Smt. M.Likhitha

1 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Present: Smt. M.Likhitha, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Dated this the 23 rd day of October, 2024

C.C.No.108 of 2023

Between:

The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Somala PS.

…. Complainant.

Vs.

Edagotti Ramadasu, aged 42 years, S/o Late Venkataramana, Nayanivaripalli Vaddipalle village, H/o Thamminayani Palli, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District.

…. Sole Accused.

This case came before me on 16.10.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Veeranjaneyulu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. G.Sailendra Kumar, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Somala Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.132/2022 for the offences punishable under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against accused.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.2022 at 04.00 PM while

PW.3 was conducting general raids along with PW.1 and LW.2 K.Reddy

Naresh at western side of Nayanivaripalle village of Somala Mandal, they saw the accused possessed with plastic can who tried to escape on seeing 2 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR them and apprehended by them. On enquiry by PW.3, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he was in illegal possession of 20 liters of ID Liquor which the accused confessed to had possessed in order to sell the same for higher prices unlawfully without any valid license or permit. Upon his confession the accused was arrested and the contraband was seized under cover of seizure Police proceedings, Ex.P1 by PW.3.

Further PW.3 preserved sample of I.D liquor for chemical analysis purpose registered this case against accused, sent the preserved sample of I.D.

Arrack to Superintendent of Police, Chittoor for chemical analysis, the same was analyzed and received report wherein it is opined that the sample is “Illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.” Later, PW.3 handed over entire case records to LW.7 E.Maruthi (SI of Police) for further investigation who verified his investigation and found it to be on correct lines. LW.7 E.Maruthi (SI of Police) sent a requisition to

Superintendent of Police, Chittoor with a request to destroy case property according to law. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed by

LW.7 E.Maruthi (SI of Police) against the accused.

3.After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity and convenience). The accused has been 3 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was framed against him, read over and the contents of the charge was explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. The learned APP had given up evidence of LW.2

K.R.Naresh, LW4 V.Madhu and LW.5 C.Rajeswaramma.

6.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused was explained to him to enable him, to give any explanation for such adverse circumstances in the evidence. The accused denied the same and stated no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. The contention of the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 corroborates with each other in all material aspects which establishes that the accused was found in possession of seized contraband without any license and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment Act), 2020.

8.Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused is falsely implicated in this case only for statistical 4 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR purposes. He has further contended that no independent witnesses were procured by P.W.3 to act as witness for search and seizure of alleged contraband from accused thus the search conducted by PW.3 is not according to law. He further contended that P.W.1 to PW3 were police officials and their evidence cannot be relied upon solely as it is not corroborated with any other independent witness. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition (Amendment Act), 2020.

9.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under

section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment

Act), 2020”?

10.To prove guilt of the accused under section 7B read with 8B of

Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment Act), 2020 the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubts that on 20.11.2022 the accused was found in unlawful possession of seized contraband at the scene of offence which is prohibited. To prove the same the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.3 in support of its case. P.W.1, PW2 are Constable who accompanied

PW.3 for the purpose of investigation and PW.3 is Investigating Officer.

11. P.W.1 deposed that on 20.11.2022 at about 03.30 PM when PW.3 was conducting raids along with me, LW2, LW4 and other personnel of

Somala PS. Near Chinnarallagutta situated near Nayanivaripalle village 5 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR they saw accused possessed with white plastic can who tried to escape on seeing them and apprehended by them. On enquiry by PW.3 the accused confessed his identity and confessed that he purchased liquor from I.D liquor from some unknown persons in order to sell the same in his Village for higher prices for his livelihood. P.W.1, PW2 further deposed that on verification of the plastic can PW.3 found 20 liters of ID Arrack. For chemical analysis purpose 180 ML of ID Arrack was drawn into bottle was kept aside by PW.3 and duly labeled. Later accused was arrested and remaining contraband seized by PW.3 at scene of offence under the cover of police proceedings and the accused was taken to Somala Police station along with seized contraband by explaining grounds of arrest.

