Sri M Rajender

1C.C.4117 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE:: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- Sri M.Rajender, I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad.

Friday, the 04thday of November , 2022

C.C.No.4117 of 2022

Between:- The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Asifnagar (Cr.No.136/2022) …Complainant.

And

A1) T. Yellaiah @ Yellesh @ Yelli S/o. Late. T. Balaiah, Aged;25 yrs Occ: Garbage collection labour R/o. H.No.12-2-698/6, near J.S. Temple Alluri Seetharam Raj nagar huts, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad N/o. Chinna Mangalaram Chilkuru, R.R.District

A2) Kallam Raja @ Raju , S/o. K. Dharmaiah Aged .19 yrs, Occ; Garbage collection Labour R/o. H.No.12-2-698/44, Near Kings Palace Huts Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Smt. Tabasum, Legal Aid counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Asif Nagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC in Cr.No.136/2022.

2C.C.4117 of 2022

2.The brief facts of the prosecution story are as follows:

On 19.04.2022 at 4.30 am, A1 and A2 have committed theft of two wheeler vehicle Splendor plus bearing No. AP 28 DP 1076 belongs to LW1, parked at the entrance of Gudimalkapur flower market by using fake key Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 379 IPC against the A1 and A2. On appearance of A1 and A2, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C with the allegations that are made against them, for which they denied the said allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1to Ex.P6 and MO1.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.

313 of Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against them in the evi- dence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence evi- dence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilty of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 379 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.It is the case of the prosecution is that the A1 and A2 have committed theft of two wheeler vehicle Splendor plus B.No. AP 28 DP 1076 , parked at the entrance of Gudimalkapur flower market by using fake key. In order to prove the 3C.C.4117 of 2022 case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to 4 and marked Ex.P1 to

P6 and MO1.

9.PW1– Shankaraiah has deposed in his evidence that, at about 5 months back on one day at 8.30AM, he parked his motor cycle bearing No.AP 28DP 3912 parked at parking area flower market, Gudimalkapur and went to market purchasing of flower. After half an hour, he came and found missing of his vehicle. He searched here and there but he could not found. Later he went to police station and lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 with the police Asifnagar. After one month police Asif nagar informed about recovery of his vehicle which he took from this court for interim safe custody. He produce the same and which is marked as MO1 and returned for interim safe custody. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

10. PW2 -Mohd. Irfan Khan has deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about this case. Nothing had happened in his presence. No panchanama was conducted in his presence. At about 2 months back on one day he went to police station on his personal work, at the time his signature was obtained by the police on some written papers, but he does not know its contents. Witness identified his signature on panchanama dated 20-04-2022 under Ex.P2. The learned APP declared him as hostile.

11. PW3- Mohd. Sohail has deposed in his evidence that he does not know LW4.

He does not know anything about this case. Nothing had happened in his presence.

No panchanama was conducted in his presence. At about 2 months back on one day he went to police station on his personal work, at the time his signature was obtained by the police on some written papers, but he does not know its contents.

Witness identified his signature on panchanama dated 21-04-2022 under Ex.P3.

The learned APP declared him as hostile.

4C.C.4117 of 2022

12. PW4- Habeeb Khan has deposed in his evidence that on 20-04-2022 at 11.00

AM, PW1 came to police station and gave Ex.P1 report to LW8, basing on it they registered a case in Cr.No.136/2022 U/Sec.379 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P4.

After completion of his investigation he handed over the CD file to him for further investigation. During the course of his investigation, he verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct line. He examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at police station. Thereafter he visited place of scene , where he secured

LW3 and PW2 in their presence he conducted scene of offence and also rough sketch under Ex.P5. On 21-04-2022 while he , LW6 and LW7 were conducting vehicle checking they found the accused under suspicious circumstance on the motor cycle, then they brought them to police station , on his enquiry when they are ready to confess this offence along with other offence , then he secured PW3 and

LW4 , in their presence he recorded the confessional statement of A1 and A2 and conducted confession panchanama under Ex.P6 and seized MO1 in the presence of

PW3 and LW4. Thereafter he arrested them and produced before the court for judicial remand. After completion investigation, he filed charge sheet.

