Sri M.Kasi Viswanadha Achary

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Present: Sri M.Kasi Viswanadha Achary.

(Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Full Additional Charge to the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel)

Friday, this the 17th day of March, 2023

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021

Between: State represented by Station House Officer, SEB Station, Badvel … Complainant

Vs

Sunkari Sumanth s/o S.Chennaiah, aged about 21 years, R/o D.No.7/122,

Thipaarajupalle Village, B.Koduru Mandal, Kadapa District.

… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16-3-2023 in presence of

Learned Asst Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri.Elicherla C. Obula Reddy

Advocate for accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Badvel filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.17/2021 for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P.Excise Act,2020.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-

2.On 5-2-2021 during the raids conducted by the Enforcement Inspector, Badvel

Lw1/ P.Venkata Ramana along with staff reached near Sagileru Bridge situated on

Badvel to Mydukuru bus road of B.Mattam Mandal at about 5.30 am., found accused coming on motor cycle by keeping one white plastic bag on petrol tank. On suspicion stopped the motor cycle. On questioning accused revealed that he is transporting liquor bottles in the bag. Then Inspector deputed Lw2/ L.Satya Babu, Head constable to near by village Nandipalle to get mediators, After 20 minutes, he returned to the

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 2 of 10 scene of offence and reported non available of Village Revenue Officials and none coming forward to act as mediators. Then Inspector, Badvel searched the white colour plastic bag and found 40 Nip bottles i.e., 1) 24 Nips of Hyderabad Blue

Superior Whisky, 2) 16 Nips of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky ( 180 ml). The

Inspector verfied the two wheeler, it is TVS Star bearing Registeration No. Nil. When questioned the accused, revealed his identity particulars. Then Inspector, Badvel has separately one liquor bottle from each part for chemical analysis, the remaining bottles were kept in the same bag, duly sealed and labelled, disclosed the grounds of arrest, Inspector, Badvel arrested the accused and seized the property under the cover of special report.

3. Inspector, Badvel, registered the case in crime no.17/2021, under section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act, 2020 of S.E.B Station, Badvel and sent the accused to the judicial custody. During the course of investigation, the sample was sent to Chemical

Examiner, Kurnool, after analyzing the sample it is opined that in C.E.No.353/2021, dt.17-04-2021, the sample is Indian Made Liquor. During the course of further investigation, the seized property was produced before the Superintendent of Police,

Kadapa for confiscation, the seized property was confiscated as per the order of the

Superintendent of Police, Kadapa vide proceedings Rc.No.104/Confiscation/DCR/SEB-

KDP/2021, dated 09-07-2021. Hence the Charge Sheet.

4. This case was taken on Cognizance by the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil

Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel against the accused for

the offence under section 34(A) of AP. Excise Act, 2020.

5.On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him under section 207

Cr.P.C. Accused examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed for the offence under section 34(A) of AP. Excise Act, 2020, read over and explained to accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 and Pw.2, Ex- hibits P.1 to P.5, Mo.1 and Mo.2 marked on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of

LW.3/S.Raja, LW.4/B.Murali Mohan given up by the Learned Asst Public Prosecutor.

7.After closer of prosecution evidence, accused examined under section 313

Cr.P.C., incriminating material explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 3 of 10 same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Arguments heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that

1. Whether prosecution establish the search and seizure of the liquor bottles from the possession of accused ?

2. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise, 2020? Point No. 1

10.Pw1 is Constable, he gave evidence that on 5-2-2021 he along with Pw2 and other staff during the raids conducted, reached near Badvel to Mydukur bus road of

B.Mattam Mandal noticed accused coming from Badvel side on motor cycle by keeping the white plastic bag on petrol tank, then PW2 stopped the motor cycle on suspicion, sent him to secure mediators to Nandipalli Village, but in vain. On verification of the bag found 1) 24 Nips of Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky, 2) 16

Nips of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky ( 180 ml). Accused do not possesses any license. The Motor cycle does not have registration number. Pw2 lifted two samples from the seized liquor bottles and arrested the accused under the cover of special report.

11.Pw.2 is Inspector, he gave evidence that on 5-2-2021 he along with Pw1 and other staff during the raids conducted, reached near Badvel to Mydukur bus road of

B.Mattam Mandal noticed accused coming from Badvel side on motor cycle by keeping the white plastic bag on petrol tank, then he stopped the motor cycle on suspicion, sent Pw1 to secure mediators to Nandipalli Village, but in vain. On verification of the bag found 1) 24 Nips of Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky, 2) 16

Nips of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky ( 180 ml). Pw2 further said that Motor cycle does not have registration number, he lifted two samples for chemical analysis purpose, received the chemical analysis report, confiscating proceedings from

Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, arrested the accused under the cover of special report.

The following documents and sample bottles marked through Pw.2.

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 4 of 10

Ex.P1 is Special Report

Ex.P2 is First Information Report

Ex.P3 is Letter of Advice

Ex.P4 is Chemical Analysis Report

Ex.P5 is attested copy of confiscation proceedings

Two Sample bottles marked as Mo.1 and Mo.2

Section 34 of AP Excise Act reads as follows:-

Penalties for Illegal import etc.,:- Whoever, in contravention of this Act, or any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,-

(a) imports, exports, transports manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or

(b) taps any excise tree, or

(c) draws toddy from any excise tree; or

(d) constructs or works any distillery or brewery; or

(e) uses, keeps, or has in his possession any materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy; or

(f) bottles any liquor for purpose of sale; or

(g) buys any intoxicant; or

(h) possesses any material or film either with or without Government logo of any district in the State of Andhra Pradesh or any other State or wrapper or any other think in which intoxicants can be packed or any apparatus, or implement or machine for the purpose of packing any intoxicant;

(i) removes any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery or ware house licenced, established or continued under this Act; shall on conviction be punished: [ (1) in the case of an offence falling under clause (a) (d) (e) (f) and (i) with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend up to eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupee five lakhs for the second offence; and (2) in the case of an offence other than an offences falling under clauses(a) (b) (e) (f)

(h) and (I) with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and which may extend up to one year and with fine which my extend up to rupees ten thousand. ].