12. PW.2 deposed in similar lines to that of PW.1 regarding the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband and he further deposed his part of investigation regarding registration of case vide Ex.P2 and forwarding the accused for judicial custody before this Court. PW2 further deposed that that PW3 enquired the accused and accused confessed about his case and he was arrested by PW3 by explaining grounds of arrest under cover of confession and arrest police proceedings, vide Ex.P3. PW3 further deposed that LW7 E.maruthi (SI of Police) had sent sample to chemical examiner for analysis report and received chemical examiner analysis report dated 12.12.2022 vide Ex.P4. Later, PW.3 handed over entire case records to LW7

E.Maruthi (SI of Police) for further investigation who verified his investigation and found it to be on correct lines. LW7 E.maruthi (SI of

Police) sent a requisition for confiscation of the remaining seized contraband 6 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR to Superintendent of Police, Chittoor and it is confiscated. Later upon completion of investigation LW7 E.maruthi (SI of Police) filed charge sheet against the accused.

13. In the present case it is very evident and apparent from the record that no mediators were procured by investigation officer, PW1, P.W.2 to act as witness to the search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused. It is relevant to note section 100(4) of Cr.P.C according to which while conducting search the investigating officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the search is situated to act as witnesses to the search and if local inhabitants are not available efforts has to be made to call upon inhabitants from other locality to act as witnesses by passing an order in writing. But P.W.3 failed to pass written orders to the local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants as the case may be to act as witnesses. According to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Yedduri Sreenivasulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 (1) ALD Cri 347 wherein while dealing with the application of section 100(4) Cr.P.C it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary.

Clearly, there is no such written orders passed by P.W.3 in the present case to secure presence of witness to search which is fatal to the case of prosecution. PW.1, PW2 did not give any report regarding non availability of mediators at Nayanavaripalle village or any other villages. PW.1, PW2 had 7 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR failed to give satisfactory reasons for not securing the mediators which is fatal to its case.

14. The prosecution adduced evidence of P.W.1 to PW3 alone who are police officials vested with powers on par with police officials in support of its case. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of police officials has to be subjected to strict scrutiny with the aid of independent witness evidence. But in the instant case no complete efforts were made to procure independent witnesses for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Thus the only evidence available against accused is that of his confession made

before P.W.3 and reduced into writing vide Ex.P1 which is inadmissible piece

of evidence according to section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872owing to the fact that P.W.3 is police official. Further a conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses as held by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram

Rural Circle 1994 (2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP). Thus the prosecution failed to adduce any kind of cogent evidence to establish guilt of the accused and hence this Court is of opinion that prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment Act), 2020.

15. In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) 8 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

Act, 2020, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused with that of his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months.

M.O.1 deposited vide CPR No.46/2023 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of I AJMFC Court, PGR in computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of October, 2024.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1- D.Chinna Reddeppa - None –

PW.2- M.Fayaz

PW.3- P.Devarajulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :-

Ex.P1 – Seizure police proceedings dated 20.11.2022

Ex.P2 – FIR

Ex.P3 – Confession and arrest police proceedings dated 28.11.2022.

Ex.P4 - Chemical Analysis report dt.12.12.2022

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :- Nil.

Material objects:

M.O.1 is unexpended portion of 180 ML of ID arrack.

Sd/ M.LIKHITHA Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur 9 C.C.No.108 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Judgment in C.C.No.108/2023 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge– cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of CommenceDate of Apprehension Release on Sentence or Offence Report ment of Close of Trial of Accused Bail Order Trial 20.11.2022 20.11.2022 28.11.2022 01.12.2022 19.10.2023 18.01.2024 23.10.2024

Explanation for delay: This case taken cognizance on 04.02.2023. Thereafter, accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and PW.1 to PW.3 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed on 18.01.2024. As there is incriminating evidence examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 26.07.2024. Heard both sides on 16.10.2024. Judgment

pronounced today. Hence, the delay.

Complainant: The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Somala PS.

Name of the accused : Edagotti Ramadasu, aged 42 years, S/o Late Venkataramana, Nayanivaripalli Vaddipalle village, H/o Thamminayani Palli, Somala Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of Unlawful possession of I.D Arrack offence and 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, section of law2020 FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 7B read with 8B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused with that of his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.1 deposited vide CPR No.46/2023 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide Dis.No……….., Dt…………………...

