW.1 along with his staff while conducting raid at the house of accused in outskirts of Vommangi village of

Prathipadu mandal for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences, where they found the accused with one mica bag and on seeing the raid party, the accused tried to escape, then police caught hold of her and seized 40 liters of I.D Liquor from the possession of accused after taking MO.1/sample of 300 ML of I.D liquor for chemical examination under the cover of Ex.P1/special report and taken accused into custody. Later. PW.1 handed over accused along with Ex.P1 and MO.1 to PW.2, basing on Ex.P1 he registered as a case in Cr.No.438/2024 for the offence u/sec. 7 (B) R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, PW.2 sent the sample for chemical analysis through Ex.P3/ letter of advice and produced accused before the court for

Judicial remand. Later, she received the Ex.P4/Chemical examination report from the government chemical Examiner for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada who issued

CC 7/2026 JMFC Court

2

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

laboratory analysis report opining that the sample is illicit distilled liquor and that it is unfit for human consumption and injuries to health and after completion of investigation, she filed charge-sheet.

3) This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 7 (B)

R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 against accused.

4)On appearance of accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 230 of BNSS.

5) Accused is examined under Section 262 of BNSS the charge punishable under Section 7 (B) R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 were framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, she denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In order to bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. The prosecution given up L.Ws 2,3 and 5.

7)Having closed the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 361 of BNSS and explained the incriminating evidence leveled against her, for which she denied the same. When she call upon to enter upon defence evidence, she reported no defence witnesses to be examined on her behalf and no documents are marked on her behalf.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (B) R/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

11) POINT:

To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and 2.

a)P.W.1/Sk.Mohammad Ali deposed that on 10.09.2024 at about 12.30

PM along with LW.2 and 3 reached Vommangi village of Prathipadu Mandal on seeing them, accused tried to skulk away police caught hold accused and seized 40 liters of I.D.Liquor from accused possession under the cover of special report/Ex.P1 and he separated MO.1 there after he handed over seized contraband and accused to PW2.

CC 7/2026 JMFC Court

3

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

During cross examination, PW.1 admitted that scene of offence is busy locality, no local inhabitant was not examined. He further admitted that Ex.P1 was drafted after accused was taken into custody. No rough sketch is prepared by him.

He has not examined any independent witness. He denied the suggestion that accused nothing to do with the alleged offence. he denied the suggestion that he visited scene of offence and seized alleged I.D. Liquor is false and that this case is foisted for statistical purpose.

b) P.W.2/M.Ashalatha deposed that she received C.D.file from PW.1.

basing on Ex.P1 she registered a case in Cr.No.438/2024 U/s.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P.P act and issued Ex.P2/FIR. Accused was produced before this court along with remand report for judicial custody. She sent MO.1 for chemical analysis through

Ex.P3/letter of advice. She received Ex.P4/CE report dated.07.11.2024 vide

CE.No.4030/2024 . After completion of investigation she filed charge sheet against accused.

During cross examination of PW.2 she denied suggestion that this case is foisted for statistical purpose.

12)Basing on the evidence of PW.1 and 2, it shows that the scene of offence is a busy locality and there are revenue officials in the said village but PW.1 did not serve any written summons to local inhabitants or government officials to act as a mediators. So, what circumstances prevented the PW.1 to get the independent witness at the time of seizure.Though PW.1 denied the suggestion put forth by learned counsel for accused that this case was registered for statistical purpose only, no seizure was made from the possession of accused, PW.1 admitted that he prepared Ex.P1 after accused was taken into custody. It all creates suspicion over the confession and drafting of Ex.P1.

13) Now to prove the offence U/s.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P.Prohibition & excise Act, the prosecution must prove that accused was in possession of I.D Liquor without any license which is prohibited under the Act.

14) It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that he drafted Ex.P1 after accused was taken into custody, any confession made in the presence of police shall be proved against the accused section 23(2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

CC 7/2026 JMFC Court

4

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

made it clear that “ No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him”.

Even though PW2 was present in the scene the confession of accused was recorded after she was taken into custody. Ex.P1 is hit by section 23(2) of BSA which vitiate the seizure of contraband. More over the procedure contemplated under section 105 of BNSS was not complied by investigation officer.

Section 105 of BNSS : Recording of search and seizure through audio-video

electronic means.