12.Pw.1 and Pw2 in the cross examination, stated that alleged scene of offence is busy locality on badvel to mydukur main road, near sagileru bridge. They cannot say

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 5 of 10 the names of the person who rejected to act as mediators, notice not served to any person calling them to act as mediators, they did not took the assistance of local people, rough sketch not prepared, special report does not contain that police constable sent to secure mediators. No amounts seized from accused, special report does not contain whether any person purchased liquor from accused, Pw1 is investigating officer cum Informant. They did not file any record to establish that revenue officials are not available on the alleged date of raid, special report does not contain commencement and termination of proceedings. The defence of the accused is that, the case of the prosecution is for statistical purpose and he was falsely implicated in the case, no way concern with the case property and he is innocent to the alleged offence.

13.The Learned Asst Public prosecutor argued the case and submitted that prosecution establish the case, search and seizure of liquor bottles proved before the court , that accused is carrying the liquor without any authority and submitted that

MO1 and MO2 not planted, but collected as sample for chemical analysis purpose,

Accused is liable for punishment. The Learned Counsel appearing to the Accused submitted his arguments stating that Accused is innocent to the alleged offence, no seizure of property took place and that MO.1 and MO.2 planted for the purpose of the case and that this case is filed only for statistical purpose. There are no independent mediators to establish that Accused carrying the liquor. Non securing of mediators even though the place of offence is located in busy area leads the case of prosecution in to doubtful circumstance and Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

14.The evidence let in through the prosecution witness makes it clear that Pw1 and Pw2 are only source of evidence for prosecution, alleges that accused committed the offence by carrying the liquor which is not permissible. Accused completely denies the offence and submitted that he is innocent to the case. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the case. Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

15. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish fact of search and seizure done

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 6 of 10 by Pw2 is in according to procedure laid down under the law by following section 100 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code, it reads as follows; (4) of Criminal Procedure Code;

Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make

it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

16.The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 show that they conducted the search of the bag carrying by the Accused containing liquor bottles in a busy locality and that place where they found the Accused is on main road and busy locality. There is possibility of securing independent witness. Pw2 did made any attempt to secure the independent witness by issuing the notice on them by name, to whom Pw1 contacted and to which place he went and further did not produce white colour plastic bag carrying by the Accused, the evidence of Pw1 is clouded with doubtful circumstance, unbelievable, followed by the action of Pw2 in making seizure of liquor bottles from the Accused as alleged by the prosecution.

In a case K.Boosaiah Vs State of Andhra pradesh represented by the public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,reported in 1996(1)ALT(Crl) 727(AP) held at para 4 “ that investigation officer is definitely interested in showing the detection of offences, in their anxiety to show their performance in a better light, they were prone to fabricate case also. Their evidence that mediators were not available and also could not be secured in highly doubtful in the circumstance of the case. And it is viewed that it is not safe to accept their evidence in the absence of corroboration by independent witness.

In a case S.Babu Saheb Vs State of AP reported in 2010(1) ALT Criminal at page 32, it is held in para 16 as follows “ When excise officials conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officer are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators.

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 7 of 10

That is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provision, the excise officials are also authorised to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C., the object of Section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C., it to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.”

17.In the light of the above observation of Judgments given by the Hon’ble Higher

Court, the prosecution case has to be supported with the independent witness, where in Pw2 unable to secure any independent witness and that the search and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of Accused falls in to doubtful circumstance and the evidence of prosecution is unacceptable without corroboration of independent witness. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the search and seizure of liquor bottles from the Accused.

Point No. 2

18.Pw2 conducted the raid to detect the excise offence, found the accused on 5-2- 2021 near Badvel to Mydukur bus road of B.Mattam Mandal, notice accused coming from Badvel side at about 5.30 am., with plastic bag on his motor cycle, which does not have registration number. Pw2 on suspicion detained the accused, with the help of staff and then deputed Pw1 to secure mediators Nandipalle village, but in vain.

Verified the plastic bag and found 1) 24 Nips of Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky, 2) 16 Nips of Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky ( 180 ml) and further recorded accused confession in special report. The evidence of Pw2 makes it clear that he recorded the special report in the absence of independent witness and that the special report reveals confession of accused recorded for carrying the white colour plastic bag containing liquor bottles. It is the contention of the prosecution that the seizure is done through Pw2 under the special report and Accused himself admitted that he is carrying liquor bottles and did not disclose the source of liquor bottles and the same is recorded under special report, the said confession cannot be kept a side. Whereas, the counsel appearing to the Accused, argued that the confession recorded by Pw2 is

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 8 of 10 not admitted in evidence and Accused is innocent to the alleged offence and further said that evidence of Pw1 and PW2 cannot be considered as the search and seizure is not establish before the court.

In a case Mudavath Mothia Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2002 Lawsuit (AP) 1182 in para 5 explained by the Higher Courts that “ Section 34 of AP Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigaiton of the cognizable offence, they become police officials when once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. It is also explained that panchanama it hit by section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872”

19.In the present case, prosecution case is not supported with independent witness, the seizure of liquor bottles fallen under suspicion, non examination of the independent witness is fatal to the case of prosecution and that the statement of accused recorded in special proceeding hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

Confession to Police officer not be proved- No Confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

20.In the observation of the Court, it is of considered view that the evidence let in through Pw1 and Pw2 does not gives strength to the prosecution to establish the case against the Accused and benefit of doubt extended to the Accused.

21. In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment. Mo1 and Mo2 deposited with the court with vide

C.P.R.No.59/2021 worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of March, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 9 of 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused: NIL PW1 : 10.01.2023 : L.Satya Babu PW2 : 14.03.2023 : P.Venkata Ramana

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint:Accused : NIL

Ex.P1 : Special Report Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5 : Attested copy of confiscation proceedings

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: NIL

MO.1 : Nip bottle of Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky 180 ml MO.2 : Nip bottle of Manzira Classic Reserve Whisky 180 ml

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel

Calendar Case No. 322 of 2021 Page 10 of 10

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Date ofDate of Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of Date ofreport ofrelease of apprehensiocommencemclose ofsentence or offencecomplainanthe nent of trialtrialorder taccused 05.02.202105.02.202105.02.202105.02.202110.01.202315.03.202317.03.2023

--- NO DELAY ---

________________________________________________________________________________ State:- State represented by Station House Officer, SEB Station, Badvel

Judgment in C.C. No.322/2021 in Crime No.17/2021

on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Addtional Judicial Magistarte

of I Class, Badvel

Name of the Accused Age Father's Name Religion CallingAddress R/o D.No.7/122, Thipparajupalli Village, Sunkari Sumanth21ChennaiahHinduCoolie B.Koduru Mandal, Kadapa District

Offence U/Sec: Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act Penalties for Illegal import etc.,

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:: In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment. Mo1 and Mo2 deposited with the court with vide C.P.R.No.59/2021 worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel

Copy submitted :-

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Calendar Case No. 1037 of 2022Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Present: Sri M.Kasi Viswanadha Achary.

(Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Full Additional Charge to the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel)

Friday, this the 17th day of March, 2023

Calendar Case No.1037 of 2022

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, S.A.Kasinayana Police Station … Complainant

Vs

Vemireddy Chinna Duggi Reddy s/o Duggi Reddy, aged about 48 years, R/o Varikuntla Village, SAKN Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16-3-2023 in presence of Learned Asst Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri. Elicherla C.Obula Reddy, Advocate, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, S.A.Kasinayana Police Station Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.54/2022 for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-

2.On 28-4-2022 at about 12.25 pm., Sub-inspector along with staff reached near neem tree, at a distance of 1 Km western side of Varikuntla Village, Kasinayana Mandal,

YSR Kadapa District, found accused having possession of whilte colour plastic bag containing 10 Nos of Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky 180 ml bottles on interrogation, accused revealed that due lack of money to earn money, he used to purchase liquor from wine shops and sell the same for excess than MRP. The sub-inspector separated one bottle as sample for chemical analysis, remaining bottles seized and affixed labels signed, arrested the accused under the cover of police proceedings. On the strength police proceedings, case is registered in crime no. 54/2022 under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act, during the course of investigation, sent sample bottle for chemical analysis, received report with opinion that sample is Indian Liquor, confiscation proceedings from

Superintendent of Police, Kadapa and after completion of investigation filed charge

Calendar Case No. 1037 of 2022Page 2 of 7 sheet.

3. This case was taken on Cognizance by the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel against the accused for the offence under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act.

4.On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed for the offence under section 34(A) of

AP Excise Act, read over and explained to accused in Telugu Language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to Pw.3, Exhibits

P.1 to P.6, Mo.1 marked on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of Lw2/ K.Maddileti,

Lw3/ S.Sudarshan Reddy, Lw5/Busi Reddy Monohar Reddy, Lw6/C.Haritha, Lw8/P.Praveen

Kumar given up by the Learned Asst Public Prosecutor.

6.After closer of prosecution evidence, accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating material explained to him in Telugu Language for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Arguments heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is that

1. Whether prosecution establish the search and seizure of the Liquor bottles from the possession of accused ?

2. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 34 (A) of AP Excise Act ? Point No. 1

9.Pw2 is Sub-Inspector and Pw3 is Constable, they gave evidence stating that on 28- 04-2022 at about 12.25 pm., they reached at west side of Varikuntla Village of Kasinayana

Mandal, found accused having possession of whilte colour plastic bag containing 10 Nos of Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky 180 ml bottles on interrogation, accused revealed that due lack of money, to gain profit, he used to purchase liquor from wine shops and sell the same for excess than MRP. Accused revealed that he do not possess any license, there by separated one liquor bottle for chemical analysis purpose, arrested the accused, seized the remaining liquor bottles under the cover of police proceedings. The Sub- inspector obtained confiscation proceedings from Superintendent of Police, Kadapa., sent sample analyzed by the chemical analyzer, it is opined that sample is Indian liquor and

Calendar Case No. 1037 of 2022Page 3 of 7 after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. Pw1 is independent witness, as seen from the record, he was present at the time of arrest of accused on 28-4-2022, but coming to the evidence, before the court, he said that he signed on white paper at the request of the police at police station. The following documents and sample bottle marked through

PW.2.

Ex.P2 is Police Proceedings

Ex.P3 is First Information Report

Ex.P4 is Letter of Advice

Ex.P5 is Analysis Report

Ex.P6 is Attested copy of confiscation proceedings

Mo1 sample bottle.

Section 34 of AP Excise Act reads as follows:-

Penalties for Illegal import etc.,:- Whoever, in contravention of this Act, or any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,-

(a) imports, exports, transports manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or

(b) taps any excise tree, or

(c) draws toddy from any excise tree; or

(d) constructs or works any distillery or brewery; or

(e) uses, keeps, or has in his possession any materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy; or

(f) bottles any liquor for purpose of sale; or

(g) buys any intoxicant; or

(h) possesses any material or film either with or without Government logo of any district in the State of Andhra Pradesh or any other State or wrapper or any other think in which intoxicants can be packed or any apparatus, or implement or machine for the purpose of packing any intoxicant;

(i) removes any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery or ware house licenced, established or continued under this Act; shall on conviction be punished: [ (1) in the case of an offence falling under clause (a) (d) (e) (f) and (i) with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend up to eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupee five lakhs for the second offence; and (2) in the case of an offence other than an offences falling under clauses(a) (b) (e) (f) (h) and (I) with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and which may extend up to one year and with fine which my extend up to rupees ten thousand. ].

Calendar Case No. 1037 of 2022Page 4 of 7

10.PW.1 and PW.2 subject to cross examination by defence counsel, they stated that scene of offence busy locality, scene observation mahazar and rough sketch not prepared at the alleged scene offence, the reasons for not securing any public servant as mediators is not mentioned in the confession and seizure panchanama. None of the witness examined with regard to the sale of liquor at alleged scene of offence. No amount was seized from accused. Pw2 admitted that he is investigation officer as well as informant.

