M.Murali Gangadhara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

ADDATEEGALA

PRESENT: Sri. M.M URALI G ANGADHARA R AO ,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rampachodavaram (Full Additional Charge)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addateegala

Tuesday, this the 17 th day of March, 2026

C.C.No.97 of 2023

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi Police Station. (Cr.No.84/2021). . Complainant.

And

Ketha Nagasuri, S/o.Narayana Murthi, A/58 years, Komarapuram, H/o.Vathangi Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

. . Accused

This case is coming before me on 17.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.D.Sridhar, learned Advocate for the Accused and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.84/2021 for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition( Amendment) Act, 2020.

The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

2.On 02.11.2021 at 08.30 AM, on credible information LW5/L.Rajesh,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi PS conducted raid along with staff i.e.,

LW.3/K.Prasannaraju, PC, and LW.4/Ch.Durga Prasad Reddy, PC and along with mediators i.e., LW.1/Seetharapu Nanaji and LW.2/Saina Arjun, VRA, arrested the accused at outskirts of Komarapuram H/o Vathangi Village,

Rajavommangi Mandal, while the accused possession and selling ID arrack by keeping white coloured polythene cover containing illicit arrack in front of him as accused has no valid license or permit from the concerned 2 authorities. On interrogation the accused gave out his name and address and stated accused has purchases huge illicit arrack from Gontivanipalem Village from unknown person and selling the same at higher price in the morning time to the agricultural coolies and other labour for gain. Accordingly on 02.11.2021 at 08.30 AM in the morning accused has purchased each 1 liters

ID arrack Rs.100/- total 6 liters ID arrack in polythene cover and selling the same for gain. LW5 separated 300 ml of ID arrack in a bottle from the seized 6 liters seized ID arrack for send it chemical analysis and affixed slips on seized ID arrack sample bottle and affixed slips duly signed by LW5 and the

LW3 and LW4 and accused and prepared rough sketch and mediators report got drafted from 8.30 AM. LW5/L.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi

Police Station, brought the Mediators report and arrested accused along with seized property to Jaddangi police station and registered the Mediator report as a case in Cr.No.84/2021 U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Act 1995,

Amendment Act 2020 of Rajavommangi PS on 02.11.2021 at 10.00 AM and submitted FIR to the court of JFC Magistrate, Addateegala and remaining to all concerned police officers and took up investigation and produced the accused before the court and sent accused for Judicial custody, later accused was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, LW5/L.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Jaddangi Police Station, sent the sample bottles to the Chemical

Examiner Kakinada, through letter of advice for analysis and the Chemical

Examiner issued report vide C.E.No.2839/2021, dt.05.11.2021 in

Sr.No.40762 are opining that the sample is Illicit Distilled Liquor, unfit for

Human consumption and injurious to health. The remaining seized ID arrack was confiscated as per confiscation proceedings issued by Superintendent of

Police, ASR District vide Cr.No.05/2022/SP/ASR dated 28.03.2023. After completion of the investigation LW5/L.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Jaddangi Police Station, laid charge sheet against accused.

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was taken against the Accused.

3

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, has been framed read over and explained to him in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined L.W.3 as

P.W.1, L.W.5 as PW.2 and LW1 as PW.3 and Exs.P1 to P6 and Mo.1 got marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9. Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point :-In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as P.W.1 to PW.3 and Exs. P.1 to P.6 and Mo.1 got marked.

11.The case of the prosecution is that during the course of raid about the

SEB offences, P.W.2-L.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi along with

P.W.1/K.Prasannaraju, PC, and LW.4/Ch.Durga Prasad Reddy, PC and along with mediators i.e., P.W.3/Seetharapu Nanaji and LW.2/Saina Arjun, 4

VRA, started to conduct raids to detect SEB Offences, and they reached to outskirts Komarapuram H/o Vathangi Village, Rajavommangi Mandal and during the raid at about 8.30 A.M., at the scene of offence they apprehended the accused and accused selling ID arrack by keeping white coloured polythene cover containing illicit arrack in front of him as accused has no valid license or permit from the concerned authorities and found the contraband of 06 Lts., of ID arrack from the possession of accused and on enquiry, on that P.W.2-L.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi seized the said contraband from the possession of accused i.e. 06 Lts., of ID arrack, for which, P.W.2-L.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi as to seizure of contraband and confession made by the accused as well as apprehension of the accused. Basing on the Mediators report/Ex.P1, P.W.2 registered a crime and followed the procedure as per Criminal Procedure Code during the course of his investigation.

12.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses No.2 he is the Investigating officer and prepared Ex.P1/Mediators report and registered the crime as Ex.P.2/FIR and who prepared Ex.P3/Rough sketch and sent

Ex.P4/letter of advice and to getting of Chemical Ex.P.5/Analysis report and

Ex.P6/Copy of confiscating proceedings and filing of charge sheet and also he deposed his evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is levelled against the accused.

13. Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution except the evidence of P.W-3 and the remaining are the Police officials, coming to the evidence of PW.3/S.Nanaji, Village Revenue Officer, who said to have participated in preparation of the contents of

Ex.P1/Mediators Report, has deposed in his chief examination as the same lines of Ex.P1 and contents of charge sheet. He further deposed that he acted as mediator in this case. But as seen his evidence that was available in his cross-examination, it is categorically evident that Ex.P1 does not contained the specific scene of offence and the PW.1 got recorded the 5 confession of accused while he was in custody of police and as per the contents of Ex.P1, and he further admitted that seized contraband was not measured at scene of offence but it was not mentioned in Ex.P1. Therefore, on careful perusal of testimony of PW.3, it is evident that she failed to state the specific scene of offence and despite of fact that he said to have went to there where P.W.2 caught the accused. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony of PW.3 is not found trustworthy to prove the guilt of accused for the charge leveled against him.

14.Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 who are the police official and investigating officer in this case in their cross-examination has admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality, and they did not issue any summon or notice to the villagers or revenue officials of Vathangi Village to secure the neighbors of the scene of offence as mediators and they admitted that they did not measure the seized contraband and also not mentioned the manner in which the remaining contraband was destroyed and no incriminating material was levelled in their evidence against the accused

15.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of 06 Ltrs of ID Arrack from the possession of the accused.

Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100 Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

16.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu Reddy

Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

6 “if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

17. In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

“the panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

18.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.2 did not issue any written notice to any of the villagers or revenue officials with a request to act as mediators. Merely, the villagers refused to act as mediators does not entitles the PW.2 to proceed with recording of Mediators report in the presence of

P.W.3. PW.2 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in

Sri Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat Mothia case, which he did not do so. All these lacunas in the investigation of PW.2 shows that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

19.Since P.W.2 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and also the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.W.1 and 2 are highly interested witness being Police officials, as such his evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

20.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the 7 prosecution failed to prove that the accused were found in possession of 06

Lts., of ID arrack.

21.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances,as such the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/secs.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Mo.1 i.e., Unspent sample bottle, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: K.Prasanna Raju, PC, Jaddangi None. P.W.2: L.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi P.W.3: S.Nanaji, VRO of Jaddangi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Mediators report -NIL- Ex.P2: FIR in Cr.No.84/2021 Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Letter of Advice Ex.P5: Analysis report.

8

Ex.P6: Copy of confiscation proceedings

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1 : Unspent Sample bottle

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JMFC,ADDL.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court :: Addateegala

C.C.No.99/2023

Date of: Date of ApprehensiCommence Report ofremand/41-Release onClosure ofSentence or Offenceon of-ment of complainantA Cr.P.Cbailtrialorder accusedtrial Notice 02.11.202102.11.202102.11.202102.11.202103.11.202105.03.202416.12.202517.03.2026

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi Police Station. . . Complainant

And

Ketha Nagasuri, S/o.Narayana Murthi, A/58 years, Komarapuram, H/o.Vathangi Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.. . Accused

Crime Number84/2021 of Jaddangi Police Station

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

Act,2020

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses Judgment: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Mo.1 i.e., Unspent sample bottle, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

ADDATEEGALA.

Copy submitted to :

Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for favour of

information.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

ADDATEEGALA

PRESENT: Sri. M.M URALI G ANGADHARA R AO ,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rampachodavaram (Full Additional Charge)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addateegala

Tuesday, this the 17 th day of March, 2026

C.C.No.01 of 2024

Between:

The State: SEB Inspector, Rampachodavaram. (Cr.No.236/2021) . . Complainant.

And

Penugonda Satya Shivakrishna, S/o.Benneswa Rao, A/47 years, R/o.Lagarayi Village, Rajavommangi Mandal, current address: Nellimetla Village. . . Accused.

This case is coming before me on 24.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.D.Sridhar, learned Advocate for the Accused, and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Inspector, SEB Rampachodavaram laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.236/2021 for the offence punishable

U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act.

The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

2.On 27.08.2021 at about 05.15 PM, LW.1 along with LW.2/E.Prasad,

HC, patrolling at Nellimetla Village, Rajavommangi Mandal. When they reached the scene of offence I..e, at Kirana shop of the Penugonda Satya

Shivakrishna, S/o.Benneswarao situated at Nellimetala Village,

Rajavommangi Mandal and found that one male person with two hand bags in his both hands suspicious roaming at the scene of offence, on seeing the raid party, he tried to ran away. On suspicious the staff stopped him and questioned about the contents of the hand bags. He revealed that some IML bottles in hand bags. Then LW.1 sent LW2 to secure mediator. After 2 sometime he came back and stated that nobody come forward to act as mediator. Then examine the hand bags through the person by LW.1 they found 1) 49-180 M.L. Brilliant Blend Superior Grain Whiskey bottles batch number 33, dated 22.07.2021, 2) 21-180 M.L. Mansion House XO Brandy bottles batch number 33, 3) 5-180 M.L. Green Choice Superior Whiskey bottles batch number 140, 4) 15-650 M.L. Black buster beer batch number 20 in total 90 liquor bottles. On further examination of the said bottles found they are duty paid liquor and also printed as “Only for Sale in Andhra Pradesh” on the said bottles. On questioning the person, he stated that he purchased the said bottles from an unknown person to sell the same at higher price for getting profit. Then LW1 informed to the person that unauthorized possession of minimum quantity and selling of said liquor bottles without any license and permit is an offence. Then LW.1 brought the Special report and arrested accused along with seized property to Rampachodavaram station handed over the accused and seized contraband to L.W.3/T.V.Rama Reddy, then he registered the occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.236/2021