The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without delay forward such recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or

Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

15) In the present case the seizure was not recorded through audio video electronics means, which is fatal to the case of prosecution, in view of the same this court finds that due procedure is not followed at the time of seizure and which creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under Section

U/s.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P.Prohibition & excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

16) In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under

Sec.271 (1) of BNSS, The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.481(1) of BNSS. The seized sample bottle (MO.1) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 12 th day of May, 2026.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu

CC 7/2026 JMFC Court

5

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence

PW.1: Sk. Mohammad Ali None PW.2:M.Ashalatha

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: special Report. Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Letter of advice Ex.P4 : C.A

For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.Os.1 : Sample bottle.

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu

CC 7/2026 JMFC Court

6

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: PRATHIPADU

C.C.07/2026

Date of Offence:10.09.2024

Date of Report :10.09.2024

Date of arrest of Accused :10.09.2024

Date of Release of accused on bail:13.09.2024

Date of commencement of Trial :09.04.2026

Date of close of Trial:05.05.2026

Date of sentence or order:12.05.2026 Explanation for Delay: Crime No. and Name of the P.S:Cr.No.438/2024 of P & Excise P.S

Name of the Complainant:State : The State Represented by S.I OF Police, P & Excise P.S.,Prathipadu. Name of the accused:Mogili Ammaji, W/o.Dharmaraju, A/35 years, R/o.Vommangi village, Prathipadu Mandal.

Offence:7 (B)r/w 8(B) of A.P.P. Act.

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under Sec.271 (1) of BNSS, The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months asperSec.481(1)of BNSS. The seized sample bottle (MO.1) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

[ Judl First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

CC 7/2026 JMFC Court

7

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

1

CC 1/2026 JMFC Court

11

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PRATHIPADU

Present: Sri L.Gopinath

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu

Tuesday, the 12 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.01/2026

Between:-

State represented by Prohibition & Excise., Prathipadu PS. …Complainant.

And

Mogili Ammaji, W/o.Dharmaraju, A/35 years, R/o.Vommangi village, Prathipadu Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri L.B.K.Sivakumar counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused person is arrayed before this court for the offence punishable

U/s.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act in Cr.No.282/2025 of Prohibition & Excise,

Prathipadu PS.

2) The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

a) On 19.07.2025 at about 1.30 P.M, PW.1- S.I of police, Proh & Excise P.S.

Prathipadu, along with his staff while conducting raid before the house of accused in

Vommangi village of Prathipadu Mandal, where they found the accused with mica bag, on seeing the raid party, the accused tried to escape, then police caught hold of her and seized 10 liters of I.D Liquor from the possession of accused after taking sample of 300 ML of I.D liquor as one sample for chemical examination under the cover of special report, PW.1 registered and special report as a case in

Cr.No.282/2025 for the offence u/sec. 7 (B) R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 of Prohibition & Excise., Prathipadu P.S and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, PW.1 arrested the accused and remanded her to judicial custody and he sent the sample for chemical analysis through letter of advice, he received the Chemical examination report from the government chemical

Examiner for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada who issued laboratory analysis report 2

CC 1/2026 JMFC Court

22

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

opining that the sample is illicit distilled liquor and that it is unfit for human consumption and injuries to health and after completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet.

3) This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 7 (B)

R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 against accused.

4)On appearance of accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 230 of BNSS.

5) Accused is examined under Section 262 of BNSS the charge punishable under Section 7 (B) R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 were framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, she denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In order to bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. The prosecution given up L.Ws 1 and 2.

7)Having closed the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 361 of BNSS and explained the incriminating evidence leveled against her, for which she denied the same. When she call upon to enter upon defence evidence, she reported no defence witnesses to be examined on her behalf and no documents are marked on her behalf.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (B) R/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) POINT:

To substantiate this case, the prosecution has examined investigation officer as PW.1, in his examination-in-chief he deposed that on 19.07.2025 at about 01.30 PM LW.1/ L.Vijaya Laxmi Prohibition and Excise S.I of Police along with

LW.2/Sk.Sardhar Saheb, Prohibition and Excise PC, reached Vommangi village of

Prathipadu Mandal, there they found accused with mica bag on seeing the police, accused tried to skulk away, but LW1 with LW2 caught hold accused and seized 10 liters of I.D.Liquor from possession of accused and separated 300 ML I.D Liquor as 3

CC 1/2026 JMFC Court

33

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

MO.1/sample under the cover of Ex.P1/ S pecial report. There after LW1 handed over Ex.P1. MO.1 and accused to PW1, basing on Ex.P1 he registered a case against accused in Cr.No.282/2025 and issued Ex.P2/F.I.R, and sent the sample for chemical examination through Ex.P3/ letter of advice and after receiving the

Ex.P4/Chemical examination report and after completion of investigation he field charge-sheet

During cross examination, PW.1 admitted that scene of offence is busy locality, alleged seizure was not photo graphed and video graphed. No local inhabitant was not examined.. He denied the suggestion that accused nothing to do with the alleged offence.