11.The Learned Asst Public prosecutor argued the case and submitted that prosecution establish the case, search and seizure of liquor proved before the court, that accused is carrying liquor without any authority and submitted that MO1 not planted, but collected as sample for chemical analysis purpose, accused is liable for punishment. The

Learned Counsel appearing to the accused submitted his arguments stating that accused is innocent to the alleged offence, there is no seizure of liquor and that MO.1 planted for the purpose of the case and that this case is filed only for statistical purpose. There are no independent mediators to establish that accused is in possession of liquor. Non securing of mediators even though the place of offence is in busy locality, leads the case of prosecution in to doubtful circumstance and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

12.The evidence let in through the prosecution witness makes it clear that Pw2 and

Pw3 are only source of evidence for prosecution, to prove the allegation that accused committed the offence and in possession of liquor which is not permissible. The accused completely denies the offence and submitted that he is innocent to the case. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the case. Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

13. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the fact that search and seizure done by Pw1 and Pw2 is according to procedure laid down under the law by following section 100 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code, it reads as follows; (4) of Criminal Procedure

Code; Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

Calendar Case No. 1037 of 2022Page 5 of 7

14.The evidence of both witness (Pw2 and Pw3) to prosecution show that search proceedings conducted in busy locality. There is possibility of securing independent witness of the locality where the place of seizure is done. The evidence of prosecution witness elicit that Pw2 and Pw3 did made any attempt to secure the local independent witness by issuing the notice to any person by name. Both prosecution witness said that the accused gave confession about possession of liquor, the evidence of prosecution witness is doubtful and clouded with suspicion, as no independent witness secured by the

Investigating officer and more over Pw1 turned hostile to prosecution. The prosecution fails to establish before the court about the search and seizure of liquor from the accused.

Point No. 2

15.In the present case, prosecution case is not supported with independent witness, the search and seizure of liquor from accused fallen under suspicion, non examination of the independent local witness is fatal to the case of prosecution and that the statement of accused recorded in police proceedings hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

Confession to Police officer not be proved- No Confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. The prosecution evidence through witness is unacceptable without corroboration of independent witness. The confession recorded by Pw2 in Police proceedings not admissible in evidence.

16.In the observation of the Court, it is of considered view that the evidence let in through Pw1 to Pw3 does not gives strength to the prosecution to establish the case against the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt extended to the accused.

17. In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of

Judgment. Mo1 deposited with the court vide C.P.R.No.313/2022 worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of March, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to the Court of

Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Cum-Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Calendar Case No. 1037 of 2022Page 6 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused: NIL PW1 : 28.10.2022 : N.Subbarayudu

PW2 : 24.02.2023 : B.Arun Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint:Accused : NIL

Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings

Ex.P2 : First Information Report

Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice

Ex.P4 : Analysis Report

Ex.P5 : Attested copy of confiscation proceedings

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: NIL

MO.1 : Hyderabad Blue Superior Whisky 180 ml bottle

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to the Court of

Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Cum-Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Calendar Case No. 1037 of 2022Page 7 of 7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of Date ofDate of report ofapprehensiorelease ofcommencemsentence or offenceclose of trial complainantnthe accusedent of trialorder 28.04.202228.04.202228.04.202202.05.202220.01.202315.03.202317.03.2023

--- NO DELAY ---

________________________________________________________________________________ State:- State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, S.A.Kasinayana Police Station

Judgment in C.C. No.1037/2022 in Crime No. 54/2022

on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Addtional Judicial Magistarte of

I Class, Badvel

Name of the Accused AgeFather's NameReligion CallingAddress R/o Varikuntla Village, Vemireddy Chinna 48Duggi ReddyHinduCoolieSAKN Mandal, YSR Duggi Reddy Kadapa District.

Offence U/Sec: Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act Penalties for Illegal import etc.,

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment. Mo1 deposited with the court vide

C.P.R.No.313/2022 worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to the Court of

Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Cum-Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Badvel Copy submitted :-

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022 Page 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Present: Sri M.Kasi Viswanadha Achary.

(Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Full Additional Charge to the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel)

Thursday, this the 16th day of March, 2023

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalasapadu Police station … Complainant

Vs

Singala Gurappa @ Palanna s/o S.Palaiah, aged about 37 years, R/o Muddireddypalle

Village of Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 15-3-2023 in presence of Learned Asst Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri.Elicherla C. Obula Reddy Advocate for accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector, Kalasapadu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.143/2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition .(Amendment) Act, 2020.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-

2.On 26-10-2021 in the evening Lw8/ D.Ramanjaneyudu, Sub-Inspector, received credible information about transporting illicit I.D arrack from Yerraguntla village of

Komarolu Mandal to Mudireddypalli village of Kalasapadu Mandal, then Sub-

Inspector proceeded near lower side of Muddireddypalle tank bund at about 4 pm., found accused keeping plastic can infront of him, on seeing the police, accused ran away towards tank bund into the bushes by leaving the plastic can with him. The Sub-

Inspector tried to apprehend the accused, but accused absconded. Mean while Lw6/

Pullem Kondaiah came there, then the Sub-Inspector asked said Pullem Kondaiah as

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022 Page 2 of 8 to who is the person came across him. The Pullem Kondaiah revealed the name of accused. The Sub-Inspector checked the can of 20 liters quantity and found 10 liters of ID arrack. Later, the Sub-Inspector took 180 ml of I D arrack, to send the same to

Regional Excise Lab, Kurnool for chemical analysis. Lw8/D.Ramanjaneyudu, Sub-

Inspector, seized the plastic can containing containing ID arrack under the cover of police proceedings. Lw8/ D.Ramanjaneyudu, Sub-Inspector registered the case in crime no. 143/2021 under section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act-2020 and during the course of investigation, on 28-10-2021 the sub-inspector reached Muddireddypalle village and recorded the statement of Lw6/Pullem Kondaiah who identified the accused.

3.On 22-1-2022 Lw8/D.Ramanjaneyudu received credible information about the presence of accused, reached Siddamurthipalle bus stop, surrounded accused with the help of staff, secured the details of accused, on confession of accused about the offence of holding ID arrack in plastic can on 26-10-2021 and leaving the same, absconded from Muddireddypalle tank bund on seeing the police party and while escaping, came across Lw6/Pullem Kondaiah and further said that he brought ID arrack from a unknown person at Yerraguntla Village of Komarolu Mandal,

Prakasham District. On the same day, Lw8/D.Ramanjaneydu forwarded the accused to judicial remand. Lw8/D.Ramanjaneyudu, Sub-Inspector, sent the 180 ml ID arrack, sample bottle to Regional Excise Lab, Kurnool for analysis. On 24-1-2022, the Sub-

Inspector, received analysis report with a opinion that sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. On 22-2-2022 Lw9/B.Naga

Murali, Sub-Inspector, assumed charge to Kalasapadu Police Station and took up further investigation and filed the charge sheet.

