Sri Lanka Gopinath

1 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, AVANIGADDA

Present: Sri Lanka Gopinath,

Judicial Magistrate of I ­Class, Avanigadda,

Friday, this the 29th day of December, 2023. 

CALENDAR CASE NO.245/2023

Between:­ 

The State : Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka Police Station. … Complainant. And:­

Palnati Sivayya, S/o Ankalu, 22 years, Marripalem village, Yanadula colony , Nagayalanka Mandal. …Accused

This Calendar Case coming for hearing before me on 28.12.2023 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri B. Raghu Kumar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Accused, upon consideration of the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, the court delivered the following: 

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that he committed offence punishable Under

Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC. 

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

 P.W.1 is resident of Nangegadda village. Last night, P.W.1 completed pooja in

Sivanagaraja swamy temple and locked the doors and returned to home and on 13.7.2023 at about 7.20 AM, he went near to the temple for doing pooja and noticed that locks of the temple were broken and fallen a side, immediately he intimated to

Marripalem villagers named Bandreddi Seshu Babu and Sanaka Uyyuru and they rushed near to the temple, all of they went inside the temple and noticed iron safe was opened and noticed that house burglary breaking by night in order to committed theft and stolen the temple property of Silver Nagendra Padaga weighing about 1 Kg and

Nagendra twin padaga of ¼ Kg and gold sutras 4 weighing about 10 grams of worth

Rs.1,40,000/­ which were stolen by unknown offenders. 

On receipt of report from P.W.1, P.W.8 issued FIR in Cr.No.131/2023 under

Sections 457, 380 of IPC and took up investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1, later he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the 2 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda scene, secured P.Ws. 2 to 5, 7 and L.W.2/ N. Narasimhamurthy, examined and recorded their statements. On 14.7.2023, he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators/P.W.6 and L.W.9/Sanaka Narayana Rao, got recorded confessional statement of accused, got drafted mediators report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 of IPC against accused. On appearance of accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., charge framed against them for the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC, substance is explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 to 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up L.W.2/N. Narasimhamurthy, L.W.9/S. Narayana Rao and L.W.10/B.

Vasantha Rao.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available on record, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. 

6.Heard both sides. 

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the

offence under  Section 457, 380 and 411 of IPC,  beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Point:­ 

8.To prove its case, the prosecution examined L.W.1/Nijampatnam Venkata

Nancharayya as P.W.1. He deposed that LW.2/Nijampatnam Narasimha Murthy is the trust member of Siva Naga Raja Swamy Temple in between Marripalem and

Nangegadda Villages. Due to his old age and ill health, he used to offer deeparaadhana to the god in morning and evening hours. On 12­07­2023, he offered prayers and came to the house after locking the doors of the temple. On 13­07­2023 in the morning hours at 07.30 A.M.. he went to the temple and found the locks of the temple mesh were broke opened. There after he informed the same to the 3 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

P.Ws.2 and 3, they came to temple and observed in that temple about missing of

M.O.1/Nagendra Swamy silver crown weight about Kg.1.500 grams, M.O.2/Nagendra

Swamy silver twin Padaga weight about ¼ kg and M.O.3/ 4 Gold sutras weight about 10 grams the total worth of the missing articles is about Rs.1,40,000/­. M.O.4 is cash of Rs.200/­ (Rs.10/­ notes x10 = Rs.100/­, Rs.20/­ notes x5 = Rs.100/­) There after he filed Ex.P.1/report before the police.

In the cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that he and his father/L.w.2:Nijampatnam Narasimhamurthy have been working as priests in said temple since 35 years. Said temple has a committee. He has no documents to show that he and his father /L.W.2 I.e, Nijampatnam Narasimhamurthy were working as

Priests and offering deeparadhana to God in the said temple. Further deposed that one godown and other residential buildings are situated in the surroundings of the said temple. The road from the said temple leads to 4 to 5 villages and there was a public movement frequently. He further deposed that if any noice or sound comes out, the villagers can gather. P.Ws.2 to 5 are residing 1KM away from the said temple and they are nothing to do with the affairs of the said temple. He initially informed about the offence to P.Ws.2 and 3 as they are regularly visit the temple. He admitted that he did not inform about the incident to any member of the committee of the said temple

before information to P.Ws.2 and 3. he did not observe whether M.Os.1 to 4 are found

missing or not before giving Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1 was drafted by one Police on his narration and P.Ws.2 and 3. Police examined him 4 to 5 times and recorded his statement in all times. He admitted that he did not state before police about denomination of M.O.4.

The weight of M.Os.1 to 3 stated in Ex.P.1 was basing on his assumption. He further volunteers that police got weighed M.Os.1 to 3 in jewelery shop at Nagayalanka after they were recovered, at the time of weighing he and one Constable were present. He did not inform at the time of weighing of M.Os.1 to 3 to any trustee member. Said jewellery shop has issued receipt regarding to the weight of M.Os.1 to 3 and he gave the same to police. He further deposed that iron grills of the temple cannot be removed and iron safe cannot be opened without cutting machine. There is no signs of using any drilling machine to cut the grills and iron safe. The valuation of

M.Os.1 to 3 is about Rs.1,80,000/­, but he stated before police the valuation is

Rs.1,40,000/­.

9. P.Ws.2 to 5 /B. Seshu Babu, S. Uyyuru, S. Naga Srinivasa Rao and

N. Sainadh Kumar pleaded totally ignorant of the facts of the case. As they resiled from their earlier statements, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as 4 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda hostile witnesses and cross examined them with the permission of the Court, but no fruitful evidence was drawn infavour of the prosecution from their mouth except marking his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.P.2 to P.5 which they denied as false. 

9. P.W.6/T. Gangadhara Satya Sai Babu is one of the mediator at the time of recording of alleged confession of accused. He deposed that on 13­07­2023

Nagayalanka Police called him over phone and requested to come to Nagendra

Swamy Temple at Marripalem along with LW.9/Sanaka Narayana Rao, VRA of

Marripalem village. There they observed the scene of offence at which alleged offence was committed. P.W.8 drafted scene observation report/ Ex.P6. Himself and

LW.9/Sanaka Narayana Rao signed on it and accused subscribed his thumb impression. At scene of offence one iron rod was seized.

