Smt M.Siva Parvathi, PDM

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram1C.C.1147/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JDUGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: DHARMAVARAM.

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2024

C.C.No.1147/2022

Between:- State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathalapalli P.S.… Complainant

And

Yerikala Gujjala Ranganna, age 54 years, S/o. G.Anjanna, Hindu, R/o.Ananthasagaram village, Bathalapalli mandal.… Accused

This case has come on 19-4-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.G.Sankariah learned Counsel for accused and this matter stood over for consideration this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The L.W.4-Sub- Inspector of police, Bathalapalli PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.263/2021 said to have been committed the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:-

On 04.09.2021 at 05.30 AM while LW.4 present in the PS, he received credible information about the source of liquor. Immediately LW.4 collected LWs.1 to LW.3 and reached at the backyard of the accused, Yarrayapalli village,

Bathalapalli mandal and found the accused with a white bag. On approach of the police the accused tried to sneak away from the place with the white bag, with the aid of LWs.1 to LW.3. LW.4 able to catch the accused at a distance and when questioned about his name and address and reason for escaping from the police then the accused revealed his name and address as stated in the charge sheet.

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram2C.C.1147/2022

L.W.4 searched the white bag and found 04 Nos of WHYTEHALL RARE PREMIUM

BRANDY 180 ml bottle of Andhra Pradesh State in it. Then LW.4 asked the accused from where he brought the liquor bottles and the accused informed that he purchased the liquor bottles in a Government Liquor Shop, Bathatapalli village to sell the same at high rates in his village. On examination of the WHYTEHALL

RARE PREMIUM BRANDY 180 ml bottle found cost of Rs. 200/-on each bottle.

L.W.4 asked the accused to produce the valid license for possession and selling of Andhra Pradesh liquor he failed to produce the same. Then LW.4 informed the accused that without prior permission and valid license to sell Andhra

Pradesh liquor at high rates is an offence and after explaining the reasons for his arrest, LW.4 arrested him and seized 04 Nos of WHYTEHALL RARE PREMIUM

BRANDY 180 ml bottles of Andhra Pradesh State from his possession under cover of Police proceedings. One WHYTEHALL RARE PREMIUM BRANDY 180 ml bottle was preserved to send it for chemical examination. As none came forward to act as mediators, Police proceedings have been drafted on the crime day.

L.W.4 arrested the accused and seized property were brought to

Bathalapalli PS and registered the Police proceedings as a case in Cr.No. 263/2021 u/s 34(A) of AP Excise Act (2 Amendment Act 2020) of Bathalapalli PS on 04.09.2021 at 8 AM and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation into the case.

Further the sample liquor bottles was sent to the Chemical Examiner,

Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor and he analyzed the same and issued his report that the samples 16,117 is an Indian made liquor.

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram3C.C.1147/2022

On 04.10.2022 LW.4 sent a report to the Superintendent of Police,

Anantapuramu as per the orders of the Commissioner, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Vijayawada, AP for the confiscation of the seized property.

On 28.04.2022 LW.4 received orders from the Superintendent of Police.

Anantapuramu vide C.No. 1215/SEB-SSS/2022, dated 19.04.2022 and instructed

SHO, Bathalapalli PS to keep the confiscated contraband in custody intact till further instructions communicated by the Head Office, SEB, Vijayawada, AP in future course of time. Hence the charge.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offence for the offence punishable under section U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused and this case is numbered as C.C.1147/2022.

4.In pursuance of service of summons, the accused appeared before this court thereafter he was furnished with copies of case documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge has been framed U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act same was read over and explained to him in

Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 were marked and Mo.1 was marked. The learned Senior

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.2-M.Janardhan

Reddy,PC and L.W.3-L.Babjan,PC, Bathalapalli PS. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused was examined under section of 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating material available against him is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and refuted the

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram4C.C.1147/2022 correctness of incriminating circumstances he was confronted. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in his defence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.Point:-

It is the case of prosecution that the accused found in possession of seized 04 Nos of WHYTEHALL RARE PREMIUM BRANDY 180 ml bottle of Andhra Pradesh

Statef, without bill or permit.

11.PW.1 is the, the then Police Constable, PW.2 is the, the then Sub-

Inspector, Bathalapalli PS. Ex.P.1 is the original police proceedings, Ex.P.2 is the original F.I.R. and Ex.P.3 is the original analysis report. M.o.1 is the Whytehall

Rare Premium Brandy of 180 ml.

12.On behalf of prosecution that PWs.1 and 2 were examined in chief. During the Chief examination PW.1 deposed that he knows accused present in the dock. On 20.9.2021 at 9.00 AM while he was present in the PS, L.W.4-S.I of police received credible information about the selling of liquor. Immediately, himself, L.Ws.2 and 3 accompanied with L.W.4 to Ananthasagaram Village, Bathalapali Mandal there they found accused in front of his house in possession of black plastic cover. On seeing them accused tried to skulk away, they surrendered and caught hold of accused. They tried for mediators but no one available. On interrogation accused disclosed his identity particulars as stated in the charge sheet. On due search they found 5 Daru house XO brandi of 180 ml. Then L.W.4 questioned about the possession and selling of above liquor for that accused voluntarily confessed purchased liquor bottles from the

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram5C.C.1147/2022 government wine shops for selling high rates in village then he asked accused to produce licence for possession and selling of liquor for that accused informed he is not having any valid licence or permit to sell the liquor then he informed to accused selling of liquor without valid licence is an offence. Then explained the grounds of accused’s arrest, arrested accused and seized the above liquor under the cover of police proceedings and seized one bottle as sample and affixed labels and obtained signature of accused on the sample bottle, accused and seized property was brought to the police station. L.W.4 registered the case in Cr.No.263 of 2021 U/s 34 (a) of AP Excise

Act and took up further investigation. During the course of cross-examination PW.1 deposed that the scene of offecnce is about 6 to 7 kms form the PS, they reached to the scene of offence at 9.00 AM, scene of offence is not a busy locality.