4. This case was taken on Cognizance by the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil

Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel against the accused for

the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.(Amendment) Act, 2020.

5.On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him under section 207

Cr.P.C. Accused examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.(Amendment) Act, 2020, read over and explained to accused in

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022 Page 3 of 8

Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to Pw.4., marked Exhibits P.1 to P.5 and Mo.1. The evidence of Lw1/A.Prasad, Lw2/J.Raj Kumar,

Lw3/D.Dasthagiri, Lw5/T.Jagadesh Babu, Lw7/C.Haritha given up by the Learned Asst

Public Prosecutor.

7.After closer of prosecution evidence, accused examined under section 313

Cr.P.C., incriminating material explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Arguments heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is that

1. Whether prosecution establish the search and seizure of the ID Arrack ?

2. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.(Amendment) Act, 2020? Point No. 1

10. The case of prosecution, is that accused was found possession of plastic can containing 10 liters of ID arrack on 26-10-2021 near lower side of Muddireddypalle tank of Kalasapadu Mandal, on seeing the police party headed by Pw4, accused absconded from the said place by leaving the plastic can. Pw4 identified the accused through Pw1, who came across the accused while escaping from the hands of police.

Pw4 is Sub-Inspector, Kalasapadu, seized the plastic can containing 10 liters of ID arrack, by drawing 180 ml ID arrack into sample bottle, collected for chemical analysis. The said sample analyzed by chemical examiner and opined that the sample is Illicitly distilled liquor injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. After registering the case, Pw4/ Sub-Inspector, arrested the accused on 22-1-2022 at

Siddamurthipalle bus stop, recorded the confession of the accused, accused confessed that he was holding plastic can containing lD arrack on 26-10-2021 and fled away on seeing the police and he came across Lw6/Pullem Kondaiah while he was escaping.

11.The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, adduce the evidence other witness

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022 Page 4 of 8 who are examined as Pw1, Pw2 and Pw3. In the evidence of Pw1, it is elicited through

Pw1, that on 16-10-2021 in the evening hours, he was present at Muddireddypalle

Cheruvu, observed police persons chasing one person and he know accused. In the cross examintion, Pw1 said that he do not know the contents of Police proceedings, he do not know about the seizure of property in the case. No property seized from the possession of accused. It is said by Pw1 that he was giving evidence on the request of police and that police did not arrested the accused in his presence and seized the property. The evidence of Pw1 is no way useful to the prosecution case, no facts elicited as per the version of the prosecution. Pw1 did not said that he was enquired by the police and got knowledge about the accused.

12.Pw2 is the constable, gave evidence that on 26-10-2021 at about 3.30 pm, he along with other constables and Pw4, went to Yerrakuntla Village of Komarolu Mandal to Mddireddypalli Village of Kalasapadu and reached Maddireddypalle tank bund, notice accused holding plastic can, on suspicion they stopped accused and questioned him, then on verification of plastic can, notice 10 liters of ID arrack, drawn 180 ml of

ID arrack into sample bottle for chemical analysis purpose, arrested the accused under the cover of police proceedings, obtained the signature of the accused under the cover of police proceedings. The evidence of Pw2 is contrary to facts elicited through Pw4 and the facts on record. It is false to say that accused was arrested on 26-10-2021, as accused was absconding on the same day, there is no record that Pw4 recorded the confession relating to the offence under police proceedings. The evidence let in through Pw3 is confined to verification of investigation and filed the charge sheet.

The following documents and sample bottle marked through Pw.4

Ex.P1 is Police Proceedings

Ex.P2 is First Information Report

Ex.P3 is Letter of Advice

Ex.P4 is Chemical Analysis Report

Ex.P5 destruction proceedings

One Sample bottle marked as Mo.1.

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022 Page 5 of 8

Section 7 A. Prohibition of Production etc., of arrack – The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

Section 8 (e) Punishment for buying, selling consumption of liquors-

whoever :

contravenes the provisions of section 7A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend upto [ eight years] and with fine which shall not be less than [ rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence]

13. The evidence of Pw1 no way useful to the prosecution case, as it is not elicited in his evidence that through him Pw4 got knowledge about the accused. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of constable and sub-inspector, who are examined as Pw2 and Pw4, both the witness testified in the cross examination by the defense counsel, then they stated that the scene of offence is busy locality, police proceeding does not disclose exact location of scene of offence. It is the contention of the accused that this case is filed for statistical purpose and that no case is made out against him and further submitted that prosecution failed to establish the case.

14.The Learned Asst Public prosecutor argued the case and submitted that prosecution establish the case, search and seizure of ID Arrack proved before the court , and submitted that MO1 not planted, but collected as samples for chemical analysis purpose, accused is liable for punishment. The Learned Counsel appearing to the accused submitted his arguments stating that Accused is innocent to the alleged offence, no seizure of property took place and that MO.1 planted for the purpose of the case and that this case is filed only for statistical purpose. Investigation officer did not secured local persons as a witness and that Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

15.As seen from the facts of the case, two contrary facts elicited before the court in the evidence of Pw2 and Pw4. In the evidence of Pw4, it is elicited that there is seizure of ID arrack on 26-10-2021, accused was arrested on 22-1-2022, but in the

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022 Page 6 of 8 evidence of Pw2, it is elicited on 26-10-2021, accused was arrested and ID arrack was seized on confession of accused. These contradictory facts leads the case of prosecution into doubtful circumstance, more over, Ex.P1 is police proceedings, reflects the seizure of ID arrack and lifting of sample on 26-10-2021, but not the arrest of accused. The seizure of ID arrack done by Sub-Inspector alone, without any independent witness. The evidence of Pw4 left uncorroborated for the seizure of ID arrack and for the arrest of accused. Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

Point No. 2

16. In the observation of the Court, it is of considered view that the evidence let in through Pw1 to Pw4 does not gives strength to the prosecution to establish the case against the Accused and benefit of doubt extended to the Accused.