He further deposed that on 14­07­2023 at about 09.30 A.M. P.W.8 called him over phone and requested to come Police station along with LW.9/VRA of Marripalem village Sanaka Narayana Rao. Himself, LW.9/Sanaka Narayana Rao and LW.10/Boddu

Vasantha Rao, Gold Appraiser reached to the Police Station, from there they went to

Marripalem Village, there accused carrying one plastic bag. On seeing them, he tried to escape. Then P.W.8 along with his staff apprehended him and asked about the said bag and got opened said bag by him and found MO.s.1 to 4. Accused further revealed that he committed theft in Nagendra Swamy Temple in Marripalem Village and kept the same in his house for sale and while he was taking the same for sale, he was caught hold by police. There after police seized MO.s.1 to 4 from the possession of accused under Ex.P7/seizure report. There after P.W.8 drafted his confession statement. 

10. P.W.6 in his cross­examination, deposed that Ex.P.6 was drafted by the police. He know the contents in Ex.P.6. Ex.P.7 was scribed by police basing on the narration of accused. He admitted that police personnel were not present at the time of accused narrating about the contents of Ex.P.7. L.W.10 /Boddu Vasanth Rao brought weighing machine with him, but the same was not mentioned in Ex.P.7.

P.W.6 deposed that police called him at 9.30 AM over phone and thereafter he directly went to the scene of offence as mentioned in Ex.P.6.

11. P.W.7 is CC TV Technician, he deposed that on 13­07­2023 one of the trustee member of Nagaraja Temple i.e., putta at Marripalem and informed him that 5 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda theft was committed in said temple and asked him to extract CC camera footage and he went there and collected CC TV footage from DVR Box and said footage was given in M.O.5/pendrive to the SI of Police, Nagayalanka P.S. On his observation, at about 12.15 A.M. one of the person broke the CC camera and same was recorded in CC camera, but he cannot identify the person whose movement was recorded in the said

CC camera.

As the P.W.7 resiled from his earlier statement, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has declared him as hostile witness and cross examined him, but no fruitful evidence was drawn infavour of the prosecution from his mouth except marking his

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.P.8 He also admitted that he gave Ex.P.9/ 65­B certificate to the police.

In the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he admitted that except his oral statement, there is no documentary proof to show that he is the CC camera Technician and he don’t know any document to show that the person who called me is whether said trustee member or not.

12. P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka Police Station, he deposed that on 13.7.2023, P.W.1 came to Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1, basing on it, he issued FIR in Cr.No.131/2023 for the offence under Sections 457, 380 of IPC, examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1. Later, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene/Ex.P.11, secured presence of P.Ws.2 to 5, 7 and

L.W.2/N. Narasimhamurthy and recorded their statements. On 13.7.2023, he secured presence of P.W.7 , obtained CC TV footage, P.w.7 handed over M.O.5/pendrive showing CC TV footage and he issued Ex.P.9/69­B of Indian Evidence Act Certificate.

On 14.7.2023, he secured presence of P.W.6 and l.W.9/S. Narayana Rao and prepared

Ex.P.6, thereafter he apprehended the accused and recorded his confessional statement, seized stolen property/M.Os.1 to 4 from the possession of accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

In the cross examination, P.W.8 deposed that Puttaswamy temple is situated at outskirts of Marripalem village. He informed P.W.6 and L.w.9/Sanaka Narayana Rao orally over phone and then they came to the scene of offence. He has not seized any documentary to show that L.W.2 /N. Narasimha Murhty is the Priest to the said temple. He deposed that he did not examine any of the other trustee member of the 6 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda said temple. Ex.P.7 was prepared by P.W.6 on the narration of accused. He further deposed that he has not produced iron rod which is seized at the scene of offence as stated in Ex.P.6. He has got weighed M.Os.1 to 4 for the first time from the possession of accused while the same was seized from the accused on 14.7.2023 at bridge at

Marripalem village, at that time P.W.6, L.Ws.9 and 10/S. Narayana Rao and B.

Vasantha Rao respectively, himself, accused and his staff members were present.

L.w.10/Vasantha Rao weighed M.Os.1 to 3. He has not recorded the statement of

L.w.9/Narayana Rao. He has not obtained any document to show that L.W.10/

B. Vasantha Rao was gold Appraiser. The size of the grills of the temple is about 6

MM. He denied the suggestion that 6 MM size iron rod cannot broken with hands and same can be broken with machine cutter only.

13. Considering the evidence of prosecution, the court has discussed the evidence as follows.

 The learned counsel for accused emphasizes on the following points. 

i) There is no proof to show that P.W.1 and L.W.2/N. Narasimhamurthy have been working as Priests and P.W.1 offering deeparadhana to God in the said temple and there is no certificate issued to them by the committee of the said temple. One

Godown and residential buildings are situated in the surroundings of the said temple and there was a public movement frequently.

ii) He informed the incident to P.Ws.2 and 3 and he did not inform the same to the trustee members of the temple. P.W.1 has not verified missing of M.Os.1 to 4.

Police examined him 4 to 5 times and recorded his statements all times. He did not state before police about denomination of M.O.4. The weight of M.Os.1 to 3 stated in

Ex.P.1 basing on his assumption. Jewelery shop issued receipt and P.W.1 gave it to the police, but there is no receipt filed before the Court. Remaining witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution.

iii) P.W.7 admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that P.W.7 was the CC camera technician and same was admitted by P.W.7 that he has no documentary proof, for the same in his cross examination.

iv) P.W.6 deposed that Ex.P.6 and P.7 were drafted by Police and in no written summons were issued to him to act as mediators. He further argued that in cross 7 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda examination of P.W.8, he deposed that Ex.P.7 was drafted by P.W.6 on the narration of accused, but contra, P.W.6 deposed that Ex.P.7 was drafted by police and no document was obtained to show that L.W.10/B. Vasantha Rao was Gold Appraiser and

L.W.10 was not examined by the prosecution.

v) He further argued that P.W.8 admitted that scene of offence is not a busy locality and no residential houses and commercial buildings were situated. P.W.1 deposed that scene of offence is busy locality, godown and residential houses were situated there and he further argued that 6 MM grill of the said temple cannot be broken with hands and no cut machine was used to cut the same and in Ex.P.6, it was mentioned that iron rod was seized, but same was not placed before the Court. 

vi) He also argued that if accused implicated in this case, no one can question that’s why police falsely implicated the accused in this case.

On behalf of prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that

P.Ws.1 to 5 are not the eye witnesses and P.W.1 came to know about the incident after he visited the said temple and P.Ws.6 to 8 corroborated their versions each other and proved the guilt of the accused. 