// True Copy//

JMFC, PLNR,

FAC I AJMFC, PGR

1 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Present: Smt. M.LIKHITHA, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 23 rd day of October,2024

CC.No.369 of 2023

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Punganur urban Police Station. …. Complainant.

Vs.

Seethammagari Subbareddy,aged about 45 years, S/o Late S. Chinna Munireddy, Occu:Coolie, R/o. Ethuru Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District. …. Accused.

This case came before me on 16.10.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Veeranjaneyulu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. N. Reddeppa, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Punganur Urban Police station filed charge sheet in Crime No.311/2022 for the offences punishable under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against accused.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that :- 2 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

(a) On 16.09.2022 at about 03.00 PM, while PW.2 was discharging duty, LW.2 N.Venkatesh (PC) received credible Information regarding illegal possession of ID liquor near Peddakonda Charala sand check post of

Punganur town and Mandal. Immediately they reached there and saw the accused possessed with plastic bag, he tried to skulk away on seeing them but apprehended by them. On enquiry by PW.2, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he was in illegal possession of 20 bottles of Silver Cup VSOP Brandy of 180 ML each in order to sell the same for higher prices unlawfully without any valid license or permit. Upon his confession, the accused was arrested and the contraband was seized under cover of police proceedings.

(b) Further PW.2 preserved sample for chemical analysis purpose and returned to Police station along with the arrested accused and registered this case against accused. Subsequently PW.2 had sent the preserved sample to Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis, the same was analyzed and received report wherein it is opined that the sample is “Indian Made Liquor.” PW.2 sent a requisition to Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor with a request to destroy case property according to law. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed by

PW.2 against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

3 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity).The accused has been examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PW.1, PW.2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 and the learned APP has given up evidence of LW.2

N. Venkatesh, LW.3 C. Rajeswari and LW.5 A. Mohan Kumar.

6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was explained to him.

He denied the same and stated no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. The contention of the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1,

PW.2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 corroborates with each other in all material aspects which establishes that the accused was found in possession of seized contraband without any license and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 34(a) r/w 34 (1) (i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

4 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

8. Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused is falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes.

He has further contended that no independent witnesses were procured by

PW.2 to act as witness for search and seizure of alleged contraband from accused thus the search conducted by PW.2 is not according to law. He further contended that P.W.1, P.W.2 are Police officials and their evidence cannot be relied upon solely as it is not corroborated with any other independent witness. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

9. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 ”?

10.To prove guilt of the accused under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1) (i) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968, the prosecution has examined PW.1 & PW.2 in support of its case. P.W.1 is Police Constable who accompanied PW.2 for the purpose of investigation and PW.2 is Investigating Officer.

11. PW.1 deposed that on 16.09.2022 at about 03:00 PM, PW.2 received credible information regarding unlawful possession of ID liquor on that himself, LW.2 went to Peddakonda Charala sand check post of Punganur town and Mandal, there they saw accused coming in two wheeler possessed 5 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR with plastic cover who tried to escape on seeing them and apprehended by them. On enquiry by him, the accused confessed his identity and confessed that he purchased Karnataka State Liquor from some unknown persons in order to sell the same in his Village for higher prices for his livelihood. On verification of the cover, PW.2 found 20 bottles of Silver Cup VSOP Brandy of 180 ML each. For chemical analysis purpose, one 180 ML was seized from the contraband by duly labelled. The accused was arrested and remaining contraband was seized by PW.2 at scene of offence under the cover of police proceedings and the accused was taken to Police Station along with seized contraband by explaining grounds of arrest for further investigation.

12. PW.2 deposed in similar lines to that of PW.1 regarding the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband and he further deposed his part of investigation regarding registration of case vide Ex.P2 and forwarding the accused for judicial custody before this Court. PW.2 further deposed that he sent sample to chemical examiner for analysis report and received chemical examiner analysis report. PW.2 sent a requisition for confiscation of the remaining seized contraband to Superintendent of Police, Chittoor and it is confiscated. Later upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

13. In the present case, it is very evident and apparent from the record that no mediators were procured by investigation officer/PW.2 to act as witness to the search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused. It is relevant to note section 100(4) of Cr.P.C according to which while conducting 6 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR search the investigating officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the search is situated to act as witnesses to the search and if local inhabitants are not available efforts has to be made to call upon inhabitants from other locality to act as witnesses by passing an order in writing. But PW.2 failed to pass written orders to the local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants as the case may be to act as witnesses.