13. It is well settled that in Criminal case, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and that the burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence is taken as enumerated in the IPC. In the present case the defence of accused is one of total denial of the allegation leveled No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. Perused the evidence of PW.1 to PW4. PW.1 is the complainant. PW2 is the panch witness for scene of offence. PW3 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure. PW4 is the investigating officer. The evidence of PW.1 shows that his motor cycle was committed theft by unknown person. The

PW4 was registered a case against unknown accused. Therefore, the evidence of

PW4 is crucial to reach a conclusion that the accused had committed the alleged offence. PW4 stated in his evidence that he has conducted scene of offence panchanama and also prepared rough sketch before PW2 and LW3, but the PW2 did not support the case and turned hostile. He stated in his evidence that his 5C.C.4117 of 2022 signature was obtained by the police on some written paper at police station. Thus, the evidence of PW4 is contradicting with the evidence of PW2. It is clear that there is no evidence on record the alleged offence took place at flower market.

Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the PW4 conducted scene of offence panchanama before PW2 at the place of offence. PW4 further stated that A1 and

A2 confessed the offence and seized motor cycle i.e. MO1 before PW3 and LW4 and in their presence he has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused. But the PW3 did not support the case and turned hostile. In his evidence he stated that no panchanama was conducted and his signature was obtained by the police on some written papers at police station. PW3 denied the suggestion of learned APP that in his presence conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized case property. It shows that PW4 has not conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of accused before PW3 . Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the motor cycle was seized before PW3 and LW3 under panchanama. In view of above reason recorded , it is clear that there is no evidence on record to believe that the accused have committed the alleged offence. Taking in to consideration all these facts, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to proved ingredient of offences beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had committed offence punishable under section 379 of IPC. As such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In view of the above reason recorded the accused is found not guilty for the alleged offence.

14.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 379 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C . The MO.1 was returned to PW.1 for safe custody shall hold good till expiry of appeal time. Superintendent is directed to release the A1forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.-III, directly on the computer, corrected

and pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 04 th day of November , 2022.

I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

6C.C.4117 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 Shankaraiah - None - PW2 Mohd. Irfan Khan PW3 Mohd. Sohail PW4 Habeeb Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the complaint Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on panchanama Ex.P3 is the signature of PW3 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4 is the FIR Ex.P5 is the rough sketch Ex.P6 confession cum seizure panchanama

FOR THE DEFENCE: --Nil--

M.Os. MARKED MO1 is motor vehicle.

I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

7C.C.4117 of 2022

FORM NO.71/72 CALENDER AND JUDGMENT C.C No. 4117/2022 DISTRICT : HYDERABAD CALENDER CASE TRIED BY I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : HYD DATE OF :

1.Offence13-04-2022

2.Report of complaint 19-04-2022

3.Apprehension of accused 28-04-2022

4. Released on bail---

5.Filing of charge sheet17-06-2022

6.Taking cognizance17-06-2022

7.Furnishing of copies to accused05-09-2022

8.Recording plea of accused19-09-2022

9.Commencement of trial27-09-2022

10.Closure of trial17-10-2022

11.Examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. 19-10-2022

12.Sentence or Order 04-11-2022 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT / Police StationThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, & Crime No.PS Asifnagar (Cr.No.136/2022) NAME OF THE ACCUSED AND DESCRIPTIVE A1) T. Yellaiah @ Yellesh @ Yelli,S/o. Late. T. Balaiah, PARTICULARS Aged;25 yrs,Occ: Garbage collection labour, R/o. H.No.12-2- 698/6, near J.S. Temple Alluri Seetharam Raj nagar huts, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad, N/o. Chinna Mangalaram Chilkuru, R.R.District A2) Kallam Raja @ Raju , S/o. K. Dharmaiah,Aged .19 yrs, Occ; Garbage collection Labour R/o. H.No.12-2-698/44, Near Kings Palace Huts,Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. CHARGE UNDER SECTION U/Sec.379 IPC

PLEA OF THE ACCUSEDPLEADED NOT GUILTY

FINDING OF THE JUDGEFOUND NOT GUILTY

SENTENCE OR ORDERACQUITTED

PROSECUTION DEFENDED BY WHOM Asst. Public Prosecutor ACCUSED DEFENDED BY WHOMSmt.Tabasum, Legal Aid counsel

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Remarks : C.C No. 4117/2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT04-11-2022

To. The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

8C.C.4117 of 2022

DIS. No. /I ACMM/Hyd/2022DATED: -11-2022

1C.C.7635 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE::

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- Sri M.Rajender, I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025

C.C.No. 7635 of 2024

Between:- The Sub Inspector of police, PS Asifnagar (Cr.No.12/2024) …Complainant.