14. In this case, P.W.1 clearly deposed that on 12.7.2023 he offered prayers and came to his house after locking the doors of the temple and on 13.7.2023 in the morning hours at 7.30 AM, he went to the temple and found locks of the temple were broke open and observed that found missing of M.Os.1 to 4 . In the cross examination, there is no material to rebut the version of P.W.1. In cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and public movement frequently was there on contra P.W.8 deposed that scene of offence is not a busy locality, but as seen from the record, alleged offence occurred at midnight hours at that time public movement cannot be found as the time of offence happened in odd hours. Moreover to prove the presence of accused in this case, M.O.5 which is extract of CC TV footage clearly shows that presence of accused in temple at mid night time.

15. Moreover P.W.7 admitted that he himself issued Ex.P.9/65 B certificate, but in cross examination, there is no evidence in favour of the defence to discard the version of P.W.7. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for accused gave suggestion that

P.W.7 has no document to show that he is the CC Camera Technician. In chief examination of P.W.7, he deposed that he himself extracted CC camera footage and 8 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda same was given in M.O.5. Despite P.W.7 denied that police did not examine him and recorded his statement , he categorically admitted that he issued Ex.P.9 and handed over M.O.5 to Police. The learned counsel for the accused argued that P.W.7 did not support the prosecution case and his statement was not recorded by the police as such evidence of P.W.7 cannot be looked into. 

But, this Court relied upon Bur Sing and another Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 45 (SC) , the Honourable Apex Court held that “It is the duty of Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Where the chaff can be separated from the grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India and the witness cannot be branded as liars. The maxim “Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law” “The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment.”

In the above authority the Honourable Apex Court cautioned the courts to separate the grain from chaff where ever it is possible. I feel it profitable to go through the relevant para… “An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against the which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto.” 

In these circumstances, Court must vigilant to separate falsity from truth and to proceed basing on the truthful evidence. For all these reasons the evidence of P.W.7 that he has issued Ex.P.9 and extract CC TV footage in which movement of the accused 9 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda was recorded in M.O.5, is inspire the confidence of the Court to believe the version of

P.W.7. 

16. On perusal of Ex.P.9, the movement of accused in the said temple was clearly established and photographs of M.O.5 hereby depict as below to establish the presence of accused in said temple.

10 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

P.W.6 deposed in his evidence that on 13.7.2023 police called him and L.W.9/

S. Narayana Rao and they went to the scene of offence mentioned in Ex.P.6 and there scene observation report was drafted, there one iron rod was seized, thereafter on 14.7.2023 at about 9.30 AM, police called them over phone and requested to come to

Police Station , from there they reached to a bridge at Marripalem village. There accused with one carry bag apprehended and said bag got opened by the accused and they found M.Os.1 to 4 therein. They were seized under Ex.P.7 /Seizure report in which accused confessed his offence in the presence of P.W.6 and L.w.9/S. Narayana

Rao. During cross examination, he admitted that no police personnel were present at the time of accused narrating about the contents of Ex.P.7. he deposed that Ex.P.6 and P.7 were drafted by the police but P.W.8 deposed that Ex.P.7 was drafted by

P.W.6. Even though there is contradiction in the version of P.W.6 and P.W.8 regarding of drafting of Ex.P.7, it cannot be defeated the case of prosecution. 

17. The learned legal Aid counsel for accused also argued that there are consistencies in the versions of P.Ws.6 and 8. he further argued that P.W.1 deposed that scene of offence is a busy locality and residential buildings were there, but P.W.8 denied the same.

Hence this Court relied upon the case in between Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahaveer

Singh and others reported in 2016(4) Crimes 121 SC , wherein it was held that “While appreciating the evidence minor contradictions , inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments does not effect the core of the prosecution case.” 

Section 380 of IPC:­ 

Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

P.W.1 deposed that he found missing of M.Os.1 to 4 at the temple and in cross examination, he deposed that before giving of Ex.P.1, he did not verify whether

M.Os.1 to 4 were committed theft or not. Even though there is inconsistency in his version, the missing of M.Os.1 to 4 is an admitted fact. To corroborate the same, P.W.6 deposed in his evidence that M.Os.1 to 4 were seized from the possession of accused under Ex.P.7 and the presence of accused was clearly established through M.O.5 and 11 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

P.W.7 also corroborated that he sisued Ex.P.9/65 B certificate and M.O.5 to the police.

P.W.8 also deposed that he obtained M.O.5 and Ex.P.9 from P.W.7. Hence the ingredients of Section 380 of IPC against accused is clearly established by the prosectuion. 

Section 457 of IPC:­

Whoever commits lurking house­trespass by night, or house­breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

M.O.5 which is extract of CC footage established the presence of accused in the said temple at the time of alleged offence. P.W.8 deposed that he extracted CC TV footage from P.W.7 through M.O.5. To substantiate the value of M.O.5, P.W.7 admitted that he issued Ex.P.6 to the police that he has extracted CC TV footage in

MO.5. The version of P.W.1 is that M.Os.1 to 4 found missing in temple and same is corroborated with the version of P.W.6 through Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7. 

As such accused entered into the said temple also established in CC TV footage and his movement was also recorded there in and same is established through M.O.5.

As such offence under Section 457 of IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 

Section 411 of IPC:­ 

Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

As M.Os.1 to 4 were seized from the possession of accused who is the sole offender in this case, there is no need to discuss about Section 411 of IPC as accused himself committed the offence under Section 380 of IPC, itself proved.

18. Hence from the totality of the facts has came out from the evidences , it is held that prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. 

12 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

In the result, Accused is held guilt for the offence punishable under

Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, Accused is convicted under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

M.Os. 1 to 4 which were given to defacto complainant/P.W.1 i.e, Nijampatnam

Venkata Nancharaiah vide Orders in Crl.M.P.No.236/2023 dt.7.8.2023, is made

absolute. M.O.5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. 

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 29 th day of December, 2023. 

Judicial Magistrate of I­Class, 

Avanigadda. 

Quantum of Sentence:­

While questioning about the sentence, the convict/Accused prayed for mercy stated that he is sole bread winner of his family i.e, his wife, children and parents who are depending upon him and seeks mercy of the Court.

Heard the convict/accused with regard to the sentence imposed on him.

Considering the submission of accused that his family is depending upon him and hence lenient view was taken with regard to the sentence. 

In the result, 

Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and with fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence under Section 380 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, Accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

And

 Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and with fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence under Section 457 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, Accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The sentences for the above offences shall run concurrently. The period from 14.7.2023 to till date i.e, 29.12.2023, total 5 months 15 days, in which accused was in judicial custody shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

13 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

Accused is informed about his right of Appeal on the sentence passed against him.

Copy of the judgment shall be given to the convicts on free of costs as per

Section 363(1) of Cr.P.C..