According to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yedduri

Sreenivasulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 (1) ALD Cri 347 wherein while dealing with the application of section 100(4) Cr.P.C it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary. Clearly, there is no such written orders passed by PW.2 in the present case to secure presence of witness to search which is fatal to the case of prosecution. PW.1 did not give any report regarding non availability of mediators at Peddakonda Charala sand check post or any other villages. PW.2 had failed to give satisfactory reasons for not securing the mediators which is fatal to its case.

14. The prosecution adduced evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 alone who are

Police officials in support of its case. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of police officials has to be subjected to strict scrutiny with the aid of independent witness evidence. But in the instant case no complete efforts were made to procure independent witnesses for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Thus the only evidence available against accused is that of 7 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR his confession made before PW.2 and reduced into writing vide Ex.P1 which is inadmissible piece of evidence according to section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act, 1872owing to the fact that PW.2 is police official. Further a conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses as held by Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle 1994 (2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP). Thus the prosecution failed to adduce any kind of cogent evidence to establish guilt of the accused and hence this Court is of opinion that prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1) (i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

15. In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offences under section 34 (a) r/w 34 (1) (i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 427-A Cr.P.C.. M.O.1 deposited vide CPR No.150/2023 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of I AJMFC Court, PGR in computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of October, 2024.

Sd/- M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

8 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1- B. Venkatramana - None –

PW.2- G. Mahendra Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :-

Ex.P1 – Police proceedings dated 16.09.2022

Ex.P2 – FIR

Ex.P3 – Chemical Analysis report dated 26.09.2022

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :- Nil.

Material objects:

M.O.1 is unexpended portion of 180 ML of

VSOP Brandy.

Sd/- M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

// True Copy//

I AJMFC, PGR

9 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Judgment in C.C.No.369/2023 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge– cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of CommenceDate of Apprehension Released Sentence or Offence Report ment of Close of Trial of Accused on Bail Order Trial 23.10.2024 16.09.2022 16.09.2022 16.09.2022 21.09.2022 06.12.2023 14.12.2023

Explanation for delay: This case taken cognizance on 20.05.2023. Thereafter, accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and PW.1 and 2 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed on 14.12.2023. As there is incriminating evidence examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 19.02.2024. Heard both sides on 16.10.2024. Judgment

pronounced today. Hence, the delay.

Complainant: The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Punganur urban Police Station.

Name of the accused : Seethammagari Subbareddy aged about 45 years, S/o Late S. Chinna Munireddy, Occu:Coolie, R/o. Ethuru Village, Punganur Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of Unlawful possession of Karnataka Liquor offence and 34(a) r/w 34(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 section of law FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under section 34(a) r/w 34(1)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused with that of his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.1 deposited vide CPR No.150/2023 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide Dis.No. Dated //True Copy//

I AJMFC,PGR

10 C.C.No.369 of 2023 I AJMFC, PGR

1 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Present: Smt. M.LIKHITHA,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner,

FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 23 rd day of October, 2024

CC.No.205 of 2022

Between:

The State represented by

Sub Inspector of Police,

Somala Police Station.

…. Complainant.

Vs.

Edala Yellamma, age 57 years, w/o Late Krishnappa, Occupation:Coolie,

Avulapalli village and Panchayath, Somala Mandal.

…. Accused.

This case came before me on 16.10.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Veeranjaneyulu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. G.Shiva Sankar Naidu, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Somala station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.115/2021 for the offences punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of

APP Act against accused.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that :-

(a) On 28.10.2021 at about 07:15 AM, while PW.2 was discharging duty, he received credible Information regarding illegal transportation and sale of ID arrack at Gargeya river situated at 500 meters to Patrapalle village,

Avulapalle panchayathi. Immediately PW1, LW1 E.Ramanaiah (PC), PW2 reached there and saw the accused possessed with plastic cover, he tried to skulk away on seeing them but apprehended by them. On enquiry by PW.2, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he was in illegal possession of 11 packets of ID arrack in order to sell the same for higher prices unlawfully without any valid license or permit. Upon his confession, the accused was arrested and the arrack was seized under cover of police proceedings.