And

Mohammed Shareef @DSP Shareef S/o.Late. Lal Mohammed Age.42yrs, Occ: Furniture Business R/o.H.No.12-1-616/39, Syed Ali Guda, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri.Raj Gopal Ladda, counsel for accused having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, P S Asifnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.386 IPC and Sec.25(1B)(b) Arms Act,1959 in

Cr.No.12/2024.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution story are as follows:

Accused used to collect mamools (amount) from general public and shop keepers by putting fear to commit murder and it was came to know to another rowdy sheeter by name Abed of Mangalhat , then he threatened and demanded him to share the mamools. In this regard, accused had decided to eliminate him and purchased dagger at

Nampally market from street vendor. On 08-01-2024 at 6.00 PM, accused had collected money from general public and shop keepers near Ghouse Ki Hotel, Saber Nagar,

Asifnagar by putting fear with dagger and also collected Rs.10,000/- for settlement and

Rs.5000/- from Shop keepers by openly showing the dagger to commit grievous hurt and made fear in the minds of general public. On receiving the said information, LW1 to 3 2C.C.7635 of 2024 went there and on seeing them, accused tried to escape from there by throwning the collected amount Rs.15000/- into flowing water drainage and immediately, they apprehended him along with dagger. Thereby, accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 386 IPC and Sec.25(1B)(b) Arms Act,1959. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 386 IPC and

Sec.25(1B)(b) Arms Act,1959 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec. 386 IPC and

Sec.25(1B)(b) Arms Act,1959 with the allegations that are made against him for which, he denied the said allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of

Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 386 IPC and Sec.25(1B)(b) Arms Act,1959 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8. It is well settled that in Criminal case, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and that the burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence is taken as enumerated in the IPC. In the present case, the defence of accused is one of total denial of the allegation leveled. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.

9.The case of the prosecution is that the accused has been collecting money from the general public and also shop owners by threatening to kill them and seized dagger which was used by him at the time of commission of offence. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW1 toPW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. PW1 is the sub inspector of police who is the complainant. PW2 and PW3 are eye witness. PW4 and

PW5 are the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama . PW6 is the victim.

PW7 is the investigating officer.

10. PW1 is the sub inspector of police deposed that he had receive information that accused has been threatening general public and shop owners with the help of dagger and 3C.C.7635 of 2024 collecting money and immediately, he rushed there and found the same and on seeing him, thrown away cash of Rs.15000/- in the drainage water and on enquiry, he confessed the offence and taken him into custody and in the presence of LW7 and LW8 seized dagger and after that he returned to police station with accused and case property and gave complaint. PW2 and PW3 have deposed that they do not know anything about the case.

PW4 and PW5 have deposed that they do not know anything about the case and no panchanama was conducted in their presence but they admitted their signature on confession cum seizure panchanama, scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.

PW6 has deposed that he does not know anything about the case and no one had collected amount from him by threatening. PW7 has deposed that after receiving complaint from

PW1, registered a case and recorded the statement of witnesses and proceeded to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch and after that he effected the arrest of accused and produced him before the court for judicial custody and after investigation, he filed charge sheet.

11.MO1 is the dagger which is alleged to be used by the accused at the time of commission of offence and it was seized before PW4 and PW5, but they did not support the case and turned hostile with regard to seizure of dagger under panchanama. They were cross examined but nothing has been elicited. The evidence of PW1 is contradicting with the evidence of PW4 and PW5 with regard to seizure of dagger. The PW2 and PW3 were present at the time of incident and witnessed the offence, but they did not support the case and turned hostile. PW6 did not support the case and turned hostile. PW1 and PW7 are only supporting the case of prosecution. The other witness are not supporting the version of PW1 and PW7. As such, the testimony of PW1 and PW7 appears to be doubtful and not trustworthy. Therefore, their testimony cannot be accepted. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused has been collecting amount from the public and also shop owners by threatening with dagger to kill.