Judicial Magistrate of I­Class,

Avanigadda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution: For Defence:  P.W.1: N. Venkata Nancharaiah ­None­ P.W.2: B. Seshu Babu P.W.3: S. Uyyuru P.W.4: S. Naga Srinivasa Rao P.W.5: N. Sainadh Kumar P.W.6:T. Gangadhara Satya Sai Babu P.W.7: B. Naga Babu P.W.8:M. Subrahmanyam 

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution: Ex.P1: Report Ex.P.2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.6: Scene Observation Report Ex.P.7: Seizure Report Ex.P.8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.9: 65­B certificate Ex.P.10: First Information Report Ex.P.11: Rough Sketch

For Defence: Nil 

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: M.O.1: Nagendra Swamy silver Pratima M.O.2:Nagendra Swamy silver padaga (hood) M.O.3: Gold Sutras­4 in number M.O.4: Cash of Rs.200/­ M.O.5: Pen Drive

Judicial Magistrate of I­Class, 

Avanigadda. 

14 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

CALENDAR CASE No.245/2023

 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I­CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

1Calendar Case : Calendar Case No.245/2023  2Complainant:The State : Represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Nagayalanka Police Station. 

3Description of the accused:Palnati Sivayya, S/o Ankalu, 22 years, Marripalem village, Yanadula colony , Nagayalanka Mandal. 

4Date of occurrence:13.07.2023 5Date of complaint:13.07.2023 6Date of apprehension of accused:04.09.2023 7Date of Judgment:29.12.2023 8Charges: Under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC

RESULT:

Accused is held guilt for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC, Accused is convicted under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. M.Os. 1 to 4 which were given to defacto complainant/P.W.1 i.e, Nijampatnam Venkata Nancharaiah vide Orders in Crl.M.P.No.236/2023 dt.7.8.2023, is made absolute. M.O.5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. 

Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and with fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence under Section 380 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, Accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month, and also Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year and with fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence under Section 457 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, Accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

The sentences for the above offences shall run concurrently. The period from 14.7.2023 to till date i.e, 29.12.2023, total 5 months 15 days, in which accused was in judicial custody shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Accused is informed about his right of Appeal on the sentence passed against him. Copy of the judgment shall be given to the convicts on free of costs as per Section 363(1) of Cr.P.C..

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

On 22.8.2023, this case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC. On 04.9.2023, copies of documents were furnished to accused. On 19.9.2023, accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., charge framed against him for the offence under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of 15 C.C.No.245/2023, dt.29.12.2023 JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

IPC. Trail was commenced on 22.9.2023 and it was concluded on 21.12.2023. P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.11, M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. On 22.12.2023, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,. On 28.12.2023, heard both sides. On 29.12.2023 Judgment pronounced. 

 Judicial Magistrate of I­Class,

Avanigadda. 

Submitted to: The Hon’ble I­Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 

CC.No.199/2019 J.M..F.C.’S COURT,

Dt.17.1.2025 AVANIGADDA. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA

Present: Sri Lanka Gopinath,

Judicial Magistrate of I -Class, Avanigadda,

Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.199/2019

Between:- The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru Police Station. …Complainant.

And:-

1. A.N. Ramakrishna, S/o Jagandhara Rao, age 37 years, Vijayawada.

2. Pamarthi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Papaiah, age 44 years, Penamaluru, Vijayawada.

…Accused

This Calendar Case came before me on 16.1.2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri B.V. Seshagiri Rao, learned Advocate for Accused, upon consideration of the material on record, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that they committed offence punishable Under Section 304-A of IPC.

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

On 2.12.2018, in the after noon the deceased by name Yalavarthi Veera Raghavamma who is paternal grand mother of P.W.1, took maternal aunt of P.W.1 by name Yalavarthi Baby who is physically handicapped person , get boarded her into the bus bearing No.AP 16 TJ 0616 and while deceased get down from the said bus, due to negligence of the conductor/A.2, the driver of the said bus /A.1 suddenly drove the bus forward, due to which deceased fell down and the tires of the bus ran over her. Deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Avanigadda, while undergoing treatment, she was succumbed to injuries.

CC.No.199/2019 J.M..F.C.’S COURT,

Dt.17.1.2025 AVANIGADDA. 2 P.W.1 presented the report, L.W.11/S. Priya Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru Police Station registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.158/2018 under Section 304-A of IPC, he visited the scene, got drafted observation report, he held inquest over the body of deceased. After completion of investigation and obtaining postmortem report, M.V.I. Report, he filed charge sheet.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against the accused 1 and 2. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C., accusation levelled against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 304-A r/w 34 of IPC and substance of accusation when explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3, got marked Exhibits P1 to P.4 and Ex.D.1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up L.Ws.2 and 3/R. Mohana Nageswara Rao and K. Raja Rao. Despite directions L.Ws.4, 6, 8 to 10/ Y. Swatiswarup Swami, K. Veeranjaneyulu, Y. Venkateswara Rao, P. Sitapati Rao and Dr.P. Krishna Dora respectively, are absent, hence their evidence is closed. L.W.11/ S. Priya Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, despite conditional adjournments, did not appear before the court, hence his evidence is closed.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available on record, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides .

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused Nos.

1 and 2 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC , beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

Point:-

8.To prove its case, prosecution examined the complainant as P.W.1. He deposed that on 2.12.2018 at about 12.30 PM, he along with deceased Yalavarthi Veera

CC.No.199/2019 J.M..F.C.’S COURT,

Dt.17.1.2025 AVANIGADDA. 3 Raghavamma and his paternal aunt Baby were waiting at ZP Hgih School at V. Kothapalem to go to Vijayawada, at that time an RTC bus bearing No. AP 60 TJ 0616 had come and stopped before them, then deceased got boarded Baby into the bus as she is physically challenged person, and while the deceased getting down from the bus, A.2 has given signal to A.1 move forward and A.1 without looking into mirror drove the bus in negligent manner, due to which tire of the bus ran over the deceased, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Avanigadda, there Doctor declared that deceased wasl already died. As the witness resiled from his earlier version, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared him as hostile witness, cross examined him during the cross examination P.W.1 admitted that the number of the bus is AP 16 TJ 0616.

In the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, P.W.1 admitted that he deposed his evidence in chief examination as stated and instructed by police. He further admitted that he is not an eye witness to the present case and further admitted that he do not know about the accused and there is no negligence on part of A.1 and A.2 as deceased deceased did not ask them to stop the bus and get down from it while moving. He further admitted that he did not state before police as in Ex.D.1.