(b) Further PW.2 preserved sample for chemical analysis purpose and returned to Police station along with the arrested accused and registered this case against accused. Subsequently LW5 C.Lakshmikanth (SI of Police) had sent the preserved sample to Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis, the same was analyzed and received report wherein it is opined that the sample is “Illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human 3 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR consumption.” LW5 C.Lakshmikanth (SI of Police) sent a requisition to

Superintendent of Police, Chittoor with a request to destroy case property according to law. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed by

LW5 C.Lakshmikanth (SI of Police) against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity).The accused has been examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act was framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PW.1, PW.2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 and the learned APP has given up evidence of LW1

E.Ramanaiah, LW3 K.Ramadevi, LW5 C.KLakshmikanth.

6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was explained to him.

He denied the same and stated no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. The contention of the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1,

PW.2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 4 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR 8(B) of APE Act of A.P. P Act. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 corroborates with each other in all material aspects which establishes that the accused was found in possession of seized contraband without any license and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Act.

8. Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused is falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes.

He has further contended that no independent witnesses were procured by

PW.2 to act as witness for search and seizure of alleged arrack from accused thus the search conducted by PW.2 is not according to law. He further contended that P.W.1, P.W.2 were Police officials and their evidence cannot be relied upon solely as it is not corroborated with any other independent witness. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Act.

9. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Act ”?

10.To prove guilt of the accused under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Act, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 in support of its case. P.W.1 is

Police Constable who accompanied PW.2 for the purpose of investigation and PW.2 is Investigating Officer.

5 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

11. PW.1 deposed that on 28.10.2021 at about 07:15 AM, PW.2 received credible information regarding unlawful possession of ID arrack on that himself, LW.2 went to Gargeya river situated at 500 meters to Patrapalle village, Avulapalle panchayathi, there they saw accused possessed with plastic cover who tried to escape on seeing them and apprehended by them.

On enquiry by him, the accused confessed his identity and confessed that he purchased ID arrack from some unknown persons in order to sell the same in his Village for higher prices for his livelihood. On verification of the bag, PW.2 found 11 packets of ID arrack of 90 ML each. For chemical analysis purpose, one ID arrack packet was seized from the contraband by duly labelled. The accused was arrested and remaining contraband was seized by PW.2 at scene of offence under the cover of police proceedings, and the accused was taken to Police Station along with seized contraband by explaining grounds of arrest for further investigation.

12. PW.2 deposed in similar lines to that of PW.1 regarding the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband and he further deposed his part of investigation regarding registration of case vide Ex.P2 and forwarding the accused for judicial custody before this Court. PW.2 further deposed that he handed over entire case records to LW5, LW5 sent sample to chemical examiner for analysis report and received chemical examiner analysis report.

LW5 sent a requisition for confiscation of the remaining seized contraband to

Superintendent of Police, Chittoor and it is confiscated. Later upon completion of investigation, LW5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

6 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

13. In the present case, it is very evident and apparent from the record that no mediators were procured by investigation officer/PW.2 to act as witness to the search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused. It is relevant to note section 100(4) of Cr.P.C according to which while conducting search the investigating officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the search is situated to act as witnesses to the search and if local inhabitants are not available efforts has to be made to call upon inhabitants from other locality to act as witnesses by passing an order in writing. But PW.2 failed to pass written orders to the local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants as the case may be to act as witnesses.

According to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yedduri

Sreenivasulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 (1) ALD Cri 347 wherein while dealing with the application of section 100(4) Cr.P.C it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary. Clearly, there is no such written orders passed by PW.2 in the present case to secure presence of witness to search which is fatal to the case of prosecution. PW.1 did not give any report regarding non availability of mediators at Peddakonda Charala sand check post or any other villages. PW.2 had failed to give satisfactory reasons for not securing the mediators which is fatal to its case.