U/Sec.U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act and submitted FIR to the court of JFC Magistrate, Addateegala and remaining to all concerned police officers and took up investigation and LW3/T.V.Rama Reddy, Excise Sub-

Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram, arrested the accused and sent him for Judicial Remand and later accused was enlarged on bail. Thereafter,

L.W.3-T.V.Rama Reddy, Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram, sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, through letter of advice for analysis. The LW3 received the sample analysis report in which the chemical Examiner who analysed the samples opined in

C.E.No.2373/2021 dated 29.10.2021 that the samples at Sr.Nos.39584 to 39587 are Indian Made Liquor. The remaining seized ID arrack was confiscated as per confiscation proceedings issued by Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Vijayawada vide in RC.No.1600/2021/C,

dated 22.12.2021. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, L.W.4-

A.Anand, Excise Inspector, Rampachodavaram, laid the charge sheet against Accused. Hence the charge sheet.

3

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 was taken against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020, has been framed read over and explained to him in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined L.W.3 as

P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 and Mo.1 to Mo.4 got marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point:- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and Mo.1 to Mo.4 got marked.

11.The case of the prosecution is that during the course of raid about the

SEB offences, LW.1/B.Venkateswara Rao, Excise Inspector, ETF Kakinada, along with L.W-2-E.Prasad, HC, started to conduct raids to detect SEB 4

Offences, and they reached to Kirana shop of the Penugonda Satya

Shivakrishna, S/o.Benneswararao situated at Nellimetla Village,

Rajavommangi Mandal and during the raid at about 5.15 P.M., at the scene of offence they apprehended the accused herein and found the contraband of 1) 49-180 M.L. Brilliant Blend Superior Grain Whiskey bottles, 2) 21-

180 M.L. Mansion House XO Brandy bottles, 3) 5-180 M.L. Green Choice

Superior Whiskey bottles, 4) 15-650 M.L. Black buster beer in total 90

liquor bottles, from the possession of accused and on enquiry,

LW.1/B.Venkateswara Rao, Excise Inspector, ETF Kakinada, found that the accused was selling the contraband by without having license for the possession of the said contraband, on that LW.1/B.Venkateswara Rao,

Excise Inspector, ETF Kakinada, seized the said contraband from the possession of accused i.e. 1) 49-180 M.L. Brilliant Blend Superior Grain

Whiskey bottles, 2) 21-180 M.L. Mansion House XO Brandy bottles, 3) 5-

180 M.L. Green Choice Superior Whiskey bottles, 4) 15-650 M.L. Black

buster beer in total 90 liquor bottles, as no mediators were available, for which, LW.1/B.Venkateswara Rao, Excise Inspector, ETF Kakinada, himself prepared Special Report as to seizure of contraband and confession made by the accused as well as apprehension of the accused. Basing on the

Special report/Ex.P1, PW.1 registered a crime and followed the procedure as per Criminal Procedure Code during the course of his investigation.

12.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witness No.1 he is the

Investigating officer and who received Ex.P.1/Special report and registered the crime as Ex.P.2/FIR and Ex.P3/Letter of advice and to getting of

Chemical Ex.P.4/Analysis report, Ex.P5/Confiscation proceeding of Deputy

Commissioner of Special Enforcement Bureau, Vijayawada and filed charge sheet and also he deposed his evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is leveled against the accused.

13. Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution and all are the SEB officials, therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously P.W.1 in his cross-examination has 5 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and the scene of offence is a revenue village but L.W.1 did not issue summon or notice to the revenue official of that village and he did not secure the neighbors of the scene of offence as mediators and he admitted that he did not collected the samples from the total seized contraband. He further admitted that he did not mention the names of the person to whom he made request to act as mediators in

Ex.P1. P.W.1 in his cross examination he dined the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused and no incriminating material was leveled in his evidence against the accused.

14.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of 1) 49-180 M.L. Brilliant Blend Superior Grain Whiskey bottles, 2) 21-180 M.L. Mansion House XO Brandy bottles, 3) 5-180 M.L.

Green Choice Superior Whiskey bottles, 4) 15-650 M.L. Black buster beer in total 90 liquor bottles, from the possession of the accused. Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100 Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

15.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu Reddy

Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“If no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

16. In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

6 “The panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

17.Coming to the present case, admittedly L.W.1 did not issue any written notice or summons to any of the village People with a request to act as mediators. Merely, the Villagers refused to act as mediators does not entitles the L.W.1 to proceed with recording of Special Report. P.W.1 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sri Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat Motia case, which he did not do so. All these lacunas in the investigation of PW.1 show that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

18.Since P.W.1 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and also the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.W.1 is highly interested witness being SEB officials, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

19.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 1) 49-180 M.L. Brilliant Blend Superior Grain Whiskey bottles, 2) 21-180 M.L.