12. Taking in to consideration of all these facts, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove ingredient of offences U/Sec. 386 IPC and Sec.25(1B)(b)

Arms Act,1959 beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the above reason recorded, accused is found not guilty for the alleged offence.

4C.C.7635 of 2024

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 386 IPC and

Sec.25(1B)(b) Arms Act,1959 and is acquitted U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months. MO1 i.e. dagger shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.-III directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 16 TH day of April, 2025.

I ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR 1 THE PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE PW1- Syed Sadak Miya--NONE-- PW2- Shaik Iqbal PW3- Mohd. Mubeen Khan PW4- Kameshwar PW5- Srinivas PW6- Mohd. Sameer PW7-G.Venkatesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1-Confession Cum seizure panchanama--Nil-- Ex.P2- report Ex.P3-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5 -Signature of PW4 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6- Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7-Signature of PW4 on rough sketch. Ex.P8- Signature of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P9- Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P10-Signature of PW5 on rough sketch. Ex.P11-Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P12-FIR Ex.P13- Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P14- Rough sketch. M.Os. MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: MO1- Dagger --Nil--

I ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

5C.C.7635 of 2024

FORM NO.71/72

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT C.C No .7635/2024 DISTRICT : HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE : HYD DATE OF :

1.Offence08-01-2024

2.Report of complaint 08-01-2024

3.Apprehension of accused 08-01-2024

4. Released on bail18-01-2024

5.Filing of charge sheet05-08-2024

6.Taking cognizance05-08-2024

7.Furnishing of copies to accused29-08-2024

8.Recording plea of accused29-08-2024

9.Commencement of trial24-09-2024

10.Closure of trial17-02-2025

11.Examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C10-03-2025

12.Sentence or Order 16-04-2025 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT / PoliceThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, Station & Crime No.PS Asifnagar (Cr.No.12/2024) NAME OF THE ACCUSED ANDMohammed Shareef @DSP Shareef S/o.Late. Lal DESCRIPTIVE PARTICULARS Mohammed Age.42yrs, Occ: Furniture Business R/o.H.No.12-1-616/39, Syed Ali Guda, Asifnagar, Hyderabad. CHARGE UNDER SECTION U/Sec. 386 IPC and Sec.25(1B)(b) Arms Act

PLEA OF THE ACCUSEDPLEADED NOT GUILTY

FINDING OF THE JUDGEFOUND NOT GUILTY

SENTENCE OR ORDERACQUITTED

PROSECUTION DEFENDED BY WHOM Addl. Public Prosecutor ACCUSED DEFENDED BY WHOMSri. Raj Gopal Ladda, counsel for accused

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Remarks : C.C No. 7635/2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT16-04-2025.

To. The Hon'ble I Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. DIS. No. /I ACJM/Hyd/2025DATED:

1C.C. 13579 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE::

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- Sri M.Rajender, I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

Wednesday, the 02ndday of November , 2022

C.C.No. 13579 of 2021 Between:- The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dhoolpet (Cr.No.388/2020) …Complainant.

And

B.Punam Bai, W/o. Rajesh Singh Age:34 yrs, R/o.H.No.12-1-430/a, Sitaram bagh, Datta Nagar, Asifnagar, Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad.

…Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and counsel Sri.Sudesh Kumar , Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector of Police, P S Dhoolpet has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act and Sec. 34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act ,1968 in Cr.No.388/2020.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution story are as follows:

On 23-09-2020 found that accused was in possession of 5 ltrs of I.D. Liquor in a white colour can and 150 ltrs of FJ wash in a blue colour drum at his house for the purpose of selling and drawn two samples and seized the same under cover of panchanama. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec. 34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act against the Accused. On 2C.C. 13579 of 2021 appearance of accused, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.

239 Cr.P.C with the allegations that are made against her, for which she denied the said allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of

Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec. 34 (e) of A.P.

Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was in illegal possession of 5 ltrs of I.D liquor and 150 Ltrs of FJ wash at the house of Accused and same was seized in the presence of witness under the panchanamma. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1.