14. The prosecution adduced evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 alone who are

Police officials in support of its case. It is well settled principle of law that the 7 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR evidence of police officials has to be subjected to strict scrutiny with the aid of independent witness evidence. But in the instant case no complete efforts were made to procure independent witnesses for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Thus the only evidence available against accused is that of his confession made before PW.2 and reduced into writing vide Ex.P1 which is inadmissible piece of evidence according to section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act, 1872owing to the fact that PW.2 is police official. Further a conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses as held by Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle 1994 (2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP). Thus the prosecution failed to adduce any kind of cogent evidence to establish guilt of the accused and hence this Court is of opinion that prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of APP Act.

15. In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offences under section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of APP Act and accordingly, she is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 427-A

Cr.P.C.. M.O.1 deposited vide CPR No.96/2022 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of I AJMFC Court, PGR in 8 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of October, 2024.

Sd/- M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1- M.Saraswathi - None –

PW.2- N.Nagesh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :-

Ex.P1 – Police proceedings dated 28.10.2021.

Ex.P2 – FIR

Ex.P3 – Chemical Analysis report dated 20.11.2021.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :- Nil.

Material objects:

M.O.1 is unexpended portion of 180 ML of ID Arrack.

Sd/-M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

// True Copy//

I AJMFC, PGR

9 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR 10 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Judgment in C.C.No.205/2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge– cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of CommenceDate of Apprehension Release on Sentence or Offence Report ment of Close of Trial of Accused Bail Order Trial 28.10.2021 28.10.2021 28.10.2021 02.11.2021 07.12.2023 11.01.2024 23.10.2024

Explanation for delay: This case taken cognizance on 26.03.2022. Thereafter, accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and PW.1 and 2 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed on 11.01.2024. As there is incriminating evidence examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 08.02.2024. Heard both sides on 16.10.2024. Judgment

pronounced today. Hence, the delay.

Complainant: The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Somala Police Station.

Name of the accused : Edala Yellamma, age 57 years, w/o Late Krishnappa, Occupation:Coolie, Avulapalli village and Panchayath, Somala Mandal.

Nature of Unlawful possession of ID arrack offence and 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Act section of law FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offences under section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of APP Act and accordingly, she is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 427-A Cr.P.C.. M.O.1 deposited vide CPR No.96/2022 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide Dis.No. dated //True copy//

I AJMFC,PGR

11 C.C.No.205 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor vide Dis.No. dated //True copy//

I AJMFC,PGR

1 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: PUNGANUR

Present: Smt. M.LIKHITHA,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

Wednesday, this the 23 rd day of October, 2024

CC.No.643 of 2022

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ramasamudram Police Station.

…. Complainant.

Vs.

Seethannagari Anil Kumar,age 25 years, S/o Late Narayana, Occu:Masonry works, Diguvaharijanawada, Ramasamudram town and Mandal.

…. Accused.

This case came before me on 16.10.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Veeranjaneyulu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. A.Chenna Kesavulu, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ramasamudrm station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.62/2022 for the offences punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act against accused.

2 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that :-

(a) On 30.04.2022 at about 08.30 AM, while PW.2 was discharging duty, he received credible Information regarding illegal transportation and sale of ID liquor arrack at Diguvapeta of Ramasamudram town and Mandal.

Immediately PW1, LW2 P.T.Sreenivasulu, PW2 reached there and saw the accused possessed with plastic bag, he tried to skulk away on seeing them but apprehended by them. On enquiry by PW.2, the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he was in illegal possession of 05 liters of ID arrack in order to sell the same for higher prices unlawfully without any valid license or permit. Upon his confession, the accused was arrested and the arrack was seized under cover of police proceedings.

(b) Further PW.2 preserved sample for chemical analysis purpose and returned to Police station along with the arrested accused and registered this case against accused. Subsequently PW.2 had sent the preserved sample to Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis, the same was analyzed and received report wherein it is opined that the sample is “Illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption.” PW.2 sent a requisition to Superintendent of Police, Chittoor with a request to destroy case property according to law. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed by LW5 D.Raveendra Babu (SI of Police) against the accused.

Hence, the charge.

3 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C for brevity).The accused has been examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C. and a charge under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act was framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PW.1, PW.2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 and the learned APP has given up evidence of LW.2

P.T.Srinivasulu, LW.4 C. Rajeswari and LW.5 D.Ravindra Babu.

6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was explained to him.