17. In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.(Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment. Mo1 deposited with the court with vide

C.P.R.No.223/2021 worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of March, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused: NIL PW1 : 25.11.2022 : P.Kondaiah PW2 : 19.01.2022 : Y.Ramanjaneya Yadav PW3 : 22.02.2023 : B.Naga Murali PW4 : 06.03.2023 : D.Ramanjaneyudu

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022 Page 7 of 8

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint:Accused : NIL

Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice Ex.P4 : Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5 : Attested Copy of destruction proceedings

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: NIL

MO.1 : 180 ml Sample Bottle of ID Arrack

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel

Calendar Case No. 891 of 2022 Page 8 of 8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Date ofDate of Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of Date ofreport ofrelease of apprehensiocommencemclose ofsentence or offencecomplainanthe nent of trialtrialorder taccused 26.10.202126.10.202122.01.202208.02.202225.11.202209.03.202316.03.2023

--- NO DELAY ---

________________________________________________________________________________ State:- State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalasapadu P.S

Judgment in C.C. No.891/2022 in Crime No.143/2021

on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Addtional Judicial Magistarte

of I Class, Badvel

Name of the Accused Age Father's Name Religion CallingAddress R/o Muddireddypalle Singala Gurappa @Village, Kalasapadu 37S.PalaiahHinduCoolie PalannaMandal, YSR Kadapa District.

Offence U/Sec: 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P. Act : punishment for collection Possession of ID Arrack

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:: In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.(Amendment) Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment. Mo1 deposited with the court with vide C.P.R.No.223/2021 worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel Copy submitted :-

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa

Calendar Case No. 228 of 2021Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Present: Sri M.Kasi Viswanadha Achary.

(Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Full Additional Charge to the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel)

Friday, this the 17th day of March, 2023

Calendar Case No.228 of 2021

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Badvel U/G Police Station … Complainant

Vs

Vootla Vasudevaiah s/o Musalaiah, aged about 73 years, R/o Bhavanarayana Nagar, Badvel Town, YSR District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16-3-2023 in presence of Learned Asst Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri. Elicherla C.Obula Reddy, Advocate, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Badvel U/G Police Station Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.292/2020 for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of AP Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-

2.On 18-7-2020 at about 6.30 am., Sub-inspector along with staff reached beside

Andhra Bank, Nellore Road, Badvel Town., found accused having possession of plastic bag containing 19 No’s of 9 Sea Horses Whisky 180 Ml bottles, on interrogation, accused revealed Identity and stated he is having possession of liquor bottles and trying to sell to public at high price without valid license. The sub-inspector separated one bottle as sample for chemical analysis, remaining bottles seized and affixed labels signed, arrested the accused under the cover of police proceedings. On the strength police proceedings, case is registered in crime no. 292/2020 under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act, during the course of investigation, sent sample bottle for chemical analysis, received report with opinion that sample is Indian Liquor, and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on Cognizance by the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Calendar Case No. 228 of 2021Page 2 of 7

Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel against the accused for the offence under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act.

4.On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed for the offence under section 34(A) of

AP Excise Act, read over and explained to accused in Telugu Language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 and Pw.2, Ex- hibits P.1 to P.4, Mo.1 marked on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of Lw1/

S.M.Rafhi, Lw3/C.Rajeswaramma given up by the Learned Asst Public Prosecutor.

6.After closer of prosecution evidence, accused examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating material explained to him in Telugu Language for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Arguments heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is that

1. Whether prosecution establish the search and seizure of the Liquor bottles from the possession of accused ?

2. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 34 (A) of AP Excise Act ? Point No. 1

9.Pw1 is Constable and Pw2 is Sub-Inspector, they gave evidence stating that on 18- 7-2020 at about 6.30 am, they reached Andhra Bank, Nellore Road, Badvel Town, found accused having possession of plastic bag containing 19 Nos. of 180ml 9 Sea Horses

Whisky liquor bottles, then accused confessed that he intends to sell the liquor bottles for gain above MRP, one sample drawn for chemical analysis, seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused under the cover of police proceedings. Pw2 said in specific that after registering the case against the accused, he sent the sample for chemical analysis along with letter of advice, received chemical report and filed the charge sheet. The following documents and sample bottle marked for prosecution

Ex.P1 is Police Proceedings

Ex.P2 is First Information Report

Ex.P3 is Letter of Advice

Calendar Case No. 228 of 2021Page 3 of 7

Ex.P4 is Analysis Report

Mo1 is sample bottle.

Section 34 of AP Excise Act reads as follows:-

Penalties for Illegal import etc.,:- Whoever, in contravention of this Act, or any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act,-

(a) imports, exports, transports manufactures, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant; or

(b) taps any excise tree, or

(c) draws toddy from any excise tree; or

(d) constructs or works any distillery or brewery; or

(e) uses, keeps, or has in his possession any materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy; or

(f) bottles any liquor for purpose of sale; or

(g) buys any intoxicant; or

(h) possesses any material or film either with or without Government logo of any district in the State of Andhra Pradesh or any other State or wrapper or any other think in which intoxicants can be packed or any apparatus, or implement or machine for the purpose of packing any intoxicant;

(i) removes any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery or ware house licenced, established or continued under this Act; shall on conviction be punished: [ (1) in the case of an offence falling under clause (a) (d) (e) (f) and (i) with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend up to eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupee five lakhs for the second offence; and (2) in the case of an offence other than an offences falling under clauses(a) (b) (e) (f) (h) and (I) with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and which may extend up to one year and with fine which my extend up to rupees ten thousand. ].

10.PW.1 and PW.2 subject to cross examination by defence counsel, they stated that scene of offence is busy locality, scene observation mahazar and rough sketch not prepared at the alleged scene of offence. The reasons for not securing any public servant as mediators is not mentioned in the confession and seizure panchanama. None of the witness were examined with regard to the sale of liquor at the scene of offence. No amount seized from accused. Pw2 is investigation officer cum informant.