11) Basing on the evidence of PW.1, it shows that the scene of offence is a busy locality but no local inhabitant was not examined. No mediator was present at the time of seizure. Prosecution did not examine the investigation officer who did material part of investigation. The procedure contemplated under section 105 of

BNSS was not complied by investigation officer.

Section 105 of BNSS : Recording of search and seizure through audio-

video electronic means.

The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without delay forward such recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

12) In the present case the seizure was not recorded through audio video electronics means, which is fatal to the case of prosecution, PW1 is only register crime and send MO.1 and received Ex.P4/ Chemical analysis report. LW1 seized the

ID. Liquor from the possession of accused but she did not enter into witness box, the evidence of PW.1 is not at all suffice to prove the case of prosecution, in view of the same this court finds that due procedure is not followed at the time of seizure and which creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under 4

CC 1/2026 JMFC Court

44

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

Section U/s.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P. Prohibition & excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

13) In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under Sec.271 (1) of BNSS, The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.481(1) of BNSS. The seized sample bottle (MO.1) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 12 th day of May, 2026.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence

PW.1:P.Vamsiram None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: special Report. Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Letter of advice Ex.P4: Chemical Examination report.

For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO..1 : Sample bottle.

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu.

5

CC 1/2026 JMFC Court

55

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: PRATHIPADU

C.C.01/2026

Date of Offence: 19.07.2025

Date of Report : 19.07.2025

Date of arrest of Accused : 19.07.2025

Date of Release of accused on bail: 07.8.2025

Date of commencement of Trial : 09.04.2026

Date of close of Trial: 05.05.2026

Date of sentence or order: 12.05.2026 Explanation for Delay: Due to witnesses not produced delay is caused Crime No. and Name of the P.S: Cr.No.282/2025 of P & Excise P.S

Name of the Complainant: State : The State Represented by S.I OF Police, P & Excise P.S.,Prathipadu. Name of the accused: Mogili Ammaji, W/o.Dharmaraju, A/35 years, R/o.Vommangi village, Prathipadu Mandal.

Offence: 7 (B)r/w 8(B) of A.P.P. Act.

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under Sec.271 (1) of BNSS, The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.481(1) of BNSS. The seized sample bottle (MO.1) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Judl.First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

6

CC 1/2026 JMFC Court

66

Dt.12.05.2026 Prathipadu

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: PRATHIPADU

Present: Sri L.Gopinath

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu

Tuesday, the 12 th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.11/2026

Between:-

State represented by Prohibition & Excise PS, Prathipadu. …Complainant.

And

Mogili Ammaji, W/o.Dharmaraju, A/35 years, R/o.Vommangi village, Prathipadu Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri L.B.K.Sivakumar counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The accused person is arrayed before this court for the offence punishable

U/s.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act in Cr.No.515/2024 of P & E., Prathipadu

PS.

2) The case of prosecution in brief as follows:

a) On 10.12.2024 at about 7.30 P.M, PW.1 along with his staff while conducting raid at the outskirts of Vommangi village of Prathipadu mandal for detection of Prohibition and Excise offences, when they reached to the house of accused there they found the accused with mica bag on seeing them she tried to skulk away, then they caught hold of her and seized 20 liters of I.D Liquor from the possession of accused after taking sample of 300 ML of I.D liquor for chemical examination under the cover of special report. Later. PW.1 registered and special report as a case in Cr.No.515/2024 for the offence u/sec. 7 (B) R/W 8 (B) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 of P & Excise., Prathipadu P.S and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, PW.1 sent the sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused and produced her before the court for judicial custody. Later, he received the CE report from the government chemical Examiner for Prohibition & Excise, Kakinada who issued laboratory analysis report opining

2

that the sample is illicit distilled liquor and that it is unfit for human consumption and injuries to health and after completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet.

3) This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 7 (B)

R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 against accused.

4)On appearance of accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 230 of BNSS.

5) Accused is examined under Section 262 of BNSS the charge punishable under Section 7 (B) R/W 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 were framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, she denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In order to bring home the guilt of accused the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. The prosecution given up L.Ws 1 and 2.

7)Having closed the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 361 of BNSS and explained the incriminating evidence leveled against her, for which she denied the same. When she call upon to enter upon defence evidence, she reported no defence witnesses to be examined on her behalf and no documents are marked on her behalf.

8)Heard the arguments on both sides.

9) Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 (B) R/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) POINT:

P.W.1/P.Vamsi Ram deposed that on 10.12.2024 at about 07.30 PM

AM along with LW.2 reached Vommangi village of Prathipadu Mandal on seeing the police, accused tried to ran away, bt they caught hold accused and seized 20 liters of I.D.Liquor from her possession and separated MO.1 under the cover of

Ex.P1/special report and registered a case against accused in Cr.No.515/2024 and issued Ex.P2/F.I.R, and sent the MO.1/sample for chemical examination through

Ex.P3/letter of advice and after receiving the Ex.P4/Chemical examination report and after completion of investigation he field charge-sheet

3

During cross examination, PW.1 admitted that scene of offence is busy locality, no local inhabitant was not examined, Ex.P1 was drafted accused was taken into custody. He denied the suggestion that accused nothing to do with the alleged offence. he denied the suggestion that he visited scene of offence and seized alleged I.D. arrack is false and that this case is foisted for statistical purpose.

11)Basing on the evidence of PW.1, it shows that the scene of offence is a busy locality but no local inhabitant was not examined. No mediator was present at the time of seizure. It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that he drafted Ex.P1 after accused was taken into custody, any confession made in the presence of police shall be proved against the accused section 23(2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 made it clear that “ No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a

Magistrate shall be proved against him”.

Investigation officer did not follow the procedure contemplated under section 105 of

BNSS was not complied by investigation officer.

Section 105 of BNSS : Recording of search and seizure through audio-video

electronic means.

The process of conducting search of a place or taking possession of any property, article or thing under this Chapter or under section 185, including preparation of the list of all things seized in the course of such search and seizure and signing of such list by witnesses, shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phone and the police officer shall without delay forward such recording to the District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class.

12) In the present case the seizure was not recorded through audio video electronics means, which is fatal to the case of prosecution, despite the scene of offence busy locality no local inhabitant or independent witness was not examined, the evidence of PW.1 is not at all suffice to prove the case of prosecution, in view of the same this court finds that due procedure is not followed at the time of seizure and which creates a reasonable doubt over the case of prosecution and hence, it is held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence Under

Section U/s.7(B) r/w.8(B) of A.P. Prohibition & excise Act beyond all reasonable

4

doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

13) In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under Sec.271 (1) of BNSS, The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.481(1) of BNSS. The seized sample bottle (MO.1) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 12 th day of May, 2026.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution: Defence

PW.1:P.Vamsiram None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: special Report. Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Letter of advice Ex.P4: Chemical examination report.

For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 : Sample bottle.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu.

5

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: PRATHIPADU

C.C.11/2026

Date of Offence:10-12-2024

Date of Report :10-12-2024

Date of arrest of Accused :10-12-2024

Date of Release of accused on bail:12.12.2024

Date of commencement of Trial :09.04.2026

Date of close of Trial:05.05.2026

Date of sentence or order:12.05.2026 Explanation for Delay: Due to witnesses not produced in time, the delay is caused. Crime No. and Name of the P.S:Cr.No.515/2024 of P & Excise P.S

Name of the Complainant:State : The State Represented by S.I OF Police, P & Excise P.S.,Prathipadu. Name of the accused:Mogili Ammaji, W/o.Dharmaraju, A/35 years, R/o.Vommangi village, Prathipadu Mandal.

Offence:7 (B)r/w 8(B) of A.P.P. Act.

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under Sec.271 (1) of BNSS, The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.481(1) of BNSS. The seized sample bottle (MO.1) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

[ [

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

6

Civil Judge (Jr.Division) O.S.16/2024

Prathipadu. Dt.14-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PRATHIPADU

Present : Lanka Gopinath

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Prathipadu

Thursday, the 14th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.16/2024

Between:-

Gorla Venkata Padma W/o.Durga, aged 30 years, house wife, R/o.D.No.4-122 Peddipaem village, Prathipadu mandal, Kakinada District.

...Plaintiff.

Vs.

Nakka Kasulu, S/o.Narayana, aged 40 years, business, R/o.B.C.Colony, Srungavaram village, Routhulapudi mandal. …. Defendant

This suit come before me on 05-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.V.Sivannarayana, advocate for plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,39,417/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty nine thousand four hundred and seventeen only) with subsequent interest and costs basing on a promissory note dt.15-02-2021.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-02-2021 for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a on demand to plaintiff or his order and defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day. Thereon inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not repay the amount due under the promissory note. Then the plaintiff got issued lega notice dt.27.01.2024 calling upon the defendant to repay the amount due under the promis-

Civil Judge (Jr.Division) O.S.16/2024

Prathipadu. Dt.14-05-2026 sory note. The defendant did not receive the notice and kept quiet. The defendant is not entitled for the debt relief laws. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. [

3. The defendant did not appear before this court though paper publication made in Prajasakthi daily news paper. Hence, the defendant remained exparte.