Mansion House XO Brandy bottles, 3) 5-180 M.L. Green Choice Superior

Whiskey bottles, 4) 15-650 M.L. Black buster beer in total 90 liquor bottles.

20.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances;as such the accused are 7 entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

21.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and thereby he is acquitted for the same

Under section 248 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Mo.1 to

Mo.4 i.e., Four unspent sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: T.V.Rama Reddy, Sub-Inspector, Rampachodavaram None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Special report -NIL- Ex.P2: FIR in Cr.No.236/2021 Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Analysis report. Ex.P4: Copy of confiscation proceedings

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1 to Mo.4 : Unspent sample bottles

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FA) JMFC,ADDL.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court :: Addateegala

C.C.No.01/2024

Date of: Date of Sentence Report ofApprehensioremand/41Release onCommence-Closure of Offenceor complainantn of accused-A Cr.P.Cbailment of trialtrial order Notice 27.08.202127.08.202128.08.202128.08.202128.08.202119.11.202509.12.202517.03.2026

Between:- State: SEB Inspector, Rampachodavaram. . . Complainant

And

Penugonda Satya Shivakrishna, S/o.Benneswa Rao, A/47 years, R/o.Lagarayi Village, Rajavommangi Mandal, current address: Nellimetla Village.. . Accused

Crime Number236/2021 of SEB Rampachodavaram

OffenceU/s.34(a) of AP Excise Amendment Act

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses

Judgment: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and thereby he is acquitted for the same

Under section 248 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Mo.1 to

Mo.4 i.e.,Four unspent sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

ADDATEEGALA.

Copy submitted to :

Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for favour of

information.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

ADDATEEGALA

PRESENT: Sri. M.M URALI G ANGADHARA R AO ,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rampachodavaram (Full Additional Charge)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addateegala

Tuesday, this the 10 th day of March, 2026

C.C.No.145 of 2024

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi Police Station. (Cr.No.26/2024). . Complainant.

And

Pollireddy Rajababu, S/o.Chinnayya, A/47 years, Cheedipalem Village, Rajavommangi Mandal. . . Accused.

This case is coming before me on 10.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.Y.Srinivasarao, learned Advocate for the Accused, and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.26/2024 for the offence punishable U/s.7-B r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition( Amendment) Act, 2020.

The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

2.On 10.04.2024 at about 07.00 AM, on credible information

LW5/S.Venkaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi PS conducted raid along with staff i.e., LW3/Ch.Prasad Reddy, PC, and LW4/B.Suresh Kumar, PC along with mediators i.e., LW1/P.Saraswathi, VRO and LW2./Ch.Nagamani, arrested the accused at the outskirts of Cheedipalem Village, Rajavommangi

Mandal, while the accused preparing arrack on batti. Later LW5 verified the 50 liters of Jaggery wash in aluminum vessel and one white coloured plastic tin which was containing 05 liters of ID arrack in it. Then LW5 destroyed the 2 above 50 liters Jaggery wash which was containing in one aluminum vessel at the scene of offence and then LW5 seized the 05 liters of ID arrack with white coloured plastic tin, 1 aluminum vessel in the presence of mediators after affixed signed slips over them. LW5 separated 300 ml of ID arrack in a bottle from the seized 05 liters seized ID arrack for send it chemical analysis and affixed slips on seized ID arrack sample bottle and affixed slips duly signed by LW5 and the LW3 and LW4 and signature of the accused.

LW5/S.Venkaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi PS, brought the

Mediators report and arrested accused along with seized property to

Jaddangi police station and registered the Mediator report as a case in

Cr.No.26/2024 U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Amendment Act 2020 of Jaddangi

PS and submitted FIR to the court of JFC Magistrate, Addateegala and remaining to all concerned police officers and took up investigation and produced the accused before the court and sent him for Judicial custody, later accused was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, LW5/S.Venkaiah, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Jaddangi PS, sent the sample bottles to the Chemical

Examiner Kakinada, through letter of advice for analysis and the Chemical

Examiner issued report vide C.E.No.2005/2024, dt.20.05.2024 in

Sr.Nos.31063 & 31064 are opining that the sample is Illicit Distilled Liquor, unfit for Human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of the investigation LW5/S.Venkaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi PS, laid charge sheet against accused.

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.7-B r/w 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was taken against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.7-B r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, has been 3 framed read over and explained to her in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined L.Ws 1 & 5 as

P.W.1 & P.W.2 and Exs.P1 to P5 and Mo.1 to Mo.3 got marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9. Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7-B r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point :-In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as P.W.1 and PW.2 and Exs. P.1 to P.5 and Mo.1 to Mo.3 got marked.