9. PW1– R. Yadagiri Reddy has deposed in his evidence that on 23-09-2020 he received information about illegal possession and selling of I.D. liquor, by the accused at her house, immediately he went to house of accused by securing LW1 and 2 and on search he found 5 ltrs of ID liquor and 150ltrs of FJ Wash under MO1 and he drawn two samples of I.D. liquor and FJ Wash in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and seized the same under cover of panchanama under Ex.P1. Thereafter, he returned to police station along with accused and seized samples. Basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr

No.388/2020 U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and Sec. 34 (e) of AP Excise Act under Ex.P2 and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand. He sent 3C.C. 13579 of 2021 seizure sample for chemical examination and deposited remianing sample before the

Deputy Commissioner Excise, Hyderabad for confisication. Ex.P3 is CE report . After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

10. It is well settled that in Criminal case, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and that the burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence is taken as enumerated in the IPC. In the present case, the defence of accused is one of total denial of the allegation leveled. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. PW.1 is the I.O and filed charge sheet. Perused the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 stated in his evidence that he seized Sample of I.D. liquor in the presence of Lw1 and LW2 under cover of panchanama. The police filed report where about of LW1 and LW2 not known.

Basing on the report of police, the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW1 and 2.

The PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the place where the alleged incident took place is busy and residential commercial area. Accused is resident of Asifnagar, Karwan ,

Hyderabad. LW1 and LW2 are the resident of Malakpet TV tower, Hyderabad. It shows that the house of accused and the residence of LW1 and LW2 are located at different places. PW1 stated in his cross examination that he did not call local area people to act as panch witness. The PW1 denied the suggestions that he did not conduct panchanama

before LW1 and LW2. As the house of accused is situated in busy area, the PW1 ought to

have conducted the panchanama before the local people are residing within the vicinity, but he failed to do so. It show that PW1 has not conducted proper investigation. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the contents of panchanama. The PW1 stated that he sent seized sample of I.D. liquor for chemical examination. The PW1 admitted in his cross examination that there is a delay of 7 days for sending of seized sample for chemical examination. The government chemical examiner gave the Laboratory Analysis report under Ex.P3 shows that the remarks offered in the coloum No.4 of the report that the seized substance is I.D. liquor unfit for consumption and injurious to health. But, there is no evidence on record to believe the evidence of Pw1 that he seized samples before the

Lw1 and LW2. There is no evidence on record to believe that the sample covered under

Ex.P3 pertains to this case. As such, the evidence of Pw1 appears to be doubtful regarding seizure of samples under panchanama. There is no evidence elicited by the prosecution during the cross examination of PW.1 to connect the accused for the alleged offence. Taking in to consideration of all these facts, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove ingredient of offences beyond all reasonable doubt that 4C.C. 13579 of 2021 accused has committed offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of AP. Prohibition Act and Sec. 34 (e) of AP Excise Act. As such,accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In view of the above reason recorded, accused is found not guilty for the alleged offence.

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of

A.P Prohibition Act and are acquitted U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C . The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months. The MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.-III directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 02 nd day of November, 2022.

I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1R. Yadagiri Reddy - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 - panchanama

Ex. P2 - COR

Ex. P3 – Chemical examination report

FOR THE DEFENCE: --Nil-- M.Os. MARKED

Mo1 is I.D. Liquor

I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

5C.C. 13579 of 2021

FORM NO.71/72

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT C.C No. 13579/2021 DISTRICT : HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : HYD DATE OF :

1.Offence23-09-2020

2.Report of complaint 23-09-2020

3.Apprehension of accused 23-09-2020

4. Released on bail28-09-2020

5.Filing of charge sheet06-12-2021

6.Taking cognizance06-12-2021

7.Furnishing of copies to accused29-08-2022

8.Recording plea of accused07-09-2022

9.Commencement of trial21-10-2022

10.Closure of trial21-10-2022

11.Examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. 26-10-2022

12.Sentence or Order 02-11-2022 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT / PoliceThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, Station & Crime No.PS Dhoolpet (Cr.No.388/2020 NAME OF THE ACCUSED ANDB.Punam Bai, W/o. Rajesh Singh Age:34 yrs, DESCRIPTIVE PARTICULARS R/o.H.No.12-1-430/a, Sitaram bagh, Datta Nagar, Asifnagar, Karwan Sahu, Hyderabad. CHARGE UNDER SECTION U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP. Prohibition Act and Sec. 34 (e) AP Excise Act.