9. P.W.2 is Repalle Rajaiah, who cited as one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence of the offence, but he deposed totally ignorant of the facts of the case. As the witness resiled from his earlier version, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared him as hostile witness and put questions in the form of cross examination, but no fruitful evidence was drawn infavour of the prosecution from the PW.2 except marking his statement as Ex.P.2, which he denied as false.

10. P.W.3 is the then VRA of Viswanadhapalli village, deposed that on 2.12.2018 at about 1.00 PM, police called him and L.W.6/K. Veeranjaneyulu to come to ZPH School, Kothapalem, there at the scene, they observed one bus and also blood stains. L.W.6 prepared Ex.P.3/Scene observation report. Thereafter they reached Government Hospital, Avanigadda, conducted inquest panchanama of deceased Veera Raghavamma and they came to know that deceased was died due to accident. In cross examination, P.w.3 deposed that he has not observed any ornaments and injuries and the cloths which deceased wore. He has not received any written summons from the police. He has not observed the registration number of the vehicle and he deposed that except on road, he has not found any blood stains any where.

CC.No.199/2019 J.M..F.C.’S COURT,

Dt.17.1.2025 AVANIGADDA. 4

11. Prosecution case is that A.1 being the driver of RTC bus bearing No. AP 16 TJ 0616 and A.2 being the conductor in a negligent manner caused the death of deceased Yalavarthi Veera Raghavamma while she was getting down from the bus.

12. P.W.1 deposed that on 2.12.2018 at about 12.30 PM, he along with deceased Yalavarthi Veera Raghavamma and his paternal aunt Baby were waiting at ZP Hgih School at V. Kothapalem to go to Vijayawada, at that time an RTC bus bearing No. AP 16 TJ 0616 had come and stopped before them, then deceased got boarded Baby into the bus as she is physically challenged person, and while the deceased getting down from the bus, A.2 has given signal to A.1 move forward and A.1 without looking into mirror drove the bus in negligent manner, due to which tire of the bus ran over the deceased. But in his cross examination, he categorically admitted that deceased get down from the bus without intimating either to A.1 or to A.2 to stop the bus.

13. P.W.3 is one of the inquestdars deposed that they conducted inquest over the body of deceased and came to know that deceased succumbed to death due to accident and he has not observed injuries over the body of deceased, but at the scene of offence he observed blood stains and an RTC bus. In his cross examination he categorically admitted that except on road, he has not found any blood stains anywhere. Further P.w.3 deposed that he has not observed any injuries over the body of deceased. P.W.1 deposed that due to bus ran over the leg of the deceased, deceased sustained broken and bleeding injury over her right leg. If P.W.3 observed the bus at the scene of offence, he should have noticed the blood stains on the tire of the bus, also, but he only deposed that he observed blood stains on the road only. It creates doubt with regard to visiting the scene of offence by P.W.3 and conducting of inquest panchanama over the body of deceased.

14. With regard to identification of accused Nos.1 and 2, P.W.1 deposed in his chief examination that he deposed that he can identify A.1 is the driver and A.2 is the conductor of the bus bearing No. AP 16 TJ 0616, and further deposed that when he, deceased and Mary were waiting for the bus to go to Vijayawada, but in cross examination he categorically admitted that he is not an eye witness to the present case and he came to know the vehicle number through police and he has not see any vehicle at the scene. Moreover he admitted that he did not state before police as in Ex.D.1.

CC.No.199/2019 J.M..F.C.’S COURT,

Dt.17.1.2025 AVANIGADDA. 5

15. Summoning all and on perusal of the record, it reveals that deceased Veera Raghavamma died due to shock of receiving crush injury over right thigh, femor and main blood vessels in a road accident, but no fruitful evidence on record to prove the case of prosecution. As alleged P.W.1 is the eye witness to the accident, but he totally denied his earlier version before police and categorically admitted in his cross examination that he is not an eye witness to the accident. Further though prosecution got examined of the inquestdars as alleged, his evidence is not even helpful to the case of prosecution as his presence at the scene of offence is remained doubtful in the mind of the court.

16. Further more even prosecution did not come forward to examine neither the Medical Officer who conducted postmortem over the body of deceased nor the Motor Vehicle Inspector to strengthen their case. Thus, there is nothing was left in the hands of court only to say that accused 1 and 2 are not involved in the commission of the above offence, in the absence of which, the accusation levelled against A.1 and A.2 becomes groundless.

17. In the light of above circumstances it can be safely said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC , beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, A.1 and A.2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A r/w 34 of IPC, therefore A.1 and A.2 are acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 17 th day of January, 2025.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

CC.No.199/2019 J.M..F.C.’S COURT,

Dt.17.1.2025 AVANIGADDA. 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Y. Naveen -None- P.W.2: R. Rajaiah P.W.3: B. Venkateswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3: Scene Observation Report Ex.P.4: Inquest panchanama

For Defence:- Ex.D.1: Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil `

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

CC.No.199/2019 J.M..F.C.’S COURT,

Dt.17.1.2025 AVANIGADDA. 7

CALENDAR CASE No.199/2019

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

1Calendar Case : Calendar Case No.199/2019 2Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru Police Station.

3Description of the accused:1. A.N. Ramakrishna, S/o Jagandhara Rao, age 37 years, Vijayawada.

2. Pamarthi Srinivasa Rao, S/o Papaiah, age 44 years, Penamaluru, Vijayawada.

4Date of occurrence:02.12.2018 5Date of complaint:02.12.2018 6Date of apprehension of accused:09.08.2019 7Date of Judgment:17.01.2025 8Charges:U/Section 304-A r/w 34 of IPC.

RESULT: A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A r/w 34 of IPC, therefore A.1 and A.2 are acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

On 30.4.2019, this case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. On 9.8.2019, accused were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. , accusation levelled against them for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined , Ex.P.1 to P.4 and Ex.D.1 were marked. On 10.1.2025, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 16.1.2025, heard arguments. On 17.1.2025, Judgment pronounced.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

CC 212/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AVANIGADDA

Present: Lanka Gopinath,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

C.C.No.212/2024

State rep., by Enforcement Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Avanigadda. …. Complainant

And

Kokkiligadda Ramakrishna, S/o Anjaiah, age 83 years, Venugopalapuram village, Koduru Mandal. …… Accused