11.The case of the prosecution is that during the course of raid about the

SEB offences, P.W.2-S.Venkaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi PS along with along with staff i.e., LW3/Ch.Prasad Reddy, PC, and

LW4/B.Suresh Kumar, PC along with mediators i.e., LW1/P.Saraswathi,

VRO and LW2./Ch.Nagamani, arrested the accused at the outskirts of

Cheedipalem Village, Rajavommangi Mandal and during the raid at about 7.00 A.M., at the scene of offence they apprehended the accused herein and found the contraband of 05 Lts., of ID arrack and 50 Lts., of FJ Wash from the possession of accused and on enquiry, on that P.W.2-S.Venkaiah, Sub- 4

Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi seized the said contraband from the possession of accused i.e. 05 Lts., of ID arrack and 50 Lts., of FJ Wash, for which, in the presence of mediators the P.W.1, P.W.2-S.Venkaiah, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Jaddangi himself prepared Mediators Report in the presence of P.W.1 as to seizure of contraband and confession made by the accused as well as apprehension of the accused. Basing on the Mediators report/Ex.P1, P.W.2 registered a crime and followed the procedure as per

Criminal Procedure Code during the course of his investigation.

12.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witness No.2 he is the

Investigating officer who drafted the Ex.P1/Mediator report in the presence of

P.W.1 and registered the crime as Ex.P.2/FIR and who prepared

Ex.P3/Rough sketch and sent Ex.P4/letter of advice and to getting of

Ex.P.5/Chemical Analysis report, and filing of charge sheet and also he deposed his evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is leveled against the accused.

13. Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution except the evidence of P.W-1 and the remaining are the Police officials, coming to the evidence of PW.1/Pattem Saraswathi, Village

Revenue Assistant, who said to have participated in preparation of the contents of Ex.P1/Mediators Report, has deposed in her chief examination as the same lines of Ex.P1 and contents of charge sheet. She further deposed that she acted as mediator in this case. But as seen her evidence that was available in her cross-examination, it is categorically evident that

Ex.P1 does not contained the specific scene of offence and the PW.1 got recorded the confession of accused while he was in custody of police and as per the contents of Ex.P1, and she further admitted that seized contraband was not measured at scene of offence. Therefore, on careful perusal of testimony of PW.1, it is evident that she failed to state the specific scene of offence and despite of fact that she said to have went to there but seized contraband was not measure in her presence. Therefore, in view of these 5 circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony of PW.1 is not found trustworthy to prove the guilt of accused for the charge leveled against him.

14.Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 who is the investigating officer in this case in his cross-examination has admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality, and he did not issue any summons or notice to the villagers or revenue officials of Cheedipalem Village to secure the neighbors of the scene of offence as mediators and he admitted that he did not measure the seized contraband and also not mentioned the manner in which the remaining contraband was destroyed and no incriminating material was leveled in his evidence against the accused.

15.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of 05 Ltrs of ID Arrack and 50 liters of FJ wash from the possession of the accused. Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100 Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

16.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu Reddy

Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“If no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated” 6

17.In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

“The panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

18.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.2 did not issue any written notice or summons to any of the villagers with a request to act as mediators.

Merely, the villagers refused to act as mediators does not entitles the PW.2 to proceed with recording of Mediators Report in the presence of P.W-1. PW.2 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of

Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sri

Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat Motia case, which he did not do so. All these lacunas in the investigation of PW.2 shows that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

19.Since P.W.2 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and also the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.W.2 is highly interested witness being police officials, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

20.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 05

Lts., of ID arrack and 50 liters of FJ wash.

21.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstancesas such the accused is 7 entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition(Amendment) Act, 2020.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Mo.1 and Mo.2 i.e., Two unspent sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Mo.3 i.e., empty aluminum vessel, shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Pattem Saraswathi, VRO.None. P.W.2:S.Venkaiah, Sub-Inspector, Jaddangi P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Mediators report -NIL- Ex.P2: FIR in Cr.No.26/2024 Ex.P3: Rough sketch Ex.P4: Letter of Advice Ex.P5: Analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1 & Mo.2 : Unspent Sample bottles Mo.3:Aluminum vessel.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JMFC,ADDL.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court :: Addateegala

C.C.No.145/2024

Date of: Date of Commence Report ofApprehensioremand/41-Release onClosure ofSentence or Offence-ment of complainantn of accusedA Cr.P.Cbailtrialorder trial Notice 10.04.202410.04.202410.04.202410.04.202412.04.202402.12.202516.12.202510.03.2026

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaddangi Police Station. . . Complainant

And

Pollireddy Rajababu, S/o.Chinnayya, A/47 years, Cheedipalem Village, Rajavommangi Mandal. . . .Accused

Crime Number26/2024 of Jaddangi P.S.

OffenceU/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses Judgment: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Mo.1 and Mo.2 i.e., Two unspent Sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Mo.3 i.e., empty aluminum vessel, shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

Copy submitted to :

Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for favour of

information.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

ADDATEEGALA

PRESENT: Sri. M.M URALI G ANGADHARA R AO ,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rampachodavaram (Full Additional Charge)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addateegala

Tuesday, this the 17 th day of March, 2026

C.C.No.57 of 2024

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala. (Cr.No.23/2024). . Complainant.

And

Katru Venkata Rao, S/o.Balayya, A/48 years, Anigeru village, Addateegala Mandal. . . Accused.

This case is coming before me on 17.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.K.N.V.Ramana, learned Advocate for the Accused, and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.23/2024 for the offence punishable U/s.

7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition( Amendment) Act, 2020.