11.The Learned Asst Public prosecutor argued the case and submitted that prosecution establish the case, search and seizure of liquor proved before the court, that accused is carrying liquor without any authority and submitted that MO1 not planted, but

Calendar Case No. 228 of 2021Page 4 of 7 collected as sample for chemical analysis purpose, accused is liable for punishment. The

Learned Counsel appearing to the accused submitted his arguments stating that accused is innocent to the alleged offence, there is no seizure of liquor and that MO.1 planted for the purpose of the case and that this case is filed only for statistical purpose. There are no independent mediators to establish that accused is in possession of liquor. Non securing of mediators even though the place of offence is in busy locality, leads the case of prosecution in to doubtful circumstance and accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

12.The evidence let in through the prosecution witness makes it clear that Pw1 and

Pw2 are only source of evidence for prosecution, to prove the allegation that accused committed the offence and in possession of liquor which is not permissible. The accused completely denies the offence and submitted that he is innocent to the case. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the case. Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

13. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the fact that search and seizure done by Pw1 and Pw2 is according to procedure laid down under the law by following section 100 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code, it reads as follows; (4) of Criminal Procedure

Code; Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

14.The evidence of both witness to prosecution show that search proceedings conducted in busy locality. There is possibility of securing independent witness. The evidence of prosecution witness elicit that Pw1 and Pw2 did made any attempt to secure the independent witness by issuing the notice to any person by name. Both prosecution witness said that the accused gave confession about possession of liquor, the evidence of prosecution witness is doubtful and clouded with suspicion, as no independent witness secured by the Investigating officer. The prosecution fails to establish before the court about the search and seizure of liquor from the accused.

Calendar Case No. 228 of 2021Page 5 of 7

Point No. 2

15.In the present case, prosecution case is not supported with independent witness, the search and seizure of liquor from accused fallen under suspicion, non examination of the independent witness is fatal to the case of prosecution and that the statement of accused recorded in police proceedings hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

Confession to Police officer not be proved- No Confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. The prosecution evidence through witness is unacceptable without corroboration of independent witness. The confession recorded by Pw2 in Police proceedings not admissible in evidence.

16.In the observation of the Court, it is of considered view that the evidence let in through Pw1 and Pw2 does not gives strength to the prosecution to establish the case against the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt extended to the accused.

17. In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of

Judgment. Mo1 deposited with the court vide C.P.R.No.18/2023 worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of March, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to the Court of

Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Cum-Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Calendar Case No. 228 of 2021Page 6 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused: NIL PW1 : 27.02.2023 : U.Brahmam

PW2 : 06.03.2023 : A.Suresh Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint:Accused : NIL

Ex.P1 : Police Proceedings

Ex.P2 : First Information Report

Ex.P3 : Letter of Advice

Ex.P4 : Analysis Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Accused: NIL

MO.1 : 9 Sea horses whisky 180 ml bottle

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to the Court of

Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Cum-Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Calendar Case No. 228 of 2021Page 7 of 7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of Date ofDate of report ofapprehensiorelease ofcommencemsentence or offenceclose of trial complainant nthe accusedent of trialorder 18.07.202018.07.202018.07.202020.07.202027.02.202309.03.202317.03.2023

--- NO DELAY ---

________________________________________________________________________________ State:- State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Badvel U/G Police Station

Judgment in C.C. No.228/2021 in Crime No.292 /2020

on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Addtional Judicial Magistarte of

I Class, Badvel

Name of the Accused AgeFather's NameReligion CallingAddress R/o Bhavanarayana Vootla Vasudevaiah73 MusalaiahHinduCoolieNagar, Badvel Town, YSR District.

Offence U/Sec: Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act Penalties for Illegal import etc.,

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment. Mo1 deposited with the court vide

C.P.R.No.18/2023 worthless shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to the Court of

Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Cum-Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Badvel Copy submitted :-

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa

Calendar Case No. 128 of 2022 Page No.1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Present: Sri M.Kasi Viswanadha Achary.

(Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel

Full Additional Charge to the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel)

Thursday, this the 23th day of March, 2023

Calendar Case No.128 of 2022

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalasapadu Police Station. … Complainant

Vs

Shaik Mabu Sharif, S/o S.Masthan Vali, aged 35 years, resident of D.No.1/64, Thotti Street, Kalasapadu Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 17-03-2023 in presence of Learned Asst Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri.K.G.Prabhakar Advocate, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood for consideration this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalasapadu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.87/2021 for the offence punishable under section 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-

2.LW.1/Shaik Masthan Vali is resident of Poleramma Street of Kalasapadu Town.

He is working as cluster in panchayathi office, Kalasapadu, he had two sons. Accused is the elder one, working in Lakshmi Sai Nandini Milk Dairy at Siddamurthy palli village. Deceased Shaik Mohammed Shafi (here in after referred as deceased) working as attender in MEO Office, Kalasapadu. On 21.07.2021 both accused and deceased came to his house along with their families to celebrate up coming Bakrid festival. On the same day evening accused left the house of LW.1/Shaik Masthan Vali on his motor cycle bearing No.AP07 AT 0604 to his work place. On the same day around 9.00PM deceased left the house of LW.1/Shaik Masthan Vali on his motor cycle

Calendar Case No. 128 of 2022 Page No.2 of 7

Hero Honda Passion Pro bearing registration no.AP04 AJ 8025 to bring his friend for dinner who is living a Chennareddypalli village. Meanwhile deceased brother-in-law who is LW.5/ Shaik Mohammed Sahid went to medical store to buy tablets to his sick mother, who is suffering with fever. After some time Lw.1/Shaik Masthan Vali receive phone call from LW.5/Shaik Mohammed Sahid while deceased heading over motor cycle from work place, at the same time deceased heading over his motor cycle towards Chennareddypalli village to bring his friend, simultaneously they met each other at Kothi Samadhi on Kalasapadu to Porumamilla Main Road. Accused with a rapid speed hit the deceased motor cycle in opposite direction, as a result deceased fell on the road, sustained severe injuries and became unconscious. LW.1/Shaik

Masthan Vali, LW.2/Shaik Peeran Bee, LW.3/Shaik Shaheena rushed to the place of accident and shifted deceased in an auto to Government Hospital at Porumamilla, their duty doctor declared deceased died. On 22.07.2021 at 7.00AM LW.1/Shaik

Masthan Vali gave a report at Police station for necessary action against accused.