He denied the same and stated no defence evidence on his behalf.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. The contention of the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the prosecution has examined PW.1,

PW.2 to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act of A.P. Excise Act. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 corroborates with each other in all material aspects which establishes that the accused was found in possession of seized contraband without any license 4 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act.

8. Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused is falsely implicated in this case only for statistical purposes.

He has further contended that no independent witnesses were procured by

PW.2 to act as witness for search and seizure of alleged arrack from accused thus the search conducted by PW.2 is not according to law. He further contended that P.W.1, P.W.2 were Police officials and their evidence cannot be relied upon solely as it is not corroborated with any other independent witness. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act.

9. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act ”?

10.To prove guilt of the accused under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act, the prosecution has examined PW.1 & PW.2 in support of its case. P.W.1 is

Police Constable who accompanied PW.2 for the purpose of investigation and PW.2 is Investigating Officer.

11. PW.1 deposed that on 30.04.2022 at about 08:30 AM, PW.2 received credible information regarding unlawful possession of ID arrack on that 5 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR himself, LW.2 went to Diguvapeta of Ramasamudram town and Mandal, there they saw accused possessed with plastic bag who tried to escape on seeing them and apprehended by them. On enquiry by him, the accused confessed his identity and confessed that he purchased ID arrack from some unknown persons in order to sell the same in his Village for higher prices for his livelihood. On verification of the bag, PW.2 found 05 liters of ID Arrack. For chemical analysis purpose, one 180 ML arrack was seized from the contraband by duly labelled. The accused was arrested and remaining contraband was seized by PW.2 at scene of offence under the cover of police proceedings, and the accused was taken to Police Station along with seized contraband by explaining grounds of arrest for further investigation.

12. PW.2 deposed in similar lines to that of PW.1 regarding the arrest of accused and seizure of contraband and he further deposed his part of investigation regarding registration of case vide Ex.P2 and forwarding the accused for judicial custody before this Court. PW.2 further deposed that he handed over entire case records to LW5, LW5 sent sample to chemical examiner for analysis report and received chemical examiner analysis report.

LW5 sent a requisition for confiscation of the remaining seized contraband to

Superintendent of Police, Chittoor and it is confiscated. Later upon completion of investigation, LW5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

13. In the present case, it is very evident and apparent from the record that no mediators were procured by investigation officer/PW.2 to act as witness to the search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused. It is 6 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR relevant to note section 100(4) of Cr.P.C according to which while conducting search the investigating officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the search is situated to act as witnesses to the search and if local inhabitants are not available efforts has to be made to call upon inhabitants from other locality to act as witnesses by passing an order in writing. But PW.2 failed to pass written orders to the local inhabitants or the nearby inhabitants as the case may be to act as witnesses.

According to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yedduri

Sreenivasulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 (1) ALD Cri 347 wherein while dealing with the application of section 100(4) Cr.P.C it has been held that non passing of written order to procure presence of a witness makes the entire search conducted by the prosecution vitiated, being without jurisdiction and as a necessary corollary. Clearly, there is no such written orders passed by PW.2 in the present case to secure presence of witness to search which is fatal to the case of prosecution. PW.1 did not give any report regarding non availability of mediators at Peddakonda Charala sand check post or any other villages. PW.2 had failed to give satisfactory reasons for not securing the mediators which is fatal to its case.

14. The prosecution adduced evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 alone who are

Police officials in support of its case. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of police officials has to be subjected to strict scrutiny with the aid of independent witness evidence. But in the instant case no complete efforts were made to procure independent witnesses for the reasons best known to 7 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR the prosecution. Thus the only evidence available against accused is that of his confession made before PW.2 and reduced into writing vide Ex.P1 which is inadmissible piece of evidence according to section 25 of Indian Evidence

Act, 1872owing to the fact that PW.2 is police official. Further a conviction cannot be given basing on the sole evidence of the police officer without corroboration by disinterested witnesses as held by Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in Botcha Raju VS State Rep. By the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle 1994 (2) ALT (Crl. P.69 (AP). Thus the prosecution failed to adduce any kind of cogent evidence to establish guilt of the accused and hence this Court is of opinion that prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of APE Act.