This case came before me on 17.1.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri P. Raghavendra Rao, learned Advocate for Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The accused is arraigned before the court for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are :- On 15.2.2024, at about 5.30 PM, on credible information P.W.2 along with his staff proceeded to road margin infront of MPUP School, Venugopalapuram village, there they found accused with a bag containing 9 IML bottles of 1) Royal Palace VSOP brandy -180 ml – 6 bottles and 2) Royal Right Grain whisky -180 ml -3 bottles. P.W.2 seized the bottles, picked up sample bottle in order to send the same to chemical examiner for analysis and drafted Mediator’s report/Ex.P.1. He registered Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.2/FIR in Cr.No.25/2024 under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act. L.W.4/V.T.V.V. Satyanarayana, Enforcement Inspector, Avanigadda sent M.Os.1 and 2 to FSL for chemical analysis. After receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation, L.W.4/V.T.V.V. Satyanarayana filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

CC 212/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, charge under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.5 and Mos.1 and 2 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

10. P.W.1/P. Venkateswara Rao, VRO of Koduru village deposed that on 15.2.2024, he along with P.W.2 and L.W.3/T. Rama Rao reached the scene of offence i.e., MPUP School, Venugopalapuram, there they found accused with 9 IML bottles of

1) Royal Palace VSOP brandy -180 ml – 6 bottles and 2) Royal Right Grain whisky - 180 ml -3 bottles, without having license and permission. In cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he has not informed to his superiors about alleged offence, there is no entry in movement register about the alleged offence and he has not received any written summons from the police. He further admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality, there is one temple situated besides the scene of offence and at evening hours devotees gathered at said temple.

11. P.W.2 is the Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Avanigadda, deposed that on 15.2.2024, he along with P.W.1, L.W.3/T. Rama Rao reached the scene of offence i.e., MPUP School, Venugopalapuram, there they found accused with 9 IML bottles of 1) Royal Palace VSOP brandy -180 ml – 6 bottles and 2) Royal Right Grain whisky -180 ml -3 bottles, without having license and permission. He seized all the bottles, picked up sample bottle in order to send the same to chemical examiner for analysis and drafted Mediator’s report/Ex.P.1, registered Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.2/FIR in Cr.No.25/2024 under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act. L.W.4/V.T.V.V. Satyanarayana, Enforcement Inspector, Avanigadda sent M.Os.1 and 2 to FSL for chemical analysis. After receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation, L.W.4/V.T.V.V. Satyanarayana filed charge sheet. In cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that alleged scene of offence is in residential locality, it is a two road junction, busy locality, Srirama temple is situated at the scene. He did not obtain permission from MRO of P.W.1 and not issued written summons to P.W.1. P.W.2 further admitted that P.W.1 drafted Ex.P.1 on his directions. Ex.P.1 was drafted after accused was taken into custody.

CC 212/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

12. From the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 deposed that Ex.P.1 was written by P.W.2 on his own whereas P.W.2 deposed that Ex.P.1 was drafted by P.W.1 on his directions. As per the revenue rules, revenue official should have to prepare the special report or mediators report, but it was remained as a question regarding who prepared mediators report from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Further P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that he has not informed to his superiors about the alleged offence, no entry in movement register and he has not received any written summons from the police and P.W.2 also admitted that he has not issued written summons to P.W.1 and obtain permission from MRO. From the above said versions, it creates doubt with regard to presence of P.W.1 at the alleged scene of offence.

13. With regard to confession of accused. If really confession was recorded by P.W.2/Investigation Officer, he should enquire and know the fact from where the accused purchased the said bottles and even P.W.1 did not inquire any neighbours or inhabitants to the scene of offence, but P.w.2 did not make any attempt to examine any local inhabitant though as deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 , alleged scene of offence is a busy locality and a residential area. Moreover P.W.1 and 2 deposed that Ex.P.1 was drafted after accused was taken into custody. It is clear that P.W.1 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7) Code of Criminal Procedure shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. So PW.3 did not comply with the procedure prescribed under Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) Code of Criminal Procedure while seizing the contraband from accused.

14. Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that the deface-complainant and the Investigating Officer is one and the same. While the same does not entirely vitiate the case of the prosecution, the investigation could have been carried out by a different Investigating Officer to avoid the question of any vested interest, prejudice against the accused, and most importantly to uphold the principle that “Justice must not only be done, it must also appears to be done”. Be that as it may, the same cannot be a sole ground to discard the entire case of the prosecution.

15. Now to prove the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, the prosecution must prove that accused was in possession of liquor bottles without any license and permission for selling and transportation of the same, which is prohibited under the Act. The confession made before police under his custody is not believable as said confession hit by Section 25, 26 of Indian Evidence Act unless it is served under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In the present case P.W.2 did not enquire about the shop where accused purchased seized bottles.

CC 212/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

17. In view of the foregoing discussion it 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 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Typed by Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this, the 17 th day of January, 2025.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1: P. Venkateswara Rao P.W.2: K. Thamma Rao

FOR ACCUSED: None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P.1: Special report Ex.P.2: First Information Report Ex.P.3: Rough Sketch Ex.P.4: Letter of advise Ex.P.5: CE Report

For Accused :-Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.Os. 1 and 2 : Sample bottles

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda .

CC 212/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

CALENDAR CASENo.212/2024

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

1Calendar Case: Calendar Case No.212/2024 2Complainant:State rep., by Enforcement Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Avanigadda.

3Description of the accused:Kokkiligadda Ramakrishna, S/oAnjaiah,age83years, Venugoplapuram village, Koduru Mandal.

4Date of occurrence:15.02.2024 5Date of complaint:15.02.2024 6Date of apprehension of accused:13.09.2024 7Date of Judgment: 17.01.2025 8Charges:Under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

This case was taken on file on 7.8.2024 against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. On 13.9.2024, copies were furnished to the accused and on 20.9.2024, accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge framed against for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Ex.P.1 to P.5 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 9.1.2025. On 10.1.2025, heard arguments. On 17.1.2025, Judgment pronounced.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

CC 192/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AVANIGADDA

Present: Lanka Gopinath,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

C.C.No.192/2024

Between:-

State rep., by Enforcement Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Avanigadda. …. Complainant

And

Kokkiligadda Sambamurthi, S/o Narasimha Rao, age 55 years, Palakayathippa village, Koduru mandal. …… Accused

This case came before me on 9.1.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri B. Venkata Subrahmanyeswara Rao, learned Advocate for Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The accused is arraigned before the court for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are :- On 28.1.2024 at about 3.00 PM, on credible information P.W.1 along with his staff proceeded to house premises of Kokkiligadda Sambamurthi, there they found the accused with a bag containing 21 IML bottles of 1) Golden Stripes Luxury -180 ml -11 bottles, 2) Manjeera Blue Premium Deluxe whisky -180 ml -5 bottles, 3) Classic blue Finest whisky -180 ml -3 bottles, 4) HD Ultra Deluxe whiksy – 180 ml -2 bottles. P.W.1 seized the bottles, picked up sample bottle in order to send the same to chemical examiner for analysis and drafted Special report/Ex.P.1. Thereafter, P.w.3 registered Ex.P.1 as Ex.P.2/FIR in Cr.No.13/2024 under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act. He sent M.Os.1 to 4 to FSL for chemical analysis. After receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation, L.w.5/SEB SI, SEB Station, Avanigadda filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against accused.