4. During trial, the plaintiff to establish his case, himself has been examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4.

5. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

6. The point for consideration is:

Whether plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

POINT:- The plaintiff to establish his case, reiterating the averments made in the plaint has submitted evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, examined as

PW.1 and got marked original promissory note Dt.15-02-2021 as Ex.A.1, office copy of legal notice dt.27.01.2024 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant as Ex.A.2, Postal receipt from the defendant as ExA.3 and returned postal cover from the defendant as

ExA.4. Ex.A.1 discloses that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-02-2021 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per month on demand to plaintiff or his order and as per the evidence of plaintiff inspite of repeated demands the defendant did not repay the amount due and when the plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice the defendant kept quite. The defendant remained exparte. Therefore, the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A4 established the suit claim. Therefore, the court is of the considered view that there are no legal impediments to pass a decree in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Accordingly, point is answered.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,39,417/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty nine thousand four hundred and seventeen only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @

Civil Judge (Jr.Division) O.S.16/2024

Prathipadu. Dt.14-05-2026 6% percent per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization on

principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of May,2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Prathipadu

Appendix of evidence Witness examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant

PW.1: Gorla Venkata Padma None Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note Dt.15-02-2021 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt.27.01.2024 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A.3: Postal receipt from the defendant.

Ex.A.4 : Returned cover from the defendant.

For Defendant:- Nil.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Prathipadu

Civil Judge (Jr.Division) O.S.16/2024

Prathipadu. Dt.14-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): PRATHIPADU

Present: Lanka Gopinath

Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Prathipadu

Wednesday, the 13th day of May 2026

0.S.6/2025

Between:

Tulasi Gurrppa Charitable Trust, Seethampeta, rep.by its Vice Chairman, Tulasi Durga Raju, C/o.Tulasi Gurrappa, Occ:Retired physician, aged 64 years,D.No.15-110 and 15-114, Seethampeta village, Sankhavaram mandal, Kakinada District.

…. Plaintiff.

And

1) Uggirala Nageswara Rao, S/o.Yedukondalu, aged 48 years, Seethampeta village Sankhavaram mandal.

2) Koyya Venkatesh, S/o.not-known, aged 44 years, Seethampeta village, Sankhavaram mandal.

3) Uggirala Satyanarayana, S/o.not known, aged 50 years, Seethampeta village Sankhavaram mandal.

4) Thota Krishna, S/o.not known, aged 43 years, Kathipudi village Sankhavaram mandal.

5) Pirla Appa Rao, S/o.Kamaraju, aged 53 years, Seethampeta village, Sankhavaram mandal.

… Defendant

This suit came up on this day on 13-05-2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Pilli Balarajmudu, Advocate for Plaintiff, and of Sri K.S.Prakasa Rao, Advocate for defendants 1 to 5 this court delivered the following;

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is present, field not press memo along with affidavit. As the plaintiff himself not contest the matter and filed not oppress memo, this suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Given my hand and seal of this court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION): PRATHIPADU

Present: Lanka Gopinath

Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Prathipadu

Wednesday, the 13th day of May 2026

0.S.6/2025

Between:

Tulasi Gurrppa Charitable Trust, Seethampeta, rep.by its Vice Chairman, Tulasi Durga Raju, C/o.Tulasi Gurrappa, Occ:Retired physician, aged 64 years,D.No.15-110 and 15-114, Seethampeta village, Sankhavaram mandal, Kakinada District.

…. Plaintiff.

And

1) Uggirala Nageswara Rao, S/o.Yedukondalu, aged 48 years, Seethampeta village Sankhavaram mandal.

2) Koyya Venkatesh, S/o.not-known, aged 44 years, Seethampeta village, Sankhavaram mandal.

3) Uggirala Satyanarayana, S/o.not known, aged 50 years, Seethampeta village Sankhavaram mandal.

4) Thota Krishna, S/o.not known, aged 43 years, Kathipudi village Sankhavaram mandal.

5) Pirla Appa Rao, S/o.Kamaraju, aged 53 years, Seethampeta village, Sankhavaram mandal. … Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiff to grant permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment f plaint schedule property.

Value of the suit =Rs.1,00,000/-

A court fee of Rs.3426/- is paid

This suit came up on this day ie., on 13-05-2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Pilli Balarajmudu, Advocate for Plaintiff, and of Sri K.S.Prakasa Rao, Advocate for defendants 1 to 5 this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

i)That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed:

ii)That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 13th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Prathipadu