15. In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offences under section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of APE Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 427-A

Cr.P.C.. M.O.1 deposited vide CPR No.313/2022 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist of I AJMFC Court, PGR in computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of October, 2024.

Sd/- M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

8 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1- B.Harisankar Reddy - None –

PW.2- A.Gangi Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :-

Ex.P1 – confession, arrest seizure police proceedings dated 30.04.2022.

Ex.P2 – FIR

Ex.P3 – Chemical Analysis report dated 19.05.2022

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :- Nil.

Material objects:

M.O.1 is unexpended portion of 180 ML of ID Arrack.

Sd/-M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

// True Copy//

I AJMFC, PGR

9 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR 10 C.C.No.643 of 2022 I AJMFC, PGR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: Chittoor Judgment in C.C.No.643/2022 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge– cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur.

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of CommenceDate of Apprehension Release on Sentence or Offence Report ment of Close of Trial of Accused Bail Order Trial 30.04.2022 30.04.2022 30.04.2022 05.05.2022 14.12.2023 29.12.2023 23.10.2024

Explanation for delay: This case taken cognizance on 23.09.2022. Thereafter, accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and PW.1 and 2 were examined and prosecution side evidence was closed on 29.12.2023. As there is incriminating evidence examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C on 19.02.2024. Heard both sides on 16.10.2024. Judgment

pronounced today. Hence, the delay.

Complainant: The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ramasamudram Police Station.

Name of the accused : Seethannagari Anil Kumar,age 25 years, S/o Late Narayana, Occu:Masonry works, Diguvaharijanawada, Ramasamudram town and Mandal.

Nature of Unlawful possession of ID arrack offence and 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APE Act section of law FindingNot guilty. Sentence In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offences under section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of APE Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 427-A Cr.P.C.. M.O.1 deposited vide CPR No.313/2022 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-M.LIKHITHA

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor vide Dis.No. dated //True Copy//

I AJMFC, PGR

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PUNGNAUR

Present:-Smt M.Likhitha,

Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner,

FAC I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Punganur Wednesday, this the 16th Day of October, 2024

S.T.C.No.184/2024

Between :- State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Punganur P.S.

... Complainant

AND G.Ravi Theja, age 24 years, s/o G.Chengal Rayadu, r/o H.No.5-5, Chendramakulapalli, Punganur, Chittoor district. … Accused.

This case coming for hearing today before me in the presence of learned APP for complainant and Accused is present in person and having consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The S.I of Police, Punganur P.S filed charge sheet in petty case No.31/2024 against Accused for the offence punishable U/s.185 of Motor Vehicle Act (Amendment Act 2019) (herein after be referred as M.V. Act for sake of brevity and convenience).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2024 at 04.10 PM at UNR circle, Punganur the above named accused drove the vehicle bearing Registration No. AP 09 BN 0355 in drunken state on public road. The Alcohol Test with Breath Analyzer shows the BAC level as 171 mg/100ml. Hence, the Accused is liable for punishment U/s.185 of M.V. Act (Amendment Act 2019).

3. After filing petty charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.185 of M.V. Act (Amendment Act 2019).

4. After receiving of summons accused appeared before Court. Copies of case documents were furnished to him. Accused is examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.185 of M.V. Act (Amendment Act 2019) by explaining substance of accusation levelled against him. The accused pleaded guilty and voluntarily admitted the offence punishable U/s.185 of M.V. Act (Amendment Act 2019). This Court is of the view that the accused admitted the offence voluntarily.

5. In the result, Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s.185 of M.V. Act (Amendment Act 2019) and accordingly, he is convicted U/s.252 Cr.P.C for the said offence. When questioned about quantum of sentence accused pleaded mercy and stated that he is the sole bread earner of his family. Considering the nature of offence, this Court is of the view that Accused is not entitled for benefit under Probation of Offenders Act. However, in view of the submissions of accused, this court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing the sentence. Therefore, the Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for the offence punishable U/s.185 of M.V. Act (Amendment Act 2019). In default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The Accused is appraised of his right of appeal and legal aid but he stated that he has sufficient means. Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 16th day of October, 2024.

Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Palamaner, FAC I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Punganur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

---Nil---

CJ-cum-JMFC, Palamaner, FAC I AJMFC, Punganur