2

CC 192/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, charge under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.4 and Mos.1 to 4 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

10. P.W.1/J. Srinivasa Balaji, Inspector of Police deposed that on 28.1.2024 at about 3.30 PM, he along with P.W.2 and L.W.2/Y. Vinay Kumar reached Palakaithippa village, there they found the accused with a bag containing 21 IML bottles of 1) Golden Stripes Luxury -180 ml -11 bottles, 2) Manjeera Blue Premium Deluxe whisky -180 ml -5 bottles, 3) Classic blue Finest whisky -180 ml -3 bottles, 4) HD Ultra Deluxe whiksy – 180 ml -2 bottles. He seized all the bottles and lifted M.Os.1 to 4 drafted Ex.P.1/Special report. In the cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that he did not take assistance of VRO or VRA, did not secure any mediators prior to reaching Palakaithippa. They reached the scene of offence at about 3.30 PM.

11. P.W.2 is the Excise Constable deposed that on 28.1.2024 at about 3.00 PM, they reached the house of accused at Palakaithippa village, there they found the accused was in possession of 21 IML bottles of 1) Golden Stripes Luxury -180 ml -11 bottles, 2) Manjeera Blue Premium Deluxe whisky -180 ml -5 bottles, 3) Classic blue Finest whisky -180 ml -3 bottles, 4) HD Ultra Deluxe whisky – 180 ml -2 bottles without having license and permission.

In cross examination, he deposed that they reached the scene of offence at 3.00 PM. He further deposed that accused ran away for 100 meters on seeing them and further deposed that he is physically disabled person as such he could not run. All the witnesses are department personnel. He admitted that he has not signed on Ex.P.1.

3

CC 192/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

Ex.P.1 was prepared by P.W.1 on his own. Scene of offence is a busy locality. Ex.P.1 was drafted after accused was taken into custody. He also admitted that no confession was recorded.

12. P.W.3 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, SEB Avanigadda, he deposed that on 28.1.2024 on presentation of Ex.P.1 by P.w.1, he registered Ex.P.2/FIR, later CD file was handed over to L.W.5/VTVV. Sathyanarayana SEB, EI SEB Station, Avanigadda. Then L.W.5 sent M.Os.1 to 4 for chemical analysis and after receipt of CE report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. In cross examination, he deposed that after receipt of M.Os.1 to 4 and Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, he issued Ex.P.2/FIR.

13. From the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.P.1 was drafted by him, but as per the revenue rules, revenue official should have to prepare the special report or mediators report, but on contra, no steps were taken by P.W.1 to secure mediators prior to reaching the scene or after reaching it. Moreover he deposed in his cross examination on receiving information, he start up his journey from Machilipatnam to Avanigadda , it took 2 hours, later from Avanigadda to Scene of offence it took 20 minutes, and reached the scene at 3.30 PM and started scribing, but in Ex.P.1 it was mentioned as he started scribing Ex.P.1 after 20 minutes of 3.30 PM. With regard to reaching the scene, P.W.2 deposed that they reached the scene at 3.00 PM. Thus there are contradictions in the versions of P.Ws.1 and 2.

14. Further more, P.W.2 deposed that on seeing them accused ran away for 100 meters, later he made a new version by admitting that accused is physically disabled person and could not run. Further P.w.2 deposed that he has not signed on mediators report. It creates doubt regarding presence of P.W.2 at the scene of offence and drafting of Ex.P.1. With regard to confession of accused. If really confession was recorded by P.W.1, he should enquire and know the fact from where the accused purchased the said bottles and even P.W.1 did not inquire any neighbours or inhabitants to the scene of offence. P.W.2 deposed that Ex.P.1 was drafted by P.W.1 on his own after accused was taken into custody.

15. Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that the deface-complainant and the Investigating Officer is one and the same in the present case and all the witnesses are department personnel. While the same does not entirely vitiate the case of the prosecution, the investigation could have been carried out by a different Investigating Officer to avoid the question of any vested interest, prejudice against the accused, and most importantly to uphold the principle that “Justice must not only be done, it must also appears to be done”. Be that as it may, the same cannot be a sole ground to discard the entire case of the prosecution.

16. Now to prove the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act , the prosecution must prove that accused was in possession of liquor bottles without any license and permission for selling and transportation of the same, which is prohibited under the Act. The confession made before police under his custody is not believable as said confession hit by Section 25, 26 of Indian Evidence Act 4

CC 192/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

unless it is served under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In the present case P.W.1 did not enquire about the shop where accused purchased seized bottles.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion it 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 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437- A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MOs 1 to 4 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Typed by Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this, the 17 th day of January, 2025.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1: J. Srinivasa Balaji P.W.2: M. Satyanarayana P.W.3: K. Thamma Rao

FOR ACCUSED: None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P.1: Special report Ex.P.2: First Information Report Ex.P.3: Letter of advise Ex.P.4: CE Report

For Accused :-Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.Os. 1 to 4: Sample bottles

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda .

5

CC 192/2024, Dt.17.1.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

CALENDAR CASENo.192/2024

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

1Calendar Case: Calendar Case No.192/2024 2Complainant:State rep., by Enforcement Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Avanigadda.

3Description of the accused:Kokkiligadda Sambamurthi, S/o Narasimha Rao, age 55 years, Palakayathippa village, Koduru mandal.