PLEA OF THE ACCUSEDPLEADED NOT GUILTY

FINDING OF THE JUDGEFOUND NOT GUILTY

SENTENCE OR ORDERACQUITTED

PROSECUTION DEFENDED BY WHOM Asst. Public Prosecutor ACCUSED DEFENDED BY WHOMSri.Sudesh Kumar Advocate

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Remarks : C.C No. 13579/2021 DATE OF JUDGMENT02-11-2022

To. The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. DIS. No. /I ACMM/Hyd/2022DATED: -11-2022

1C.C. 13749 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE::

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- Sri M.Rajender, I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

Wednesday, the 09thday of November , 2022

C.C.No. 13749 of 2021 Between:- The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dhoolpet (Cr.No.1797/11-12) …Complainant.

And

Satyajeet Singh @ Satish Singh, Age.36 yrs, R/o.H.No.13-1-514, Gangabowli, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

…Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and counsel Sri. K.Naresh Singh, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector of Police, P S Dhoolpet has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act in Cr.No.850/2016.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution story are as follows:

On 27-08-2016 at 8.30 AM, found that accused was in illegal possession of one bag containing 86 sachets each sachets containing 100ml at his house for the purpose of selling and drawn two samples and seized the same under cover of panchanama. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act against the Accused. On appearance of accused, the copies of the 2C.C. 13749 of 2021 charge sheet and other documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of

Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C with the allegations that are made against her, for which she denied the said allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of

Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was in illegal possession of one bag containing 86 sachets each sachets containing 100ml at his house and same was seized in the presence of witness under the panchanamma. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1.

9. PW1– K.Krishna has deposed in his evidence that on 27-08-2016 LW3 received information about illegal selling of I.D. Iquor by the accused in front of his house .

Immediately he went to house of accused by securing LW.1 and 2 and on search he found 80 sachets each sachet contianing 100 ml of ID liquor under MO1. Thereafter, he drawn two samples of I.D liquor in the presence of LW.1 and 2 and seized the same under panchanama under Ex.P1. Thereafter he returned to police station along with accused and seized sample. Thereafter he handed over the CD file to him for further investigation. He verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct line. During the course of 3C.C. 13749 of 2021 investigation, basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.850 of 2016 U/Sec 7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act,1995 under Ex.P2 and produced him before the court for judicial remand. he sent seized sample for chemical examination and deposited remianing sample before the Deputy Commissioner Excise Hyderabad for confisication. During the course of investigation he collected CE report under Ex.P3. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

10. It is well settled that in Criminal case, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and that the burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence is taken as enumerated in the IPC. In the present case, the defence of accused is one of total denial of the allegation leveled. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. PW.1 is the I.O and filed charge sheet. Perused the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 stated in his evidence that he seized Sample of I.D. liquor in the presence of Lw1 and LW2 under cover of panchanama. The police filed report where about of LW1 and LW2 not known.

Basing on the report of police, the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW1 and 2.

The PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the place where the alleged incident took place is busy and residential commercial area. Accused is resident of Ganga bowli,

Dhoolpet , Hyderabad. LW1 is the resident of Gangabowlim, Dhoolpet and LW2 is the resident of Chunne Ki batti, Dhoolpet , Hyderabad. It shows that the house of accused and the residence of LW1 and LW2 are located at different places. PW1 stated in his cross examination that he did not call local area people to act as panch witness. The PW1 denied the suggestions that he did not conduct panchanama before LW1 and LW2. As the house of accused is situated in busy area, the PW1 ought to have conducted the panchanama before the local people are residing within the vicinity, but he failed to do so.

It show that PW1 has not conducted proper investigation. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the contents of panchanama. The PW1 stated that he sent seized sample of I.D.

liquor for chemical examination. The PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the date of offence is 27-08-2016 and he sent seized sample for chemical examination on 02-08- 2016 . The government chemical examiner gave the Laboratory Analysis report under

Ex.P3 shows that the remarks offered in the coloum No.4 of the report that the seized substance is I.D. liquor unfit for consumption and injurious to health. But, there is no evidence on record to believe the evidence of Pw1 that he seized samples before the Lw1 and LW2. There is no evidence on record to believe that the sample covered under Ex.P3 pertains to this case. As such, the evidence of Pw1 appears to be doubtful regarding 4C.C. 13749 of 2021 seizure of samples under panchanama. There is no evidence elicited by the prosecution during the cross examination of PW.1 to connect the accused for the alleged offence.