The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

2.On 27.02.2024, at about 5.00 PM,L.W.5/G.AppalaRaju secured the meditors and his staff and went to outskirts of Anigeru Village of Addateegala

Mandal at scene of offence. Then they noticed that accused had manufactured and transported 12 liters of ID arrack from the FJ wash, prepared by him, packed 12 liters of ID arrack in two plastic covers and kept those covers in white colour bag and then concealed the bag in bushes and accused was illegally transporting ID arrack from outskirts of Gontivanipalem

Village and arrested the accused on the same day at about 05.00 PM and seized 12 liters of ID Arrack worth about Rs.3,000/- from the possession of the accused, in the presence of mediators separated two 350 ml of ID Arrack 2 from seized ID Arrack and two 250 ML of Fermented Wash for sending the same to REL, Kakinada for chemical analysis and drafted the mediators report at the place at that time. LW5/G.Appalaraju, brought the mediators report and arrested accused along with seized property to Addateegala police station and registered the mediators report as a case in Cr.No.23/2024

U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP (Amendment) Act 2020 of Addateegala PS on 27.02.2024 at 06.30 PM and submitted FIR to the court of JFC Magistrate,

Addateegala and remaining to all concerned police officers and took up investigation and produced the accused before the court and sent them for

Judicial Remand. Thereafter, L.W.5-G.Appalaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Addateegala Police Station, sent the sample bottles to the Chemical

Examiner Kakinada, through letter of advice for analysis and the Chemical

Examiner issued report vide C.E.No.1253/2024, dt.26.03.2024 in

Sr.No.16650 to 16653 opining that the sample is Illicit Distilled Liquor, unfit for Human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of the investigation L.W.5-G.Appalaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala

Police Station laid charge sheet against accused.

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 was taken against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, has been framed read over and explained to him in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined L.W.5 as

P.W.1, LW.3 as PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P4 and Mo.1 to Mo.4 got marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the 3 accused, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9. Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point :-In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as P.W.1 and PW.2 and Exs. P.1 to P.4 and Mo.1 to Mo.4 got marked.

11.The case of the prosecution is that during the course of raid about the

SEB offences, P.W.1-G.Appalaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala along with LW.1/K.Rambabu, PC, LW.2/K.Durga Prasad, PC and along with mediators i.e., P.W.2/Chithadi Radhayya and LW.4/Gade Nagamani, started to conduct raids to detect SEB Offences, and they reached to outskirts of

Anigeru Village, Addateegala Mandal and during the raid at about 5.00 P.M., at the scene of offence they apprehended the accused and found the contraband of 12 Lts., of ID arrack and 200 Lts., of FJ Wash, from the possession of accused and on enquiry, on that P.W.1-G.Appalaraju, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Addateegala seized the said contraband from the possession of accused i.e. 12 Lts., of ID arrack and 200 Lts., of FJ Wash, for which, in the presence of mediators the P.W.2, P.W.1-G.Appalaraju, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Addateegala himself prepared Mediators Report as to seizure of contraband and confession made by the accused as well as apprehension of the accused. Basing on the Mediators report/Ex.P1, P.W.1 registered a crime and followed the procedure as per Criminal Procedure

Code during the course of his investigation.

4

12.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witness No.1 he is the

Investigating officer and who prepared Ex.P1/Mediators report and registered the crime as Ex.P.2/FIR and sent Ex.P3/letter of advice and to getting of Ex.P.4/Chemical Analysis report and filing of charge sheet and also he deposed his evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is levelled against the accused.

13. Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution except the evidence of P.W-2 and the remaining are the Police officials, coming to the evidence of PW.2/Chithada Radhayya, Village

Revenue Officer, who said to have participated in preparation of the contents of Ex.P1, has deposed in his chief examination as the same lines of Ex.P1 and contents of charge sheet. He further deposed that he acted as mediator in this case. But as seen his evidence that was available in his cross- examination, it is categorically evident that Ex.P1 does not contained the specific scene of offence and the PW.1 got recorded the confession of accused while he was in custody of police and as per the contents of Ex.P1, and he further admitted that seized contraband was not measured at scene of offence and Ex.P1 mediator report was drafted by him on dictation of

P.W.1. He further admitted that P.W-1 did not issue any notice to him to act as mediator but he obtained permission from his superiors to act as mediator. Therefore, on careful perusal of testimony of PW.2, it is evident that he failed to state the specific scene of offence and despite of fact that he said to have went to there but seized contraband was not measure in his presence. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony of PW.2 is not found trustworthy to prove the guilt of accused for the charge leveled against him.

14.Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 who is the investigating officer in this case in his cross-examination has admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality, and he did not issue any summons or notice to the villagers or revenue officials of Anigeru Village to secure the neighbors of the scene of offence as mediators and he admitted that he did not mention the exact 5 scene of offence in ExP.1 and he did not measure the seized contraband and also not mentioned the manner in which the remaining contraband was

Secured and no incriminating material was leveled in his evidence against the accused.

15.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of 12 Lts., of ID arrack and 200 Lts., of FJ Wash, from the possession of the accused. Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100 Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

16.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu Reddy

Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“If no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

17.In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 AP wherein it is held that :

“The panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

18.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.1 did not issue any written notice or summons to any of the villagers with a request to act as mediators.