4Date of occurrence:28.01.2024 5Date of complaint:28.01.2024 6Date of apprehension of accused:08.08.2024 7Date of Judgment: 17.01.2025 8Charges:Under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MOs 1 to 4 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

This case was taken on file on 31.07.2024 against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. On 8.8.2024, copies were furnished to the accused and on 9.8.2024, accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge framed against for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Ex.P.1 to P.4 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 8.1.2025. On 9.1.2025, heard arguments. On 17.1.2025, Judgment pronounced.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

C.C.194/2024, Dt.17.4.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AVANIGADDA

Present: Lanka Gopinath,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.194/2024

State rep., by Enforcement Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Avanigadda. …. Complainant

And

Viswanadhapalli Nagamani, W/o Ratnagiri Rao, age 50 years, North Chiruvolulanka village, Mopidevi Mandal. …… Accused

This case came before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri Ch. Naga Malleswara Rao, learned Advocate for Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The accused is arraigned before the court for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are :- On 31.1.2024, at about 8.30 AM, on credible information P.W.2 along with his staff reached road margin infront of MPUP school in North Chiruvolu lanka village, there they found accused with a bag containing 7 IML bottles of 1) Haywards Fine whisky - 180 ml each – 4 bottles and 2) Hyderabad Blue Reserve whisky – 18 ml each -3 bottles. P.W.2 seized the bottles, picked up sample bottles in order to send the same to chemical examiner for analysis and drafted Mediator’s report/Ex.P.1. He registered Ex.P.1 as FIR in Cr.No.15/2024 under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1)(i) of A.P Excise Act. He prepared rough sketch of the scene. L.W.4/V.T.V.V. Satyanarayana, Enforcement Inspector, Avanigadda sent M.Os.1 and 2 to FSL for chemical analysis. After receipt of FSL report and after completion of investigation, L.W.3/V.T.V.V. Satyanarayana filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

C.C.194/2024, Dt.17.4.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, charge under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which, she denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.6 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against her from the prosecution evidence as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and accused denied the same and reported no evidence in defense.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

10. P.W.1/M. Leela Prasanth, VRO deposed that on 31.1.2024, when P.W.2, L.W.2/T. Madhu Salini, L.w.5/A. Anjibabu and he reached the scene of offence MPUP school, North Chiruvolu lanka village, there they found the accused with a bag contains 7 IML bottles of 1) Haywards Fine whisky -180 ml each – 4 bottles and 2) Hyderabad Blue Reserve whisky – 18 ml each -3 bottles, without having any license and permission. In cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that he has not received any written summons, there is no entry in movement register about the alleged offence and he has not obtained any permission from his superior officers. Ex.P.1 was drafted after accused was taken into custody.

11. P.W.2/K. Thamma Rao is the then Sub Inspector of police, SEB, Avanigadda police station, deposed that when P.W.1, L.W.2/T. Madhu Salini, L.w.5/A. Anjibabu and he reached the scene of offence MPUP school, North Chiruvolu lanka village, there they found the accused with a bag contains 7 IML bottles of 1) Haywards Fine whisky -180 ml each – 4 bottles and 2) Hyderabad Blue Reserve whisky – 18 ml each -3 bottles, without having any license and permission. He seized all the bottles, lifted M.Os.1 and 2, prepared Ex.P.1, prepared rough sketch of the scene and basing on Ex.P.1,he registered the case, sent M.Os.1 and 2 for analysis. After completion of investigation and obtaining FSL report, L.W.4/VTVV Satyanarayana, Enforcement Inspector, Avanigadda filed charge sheet.

In cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that he did not issue any written summons to P.W.1. He has not enquired about the shop where accused purchased alleged liquor bottles. Scene of offence is a residential area and busy locality. No local inhabitant was examined. Ex.P.1 was drafted after accused was taken into custody.

C.C.194/2024, Dt.17.4.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

12. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.w.2, scene of offence is a busy locality, but at the scene of offence, no local inhabitants were examined by the Investigation Officer and even P.W.2 did not enquire from whose shop, accused purchased liquor bottles. P.W.1 admitted that he has not received any written summons and there was no entry in movement register about the alleged offence and he has not obtained any written permission from his superior officers. As per the versions of P.Ws.1 and 2, Ex.P.1 was drafted by P.w.2 after accused was taken into custody. As per the revenue rules, revenue officials should have to prepare special report/mediators report. It all creates doubt with regard to presence of P.W.1 at the scene of offence and preparation of Ex.P.1.

13. With regard to confession of accused. If really confession was recorded by P.W.2/Investigation Officer, he should enquire and know the fact from where the accused purchased the said bottles and even P.W.2 did not inquire any neighbours or inhabitants to the scene of offence. Moreover P.W.1 deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.P.1.

Moreover P.W.2 deposed that Ex.P.1 was drafted after accused was taken into custody. It is clear that P.W.2 did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure, where in it mandates that “before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them” and 100(5) Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that “the search shall be made in their presence and the list of things seized shall be prepared by the officer and signed by such witnesses” and Section 100(7) Code of Criminal Procedure shows that “a copy of the list of things seized shall be given to the persons from whom the property is seized”. So PW.2 did not comply with the procedure prescribed under Sections 100 (4), (5) and (7) Code of Criminal Procedure while seizing the contraband from accused.

14. Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that the deface-complainant and the Investigating Officer is one and the same. While the same does not entirely vitiate the case of the prosecution, the investigation could have been carried out by a different Investigating Officer to avoid the question of any vested interest, prejudice against the accused, and most importantly to uphold the principle that “Justice must not only be done, it must also appears to be done”. Be that as it may, the same cannot be a sole ground to discard the entire case of the prosecution.

15. Now to prove the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, the prosecution must prove that accused was in possession of liquor bottles without any license and permission for selling and transportation of the same, which is prohibited under the Act. The confession made before police under his custody is not believable as said confession hit by Section 25, 26 of Indian Evidence Act unless it is served under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

C.C.194/2024, Dt.17.4.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

16. In view of the foregoing discussion it 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 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and she is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

Typed by Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this, the 17 th day of April, 2025.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1: M. Leela Prasanth P.W.2: K. Thamma Rao

FOR ACCUSED: None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P.1: Mediator’s report Ex.P.2: Rough Sketch Ex.P.3: First Information Report Ex.P.4: Letter of advise Ex.P.5: FSL Report Ex.P.6: Destroy Proceedings

For Accused :-Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.Os. 1 and 2 : Sample bottles

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Avanigadda.

C.C.194/2024, Dt.17.4.2025JFCM’s Court, Avanigadda

CALENDAR CASENo.194/2024

ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, AVANIGADDA.

1Calendar Case: Calendar Case No.194/2024 2Complainant:State rep., by Enforcement Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Avanigadda.

3Description of the accused:Viswanadhapalli Nagamani, W/o Ratnagiri Rao, age 50 years, North Chiruvolulanka village, Mopidevi Mandal.

4Date of occurrence:31.01.2024 5Date of complaint:31.01.2024 6Date of apprehension of accused:06.08.2024 7Date of Judgment:17.04.2025 8Charges:Under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and she is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

This case was taken on file on 31.7.2024, against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. On 6.8.2024, copies were furnished to the accused and on 20.9.2024, accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge framed against for the offence under Section 34(a)r/w 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Ex.P.1 to P.6 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.4.2025. On 17.4.2025, heard arguments and on the same day i.e., on 17.4.2025, Judgment pronounced.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Avanigadda.

Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.