Sri M.S.Karimulla

C.C.110/2015 1 Dt.13-07-2023

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

MARKAPUR

C.C. No.110 of 2015 In

Crime No.213 of 2011 of Markapur Town Police Station

1)Offence :23.12.2010

2)Complaint :05.12.2011

3)Apprehensionof:02.11.2016 A1toA3

4)Commencementof:14.10.2019 Trial

5)Close of Trial:06.07.2023

6)Judgment:13.07.2023

7)Complainant:The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Marakapur Town Police Station

8)Name of the Accused:1.Godugu Guravappa @ Gurappa, S/o. Dasthagiri,agedabout54years, Superintendent in R&B Department, near Vivekanda School, Pulivendul R&B Office, Opposite Police Station , Now R/o. Beside Canal, Nanakpuram Chennuru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

2. Godugu Abdul Hafeez, S/o. Guravappa @ Gurappa, aged about 35 years, Vivekanda Nagar Colony, Pulivendula town of YSR Kadapa District.

3. Godugu Abdul Habeeb, S/o. Guravappa @ Gurappa , aged about 28 years, Lakshmi Nagar, H.No.1-137, Chennur Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, N/o. Mallela Village, Thonduru Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District.

9)Offence: 420, 468 and 471 of IPC

10)Plea of Accused:NOT GUILTY

11)Finding:Found not Guilty

12)Result: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty

C.C.110/2015 2 Dt.13-07-2023 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code. As there is no property no property order is passed in this case.

13)Explanation for delay:The case was taken on file on 31.03.2015 Trial commenced on 14.10.2019 and closed on 06.07.2023 and the Judgment was pronounced on 13.07.2023. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-Sri M.S.Karimulla,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

MARKAPUR.

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

MARKAPUR.

Copy submitted to:

1.The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2.The Hon’ble Secretary-cum-Senior Civil Judge, DLSA, Ongole.

Copy to:

2.The Asst. Public Prosecutor, IAJMFC Court, Markapur.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

C.C.110/2015 3 Dt.13-07-2023

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: MARKAPUR

Present:- Sri M.S. KARIMULLA ,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur,

FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

Thursday, this the 13th day of July, 2023.

Calendar Case No.110 of 2015

Between: The State: Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Markapur Town Police Station. …Complainant

AND

1.Godugu Guravappa @ Gurappa, S/o. Dasthagiri, aged about 54 years, Superintendent in R&B Department, near Vivekanda School, Pulivendul R&B Office, Opposite Police Station , Now R/o. Beside Canal, Nanakpuram Chennuru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.

2.Godugu Abdul Hafeez, S/o. Guravappa @ Gurappa, aged about 35 years, Vivekanda Nagar Colony, Pulivendula town of YSR Kadapa District.

3.Godugu Abdul Habeeb, S/o. Guravappa @ Gurappa , aged about 28 years, Lakshmi Nagar, H.No.1-137, Chennur Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, N/ o. Mallela Village, Thonduru Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa...A1 to A3 District.

Present: Kum K.B.Lakshmi Kumari, Sr.A.P.P. for the State/complainant. Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, defence Counsel for the A1 to A3.

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Markapur Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the A1 to A3 in Cr.No.213/2011 for the offences punishable under Sec.420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of prosecution case are that :-

i)The A1 Godugu Guravappa @ Gurappa is the resident of Beside Canal,

Nanakpuram Chennuru Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, the A2 Godugu Abdul

Hafeez is the resident of Vivekanda Nagar Colony, Pulivendula town of YSR

Kadapa District, the A3 Godugu Abdul Habeeb is the resident of Lakshmi

C.C.110/2015 4 Dt.13-07-2023

Nagar, H.No.1-137, Chennur Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The offence took place at Markapur Town which is within limits of Markarpur town police and with in jurisdiction of this court. The PW1 Ch.V.Bala Chiranjeevi,

PW2 M.V.Ramana and LW3 Uttaradi Ravindrachari, got acquaintance with A1 to A3 through PW3 K.Kotilingam and PW3 informed to PW1, PW2 & LW3 that the A1 to A3 would provide Government Jobs which would cost around

Rs.9,00,000/- per each person. Accordingly by believing the words of A1 to

A3, the PW1, PW2 and LW3 paid total i.e., each Rs.9,00,000/-amount in installments with a hope to get Government Jobs. The PW1, PW2 and LW3 paid Rs.9,00,000/- each to A1 to A3 by directly and so also by depositing in

Bank Accounts of A2, A3 and LW6 D.Kamal Bee@ Lakshmi. The PW1 also gave an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to A1 to A3, on behalf of PW4 Ch.Subbaiah who is his younger brother.

ii)The A1 to A3 took PW1, PW2, LW3 and PW4 to a private clinic hospital as if Medical Tests are being conducted after obtaining their signatures on some answer sheets as if an examination was conducted by the Railway

Department. The A1 to A3 gave a copy of appointment order to them by informing them to attend before personal office General Manager SDBD on 23-12-2010 for training and they would also get original appointment orders by post. As the date of training came to closer and as the PW1, PW2 , LW3 and PW4 did not get original orders by post they all approached Railway authorities who examined the appointment orders given by A1 to A3 and stated those appointment orders are fake orders.

Later, the PW1, PW2, LW3 and PW4 realized that they were cheated by A1 to A3 and they asked for them for refund of money for which the A1 to A3 refused. Hence, the PW1 came to Police Station and gave report on 05.12.2011.

C.C.110/2015 5 Dt.13-07-2023

Basing on the report of PW1, PW9 Sub-Inspector of Police, Markapur

Town Police Station, registered the same as a case in crime no.213/2011 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468 of IPC initially.

iii)During the course of investigation, PW9 Sub-Inspector of Police examined recorded the statements of Pws.1 to PW4 and LW3 at police station and obtained bank details from the account of LW6 D.Kamal Bee @

Lakshmi.

iv) Later PW10 Sub Inspector of Police, Markapur Town Police Station, re- examined all the witnesses and found forged documents are used as genuine by the A1 to A3 and added 471 of IPC to 420, 468 of IPC.

The A1 got Anticipatory bail as per orders of Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide in Crl.M.P No.110/2012 and surrendered

before PW7 T.P.Rangaiah, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who released

him on 13-02-2012.

v) The PW8 Sub-Inspector of Police, Komarole Police Station arrested A2 on 03-07-2012 in crime no. 35/2012 for the offences punishable under section 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code of Komarole Police Station.

On obtaining Prisoner Transit Warrant by Markapur Town Police Station, the

A2 was produced in this case also on 26-07-2012. .

vi) On 14-10-2014 PW10 Sub-Inspector of Police, arrested A3 and produced him before this Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. The PW10 also recorded the 161(3) Cr.P.C., statements of LW6 as her involvement in this case is not made out and some amounts were deposited in her account even without her knowledge and there is no mentioning of her name in the report. Hence, as per orders of Additional Superintendent of Police

PW10 deleted the name of A4 Dudekula Kamal Bee @ Lakshmi in this case and she was shown as LW6. Later PW10 after completion of investigation

C.C.110/2015 6 Dt.13-07-2023 filed charge sheet against the A1 to A3.