Merely, the villagers refused to act as mediators does not entitles the PW.1 to proceed with recording of Mediators Report in the presence of P.W-2. PW.1 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of 6

Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sri

Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat Motia case, which he did not do so. All these lacunas in the investigation of PW.1 shows that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

19.Since P.W.1 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and also the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.W.1 is highly interested witness being police officials, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

20.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 12

Lts., of ID arrack and 200 Lts., of FJ Wash.

21.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstancesas such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition(Amendment) Act, 2020.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Mo.1 to Mo.4 i.e.,Four unspent sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: G.Appalaraju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala. None. P.W.2: Chithada Radhayya, Village Revenue Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Mediators report -NIL- Ex.P2: FIR in Cr.No.23/2024 Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo.1 to Mo.4: Unspent Sample bottles

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JMFC,ADDL.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court :: Addateegala

C.C.No.57/2024

Date of: Date of Sentence Report ofApprehensioremand/41Release onCommence-Closure of Offenceor complainantn of accused-A Cr.P.Cbailment of trialtrial order Notice 27.02.202427.02.202427.02.202428.02.202401.03.202416.09.202509.12.202517.03.2026

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Addateegala P.S.. . . Complainant

And

Katru Venkata Rao, S/o.Balayya, A/48 years, Anigeru village, Addateegala Mandal. . . Accused

Crime Number23/2024 of Addateegala P.S.

OffenceU/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses Judgment: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and thereby he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for period of six months as per section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. Mo.1 to Mo.4 i.e.,Four unspent sample bottles, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Addateegala. Copy submitted to :

Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for favour of

information.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

ADDATEEGALA

PRESENT: Sri. M.M URALI G ANGADHARA R AO ,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rampachodavaram (Full Additional

Charge) Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Addateegala

Tuesday, this the 17 th day of March, 2026.

S.T.C.No.15 of 2021

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station. (Cr.No.02/2019) . . Complainant.

And

1.Kaligithi Arun Kumar, S/o.Chandrayya, A/50 years, Nelimetla Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

2.Pusam Gopi, S/o.Arjuna Rao, C/Pusam Achiyamma, A/38 years, Laagari Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

3.Vanthu Balakrishna, S/o.Narayana Murthy, A/47 years, Laagari Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

4.Eeka Adinarayana, S/o.Ramanna dora, A/47 years, Nelimetla Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

5.Tamu Suribabu, S/o.Butchanna dora, A/38 years, Nellimetla Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

6.Gampa Nagaraju, S/o.Narasimhulu, A/40 years, Kindra Colony, Rajavommangi Mandal.

7.Vadabala Venkata Ramana, S/o.Lovaraju, A/48 years, Kindra village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

8.Busari Sriramulu, S/o.Lakshmayya, A/42 years, Kindra Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

.. Accused No.1 to 8.

This case is coming before me on 24.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.D.Sridhar, learned Advocate for the Accused No.1 to 8, and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.02/2019 against the Accused No.1 to 8 for the offence punishable under Section. 341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC for brevity).

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:The

Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section. 341 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code alleging that LW.1/Chirla Raviteja,

A.E.Panchayathraj Department and I/c of M.P.D.O. Rajavommangi

Mandal. On 04.01.2019 various departments employees, LW.2, LW.3 and LW.4 while going to Kindra Village attending for Janma Bhoomi

Programme, when they reached outskirts of Kindra Village at about 9.45 hours the Accused No.1 to 8 wrongful restraint and obstructed in discharge of public function for not construction of maderuvagu dam,

LW.5 is eye witness of the scene of offence.

3.Basing on the receipt of written report from the L.W.1/Chirla

Raviteja, LW.6/S.Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi

Police Station, registered the same as case in Cr.No.02/2019 under

Section 341, 186 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Rajavommangi Police

Station on 04.01.2019 at about 19.00 hours and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW.6/S.Ravi Kumar, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station, examined the LW.1 to LW.4 and recorded their statement U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. and visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch and examined the

LW.5 and recorded the statement. In this case LW.6 added the A7 and

A8 basing on the statement of LW2 to LW5. After took further investigation on 26.08.2019 LW.7/B.Vinod, Sub-Inspector of Police, 3

Rajavommangi Police Station, served notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. to the

Accused No.1 to 8. After completion of investigation, LW.7- B.Vidnod,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station, filed charge sheet against the Accused. Therefore, the accused No.1 to 8 are liable for punishment under Section.341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. After perusing the material on record, as prima facie case is made out against the Accused No.1 to 8 and the case was taken on file against the Accused No.1 to 8 for the offence punishable under

Section.341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

5.On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 8, the copies of the case documents furnished on them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Thereafter they were examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section. 341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, for which the Accused No.1 to 8 denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 and the documents such as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 got marked. The evidence of LW.4 and LW.7 were given up by the prosecution.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused No.1 to 8 examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are read over and explained to the Accused No.1 to 8 in their vernacular, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the Accused No.1 to 8. Perused the material available on record.

4

9. Now the point for Determination is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused

No.1 to 8 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Section.341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code ?