Taking in to consideration of all these facts, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove ingredient of offences beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has committed offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP. Prohibition Act. As such,accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In view of the above reason recorded, accused is found not guilty for the alleged offence.

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of

A.P Prohibition Act and is acquitted U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C . The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months. The MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.-III directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 09 th day of November, 2022.

I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1K. Krishna - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 - panchanama

Ex. P2 - COR

Ex. P3 – Chemical examination report

FOR THE DEFENCE: --Nil--

M.Os. MARKED

Mo1 is I.D. Liquor

I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

5C.C. 13749 of 2021

FORM NO.71/72

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT C.C No. 13749/2021 DISTRICT : HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : HYD DATE OF :

1.Offence27-08-2016

2.Report of complaint 27-08-2016

3.Apprehension of accused 27-08-2016

4. Released on bail29-08-2016

5.Filing of charge sheet27-09-2021

6.Taking cognizance27-09-2021

7.Furnishing of copies to accused12-10-2022

8.Recording plea of accused12-10-2022

9.Commencement of trial26-10-2022

10.Closure of trial26-10-2022

11.Examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. 01-11-2022

12.Sentence or Order 09-11-2022 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT / PoliceThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, Station & Crime No.PS Dhoolpet (Cr.No.850/16) NAME OF THE ACCUSED ANDSatyajeet Singh @ Satish Singh,Age.36 yrs, DESCRIPTIVE PARTICULARS R/o.H.No.13-1-514,Gangabowli,Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. CHARGE UNDER SECTION U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP. Prohibition Act

PLEA OF THE ACCUSEDPLEADED NOT GUILTY

FINDING OF THE JUDGEFOUND NOT GUILTY

SENTENCE OR ORDERACQUITTED

PROSECUTION DEFENDED BY WHOM Asst. Public Prosecutor ACCUSED DEFENDED BY WHOMSri.Sudesh Kumar Advocate

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Remarks : C.C No. 13749/2021 DATE OF JUDGMENT09-11-2022

To. The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. DIS. No. /I ACMM/Hyd/2022DATED: -11-2022

1C.C. 13769 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE::

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- Sri M.Rajender, I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad

Thursday the 10thday of November , 2022

C.C.No. 13769 of 2021 Between:- The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dhoolpet (Cr.No.113/2016) …Complainant.

And

Surekha Bai, W/o. Govind Singh Age.40 yrs, R/o.H.No.14-11-432, Jinsi Chowrahi, Machilipura, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

…Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and counsel Sri. K.Naresh Singh, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector of Police, P S Dhoolpet has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act in Cr.No.113/2016.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution story are as follows:

On 09-02-2016 at 10.45 AM, found that accused was in illegal possession of 2 cans each can containing 20ltrs of I.D. liquor in front of her house for the purpose of selling and drawn two samples and seized the same under cover of panchanama. Hence, the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act against the Accused. On appearance of accused, the copies of the 2C.C. 13769 of 2021 charge sheet and other documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of

Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C with the allegations that are made against her, for which she denied the said allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO.1.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of

Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was in illegal possession of2 cans each can containing 20ltrs of I.D. liquor in front of his house and same was seized in the presence of witness under the panchanamma. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1.

9. PW1–P.Jashwanth Naidu, has deposed in his evidence that On 09-02-2016 he received information about illegal selling of I.D. Iquor by the accused in front of her house . Immediately he went to house of accused by securing LW.1 and 2 and on search he found 02 plastic can each can contianing 20 ltrsof ID liquor under MO1. Thereafter, he drawn two samples of I.D liquor in the presence of LW.1 and 2 and seized the same under panchanama under Ex.P1. Thereafter he returned to police station along with accused and seized sample. During the course of investigation, basing on Ex.P1 he registered a case in Cr.No.113 of 2016 U/Sec 7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act,1995 3C.C. 13769 of 2021 under Ex.P2 and produced her before the court for judicial remand. he sent seized sample for chemical examination and deposited remianing sample before the Deputy

Commissioner Excise Hyderabad for confisication. During the course of investigation he collected CE report under Ex.P3. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

10. It is well settled that in Criminal case, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and that the burden would not shift unless there is a presumption or defence is taken as enumerated in the IPC. In the present case, the defence of accused is one of total denial of the allegation leveled. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused. PW.1 is the I.O and filed charge sheet. Perused the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 stated in his evidence that he seized Sample of I.D. liquor in the presence of Lw1 and LW2 under cover of panchanama. The police filed report where about of LW1 and LW2 not known.