3.Considering the material on record, this court took cognizance of offences punishable under Sec.,420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.The A1 to A3 were examined under Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure

Code, accusation for the offence punishable under Sec.420, 468 and 471 of

Indian Penal Code and charges for the said offences are framed and the same is read over to A1 to A3 for which the A1 to A3 denied the commission offences and the A1 to A3 are pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of A1 to A3, prosecution examined PW1 to

PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.15.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that were appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated under Sec.313(1)(b) of

Code of Criminal Procedure for which, the A1 to A3 denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against

the A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Section

420, 468 and 471 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

In order to prove the case of prosecution the prosecution examined

PW1 Ch.V.Bala Chiranjeevi, PW2 M.V.Ramana and PW4 Ch.Subbaiah who are victims in this case. The evidence of LW3 U.Ravindrachari, who is another victim is closed as his whereabouts is not known.

C.C.110/2015 7 Dt.13-07-2023

The PW1 and PW2 supported the case of prosecution initially by deposing the facts of this case as discussed above. The report of PW1, the appointment letter dt.10-06-2010, sanctioning letter and residential proof certificates are marked as Ex.P1 to P3 through PW1. Similarly the appointment order dt. 10-06-2020, sanctioning letter and residential proof certificates are marked as Ex.P5 to P7 through PW2. The PW4 who is one of the victims and younger brother of PW1 did not support the case of prosecution and he was declared as hostile.

11.Subsequently the PW1 and PW2 during the pendency of case have compromised with A1 to A3 and they were recalled and the PW1 and PW2 stated in their further cross-examination in one voice that they both gave evidence earlier at the instance of police, they did not know the said facts personally , they even did not know the A1 to A3 and they stated earlier in their respective chief examination as if they knew them at the instance of police , they deposed as if they paid amount to A1 to A3 but in fact they never paid any amount to them, the contents of Ex.P1 report was scribed by police and at their request only the PW1 put his signature on it , the police handed over the xerox copies Exs.P2 to Ex.P7 i.e, sanction letters, Residential Proof Certificates and appointment letter to

PW1 and at their instance only PW1 produced the Exs.P2 to Ex.P7 before this court and infact they do not know the contents of Exs.P2 to P7 and they also stated they have no objection if A1 to A3 are acquitted in this case as the matter is settled out of the court before elders.

12. PW3 who is said to be mediator who introduced PW1, PW2, LW3 and

PW4 to A1 to A3 also did not support the case of prosecution and he is also turned hostile to the case of prosecution . His under section 161 Code of

Criminal Procedure statement is marked as Ex.P8.

C.C.110/2015 8 Dt.13-07-2023 13.The PW4 who is one of the victims in this case and who is younger brother of PW1 stated in his cross-examination that PW1 is his elder brother PW2 and PW3 are his friends, he did not know A1 to A3 in this case, earlier he gave evidence at the instance of police and A1 to A3 never collected any amount either from him or PW1 and PW2 under the guise providing Railway Jobs to them and either himself or PW1 did not pay any amount to A1 to A3 on the promise made by A1 to A3, himself PW1 and

PW2 have compromised with A1 to A3 outside the court and he has no objection if A1 to A3 are acquitted in this case. .

14.The PW5 who is the mediator at the time of arrest of A3 by PW10 Sub-

Inspector of Police and recording confession statement of A3 stated he did not know the name of constable who called him to the police station and so also in PCNo., he did not receive any written request to act mediator as the main victims PW1 and PW2 and PW4 have compromised with the A1 to

A3 during the pendency of this case the evidence PW5 who is mediator on confession report of A3 is of no use to the case of prosecution .

15.PW6 who is said to be mediator at the time of arrest of A2 by PW8 Sub

Inspector of Police, Komarole Police Station, also did not support the case of the prosecution and he also turned hostile. His signature on the mediator report is marked as Ex.P9, hence his evidence is also is of no useful to the case of prosecution.

16.PW7 who is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who arrested A1 and released him as A1 obtained Anticipatory Bail from the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. vide in Crl.M.P.No.1152/2012 on 13-02-2012. Therefore the scope of the evidence of PW7 is very limited to the extent of releasing A1 after surrendering by him as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. , hence his evidence is also of no use to the case of prosecution .

C.C.110/2015 9 Dt.13-07-2023 17.PW8 Sub-Inspector of Police of Komarole Police Station who arrested

A2 in the presence of LW7 and PW6, the confession of A2 is marked as

Ex.P10 through him. As PW6 mediator turned hostile and the evidence of

LW7 is closed as died and the confession commission given by A2 before police is hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore the evidence of PW8 and the Ex.P10 mediator report are of no use to this case of prosecution .

18. PW9 Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered this case basing on the report of PW1 and did a part of investigation by recording 161(3) Code of

Criminal Procedure of statements of Pws.1 to PW4 and LW3 and he also sent a requisition to LW11 Manager State Bank of Hyderabad for furnishing account particulars of LW6 D.Kamal Bee @ Lakshmi. Ex.P11 FIR, Ex.P12

Requisition and Ex.P13 statement of account of LW6 are marked through him and he showed LW6 Kamal Bee @ Lakshmi as A4 under a memo basing on the statements of Pws.1 to PW4 and LW3 and the memo is marked as

Ex.P14.

It is elicited from the cross of PW9 that none of the persons stated to him about the forgery and he did not enquire about the person who issued

Ex.P3 sanctioning letter and there are no signatures of A1 to A3 on Ex.P2 to

Ex.P6 to show that they were prepared by A1 to A3 and he did not examine concerned officer in the railway department to ascertain whether Ex.P3 to

P6 sanctioning and appointment orders are genuine or not nor he cited them as witnesses in this case. He also stated he cannot say whether

Ex.P3 to P6 are genuine or not as the investigation does not reveal about the same and he did not obtain any document to ascertain LW6 D. Kamal be is also called as Lakshmi. He also stated that there is no documentary evidence to show that Ex.P3 to P6 are forged documents.

C.C.110/2015 10 Dt.13-07-2023 19. PW10 Sub Inspector of Police, deposed about arrest of A3 under cover of mediator report which is marked as Ex.P15 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet by re-examining PW1 and by examining

LW6. The PW10 stated in his cross-examination he did not obtain the signature of A3 on Ex.P15 mediator report, he did not examine police constables who accompanied him and who signed on Ex.P15 including

Home Guard who scribed Ex.P15 and he also did not show them as witnesses in this case. Surprisingly the PW10 obtained the signatures of

PW2 who is one of the victims as a mediator in Ex.P15 and he did not give any notice to PW2 in writing to come and act as mediator.