10. Point: The essence of accusation leveled against the accused no.

1 to 8 is that P.W.1/Chirla Raviteja, A.E.Panchayathraj Department and

I/c of M.P.D.O. Rajavommangi Mandal. On 04.01.2019 various departments employees, LW.2, LW.3 and LW.4 while going to Kindra

Village attending for Janma Bhoomi Programme, when they reached outskirts of Kindra Village at about 9.45 hours the Accused No.1 to 8 wrongful restraint and obstructed in discharge of public function for not construction of maderuvagu dam, LW.5 is eye witness of the scene of offence.

11. In order to establish the said accusation levelled against accused, as already noted, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. P.W.1 is the complainant in this case, P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the eye witness in this case. P.W.5 is the police personnel, who registered the case, recorded the statements of witnesses, drew rough sketch and served 41-A Cr.P.C notices to the accused. P.W.1 to 4 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Since P.W.1 to 4 did not support the case of prosecution, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor was permitted to cross examine them and during his cross- examinations denied the contents of their statements recorded by the police as contemplated under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the same are marked as Ex.P1to P5 respectively.

12. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 they deposed in their evidence that they can't identify the accused no.1 to 8 and accused no.1 to 8 did not wrongfully restrained them and the accused only protest for construction of Maderuvagu dam. P.Ws. 1to 4 did not support the case 5 of prosecution and and no incriminating material was laid against in their evidence against the accused no.1 to 8.

13. Coming to the P.W.5 who is the Investigating officer in this case, he deposed in his evidence that On 04.01.2019, when he was present in his police station, P..W.1 present a written complaint, Ex.P6 is the report dt.04.01.2019. Basing on Ex.P6 he registered a case in

Cr.No.02/2019 u/secs.341, 186 r/w 34 of IPC and marked as Ex.P7/FIR.

On the same day he examined the L.Ws 1 to 5 and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch

Ex.P8. Thereafter he apprehended the accused and served 41(A)

Cr.P.C notices to the accused and also he deposed in his evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is leveled against the accused.

14. In his cross examination he admitted that P.W.1 did not mention the name of the other participants and also names other personal details of the accused no.1 to 8 in his Ex.P6/complaint.

15. As discussed above, P.W.1 who is the complainant, P.W.3 and 4 who are said to be participated in that program along with P.W.1 and

P.W.2 who is said to be Eye witness to alleged offence turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the P.W.1 defacto complainant himself failed to identify the accused and prove his case.Hence there is absolutely no reliable and acceptable evidence is placed on record to connect the accused no.1 to 8 of the offence with which they are charged and could not lay any incriminating material against the accused no.1 to 8 that they committed the offence. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that accused no.1 to 8 are guilty of the offence with which they are charged. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused of the offence with which they are 6 charged and accused no.1 to 8 are accordingly entitled for acquittal in this case.

16. In the result, the Accused No.1 to 8 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section.341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 8 and their sureties shall be in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

Appendix of Evidence &

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1/29.07.2025 :Ch.Ravi Teja

P.W.2/29.07.2025 :Ch.Subbarao

P.W.3/02.09.2025 :Neeli Suribabu

P.W.4/02.09.2025 :K.Gouthami

P.W.5/16.12.2025 :S.Ravi Kumar, Sub-Inspector

For Defence: - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1:Signature of the complaint

Ex.P2:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P3:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2

Ex.P4:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

Ex.P5:Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4

Ex.P6:Written complaint by PW.1

Ex.P7:Original First Information Report No.02/2019 of Rajavommangi Police Station

Ex.P8:Rough sketch 7

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court :: Addateegala

S.T.C.No.15/2021

Date of: Date of ApprehensiCommenc Report ofremand/41-ReleaseClosure ofSentence or Offenceon ofe-ment of complainantA Cr.P.Con bailtrialorder accusedtrial Notice 04.01.201904.01.201926.08.201926.08.2019-29.07.202530.12.202517.03.2026

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi P.S.. . . Complainant

And

1. Kaligithi Arun Kumar, S/o.Chandrayya, A/50 years, Nelimetla Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

2. Pusam Gopi, S/o.Arjuna Rao, C/Pusam Achiyamma, A/38 years, Laagari Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

3. Vanthu Balakrishna, S/o.Narayana Murthy, A/47 years, Laagari Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

4. Eeka Adinarayana, S/o.Ramanna dora, A/47 years, Nelimetla Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

5. Tamu Suribabu, S/o.Butchanna dora, A/38 years, Nellimetla Village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

6. Gampa Nagaraju, S/o.Narasimhulu, A/40 years, Kindra Colony, Rajavommangi Mandal.

7. Vadabala Venkata Ramana, S/o.Lovaraju, A/48 years, Kindra village, Rajavommangi Mandal.

8. Busari Sriramulu, S/o.Lakshmayya, A/42 years, Kindra Village, Rajavommangi Mandal. . .Accused No.1 to 8

Crime Number02/2019 of Rajavommangi P.S.

OffenceU/sec. 341 r/w 34 of IPC 9

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Reasons for delayDue to non production of witnesses Judgment:

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 8 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section.341 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 8 and their sureties shall be in force for a further period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Sd/-M.M.GANGADHARA RAO

(FAC)JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADDATEEGALA.

Copy submitted to :

Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram for favour of

information.