Bathalapalli mandal is the head quarter. All the MROs and VROs available at that time, they obtained the signature on the seized property. He denied the suggestions that he did not visit the scene of offence, false case was foisted against for statistical purpose and the accused is no way concern with the alleged offence.

During the Chief examination PW.2 deposed that he knows accused present in the dock. On 4.9.2021 at 5.30 AM while he was present in the PS, he received credible Information about the selling of liquor. Immediately, himself, P.W.1, L.Ws.2 and 3 proceeded towards Ananthasagaram Village. Bathalapall Mandal there they found accused in front of his house in possession of black plastic cover. On seeing them accused tried to skulk away, they surrendered and caught hold of accused. They tried for mediators but no one available. On interrogation accused disclosed his identity particulars as Yerikala Gujjala Ranganna, aged 54 years, S/o G.Anjinappa, R/o

Ananthasagaram Village, Bathalapalli Mandal. On due search they found 4 Nos. of

Whytehall Rare premium brandi of 180ml. Then he questioned about the possession and selling of above liquor for that accused voluntarily confessed his purchased liquor bottles from the government wine shops for selling high rates in his village then he asked accused to produce licence for possession and selling of liquor for that accused

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram6C.C.1147/2022 informed he is not having any valid licence or permit to sell the liquor then he informed to accused selling of liquor without valid licence is an offence. Then explained the grounds of accused’s arrest, arrested accused and seized the above liquor under the cover of police proceedings. Ex.P.1 is the original police proceedings.

He drawn one bottle as sample for sending chemical analysis and affixed labels and obtained signature of accused on the sample bottle. Accused and seized property was brought to the police station. He registered the case in Cr.No.263 of 2021 u/s 34 (a) of AP Excise Act and submitted FIR copies to all concerned officials. Ex.P.2 is the original FIR. He has forwarded accused to the Court for remand. He forwarded sample to the Regional Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis with letter of advice. On 28.4.2022 he received orders from the Superintendent of police, Sri Sathya Sa District vide C.No.1215/SEB-SSS/2022, dt.19-4-2022 to keep the property intact till further orders. M.o.1 is the sample of Whytehall Rare Premium brandy. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During the course of cross-examination, PW.2 deposed that the scene of offecnce is about 6 to 7 kms form the PS, they reached to the scene of offence at 9.00 AM, scene of offence is not a busy locality.

Bathalapalli mandal is the head quarter. All the MROs and VROs available at that time, they obtained the signature on the seized property. He denied the suggestions that he did not visit the scene of offence, false case was foisted against for statistical purpose and the accused is no way concern with the alleged offence.

In the case on hand the name of the accused in the Ex.P1 and P.2 is mentioned as Yerikala Gujjala Ranganna, in the charge sheet contents name of accused mentioned as Reddy Nagaseshaiah, aged 78 years. There is change in the name of accused in the Exs.P1 and P2 and contents of the charge sheet. The prosecution did not explain reasons for change of name in the charge sheet. As per Ex.P1 and P2 05 Daaru House XO Brandy seized from the accused as per the contents of the charge sheet 04 Whytehall Rare Premium Brandy of 180 ml was

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram7C.C.1147/2022 seized from the accused. As per the Ex.P3 Daaru House XO Brandy 180 ml was sent to the chemical analysis, Chittoor, 04 bottles were mentioned in the charge sheet. The prosecution did not explain reasons for mentioning 04 bottles of

Whytehall Rare Premium Brandy of 180 ml in the charge sheet. The entire evidence of Pws.1 and 2, clearly seen that the Investigating Officer has not made his best efforts in securing the mediators at the time of alleged offence, he did not say any unavoidable situation which prevented him from securing local inhabitants and mediators at this juncture this court inclined to rely on the Judgment of

Hon’ble High Court in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs state of Andhra Pradesh

wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and general public that genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search always desirable and confession recorded by the police officials in the proceedings become inadmissible as it is hit by section 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

13.PWs.1 and 2 are the police officials, who registered F.I.R. has done investigation, they are interested witnesses. Except PWs.1 and 2 police officials, there is no any other independent witnesses. Non examination of the independent witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the theory of prosecution of seized property creates suspicion. The evidence of the prosecution is not credible and trustworthy, did not inspire confidence of the court.

14.In view of the discussion supra, this court is the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

15.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Criminal

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram8C.C.1147/2022

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from today under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. for his appearance

before the Hon’ble Appellate Court as and when directed. The case property i.e.

Mo.1 is the Sample liquor shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. M.Siva Parvathi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Dharmavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : M.Sagar Babu-None- PW.2 : T.V.Sree Harsha

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 : Original police proceedings Ex.P.2 : Original F.I.R. Ex.P.3 : Original Analysis report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

MO.1 : Sample of Whytehall Rare Premium brandy 180 ml.

Id/- M Id/- M.S.P., J.F.C.M. DMM.r/True copy //

Judicial magistrate of First Class,

Dharmavaram.