Basing on the report of police, the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW1 and 2.

The PW1 admitted in his cross examination that the place where the alleged incident took place is busy and residential commercial area. Accused is resident of Jinsi Chowrai,

Machilipura, Dhoolpet Hyderabad. LW1 is the resident of Puranapool and LW2 is the resident of Seetharambagh , Hyderabad. It shows that the house of accused and the residence of LW1 and LW2 are located at different places. PW1 stated in his cross examination that he did not call local area people to act as panch witness. The PW1 denied the suggestions that he did not conduct panchanama before LW1 and LW2. As the house of accused is situated in busy area, the PW1 ought to have conducted the panchanama before the local people are residing within the vicinity, but he failed to do so.

It show that PW1 has not conducted proper investigation. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the contents of panchanama. The PW1 stated that he sent seized sample of I.D.

liquor for chemical examination.The PW1 admitted in his cross examination that there is a delay of 5 days for sending of seized sample for chemical examination . The government chemical examiner gave the Laboratory Analysis report under Ex.P3 shows that the remarks offered in the coloum No.4 of the report that the seized substance is I.D. liquor unfit for consumption and injurious to health. But, there is no evidence on record to believe the evidence of Pw1 that he seized samples before the Lw1 and LW2. There is no evidence on record to believe that the sample covered under Ex.P3 pertains to this case.

As such, the evidence of Pw1 appears to be doubtful regarding seizure of samples under panchanama. There is no evidence elicited by the prosecution during the cross examination of PW.1 to connect the accused for the alleged offence. Taking in to 4C.C. 13769 of 2021 consideration of all these facts, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove ingredient of offences beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has committed offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP. Prohibition Act. As such,accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. In view of the above reason recorded, accused is found not guilty for the alleged offence.

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 7(A) R/w 8(e) of

A.P Prohibition Act and is acquitted U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C . The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months. The MO1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Gr.-III directly on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 10 th day of November, 2022.

I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 P. Jashwanth Naidu - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 - panchanama

Ex. P2 - COR

Ex. P3 – Chemical examination report

FOR THE DEFENCE: --Nil--

M.Os. MARKED

Mo1 is I.D. Liquor

I ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

5C.C. 13769 of 2021

FORM NO.71/72

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT C.C No. 13769/2021 DISTRICT : HYDERABAD

CALENDER CASE TRIED BY I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : HYD DATE OF :

1. Offence09-02-2016

2.Report of complaint 09-02-2016

3.Apprehension of accused 09-02-2016

4. Released on bail10-02-2016

5.Filing of charge sheet20-09-2021

6.Taking cognizance27-09-2021

7.Furnishing of copies to accused11-10-2022

8.Recording plea of accused14-10-2022

9.Commencement of trial26-10-2022

10.Closure of trial26-10-2022

11.Examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. 01-11-2022

12.Sentence or Order 10-11-2022 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT / PoliceThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, Station & Crime No.PS Dhoolpet (Cr.No.113/16) NAME OF THE ACCUSED ANDSurekha Bai, W/o. Govind SinghAge.40 yrs, DESCRIPTIVE PARTICULARS R/o.H.No.14-11-432,JinsiChowrahi, Machilipura,Dhoolpet, Hyderabad. CHARGE UNDER SECTION U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP. Prohibition Act

PLEA OF THE ACCUSEDPLEADED NOT GUILTY

FINDING OF THE JUDGEFOUND NOT GUILTY

SENTENCE OR ORDERACQUITTED

PROSECUTION DEFENDED BY WHOM Asst. Public Prosecutor ACCUSED DEFENDED BY WHOMSri.Sudesh Kumar Advocate

I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Remarks : C.C No. 13769/2021 DATE OF JUDGMENT10-11-2022

To. The Hon'ble I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. DIS. No. /I ACMM/Hyd/2022DATED: -11-2022