PW10 also stated some words are inserted at page no. 3 of Ex.P15 mediator report. He also stated the PW1 to PW4 and LW3 did not state him with regard to the handing over of Ex.P2 to P7 to him. PW10 also did not examine any of the railway employees in this case to ascertain whether

Ex.P3 to P6 are genuine or not. There is no any documentary evidence to show A1 to A3 received amount from PW1 and PW2 and LW3 and PW4.

Therefore the confession statements of A3 under Ex.P15 mediator report is not valid and it is also hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act. As all the material witnesses and victims i.e., PW1, PW2 and PW4 turned hostile during the pendency of this case as they have entered into compromise with A1 to A3 , as the independent witnesses I.e,, PW3 who introduced the victims to A1 to A3 also did not support the case of prosecution, the mediator I.e, PW6 at the time of arrest of A2 is also turned hostile and the evidence of PW5 who is another mediator at the time of arrest of A3 is hit by Section 25, 26 of Indian Evidence Act and there is no any material evidence except the evidence of Investigating Officer I.,e

PW7 to PW10.

C.C.110/2015 11 Dt.13-07-2023

As the main victims have compromised with A1 to A3, the evidence of PWs7 to PW10 Investigating Officers is also of no useful to the case of prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove the offences punishable under section 420 of IPC I.,e A1 to A3 cheated PW1, PW2, LW3 and PW4 dishonestly and induced them delivery of amount. The prosecution also miserably failed top prove that A1 to A3 committed forgery intending that the forged documents shall be used for the purpose of cheating punishable under section 468 of IPC. The prosecution also miserably failed prove that A1 to A3 fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine any documents which they knew or have reason to believe to be forged documents.

Therefore in the light of above facts and circumstances of the cases as the all material witnesses are turned hostile, hence A1 to A3 are entitled for an

Acquittal.

20. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. As there is no property no property order is passed in this case.

(Typed by the stenographer and after correction, pronounced by me in open Court on this the13th day of July, 2023).

Sd/-Sri M.S.Karimulla,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW1: Ch.Venkata Bala Chiranjeevi -none-

PW2: M.Venkata Ramana.

PW3: K.Kotilingamma.

C.C.110/2015 12 Dt.13-07-2023

PW4: Ch. Subbaiah.

PW5: S.Vidya Sagar.

PW6: M.Singaraiah.

PW7: T.P.Rangaiah, ASI, Markapur town PS.

PW8: M.Rama Naik, SI of Police, Komarole PS.

PW9: B.V.V.Subba Rao, SI of Police, Markapur Town PS.

PW10: V.Rambabau, SI of Police, Markapur Town PS.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the Report of PW1.

Ex.P2 is the appointment letter of PW1 dt. 10-06-2020.

Ex.P3 is the Sanctioning letter.

Ex.P4 is the Residential proof certificate.

Ex.P5 is the appointment letter dt. 10-06-2010.

Ex.P6: is the Sanctioning letter.

Ex.P7; is the Residential Proof Certificate.

Ex.P8: is the 161(3) Code of Criminal Procedure statements of PW3.

Ex.P9: is the Signature on mediator certified copy of mediatornama

Ex.P10: is the mediatornama.

Ex.P11: is the FIR.

Ex.P12: is the Requisition letter.

Ex.P13: is the Letter of SBH, Account copy of Lakshmi Thonur.

Ex.P14: is the Memo Section 147 of IPC addition.

Ex.P15: is the Mediator report.

For Defense:-

Nil

Material Object:-

NIL // True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

MARKAPUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

PRESENT: SRI.M.S. KARIMULLA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR

F.A.C. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MARKAPUR Wednesday, the 31st day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 69 of 2023

BETWEEN:

State Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Yerragondapalem. ....Complainant

And

Pallapu Pedda Venkateswarlu, s/o Tirupalu. Age 73 years, Caste by Vaddera, r/o Nadigadda village, Thripuranthakam Mandal,

Prakasam District.. ....Accused

This case came up before me on 29.05.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P, for the complainant and of Sri D.C.K. Naik, Advocate for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

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

The State Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Yerragondapalem filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 in Cr.No. 214/2021 of SEB Station, Markapur.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 15.08.2021 at 05-00 p.m., at Power Sub Station located at right side of chapta at about 3 furlongs distance from the road leads to Dupadu to Nadigadda village of

Thripuranethakam Mandal, the P.W.2-N.Venkata Ramana, Enforcement -Inspector, SEB

Station, Yerragondapalem conducted a raid along with her staff i.e., L.W.1-K.Suresh Babu,

Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem and P.W.1-C.Ramesh Babu,

Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem and they noticed the accused was found in possession of Supreme Blend Superior whisky – 05 (180 m.l) bottles and 8 PM premium black exclusive whisky – 01 (750 m.l) bottle (Total 06 bottles) kept in a bag and they arrested the accused. Pw.2 took two bottles as samples from each brand for chemical analysis and kept remaining 04 bottles in the same bag seized the said Liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of special report in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.1 as no one came forward to act as mediators. Pw.2 brought the accused along with seized liquor bottles to the police station and Pw.2 registered the special report as a case in

Cr.No.214/2021 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and took up investigation.

Then P.W.2 released the accused on station bail. Later, the P.W.2 received the chemical analysis report in respect of samples drawn by her from the Government Chemical

Examiner, Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Guntur; and after completion of investigation

P.W.2 filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment)

Act-2020.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment)

Act-2020 and a charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 was framed and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in telugu, and having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 and M.O.2.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point arises for determination is “whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. Point :

The case of the prosecution is that on 15.08.2021 at 05-00 p.m., at Power Sub Station located at right side of chapta at about 3 furlongs distance from the road leads to Dupadu to Nadigadda village of Thripuranethakam Mandal, the P.W.2-N.Venkata Ramana,

Enforcement -Inspector, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem conducted a raid along with her staff i.e., L.W.1-K.Suresh Babu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem and

P.W.1-C.Ramesh Babu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem and they noticed the accused was found in possession of Supreme Blend Superior whisky – 05 (180 m.l) bottles and 8 PM premium black exclusive whisky – 01 (750 m.l) bottle (Total 06 bottles) kept in a bag and they arrested the accused. Pw.2 took two bottles as samples from each brand for chemical analysis and kept remaining 04 bottles in the same bag seized the said Liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of special report under Ex.P.1 in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.1 as no one came forward to act as mediators. Pw.2 brought the accused along with seized liquor bottles to the police station and Pw.2 registered the special report under Ex.P.2 F.I.R as a case in Cr.No.214/2021 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and took up investigation. Then P.W.2 released the accused on station bail. During the course of investigation, P.W.2 forwarded the sample to chemical examiner at Guntur along with letter of advice, later she obtained Ex.P.3 analysis report which disclosed that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after completion of investigation P.W.2 filed charge sheet.

11. To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1-

C.Ramesh Babu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem who accompanied the P.W.2 C.I. of Police to the scene of offence and P.W.2 C.I. of Police. In this case the search was alleged to have been done at Power Sub Station located at right side of chapta at about 3 furlongs distance from the road leads to Dupadu to Nadigadda village of

Thripuranethakam Mandal, which is busy locality and it was near by residential houses admittedly and the P.W.2 failed to secure mediators.

12.It is also not the case of prosecution that they tried for securing the mediators by issuing notices in writing to the neighbours. The prosecution also did not try to secure any

Revenue officials to act as mediators at the time of search. When there is possibility to secure independent mediators as P.Ws.1 & 2 stated scene of offence is a busy locality and near by residential houses and without securing them the PW.2 was inclined to continue to draft police proceedings. The reason mentioned in Ex.P1 special report that they tried for mediators but none came forward to act as mediators is not believable because no names are mentioned in Ex.P1 special report showing to whom the police requested to act as mediators and P.W.1 and P.W.2 also stated in their cross examination that the scene of offence is a very busy locality and near by residential houses.

13.The P.W.2 should have issued a notice to the inhabitants of the locality in writing to act as mediators. The above circumstances go to show that the P.W.2 did not make any effort to secure the presence of witnesses of that locality or the Government Revenue

Officials by giving notice to them in writing to act as mediators at the time of search and seizure of the property. As per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C the search is to be done in the presence of two or moreindependent or respectable inhabitants of the locality, in which the place to be searched is situated. As the search is not conducted in the presence of two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated.

It is held in a case between Yeduri Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. The State of A.P. which is reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 347 that “if the independent persons refused to act as mediators then the Investigation Officer has to give a notice to them in writing requesting them to act as mediators and in the absence of the same the oral evidence of the police officials including the Investigating Officer that they requested the persons orally to come and act as mediators is not believable”.

14.As per the case of prosecution accused alleged to have been found in possession of

Supreme Blend Superior whisky – 05 (180 m.l)bottles and 8 PM premium black exclusive whisky – 01 (750 m.l)bottle (Total 06 bottles kept in a bag,. The P.W.2 took 180 ml liquor (two bottles) from each brand from the seized property, but she did not send sample liquor to the chemical analyst immediately which was seized on 15.08.2021 but the same is received by the chemical analyst on 03.09.2021. So there is inordinate delay i.e., 20 days in sending the sample to the chemical analyst. There is no explanation from the prosecution for the said delay and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution.

15.There is no document that prosecution produced remaining 04 liquor bottles

before Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Nellore and obtained necessary orders. The

prosecution did not comply provisions of Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition Act which mandates the Investigation Officer who seized contraband shall without any unreasonable delay produce it before Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement or the Superintendent of Police or Executive Magistrate who has jurisdiction over the area and the same is not complied which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

16.In this case the P.W.2 detected the offence, registered the crime and investigated the case. There is no hard and fast rule that a person who detects the case cannot register and investigate the case. The P.W.2 failed to secure mediators, as no one came forward to act as mediators, but the names who were called to act as mediators are not referred in Ex.P.1 special proceedings. P.Ws.1 & 2 are the excise officials. There is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2. The evidence of L.W.1-K.Suresh Babu, Enforcement Constable, SEB

Station, Yerragondapalem is given up by prosecution.

It is held in a case between T. Rambabu Bulli and Another Vs. The State of A.P.

(2009 (3) LS 340) that when the witnesses are police officials and if there is opportunity for them to secure independent mediators, if police fails to do so, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of police people.

17.The only basis for the prosecution for its case is the confession of accused made to the police but the same is hit by Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act which says confession to police officer and confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved, hence the same cannot be taken into consideration.

18. In view of the above discussion and case law, as the mandatory provision U/Sec.100(4)

Cr.P.C is not followed, the defacto-complainant and investigation officer is one and the same and there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, confession made to the police is hit by Sections 25, 26 of Indian Evidence Act and, there is inordinate delay in sending the sample bottle to the chemical analyst and non compliance of Section 13 of A.P.

Prohibition Act, hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence 34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and he is entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of

A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and consequently he is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1-180 ml. sample bottle of Supreme Blend Superior whisky and M.O.2- 180 m.l.

sample bottle of 8 PM premium black exclusive whisky in C.P.R. No.88/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 31st day of May, 2023.

Sd/- M.S. Karimulla

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR.

FAC ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, MARKAPUR,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1: C.Ramesh Babu, Enforcement Constable, Yerragondapalem P.W.2: N.Venkata Ramana, Enforcement C.I, Yerragondapalem

FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Special Report, dt.15.08.2021 Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : 180 ml sample bottle of Supreme Blend Superior whisky in C.P.R. No.88/2023. M.O.2 : 180 ml sample bottle of 8 PM premium black exclusive whisky in C.P.R. No.88/2023.

Ild/- M.S.K

PJCJ MRKP.,

FAC AJMFC, MRKP

// True copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Markapur

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: MARKAPUR

PRESENT: SRI.M.S. KARIMULLA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR

F.A.C. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MARKAPUR Sunday, the 26th day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 69 of 2023

(Cr.No. 214/2021 of S.E.B, Yerragondapalem)

BETWEEN:

State Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Yerragondapalem. ....Complainant

And

Pallapu Pedda Venkateswarlu, s/o Tirupalu. Age 73 years, Caste by Vaddera, r/o Nadigadda village, Thripuranthakam Mandal,

Prakasam District.. ....Accused

Date of offence: 15.08.2021 Date of complaint: 15.08.2021 Apprehension of accused : 15.08.2021 Release on bail: 15.08.2021 (station bail) Commencement of trial : 25.05.2023 Closure of trial: 26.05.2023 Sentence or order : 31.05.2023 Explanation for delay: --- Offence: U/Sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act- 2020 Plea of the accused : Not Guilty Finding of the Judge: Found not guilty

Sentence or order:

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

A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and consequently he is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1-180 ml. sample bottle of Supreme Blend Superior whisky and M.O.2- 180 m.l.

sample bottle of 8 PM premium black exclusive whisky in C.P.R. No.88/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M.S. Karimulla

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR.

FAC ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, MARKAPUR,

Copy submittedThe Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Ongole,Prakasam District.

// True copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Markapur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

PRESENT: SRI.M.S. KARIMULLA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR

F.A.C. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MARKAPUR Wednesday, the 24th day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 258 of 2023

BETWEEN:

State Enforcement Inspector,

SEB Station, Markapur. ....Complainant

And

Vipparla Raja Sekhar, s/o Rajulaiah, Age 42 years, Caste by Kamma, r/o Birudulanarava village,

Markapur Mandal. ....Accused

This case came up before me on 23.05.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P, for the complainant and of Sri Chilaka Chakravarthi, Advocate for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

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

The State Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Markapur, filed the charge sheet against accusedfor the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act- 2020 in Cr.No. 38/2022 of SEB Station, Markapur.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 23.02.2022 at 07-30 a.m., at Yellamma temple entrance of Birudula Narava village, Markapur Mandal, the P.W.2-A.Padmaja, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB

Station, Markapur conducted a raid along with her staff i.e., P.W.1-V.Chennakesavulu,

Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Markapur and L.W.2-T.Usha Rani, Enforcement

Constable, SEB Station, Markapur and they noticed the accused was found in a possession of Good Friends Deluxe whisky – 25 (180 m.l) bottles kept in a black colour school bag and they arrested the accused and he stated that he purchased the liquor and sold at higher price for his lively hood. Pw.2 took one bottle as sample for chemical analysis and kept remaining 24 bottles in the same bag seized the said

Liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of special report in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.2 as no one came forward to act as mediators. Pw.2 brought the accused along with seized liquor bottles i.e.24 liters of I.D liquor to the police station and Pw.2 registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.38/2022 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and took up investigation. The P.W.2 produced the accused before the court for judicial custody on 23.02.2022. Later, the LW.4-

N.Ragamai, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Markapur received the chemical analysis report in respect of sample drawn by P.W.2 from the Government Chemical 2

Examiner, Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Guntur; and after completion of investigation L.W.4 filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and a charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act- 2020 was framed and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in telugu, and having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point arises for determination is “whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment) Act-2020, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. Point :

The case of the prosecution is that On 23.02.2022 at 07-30 a.m., at Yellamma temple entrance of Birudula Narava village, Markapur Mandal, the P.W.2-A.Padmaja,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Markapur conducted a raid along with her staff i.e., P.W.1-V.Chennakesavulu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Markapur and L.W.2-T.Usha Rani, Enforcement Woman Constable, SEB Station, Markapur and they noticed the accused was found in a possession of Good Friends Deluxe whisky – 25 (180 m.l) bottles kept in a black colour school bag and they arrested the accused and he stated that he purchased the liquor and sold at higher price for his lively hood.

Pw.2 took one bottle as sample for chemical analysis and kept remaining 24 bottles in the same bag seized the said Liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of special report in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.2 as no one came forward to act as mediators. Pw.2 brought the accused along with seized liquor bottles i.e.24 liters of

I.D liquor to the police station and Pw.2 registered the special report as a case in

Cr.No.38/2022 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and took up investigation. The P.W.2 produced the accused before the court for judicial custody 3 on 23.02.2022. Later, the LW.4-N.Ragamai, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station,

Markapur received the chemical analysis report in respect of sample drawn by P.W.2 from the Government Chemical Examiner, Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Guntur; and after completion of investigation L.W.4 filed charge sheet.

11. On that, the P.W.2 seized the said liquor bottles and also drawn a sample containing 180 ml under a cover of Ex.P1 special report. Then P.W.2 brought the accused along with liquor bottles to the police Station and basing on the said special report (Ex.P1) she registered the special report as Ex.P1 F.I.R in crime number 38/2022 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and P.W.2 produced the accused before this court for judicial custody. During the course of investigation, she forwarded the sample to chemical examiner at Guntur along with Ex.P.1 letter of advice, later she obtained Ex.P3 analysis report which discloses that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after completion of investigation LW.4-N.Ragamai, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station,

Markapur filed charge sheet.

12. To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

P.W.1-V. Chennakesavulu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Markapur who accompanied the P.W.2 S.I. of Police to the scene of offence along with L.W.2-T.Usha

Rani, Enforcement Woman Constable, SEB Station, Markapur. In this case the search was alleged to have been done at Yellamma temple entrance of Birudula Narava village, Markapur Mandal, which is busy locality and it was surrounded by residential houses admittedly and the P.W.2 failed to secure mediators.

13.As per the case of prosecution accused alleged to have been found in possession of Good Friends Deluxe whisky – 25 (180 m.l)bottles kept in a black colour school bag. The P.W.2 took 180 ml liquor from the seized property, but she did not send sample liquor to the chemical analyst immediately which was seized on 23.02.2022 but the same is received by the chemical analyst on 25.03.2022. So there is inordinate delay i.e., 31 days in sending the sample to the chemical analyst. There is no explanation from the prosecution for the said delay and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution.

14.There is no document that prosecution produced remaining 24 liquor bottles

before Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Nellore and obtained necessary orders. The

prosecution did not comply provisions of Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition Act which mandates the Investigation Officer who seized contraband shall without any unreasonable delay produce it before Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement or the Superintendent of Police or

Executive Magistrate who has jurisdiction over the area and the same is not complied which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

4

15.It is also not the case of prosecution that they tried for securing the mediators by issuing notices in writing to the neighbours. The prosecution also did not try to secure any Revenue officials to act as mediators at the time of search. When there is possibility to secure independent mediators as P.Ws.1 & 2 stated scene of offence is a busy locality and surrounded by residential houses and without securing them the

PW.2 was inclined to continue to draft police proceedings. The reason mentioned in

Ex.P1 special report that they tried for mediators but none came forward to act as mediators is not believable because no names are mentioned in Ex.P1 special report showing to whom the police requested to act as mediators and P.W.1 and P.W.2 also stated in their cross examination that the scene of offence is a very busy locality and surrounded by residential houses.

It is held in a case between Yeduri Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. The State of A.P.

which is reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 347 that “if the independent persons refused to act as mediators then the Investigation Officer has to give a notice to them in writing requesting them to act as mediators and in the absence of the same the oral evidence of the police officials including the Investigating Officer that they requested the persons orally to come and act as mediators is not believable”.

16.The P.W.2 should have issued a notice to the inhabitants of the locality in writing to act as mediators. The above circumstances go to show that the P.W.2 did not make any effort to secure the presence of witnesses of that locality or the

Government Revenue Officials by giving notice to them in writing to act as mediators at the time of search and seizure of the property. As per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C the search is to be done in the presence of two or moreindependent or respectable inhabitants of the locality, in which the place to be searched is situated. As the search is not conducted in the presence of two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated.

17.In this case the P.W.2 detected the offence, registered the crime and investigated the case. There is no hard and fast rule that a person who detects the case cannot register and investigate the case. The P.W.2 failed to secure mediators, as no one come forward to act as mediators, but the names who were called to act as mediators are not referred in Ex.P.1 special proceedings. P.Ws.1 & 2 are the excise officials. There is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2.

It is held in a case between T. Rambabu Bulli and Another Vs. The State of

A.P. (2009 (3) LS 340) that when the witnesses are police officials and if there is opportunity for them to secure independent mediators, if police fails to do so, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of police people.

18.The only basis for the prosecution for its case is the confession of accused made to the police but the same is hit by Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act which 5 says confession to police officer and confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved, hence the same cannot be taken into consideration.

19. In view of the above discussion and case law, as the mandatory provision

U/Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C is not followed, the defacto-complainant and investigation officer is one and the same and there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1,

P.W.2, confession made to the police is hit by Sections 25, 26 of Indian Evidence Act and, there is inordinate delay in sending the sample bottle to the chemical analyst and non compliance of Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition Act, hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence 34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and he is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and consequently he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1-180 ml., sample bottle in CPR No.75/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 24th day of May, 2023.

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, MARKAPUR,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1: V.Chenna Kesavulu, Enforcement Constable, Markapur P.W.2: A.Padmaja, Enforcement S.I, Markapur

FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Special Report, dt.23.02.2022 Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : 180 ml sample bottle of Good Friends Deluxe whisky in CPR No.75/2023.

JFCM., MRKP.,

FAC PJCJ, MRKP

6

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

PRESENT: SRI.M.S. KARIMULLA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR

F.A.C. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MARKAPUR Wednesday, the 24th day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 258 of 2023

Cr.No. 38/2022 of S.E.B, Markapur

BETWEEN:

State Enforcement Inspector,

SEB Station, Markapur. ....Complainant

And

Vipparla Raja Sekhar, s/o Rajulaiah, Age 42 years, Caste by Kamma, r/o Birudulanarava village,

Markapur Mandal.. ....Accused

Date of offence: 23.02.2022 Date of complaint: 23.02.2022 Apprehension of accused : 23.02.2022 Release on bail: 03.03.2022 Commencement of trial : 22.05.2023 Closure of trial: 22.05.2023 Sentence or order : 24.05.2023 Explanation for delay: --- Offence: U/Sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act- 2020 Plea of the accused : Not Guilty Finding of the Judge: Found not guilty Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and consequently he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1-180 ml., sample bottle in CPR No.75/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, MARKAPUR,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR.

Copy submittedThe Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Ongole,

Prakasam District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

PRESENT: SRI.M.S. KARIMULLA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR

F.A.C. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MARKAPUR Wednesday, the 24th day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 258 of 2023

BETWEEN:

State Enforcement Inspector,

SEB Station, Markapur. ....Complainant

And

Vipparla Raja Sekhar, s/o Rajulaiah, Age 42 years, Caste by Kamma, r/o Birudulanarava village,

Markapur Mandal. ....Accused

This case came up before me on 23.05.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P, for the complainant and of Sri Chilaka Chakravarthi, Advocate for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

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

The State Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Markapur, filed the charge sheet against accusedfor the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act- 2020 in Cr.No. 38/2022 of SEB Station, Markapur.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 23.02.2022 at 07-30 a.m., at Yellamma temple entrance of Birudula Narava village, Markapur Mandal, the P.W.2-A.Padmaja, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB

Station, Markapur conducted a raid along with her staff i.e., P.W.1-V.Chennakesavulu,

Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Markapur and L.W.2-T.Usha Rani, Enforcement

Constable, SEB Station, Markapur and they noticed the accused was found in a possession of Good Friends Deluxe whisky – 25 (180 m.l) bottles kept in a black colour school bag and they arrested the accused and he stated that he purchased the liquor and sold at higher price for his lively hood. Pw.2 took one bottle as sample for chemical analysis and kept remaining 24 bottles in the same bag seized the said

Liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of special report in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.2 as no one came forward to act as mediators. Pw.2 brought the accused along with seized liquor bottles i.e.24 liters of I.D liquor to the police station and Pw.2 registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.38/2022 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and took up investigation. The P.W.2 produced the accused before the court for judicial custody on 23.02.2022. Later, the LW.4-

N.Ragamai, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Markapur received the chemical analysis report in respect of sample drawn by P.W.2 from the Government Chemical 2

Examiner, Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Guntur; and after completion of investigation L.W.4 filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and a charge U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act- 2020 was framed and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in telugu, and having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point arises for determination is “whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise (Amendment) Act-2020, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. Point :

The case of the prosecution is that On 23.02.2022 at 07-30 a.m., at Yellamma temple entrance of Birudula Narava village, Markapur Mandal, the P.W.2-A.Padmaja,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Markapur conducted a raid along with her staff i.e., P.W.1-V.Chennakesavulu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Markapur and L.W.2-T.Usha Rani, Enforcement Woman Constable, SEB Station, Markapur and they noticed the accused was found in a possession of Good Friends Deluxe whisky – 25 (180 m.l) bottles kept in a black colour school bag and they arrested the accused and he stated that he purchased the liquor and sold at higher price for his lively hood.

Pw.2 took one bottle as sample for chemical analysis and kept remaining 24 bottles in the same bag seized the said Liquor bottles from his possession under the cover of special report in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.2 as no one came forward to act as mediators. Pw.2 brought the accused along with seized liquor bottles i.e.24 liters of

I.D liquor to the police station and Pw.2 registered the special report as a case in

Cr.No.38/2022 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and took up investigation. The P.W.2 produced the accused before the court for judicial custody 3 on 23.02.2022. Later, the LW.4-N.Ragamai, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station,

Markapur received the chemical analysis report in respect of sample drawn by P.W.2 from the Government Chemical Examiner, Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Guntur; and after completion of investigation L.W.4 filed charge sheet.

11. On that, the P.W.2 seized the said liquor bottles and also drawn a sample containing 180 ml under a cover of Ex.P1 special report. Then P.W.2 brought the accused along with liquor bottles to the police Station and basing on the said special report (Ex.P1) she registered the special report as Ex.P1 F.I.R in crime number 38/2022 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and P.W.2 produced the accused before this court for judicial custody. During the course of investigation, she forwarded the sample to chemical examiner at Guntur along with Ex.P.1 letter of advice, later she obtained Ex.P3 analysis report which discloses that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after completion of investigation LW.4-N.Ragamai, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station,

Markapur filed charge sheet.

12. To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

P.W.1-V. Chennakesavulu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Markapur who accompanied the P.W.2 S.I. of Police to the scene of offence along with L.W.2-T.Usha

Rani, Enforcement Woman Constable, SEB Station, Markapur. In this case the search was alleged to have been done at Yellamma temple entrance of Birudula Narava village, Markapur Mandal, which is busy locality and it was surrounded by residential houses admittedly and the P.W.2 failed to secure mediators.

13.As per the case of prosecution accused alleged to have been found in possession of Good Friends Deluxe whisky – 25 (180 m.l)bottles kept in a black colour school bag. The P.W.2 took 180 ml liquor from the seized property, but she did not send sample liquor to the chemical analyst immediately which was seized on 23.02.2022 but the same is received by the chemical analyst on 25.03.2022. So there is inordinate delay i.e., 31 days in sending the sample to the chemical analyst. There is no explanation from the prosecution for the said delay and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution.

14.There is no document that prosecution produced remaining 24 liquor bottles

before Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Nellore and obtained necessary orders. The

prosecution did not comply provisions of Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition Act which mandates the Investigation Officer who seized contraband shall without any unreasonable delay produce it before Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement or the Superintendent of Police or

Executive Magistrate who has jurisdiction over the area and the same is not complied which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

4

15.It is also not the case of prosecution that they tried for securing the mediators by issuing notices in writing to the neighbours. The prosecution also did not try to secure any Revenue officials to act as mediators at the time of search. When there is possibility to secure independent mediators as P.Ws.1 & 2 stated scene of offence is a busy locality and surrounded by residential houses and without securing them the

PW.2 was inclined to continue to draft police proceedings. The reason mentioned in

Ex.P1 special report that they tried for mediators but none came forward to act as mediators is not believable because no names are mentioned in Ex.P1 special report showing to whom the police requested to act as mediators and P.W.1 and P.W.2 also stated in their cross examination that the scene of offence is a very busy locality and surrounded by residential houses.

It is held in a case between Yeduri Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. The State of A.P.

which is reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 347 that “if the independent persons refused to act as mediators then the Investigation Officer has to give a notice to them in writing requesting them to act as mediators and in the absence of the same the oral evidence of the police officials including the Investigating Officer that they requested the persons orally to come and act as mediators is not believable”.

16.The P.W.2 should have issued a notice to the inhabitants of the locality in writing to act as mediators. The above circumstances go to show that the P.W.2 did not make any effort to secure the presence of witnesses of that locality or the

Government Revenue Officials by giving notice to them in writing to act as mediators at the time of search and seizure of the property. As per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C the search is to be done in the presence of two or moreindependent or respectable inhabitants of the locality, in which the place to be searched is situated. As the search is not conducted in the presence of two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated.

17.In this case the P.W.2 detected the offence, registered the crime and investigated the case. There is no hard and fast rule that a person who detects the case cannot register and investigate the case. The P.W.2 failed to secure mediators, as no one come forward to act as mediators, but the names who were called to act as mediators are not referred in Ex.P.1 special proceedings. P.Ws.1 & 2 are the excise officials. There is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2.

It is held in a case between T. Rambabu Bulli and Another Vs. The State of

A.P. (2009 (3) LS 340) that when the witnesses are police officials and if there is opportunity for them to secure independent mediators, if police fails to do so, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of police people.

18.The only basis for the prosecution for its case is the confession of accused made to the police but the same is hit by Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act which 5 says confession to police officer and confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved, hence the same cannot be taken into consideration.

19. In view of the above discussion and case law, as the mandatory provision

U/Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C is not followed, the defacto-complainant and investigation officer is one and the same and there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1,

P.W.2, confession made to the police is hit by Sections 25, 26 of Indian Evidence Act and, there is inordinate delay in sending the sample bottle to the chemical analyst and non compliance of Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition Act, hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence 34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and he is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and consequently he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1-180 ml., sample bottle in CPR No.75/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 24th day of May, 2023.

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, MARKAPUR,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1: V.Chenna Kesavulu, Enforcement Constable, Markapur P.W.2: A.Padmaja, Enforcement S.I, Markapur

FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Special Report, dt.23.02.2022 Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : 180 ml sample bottle of Good Friends Deluxe whisky in CPR No.75/2023.

JFCM., MRKP.,

FAC PJCJ, MRKP

6

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

PRESENT: SRI.M.S. KARIMULLA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR

F.A.C. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MARKAPUR Wednesday, the 24th day of May, 2023

C.C.No. 258 of 2023

Cr.No. 38/2022 of S.E.B, Markapur

BETWEEN:

State Enforcement Inspector,

SEB Station, Markapur. ....Complainant

And

Vipparla Raja Sekhar, s/o Rajulaiah, Age 42 years, Caste by Kamma, r/o Birudulanarava village,

Markapur Mandal.. ....Accused

Date of offence: 23.02.2022 Date of complaint: 23.02.2022 Apprehension of accused : 23.02.2022 Release on bail: 03.03.2022 Commencement of trial : 22.05.2023 Closure of trial: 22.05.2023 Sentence or order : 24.05.2023 Explanation for delay: --- Offence: U/Sec 34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act- 2020 Plea of the accused : Not Guilty Finding of the Judge: Found not guilty Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act-2020 and consequently he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1-180 ml., sample bottle in CPR No.75/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, MARKAPUR,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR.

Copy submittedThe Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Ongole,

Prakasam District.

1 2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: MARKAPUR

PRESENT: SRI.M.S. KARIMULLA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR

F.A.C. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MARKAPUR

Thursday, the 01st day of June, 2023

C.C.No. 1192 of 2022

BETWEEN:

State Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Markapur. ....Complainant

And

Mendraguthi Subbaiah, s/o Yarraiah, Age 45 years, Caste by Yerukala, r/o Nadigadda village, Thripuranthakam Mandal,

Prakasam District. ....Accused

This case came up before me on 31.05.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P, for the complainant and of Sri T.Velugondaiah, Advocate for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

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

The State Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Yerragondapalem, filed the charge sheet against accused for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 in Cr. No. 293/2021 of SEB Station, Yerragondapalem.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 17.10.2021 at 06.20 p.m., at left side road margin which road leads to Nadigadda village through Dupadu village pond embankment in Dupadu village of Thripuranthakam

Mandal, the P.W.1-N.Kanaka Durga, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station,

Yerragondapalem conducted a raid along with her staff i.e., L.W.1-P.Venkateswarlu,

Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem and P.W.1-C.Ramesh Babu,

Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem and they noticed the accused was found in a possession of 10 liters of I.D. liquor in a plastic can, which kept on the moped

TVS XL bearing No. AP 07 DT 0228. Pw.1 seized the said I.D. Liquor under the cover of special report in the presence of L.W.1 and P.W.3 as no one came forward to act as mediators and drawn 180 m.l. I.D. liquor as sample. Pw.1 brought the seized contraband i.e., 10 liters of I.D liquor to the police station and Pw.1 registered the special report as a case in

Cr.No.293/2021 U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 and took up investigation and they arrested the accused and P.W.1 produced the accused before the court for judicial custody on the next day i.e., on 18.10.2021. Later, the P.W.2-N.Venkata

Ramana, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem received the chemical analysis report in respect of sample drawn by P.W.1 from the Government Chemical 3

Examiner, Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Guntur; and after completion of investigation

P.W.2 filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined for the offence U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 and a charge U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment)

Act-2020 was framed and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in telugu, and having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked EXs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point arises for determination is “whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B)

of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. Point :

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2021 at 06.20 p.m., at left side road margin which road leads to Nadigadda village through Dupadu village pond embankment in

Dupadu village of Thripuranthakam Mandal, the P.W.1-N.Kanaka Durga, Enforcement Sub-

Inspector, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem conducted a raid along with her staff i.e., L.W.1-

P.Venkateswarlu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem and P.W.3-

C.Ramesh Babu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem and they noticed the accused was found in a possession of 10 liters of I.D. liquor in a plastic can, which kept on the moped TVS XL bearing No. AP 07 DT 0228. Pw.1 seized the said I.D. Liquor under the cover of Ex.P.1 special report in the presence of L.W.1 and P.W.3 as no one came forward to act as mediators and drawn 180 m.l. I.D. liquor as sample. Pw.1 brought the seized contraband i.e., 10 liters of I.D liquor to the police station and Pw.1 registered the special report as a case in Cr.No.293/2021 U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 under Ex.P.2 F.I.R. and took up investigation and they arrested the accused and P.W.1 produced the accused before the court for judicial custody on the next day i.e., on 18.10.2021. During the course of investigation, Pw.1 forwarded the sample to

Chemical examiner at Guntur along with letter of advice, Later, the P.W.2-N.Venkata

Ramana, Enforcement Inspector, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem received the Ex.P.3 analysis 4 report which discloses that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health and after completion of investigation P.W.2 filed charge sheet.

11. To prove the case of prosecution the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.3-

C.Ramesh Babu, Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem who accompanied the P.W.1 S.I. of Police to the scene of offence along with L.W.1-P.Venkateswarlu,

Enforcement Constable, SEB Station, Yerragondapalem. In this case the search was alleged to have been done at at left side road margin which road leads to Nadigadda village through Dupadu village pond embankment in Dupadu village of Thripuranthakam Mandal, which is busy locality and it was near by residential houses admittedly and the P.W.1 failed to secure mediators.

12.It is also not the case of prosecution that they tried for securing the mediators by issuing notices in writing to the neighbours. The prosecution also did not try to secure any

Revenue officials to act as mediators at the time of search. When there is possibility to secure independent mediators as P.Ws.1 & 2 stated scene of offence is a busy locality and near by residential houses and without securing them the PW.2 was inclined to continue to draft police proceedings. The reason mentioned in Ex.P.1 special report that they tried for mediators but none came forward to act as mediators is not believable because no names are mentioned in Ex.P.1 special report showing to whom the police requested to act as mediators.

13.The P.W.1 should have issued a notice to the inhabitants of the locality in writing to act as mediators. The above circumstances go to show that the P.W.1 did not make any effort to secure the presence of witnesses of that locality or the Government Revenue

Officials by giving notice to them in writing to act as mediators at the time of search and seizure of the property. As per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C the search is to be done in the presence of two or moreindependent or respectable inhabitants of the locality, in which the place to be searched is situated. As the search is not conducted in the presence of two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated.

It is held in a case between Yeduri Srinivasulu Reddy Vs. The State of A.P. which is reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 347 that “if the independent persons refused to act as mediators then the Investigation Officer has to give a notice to them in writing requesting them to act as mediators and in the absence of the same the oral evidence of the police officials including the Investigating Officer that they requested the persons orally to come and act as mediators is not believable”.

14.As per the case of prosecution accused alleged to have been found in possession of 10 liters of I.D. liquor kept in a plastic can. The P.W.1 took 180 ml liquor from the seized property, but she did not send sample liquor to the chemical analyst immediately which was seized on 17.10.2021, but the same is received by the chemical analyst on 19.11.2021. So 5 there is inordinate delay i.e., 33 days in sending the sample to the chemical analyst. There is no explanation from the prosecution for the said delay and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution.

15.There is no document that prosecution produced remaining ID arrack before Deputy

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise immediately and obtained necessary orders. The prosecution did not comply provisions of Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition Act which mandates the Investigation Officer who seized contraband shall without any unreasonable delay produce it before Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement or the Superintendent of Police or Executive Magistrate who has jurisdiction over the area and the same is not complied which is also fatal to the case of prosecution.

16.In this case the P.W.1 detected the offence, registered the crime and investigated the case. There is no hard and fast rule that a person who detects the case cannot register and investigate the case but the P.W.1 failed to secure mediators and no one came forward to act as mediators is not believable because Ex.P.1 special report do not disclose the names of the persons who were called to come and act as mediator. There is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 who are police officials. The evidence of P.W.2 only with regard to receiving chemical analysis report from chemical examiner, RPEL, Guntur and after receiving the destruction orders, she disposed off the contraband and she filed the charge sheet and the evidence of L.W.1- P. Venkateswarlu, Enforcement Constable, SEB

Station, Yerragondapalem is given up by prosecution.

It is held in a case between T. Rambabu Bulli and Another Vs. The State of A.P.

(2009 (3) LS 340) that when the witnesses are police officials only and if there is opportunity for them to secure independent mediators, if police fails to do so, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of police people.

17.The only basis for the prosecution for its case is the confession of accused made to the police but the same is hit by Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act which says confession to police officer and confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved, hence the same cannot be taken into consideration.

18. In view of the above discussion and case law, as the mandatory provision U/Sec.100(4)

Cr.P.C is not followed, the defacto-complainant and investigation officer is one and the same and there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and the confession of accused is hit by Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and there is inordinate delay of 34 days in sending the sample bottle to the chemical analyst and non compliance of Section 13 of A.P. Prohibition Act, hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 and he is entitled for acquittal.

6

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 and consequently he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1-180 ml. sample bottle of I.D. arrack in CPR No.79/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 01st day of June, 2023.

Sd/- M.S. Karimulla

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, MARKAPUR,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1: N.Kanaka Durga, SEB S.I., Yerragondapalem P.W.2: N.Venkata Ramana, SEB C.I., Yerragondapalem P.W.3: C.Ramesh Babu, SEB Constable, Yerragondapalem

FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Special Report, dt.17.01.2021 Ex.P.2: F.I.R. Ex.P.3: Chemical Analysis Report

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : 180 ml sample bottle of ID liquor in CPR No.79/2023.

Ild/- M.S.K

JFCM., MRKP.,

FAC PJCJ, MRKP

// True copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur

FAC Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Markapur

7

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: MARKAPUR

PRESENT: SRI.M.S. KARIMULLA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR

F.A.C. ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS MARKAPUR Thursday, the 01st day of June, 2023

C.C.No. 1192 of 2022

(Cr.No. 293/2021 of S.E.B. Yerragondapalem)

BETWEEN:

State Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Yerragondapalem. ....Complainant

And

Mendraguthi Subbaiah, s/o Yarraiah,Age 45 years, Caste by Yerukala, r/o Nadigadda village, Thripuranthakam Mandal,

Prakasam District. ....Accused

Date of offence: 17.10.2021 Date of complaint: 17.10.2021 Apprehension of accused : 17.10.2021 Release on bail: 21.10.2021 Commencement of trial : 23.05.2023 Closure of trial: 25.05.2023 Sentence or order : 01-06.2023 Explanation for delay: --- 8

Offence: U/Sec 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 Plea of the accused : Not Guilty Finding of the Judge: Found not guilty

Sentence or order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act-2020 and consequently he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1-180 ml. sample bottle of I.D. arrack in CPR No.79/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M.S. Karimulla

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS, MARKAPUR,

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MARKAPUR.

Copy submitted The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Ongole,.

// True copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Markapur FAC Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Markapur