PJCJ Court, Dharmavaram1O.S.406/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DHARMAVARAM

Present : Smt. M.Siva Parvathi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram

Monday, the 22 nd day of April, 2024

O.S.No.406 of 2016

Between :

Bathini Vijaya swaroopa, W/O M.Mutyalappa, aged About 35 years, Hindu, Employee residing at Door No.23/305, Sai Nagar, Dharmayaram town.… Plaintiff

And

M.Prameelamma, W/O M.Hanumantha Reddy, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Nyamaddala village and Post, C.K.Palli Mandal… Defendant

The suit is coming up before the court for final hearing on 3-4-2024 in the presence of Sri.G.Nagaraju, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Lakshminarayana Learned Counsel for the defendant, and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men, agents and representatives form interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property.

2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that :

ThePlaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned property, the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule mentioned property from its rightful owner Maruvapalli Narayana S/o.Late.Anjineyulu, resident of

Nyamaddala village of C.K.Palli Mandal under registered sale deed dt.27.05.2016 and inducted into possession and since the date of purchase

PJCJ Court, Dharmavaram2O.S.406/2016 the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule mentioned property.

The Plaintiff further submits that the defendant is stranger to the suit schedule property and she is not having any right title or possession over the suit schedule property the defendant without having any right, title or possession is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and since 10 days the defendant is trying to occupy the suit schedule property with the help of political influence and with the support of some anti social elements and the defendant is trying to oust the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, if the defendant is allowed to do so the Plaintiff will suffer huge loss and great prejudice will be done to the

Plaintiff and it cannot be compensated in terms of money. The defendant is rich and powerful person and having good backing in the village and where as the Plaintiff is helpless woman and she cannot resist the high handedness of the defendant and the plaintiff is advised the defendant through elders but in vain. The plaintiff has no other way except to file this suit to restrain the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff over the suit schedule property by way of permanent injunction.

The Plaintiff further submits that the revenue authorities after due enquiry issued pattadar pass book to the plaintiff and the plaintiff name is also entered in all revenue records and her name also booked in Adangal and 1-B Namuna. The Plaintiff has obtained a loan from the Canara Bank,

Nyamaddala by pledging the original pattadar pass book loan No.K.C.C.2515 original pass book will be filed at the time of trial. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and also contended that the plaintiff fraud upon the Revenue authorities and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed and got her name mutated in

PJCJ Court, Dharmavaram3O.S.406/2016

Revenue records and plaintiff is not at all in physical possession of the Plaint schedule property. The family of the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint schedule property without obstructions without any body from more then 20 years. Chekkirappa is father-in-law of the defendant, Chekkirappa and Narayana (The vendor of the Plaintiff) are the brothers. They are sons of Laksmamma and Lakshmamma purchased the

Plaint schedule property with her own funds dated 16.04.1990 under registered sale deed and Lakshmamma has been in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint schedule property.

The defendant further submits that as per gift deed in favor of

Narayana the possession of the Chakkirappa was not disturbed and

Chakkirappa was not ousted from Plaint schedule property and Chakkirappa raising crops from plaint schedule property.

The defendant further submits that though Lakshmamma executed a gift deed in favor of Narayana, Narayana neglected to look after

Lakshmamma hence Lakshmamma at present aged 85 years and she was suffering old age diseases, to meet her medical expenditures, Lakshmamma received Rs.1,00,000-/ from Chakkirappa and promising him to execute the register sale deed in favor of Chakkirappa. Hence Lakshmamma received Rs.

1,00,000-/ from Chakkirappa and executed a permanent un-registered sale deed in favor of Chakkirappa and delivered the possession the same to

Chakkirappa under un-registered sale deed dated: 30.10.2014 Chakkirappa inducted into possession by Lakshmamma under un-registered sale deed dated.30.10.2014 and the Chakkirappa has been possession and enjoyment the Plaint schedule property. Hence suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable and the defendant (Prameelamma) is not all the party in the above suit. T.Chakkirappa is in the possession of Plaint schedule property and

PJCJ Court, Dharmavaram4O.S.406/2016 suit is maintainable only against the Chakkirappa. The suit is filed by wrong person and suit is not maintainable. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the Plaint and Written Statements the following issues are framed for trail:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of plaint scheduled property and defendant tried to interfere with the same ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as claimed for ?

3. To what relief ?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and

Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked. Neither oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

7.ISSUE NO.1

In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to prove her possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The burden is on the plaintiff to satisfy the court by leading positive evidence that she was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

8.It is the main contention of the plaintiff that thePlaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule mentioned property and she purchased the plaint schedule mentioned property from its rightful owner under registered sale deed dt.27.05.2016 and inducted into possession and since the date of

PJCJ Court, Dharmavaram5O.S.406/2016 purchase the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule mentioned property. The defendant is stranger and she is not having any right title or possession over the suit schedule property. The defendant is trying to occupy the suit schedule property with the help of political influence and with the support of some anti social elements. The revenue authorities after due enquiry issued pattadar pass book to the plaintiff and the plaintiff name is also entered in all revenue records and her name also booked in Adangal and 1-B Namuna. The Plaintiff has obtained a loan from the Canara Bank, Nyamaddala by pledging the original pattadar pass book loan No.K.C.C.2515.

9.On the other hand, the defendant contended that the plaintiff fraud upon the Revenue authorities and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed and got her name mutated in Revenue records and plaintiff is not at all in physical possession of the Plaint schedule property. The family of the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint schedule property without obstructions without any body from more then 20 years.

Lakshmamma gifted the Plaint schedule property along with her husband to

Narayana the vendor of the Plaintiff with limited rights under registered gift deed dated:04.06.1992 and the husband of the Lakshmamma has no right and executed gift deed and the Husband of Lakshmamma joined as donar of the Gift deed, but as per gift deed no possession was delivered to Narayana.

As per recital of the gift deed after death of Lakshmamma the gift will be completed and hence the gift deed is incomplete. Lakshmamma executed a gift deed in favour Narayana, Narayana neglected to look after Lakshmamma hence Lakshmamma at present aged 85 years and she was suffering old age diseases, to meet her medical expenditures, Lakshmamma received

Rs.1,00,000-/ from Chakkirappa and promising him to execute the register

PJCJ Court, Dharmavaram6O.S.406/2016 sale deed in favor of Chakkirappa. Hence Lakshmamma received Rs.

1,00,000-/ from Chakkirappa and executed a permanent un-registered sale deed in favor of Chakkirappa and delivered the possession the same to

Chakkirappa under un-registered sale deed dated:30.10.2014 The suit is filed by wrong person and suit is not maintainable.

10.In support of her contention, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1,

Ex.A.1 to A.3 were marked on her behalf. Ex.A.1 is the original registered sale deed, dt.27-5-2016, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of 1-B Namuna issued by the

Tahasildar, C.K.Palli in favour of the plaintiff, dt.27-10-2016 and Ex.A.3 is the

Certified copy of Adangal issued by the Tahasildar, C.K.Palli in favour of the plaintiff, dt.27-10-2016. Ex.A1 shows that plaintiff has purchased the plaint schedule property from Narayana, Ex.A.2 and A.3 show that the plaintiff is enjoying the plaint schedule property since 2016.

11.In this case, the defendant in spite of sufficient opportunities were given she did not cross examine the PW.1 hence cross examination of PW.1 is treated as nil. Exs.A.1 to A.3 show that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing of the suit as such the plaintiff proved her possession over plaint schedule property as on the date of filling of suit then the burden shifts on to the defendant. The defendant in spite of taking plea that the plaintiff fraud upon the Revenue authorities and obtained pattadar pass book and title deed and got her name mutated in

Revenue records and plaintiff is not at all in physical possession of the Plaint schedule property. The family of the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint schedule property without obstructions without any body from more then 20 years. Lakshmamma gifted the Plaint schedule property along with her husband to Narayana the vendor of the Plaintiff with limited rights under registered gift deed dated:04.06.1992 and the husband

PJCJ Court, Dharmavaram7O.S.406/2016 of the Lakshmamma has no right and executed gift deed and the Husband of

Lakshmamma joined as donar of the Gift deed, but as per gift deed no possession was delivered to Narayana. As per recital of the gift deed after death of Lakshmamma the gift will be completed and hence the gift deed is incomplete. Lakshmamma executed a gift deed in favor Narayana, Narayana neglected to look after Lakshmamma hence Lakshmamma at present aged 85 years and she was suffering old age diseases, to meet her medical expenditures, Lakshmamma received Rs.1,00,000-/ from Chakkirappa and promising him to execute the register sale deed in favor of Chakkirappa.

Hence Lakshmamma received Rs. 1,00,000-/ from Chakkirappa and executed a permanent un-registered sale deed in favor of Chakkirappa and delivered the possession the same to Chakkirappa under un-register sale deed dated:

30.10.2014. The suit is filed by wrong person and suit is not maintainable.

Except the defendant taking above said plea she did not adduce any evidence there is no evidence to prove the version of the defendant hence defendant failed to discharge burden laid on her hence this issue is held in favour of the plaintiff.

12.ISSUE NO.2 :

In view of discussion supra as plaintiff is able to prove her possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of the filling of suit and plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.

13. Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, her men, agents and servants, by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men from interfering with the

PJCJ Court, Dharmavaram8O.S.406/2016 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. M.Siva Parvathi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant

PW.1 :B.Vijaya Swaroopa-None-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff

Ex.A.1 :Original registered sale deed, dt.27-5-2016

Ex.A.2 :Certified copy of 1-B Namuna issued by the Tahasildar, C.K.Palli in favour of the plaintiff, dt.27-10-2016 Ex.A.3 : Certified copy of Adangal issued by the Tahasildar, C.K.Palli in favour of the plaintiff, dt.27-10-2016.

Exhibits marked for Defendant

-Nil-

Id/- M.S.P., P.J.C.J., Dharmavaram

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram1C.C.1421/2022

sbIN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JDUGE -CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: DHARMAVARAM.

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

Tuesday, the 23rd day of April, 2024

C.C.No.1421/2022

Between:- State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K.Palli P.S.… Complainant

And

Avula Anjineeyulu, age 35 years, S/o. Anjineeyulu, Hindu, R/o.Hariyanacheruvu village, C.K.Palli mandal.… Accused

This case has come on 22-4-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.G.Sankariah learned Counsel for accused and this matter stood over for consideration this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The L.W.5-Sub- Inspector of police, C.K.Palli PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.163/2021 said to have been committed the offence punishable U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:-

On 29.07.2021 at 06.45 AM on receipt of credible information about the illegal selling of Karnataka liquor at outskirts of Hariyancheruvu village, CK Palli

Mandal, immediately LW-5 Sub-Inspector of Police along with Staff PC 582, PC 2965 left the PS in Police Jeep No.AP-9P-9315 and reached at 07.00 AM at outskirts of Hariyancheruvu village, Ck Palli Mandal and found one person (the accused) standing by putting white color gunny bag in front him, on seeing the police jeep the accused tried to ran-away along with a plastic gunny bag. On suspicion LW-5 caught hold the accused with the support of his staff. Then LW-5

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram2C.C.1421/2022 asked the accused about his identity, about the contents of white color plastic gunny bags, why he was escaping on seeing the police jeep. He voluntarily confessed his name as Avula Anjineeyulu, age 35 years, s/o Anjineeyulu of

Hariyancheruvu village, CK Palli Mandal. He is living by coolie but it is not sufficient to maintain his family so he decided to sell the Karnataka liquor at

Hariyancheruvu and surrounding villages at high rates for gaining profits. On the crime day the accused purchased liquor packets from Tirumani village, Karnataka

State for low cost and while he was selling by putting liquor packets in front him at the time police came and caught hold the accused. On verification of said plastic bag LW-5 found 11 HAYWARDS CHEERS Whisky tetra packets each containing 90 ML in the said bag. Then LW-5 explained the accused that

Possession and selling the above liquor packets without any license is an offence as per section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act. LW-5 arrested the accused after informing him about the grounds for which he was arrested and seized 11 HAYWARDS

CHEERS Whisky tetra packets each containing 90 ML Karnataka liquor from his possession under a cover of police proceedings and nobody came forward to act as mahazardars. A copy of Police Proceedings was given to the accused under proper acknowledgment. One liquor packet was taken out from the seized liquor for sending it for chemical analysis and issue of report under the above proceedings.

LW-5 Registered the above Police Proceedings vide Cr.No.163/2021 u/s 34

(a) of A.P. Excise Act of C.K.Palli P.S on 29.07.2021 and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, the LW-5 forwarded the sample liquor bottle to the Govt. Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory Chittor and obtained

Analysis report vide C.E.No.1428/2021, S.No 16,160 dated:04.10.2021 that the sample is Indian made liquor.

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram3C.C.1421/2022

LW-5 sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu for destroying the property and obtained proceeding vide C.No 84/SEB- SSS/2022, dated.04-08.2022 to destroy case property.

In this case destroyed Karnataka liqour under the supervision of SEB,

Superintendent, Sri SathyaSaiDist, Inspector of Police, SEB, Dharmavaram, Sri

SathyaSaiDist, Inspector of Police, Ramagiri Circle, Sri Sathya Sai Dist in the presence of two panchayathdars under cover of Panchanama Dt.22.08.2022 as per C.No.84/SEB-ATP/2022 Dt.04.08.2022 O/o the Superintendent of Police cum

Confiscating Authority, Sri Sathya Sai Dist. Hence the charge.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offence for the offence punishable under section U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused and this case is numbered as C.C.1421/2022.

4.In pursuance of service of summons, the accused appeared before this court thereafter he was furnished with copies of case documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge has been framed U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act same was read over and explained to him in

Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were marked and Mo.1 was marked. The learned Senior

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.2-M.Venkatesh

Naik,PC, L.W.3-P.Lokesh,VRO and L.W.4.G.Syamala, Panchayat Secretary,

C.K.Palli PS. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused was examined under section of 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating material available against him is

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram4C.C.1421/2022 read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and refuted the correctness of incriminating circumstances he was confronted. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in his defence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.Point:-

It is the case of prosecution that the accused found in possession of seized 11 HAYWARDS CHEERS Whisky tetra packets each containing 90 ML, without bill or permit.

11.PW.1 is the, the then Police Constable, PW.2 is the, the then Sub-

Inspector, C.K.Palli PS. Ex.P.1 is the original police proceedings, Ex.P.2 is the original F.I.R. Ex.P.3 is the original analysis report, Ex.P4 is the attested copy of destruction proceedings and Ex.P5 is the attested copy of destruction panchanama. Mo.1 is the sample of Haywards Cheers whisky 90 ml.

12.On behalf of prosecution that PWs.1 and 2 were examined in chief. Chief examination of PWs.1 and 2 is nothing but replica of contents of charge sheet.

During the course of cross-examination PW.1 deposed that the scene of offecnce is about 7 kms distance form the PS, there is 100 meters distance form

Hariyanachervu to the scene of offence. He denied the suggestions that offence has taken place early in the morning L.W.5 not examined elders in the village and he did not visit the scene of offence, false case was foisted against for statistical purpose and L.W.4 has done table investigation from the PS itself and filed charge sheet without verification. During the course of cross-examination, PW.2 deposed

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram5C.C.1421/2022 that he went to the scene of offence along with his staff, he did not secure the mediators and denied the suggestions that he did not enquire about the shop from where the accused purchased the liquor, no one gave complaint about the selling of liquor, separate seizure list was not prepared, witness voluntarily said separate seizure list was not necessary. Written summons were not issued to the mediators and witness volunteers were not available hence written summons were not issued and also he denied the suggestions that he did not visit the scene of offence, false case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose and he has done table investigation from the police station itself.

In the case on hand the entire evidence of Pws.1 and 2, clearly seen that the Investigating Officer has not made his best efforts in securing the mediators at the time of alleged offence, he did not say any unavoidable situation which prevented him from securing local inhabitants and mediators at this juncture this court inclined to rely on the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court in S.Babu Saheb @

Babu Vs state of Andhra Pradesh wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and general public that genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search always desirable and confession recorded by the police officials in the proceedings become inadmissible as it is hit by section 25 and 27 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

13.PWs.1 and 2 are the police officials, who registered F.I.R. has done investigation, they are interested witnesses. Except PWs.1 and 2 police officials, there is no any other independent witnesses. Non examination of the independent witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the theory of prosecution of seized property creates suspicion. The evidence of the prosecution is not credible and trustworthy, did not inspire confidence of the court. There may be chance of

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram6C.C.1421/2022 partial in proving the prosecution. It is highly doubtful whether the liquor bottles were seized from the possession of accused Hence, it is a fit case to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.

14.In view of the discussion supra, this court is the view that the prosecution utterly failed to prove guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

15.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from today under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. for his appearance

before the Hon’ble Appellate Court as and when directed. The case property i.e.

Mo.1 is the Sample liquor shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. M.Siva Parvathi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Dharmavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : S.Zeelan Basha-None- PW.2 : K.Sreedhar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 : Original police proceedings Ex.P.2 : Original F.I.R. Ex.P.3 : Original Analysis report Ex.P.4 : Attested copy of destruction proceedings Ex.P.5 : Attested copy of destruction panchanama

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram7C.C.1421/2022

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

MO.1 : Sample of Haywards Cheers whisky 90 ml

Id/- M Id/- M.S.P., J.F.C.M. DMM.r/

/// True copy //

Judicial magistrate of First Class,

Dharmavaram.

AJFCM Court, Dharmavaram1C.C.136/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, DHARMAVARAM

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

FAC-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

Thursday, the 16th day of November, 2023

C.C.No.136/2020

Between:- State rep. by The Station House officer, Special Enforcement Bureau, Dharmavaram.… Complainant

And

Talari Madhusudhana, Age 32 yrs, s/o T.Nadipi Marenna, Chapatla village of Rapthadu Mandal… Accused

This case has come on 15-11-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri J.Gopi Krishna, learned Counsel for accused and this matter having stood over for consideration this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The L.w.5/Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Dharmavaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.56/2019 said to have been committed the offence punishable U/s.34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:-

On 15-03-2019 at 4.00 P.M, during the course of raids conducted by the

S.E.B Inspector/L.w.4 along with his staff and mediators at Dharmavaram to

Chigicherla bus road near Garudampalli cross found the accused coming on red two wheeler keeping a polythene bag, on suspicion the L.w.4/Sub Inspector tried to stop the motor cycle with the help of staff, the accused identified the S.E.B Sub

Inspector and his staff in uniform as police the accused tried to escape but S.E.B

AJFCM Court, Dharmavaram2C.C.136/2020

Sub Inspector and his staff detained the accused. On interrogation the accused revealed that the bag contains liquor tetra packets. In the presence of mediators

S.E.B Sub Inspector verified the bag, found 48 nips of Bangalore malt whisky tetra packets of Karnataka state liquor, without having any valid license and Hero

Passion PRO vehicle bearing Regd.no.AP02-AM-5653. The S.E.B Sub Inspector/L.W.4 arrested the accused and seized Pulsor Motor bike and seized the 48 nips of

Bangalore malt whisky tetra packets of Karnataka state liquor from the possession of the accused under the cover of Panchanama. Then, LW.4/ S.E.B Sub Inspector drawn one 180 ml Bangalore malt whiksy tetra packet as sample to send Govt.

Regional Prohibition &Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis and obtained chemical analysis report vide C.E.No.201/2019, Dt.16.04.2019 and opined that “the sample is indian made liquor”. In pursuance of the orders issued vide RC.No.142/2019/B2 dt.15-05-2019 the seized property in the case was confiscated by the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu. The seized vehicle, bearing Regd.No. AP02-AM-5653, confiscated on 04-06-2019 vide E.S, SEB,

Anantapur, R.C.No.57/2019/B2. Basing on the Panchanama LW-4/ S.E.B Inspector registered a case in Cr.No.56/2019 U/s.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act of SEB

Dharmavaram. thus, the accused committed the above said offence. Hence the charge.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offence for the offence punishable under section U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused and this case is numbered as C.C.132/2020.

4.In pursuance of service of summons, the accused appeared before this court thereafter he was furnished with copies of case documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

AJFCM Court, Dharmavaram3C.C.136/2020

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge has been framed U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act same was read over and explained to him in

Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.5-M.Sadiq Hussain, S.E.B Sub Inspector, Dharmavram.

Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused was examined under section of 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating material available against him is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and refuted the correctness of incriminating circumstances he was confronted. However, he accused did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in his defence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under U/sec.34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.Point:-

It is the case of prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 48 nips of Bangalore malt whisky tetra packets of Karnataka state liquor, without bill or permit.

11.On behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 4 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. PWs.1 and 2 are mediators. PW.3 is the Enforcement constable, PW.4 is the then SEB Sub Inspector, Dharmavaram. Ex.P.1 is Signature of PW.1 in the

AJFCM Court, Dharmavaram4C.C.136/2020 panchayitnama, Ex.P.2 is the signature of PW.2 in the panchanama, Ex.P3 is the panchanama, Ex.P.4 is the original F.I.R. in Cr.No.56/2019, Ex.P.5 is the original letter of advice, Ex.P.6 is the original analysis report, Ex.P.7 is the attested copy of destruction proceedings and Ex.P.8 is the attested copy of destruction panchanama.

12.PW.1 and 2 who are independent mediators deposed that they do not know accused in this case, they do not know anything about the case, the accused was not arrested in their presence, when they went to the PS on their personal work, the police obtained their signatures on a written papers about three years back.

Pws. 3 and 4 were examined in chief and chief examination is nothing but the replica of contents of the charge sheet. During the course of cross examination

P.W.3 deposed that the 10 Kms distance between scene of offence and police station, he conducted raids as per instructions of the CI of Police and he visited scene of offence, he did not issued written summons to mediators, scene of offence is busy locality and no person come forward to act as mediators at the scene of offence and he denied the suggestions that LW4 done table investigation from police station and filed charge sheet without verification for statistical purpose and he denied the suggestion that accused is doing collie work, he is no way concern with the alleged offence. During the course of cross examination

P.W.4 deposed that there he has no idea about the distance from the P.S. to the scene of offence, written summons were not issued to the mediators, oral intimation was given through his constables, the scene of offence is the open road, he denied the suggestions that he did not visit the scene of offence, arrested the accused and seized the case property from the possession of the accused and he has prepared police proceedings from the station itself for the statistical purpose.

13.In the case on hand Pw.1 and PW2 completely turned hostile and he did not support to the prosecution case and also did not depose anything in favour of the prosecution. P.W.3 and 4 who have done investigation registered the FIR

AJFCM Court, Dharmavaram5C.C.136/2020 they are interested witness except the evidence of P.W.3 and 4 there is no any other evidence to prove the case of the prosecution that 48 nips of Bangalore malt whisky tetra packets were in possession of the accused further, their evidence is not credible and trustworthy and did not inspire confidence. Further, it is highly doubtful whether the really police seized liquor from the possession of accused.

Hence, it is fit case to grant benefit of doubt to accused as such there is no any evidence to show that liquor bottles were seized from the possession of the accused.

14.In view of all the observations made this court is of the view that prosecution utterly failed to prove guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/s 34 (a) A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

15.In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable

U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from today under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. for his appearance before the

Hon’ble Appellate Court as and when directed. The unmarked non valuable case

property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

FAC- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

AJFCM Court, Dharmavaram6C.C.136/2020

PW.1 :A.Bhaskar, -None- PW.2 :S.Suryanarayana PW.3 :N.Ramanjulu PW.4 :S.M.Rafi

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 in the panchanama Ex.P.2 : Signature of PW.2 in the panchanama, Ex.P.3 : panchanama, Ex.P.4 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.5 : Original Letter of Advice Ex.P.6 : Original Analysis Report Ex.P.7 : Attested copy of destruction proceedings Ex.P.8 : Attested copy of destruction panchanama

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

-NIL-

A.J.F.C.M. DMM.

// True co//py //

Judicial magistrate of First Class,

Dharmavaram

AJFCM Court, Dharmavaram7C.C.136/2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Date of OffenceReportApprehensioReleased onCommence-Close ofSentence n of Accusedbailment oftrial trial 16.11.23 15.03.1916.03.19------26.10.2315.11.23

Judgment in C.C.No.136/2020 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. Complainant :: Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Dharmavaram

Crime No.56/2019

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s NameCallingReligioResidenceMandal Accusedn No 1Talari 32 T.Nadipi ---HinduChapatla Rapthadu MadhusudhanyrsMarennavillage a

Offence :-34(A) of AP Excise Act

Finding :-Accused not found guilty.

Sentence :-In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from today under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. for his appearance before the Hon’ble Appellate Court as and when directed. The unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

FAC-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dharmavaram

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

Dis No. Dt.

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram1C.C.132/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, DHARMAVARAM

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

FAC-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

Thursday, the 16th day of November, 2023

C.C.No.132/2020

Between:- State rep. by The Station House officer, Special Enforcement Bureau, Dharmavaram.… Complainant

And

Yaramala Sankaraiah, Age 39 yrs, S/o Late Y.Narayanappa, D.No.1/547, Shanthi Nagar, Dharmavarm Town… Accused

This case has come on 15-11-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.Pullana, learned Counsel for accused and this matter having stood over for consideration this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The L.w.5/Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Dharmavaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.63/2019 said to have been committed the offence punishable U/s.34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that:-

On 23-03-2019 at 9.00 A.M, during the course of raids conducted by the

S.E.B Inspector/L.w.4 along with his staff and mediators at Dharmavaram to

Chigicherla bus road near Guttakindapalli cross found the accused coming on a two wheeler keeping a polythene bag, on suspicion the L.w.4/Sub Inspector tried to stop the motor cycle with the help of staff, the accused identified the S.E.B Sub

Inspector and his staff in uniform as police the accused tried to escape but S.E.B

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram2C.C.132/2020

Sub Inspector and his staff detained the accused. On interrogation the accused revealed that the bag contains liquor tetra packets. In the presence of mediators

S.E.B Sub Inspector verified the bag, found 15 nips of Bangalore malt whisky tetra packets of Karnataka state liquor, without having any valid licence and Hero

Passion PRO vehicle bearing Regd.no.AP02-BD-6049. The S.E.B Sub

Inspector/L.W.4 arrested the accusedand seized the 15 nips of Bangalore malt whisky tetra packets of Karnataka state liquor from the possession of the accused and two wheeler under the cover of Panchanama. Then, LW.4/ S.E.B Sub Inspector drawn one 180 ml Bangalore malt whiksy tetra packet as sample to send Govt.

Regional Prohibition &Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for chemical analysis and obtained chemical analysis report vide C.E.No.201/2019, Dt.16.04.2019 and opined that “the sample is indian made liquor”. In pursuance of the orders issued vide RC.No.142/2019/B2 dt.15-05-2019 the seized property in the case was confiscated by the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu. The seized Passion

Pro vehicle, bearing Regd.No. AP02-BD-6049, auctioned on 16-11-2020 vide

Deputy Commissioner of Pro. And Excise Anantapur, R.C.No.60/2019/B2, dt.20-07- 2019, GST. Rs.26191/-, CFMS Number 31313698262019, dt. 30-01-2020. Basing on the Panchanama LW-4/ S.E.B Inspector registered a case in Cr.No.63/2019

U/s.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act of SEB Dharmavaram. thus, the accused committed the above said offence. Hence the charge.

3.This court has taken cognizance of the offence for the offence punishable under section U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused and this case is numbered as C.C.132/2020.

4.In pursuance of service of summons, the accused appeared before this court thereafter he was furnished with copies of case documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram3C.C.132/2020

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge has been framed U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act same was read over and explained to him in

Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.5-M.Sadiq Hussain, S.E.B Sub Inspector, Dharmavram.

Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After completion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused was examined under section of 313 Cr.P.C. and all incriminating material available against him is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and refuted the correctness of incriminating circumstances he was confronted. However, he accused did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary in his defence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under U/sec.34 (A) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.Point:-

It is the case of prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 15 nips of Bangalore malt whisky tetra packets of Karnataka state liquor, without bill or permit.

11.On behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 4 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked. PWs.1 and 2 are mediators. PW.3 is the Enforcement constable, PW.4 is the then SEB Sub Inspector, Dharmavaram. Ex.P.1 is Signature of PW.1 in the

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram4C.C.132/2020 panchayitnama, Ex.P.2 is the signature of PW.2 in the panchanama, Ex.P3 is the panchanama, Ex.P.4 is the original F.I.R. in Cr.No.63/2019, Ex.P.5 is the original letter of advice, Ex.P.6 is the original analysis report, Ex.P.7 is the attested copy of destruction proceedings and Ex.P.8 is the attested copy of destruction panchanama.

12.PW.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of prosecution. PW.1 and 2 who are independent mediators deposed that they do not know accused in this case, they do not know anything about the case, the accused was not arrested in their presence, when they went to the PS on their personal work, the police obtained their signatures on a written papers about three years back. Pws. 3 and 4 were examined in chief and chief examination is nothing but the replica of contents of the charge sheet. During the course of cross examination P.W.3 deposed that they secured mediators at Dharmavaram but not Guttakindapalli and went to general raids, he scribe the pancahanama i.e. Ex.P3,he denied the suggestions he did not prepared any separate seizure list, he has not followed proper search and seizure procedure and have not done proper investigation, he denied suggestions that he did not visit the scene of offence, arrested the accused and seized the case property from the possession of the accused. During the course of cross examination P.W.4 deposed that there he has no idea about the distance from the

P.S. to the scene of offence, written summons were not issued to the mediators, oral intimation was given through his constables, the scene of offence is the open road, he denied the suggestions that he did not visit the scene of offence, arrested the accused and seized the case property from the possession of the accused and he has prepared police proceedings from the station itself for the statistical purpose.

13.In the case on hand Pw.1 and Pw.2 completely turned hostile and they did not support to the prosecution case also did not depose anything in favour of the prosecution. P.W.3 and 4 who have done investigation registered the FIR they

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram5C.C.132/2020 are interested witness except the evidence of P.W.3 and 4 there is no any other evidence to prove the case of the prosecution that 15 nips of Bangalore malt whisky tetra packets were in possession of the accused further, their evidence is not credible and trustworthy and did not inspire confidence. Further, it is highly doubtful whether the really police seized liquor from the possession of accused.

Hence, it is fit case to grant benefit of doubt to accused as such there is no any evidence to show that liquor bottles were seized from the possession of the accused.

14.In view of all the observations made this court is of the view that prosecution utterly failed to prove guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/s 34 (a) A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

15.In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable

U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from today under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. for his appearance before the

Hon’ble Appellate Court as and when directed. The unmarked non valuable case

property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

FAC-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 :R.Babu, -None- PW.2 :K.Sreeramulu PW.3 :M.Narasimhulu

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram6C.C.132/2020

PW.4 :S.M.Rafi

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 in the panchanama Ex.P.2 : Signature of PW2 in the panchanama Ex.P.3 : panchanama, Ex.P.4 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.5 : Original Letter of Advice Ex.P.6 : Original Analysis Report Ex.P.7 : Attested copy of destruction proceedings Ex.P.8 : Attested copy of destruction panchanama

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

M.Os. MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

-NIL-

Id/- M, I/D-JFCM, DMM.

JFCM Court, Dharmavaram7C.C.132/2020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Date of OffenceReportApprehensioReleased onCommenceClose ofSentence n of Accusedbail-ment oftrial trial 16.11.23 23.03.1923.03.19------02.02.2315.11.23

Judgment in C.C.No.132/2020 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. Complainant :: Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Dharmavaram

Crime No.63/2019

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s NameCallingReligioResidenceMandal Accusedn No 1Yaramala 39 Late ---HinduD.No.1/547, Dharmavaram Sankaraiahyrs, Y.NarayanappaShanthi Nagar, Dharmavara m

Offence :-34(A) of AP Excise Act

Finding :-Accused not found guilty.

Sentence :-In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from today under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. for his appearance before the Hon’ble Appellate Court as and when directed. The unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

FAC-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dharmavaram

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

Dis No. Dt.