Basing on the report LW.13/D.Ramanjaneyulu, Sub-inspector of Police registered the case in Cr.No.87/2021 Under Section.304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of

Motor Vehicle Act. The sub-Inspector of police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased, examined and recorded the statements of LW.1/ Shaik masthan Vali,

LW.2/Shaik Peeran Bee, LW.3/Shaik Shaheena, LW.4/ Shaik Khaja Rahamathula, LW.5/

Shaik Mohammed Shahid. Inquest held in the presence of LW.7/Gutti Banuchandra

Babu, LW.8/Mekala Vijay Kumar, LW.9/Laka Gurrappa. LW.11/Dr.C.Siva Krishna conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The sub-inspector examined

LW.6/Pagidi Thomas, LW.7/Gutti Banuchandra Babu and recorded their statements.

The sub-inspector served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. On 23.07.2021 accused surrender before the sub-inspector of Kalasapadu Police station and confessed that he committed the offence. The sub-inspector released the accused on bail on obtained in sufficient sureties. The sub-inspector obtained postmortem certificate of medical officer with opinion that deceased died due to head injury and damage to the vital organ brain. LW.12/Y.Prasad, Motor vehicle inspector inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was not occurred due to mechanical

Calendar Case No. 128 of 2022 Page No.3 of 7 defects. Hence the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on Cognizance by the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil

Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Badvel against accused for the

offence under section 304-A, of Indian Penal Code, Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act.

4. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him under section 207

Cr.P.C., accused examined u/s 251 of Cr.P.C., acquisition for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act, read over and explained to accused in Telugu Language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried the case.

5. To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to Pw5, Ex- hibits P.1 to P.11, marked on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of LW.4, LW.5,

LW.7 to LW.12 ( Shaik Khaja Rahamathulla, Shaik Mohammed Sahid, Gutti Banuchan- dra Babu, Mekala Vijay Kumar, Laka Gurrappa, Pilli Ramana Reddy, Dr.C.Siva Krishna and Y.Prasad) given up by the Learned Asst Public Prosecutor.

6.Accused examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the substance of incriminating evidence is read over to the accused in telugu language, he denied the same and report no defense evidence.

7. Arguments heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is that

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under

section 304-A, of Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of

Motor Vehicle Act ? Point

9.The prosecution alleges that, on 21.07.2021 at about 9.00PM Accused in a rash and negligent manner drove the crime vehicle bearing no. AP07 AT 0604 on public road in dangerous manner and dashed the vehicle bearing no.AP04 AJ 8025 driven by the deceased/Shaik Mohammed Shafi in opposite direction on Kalasapadu to

Porumamilla Main road near Kothi Samadhi of Kalasapadu town, due to the act of accused deceased died on the spot. The prosecution alleges that accused is liable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act.

Calendar Case No. 128 of 2022 Page No.4 of 7

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code reads as follows Section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code:- Causing death by negligence- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both. Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act : Driving dangerously – whoever drives a motor vehicle at a high speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to the all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to One Thousand Rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to Two Thousand Rupees, or with both.

10.Deceased is the brother of accused, PW.1 and PW.2 are the parents. PW.3 is the wife of deceased. PW.4 is the eye witness to the accident. PW.5 is sub-inspector and investigating officer. Basing on the report of PW.1 before the police station, the case is registered against the accused for taking necessary action. The prosecution has to establish rash and negligent act of the accused and that the driving of the crime vehicle in such a manner on public road, which is dangerous in nature. PW.1, PW.2,

PW.3 though stated that deceased died in road accident, but they did not revealed the name of the accused and that accused is the person who committed the offence. All the three witnesses stated that, they do not know the manner of accident and who committed the accident and on whose negligence deceased died in road accident.

PW.1 said that, he signed on the blank paper and that he do not know the contents of his own report i.e. Ex.P.6. but admitted his signature on the said report. PW.1 to PW.3 stated that, they were not examined by the police and so also PW.4 said that, he do not know about the case and he was not examined by the police. The entire case based on the evidence of PW.5 who is the investigating officer in this case, though he

Calendar Case No. 128 of 2022 Page No.5 of 7 stated his investigation based on the report of PW.1 and discloses there is negligence on the part of the accused in committing the road accident, resulting the death of the deceased and though examine eye witness/ Pw4, to elicit the rash and negligent act of the accused, but PW.4 did not stated any incriminating material in identifying the accused and his observation regarding the nature of driving the crime vehicle by the accused. PW.1 to PW.4 are material witness, declared as hostile to the case of prosecution as no material evidence supported the prosecution case, in these circumstances it is held the prosecution of case against the accused failed and benefit of doubt extended to the accused.

11. In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of Motor VehicleAct. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rdday of March, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: Accused: NIL PW1 : 24.02.2023: Shaik Masthan Vali

PW2 : 24.02.2023: Shaik Peeran Bee

PW3 : 24.02.2023: Shaik Saheen

PW4 : 28.02.2023: P.Thomas

PW5: 06.03.2023: D.Ramanjaneyudu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint:Accused : NIL

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on the report.

Calendar Case No. 128 of 2022 Page No.6 of 7

Ex.P2 : Entire portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1.

Ex.P3 : Entire portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2

Ex.P4 : Entire portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3.

Ex.P5 : Entire portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4.

Ex.P6 : Written Report.

Ex.P7 : F.I.R.

Ex.P8 : Inquest Report.

Ex.P9 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P10: Postmortem report.

Ex.P.11: Motor Vehicle Inspector report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Complaint:NIL Accused: NIL

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel

Calendar Case No. 128 of 2022 Page No.7 of 7

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BADVEL,

Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of Date ofDate ofDate of close report ofrelease ofcommencemesentence or offenceapprehensionof trial complainantthe accusednt of trialorder 21.07.202122.07.202123.07.202123.07.202124.02.202309.03.202323.03.2023

--- NO DELAY ---

________________________________________________________________________________ State:- State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalasapadu Police Station.

Judgment in C.C. No.128/2022 in Crime No.87/2021

on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Addtional Judicial Magistarte of I

Class, Badvel

Father's/ Name of the Accused AgeReligion CallingAddress Husband Name Resident of D.No.1/64, Thotti Street, Kalasapadu Shaik Mabu Sharif35S.Masthan ValiMuslim– Town and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

Offence U/Sec: Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code: Causing death by negligence

Section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act : Driving dangerously on public road.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section304-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of Motor

VehicleAct. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for the period of six months from the date of

Judgment.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-

Cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC to Additional Junior

Civil Judge-Cum-Judl.Magistrate

of I Class, Badvel Copy submitted :-

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa