Currently Serving

Sri M.Srinivasa Rao

Prinicpal Civil Judge(Junior Division)

PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM · Vizianagaram · Andhra Pradesh

Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, Prinicpal Civil Judge(Junior Division), is posted at PDJ Court VIZIANAGARAM, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. 6,155 court orders on record since 2024. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

6,155

Total Orders

Judgments

248

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/2041/2022 Acquitted

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Surapathi Narasimhulu

25 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE): VIZIANAGARAM

Present:Sri M. Srinivasarao, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram,

Friday, this the 25th day April, 2025

C.C.No. 2041/2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB., Bhogapuram. Police Station, Vizianagaram. … Complainant

And:

Surapathi Narasimhulu, S/o.Narasimhulu, aged 26 years, r/o.Tippalavalasa panchayati, Pusapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram.

….… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 20-01-2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

Complainant State represented by the Police and Sri.K.Phalgunarao,

Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB.,

Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act in Cr.No.45/2020.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief are that: On 15-10-2020 at about 14.00 hrs, L.W.6/M.Venkatarao and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 5 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW6 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said two white plastic cans and found i.e., 20 liters of illicitly distilled liquor each can – total 40 liters and

LW6 seized the same under cover of occurrence report and separated each one bottle from each brand from seized bottles for chemical analysis. The occurrence report was drafted at scene of offence. Later they return to the police station along with seized property and accused for further investigation.

Basing on the occurrence report LW6 registered the case in

Cr.no.45/2020 under section 7(a) r/w8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act. Later accused produced before the honourable court for judicial remand.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 7(a) r/w8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., a charges were framed for the offence under section 7(a) r/w8(e) of

AP.Prohibition Act against accused was read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 and

M.O.2 are marked.

07. The accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08. Heard both sides, perused the record.

09.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 7(a) r/w8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.POINT:-The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 and M.O.2.

11.PW.1/A.Apparao, police Constable, deposed that on 15-10-2020 at about 14.00 hrs, L.W.6/M.Venkatarao and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 5 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that 4 she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW6 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said two white plastic cans and found i.e., 20 liters of illicitly distilled liquor each can – total 40 liters and seized the property under the cover of occurrence report by L.Ws.4 and 5, after explaining that transporting illegal possession and selling of liquor bottles in higher price in an offence. The occurrence report was got drafted at scene of offence i.e., marked as Ex.P.1. Later they return to the police station along with accused and seized property. Admittedly in her cross examination deposed that scene of offence is busy locality there are so many men are roaming there, himself and LW5 did not secure the proper persons as independent witness in this case. He denied that they never went to the scene offence nor arrested the accused nor seized the property from the possession of accused.

12.P.W.2/M.Venkatarao, Sub Inspector, who arrested accused, seized the property from the accused and registered the case and filed charge sheet. He corroborated with the version of P.W.1 in his chief.

Further, deposed that himself prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence i.e., Ex.P1. Later, he returned to the SEB., Bhogapuram Police 5

Station, Vizianagaram along with seized property and accused. Basing on

Ex.P1, registered a case in Cr.No.45/2020 U/Sec. 15-10-2020 at about 14.00 hrs, L.W.6/M.Venkatarao and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 5 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW6 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said two white plastic cans and found i.e., 20 liters of illicitly distilled liquor each can – total 40 liters and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P2. Later

LW5 conducted further investigation in this case and LW5 received the chemical examination report i.e., Ex.P3, later he received the destruction proceedings from the Superintendant of Police, Vizianagaram for destruction of case property along with the other case property. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Admittedly, in P.W.2 cross examination deposed that they did not arrest the accused nor seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused.

He denied that false case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose.

13.On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is elicited from them that on 15-10-2020 at about 14.00 hrs,

L.W.6/M.Venkatarao and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 5 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW6 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said two white plastic cans and found i.e., 20 liters of illicitly distilled liquor each can – total 40 liters, and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of his house and caught from police and admitted accused guilty.

M.O.2. The occurrence report was drafted at scene of offence. Later they return to the police station along with seized property and accused for further investigation. Basing on the occurrence report LW8 registered the 7 case in Cr.no.45/2020 under section 7(a) r.w 8(e) of AP.Prohibition Act.

Later accused produced before the honourable court for judicial remand.

PW2 took up three sample bottles from seized property i.e., MO.1 and

M.O.2 to the Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory of

Visakhapatnam for analysis through the letter of advice and PW2 received analysis report i.e., Ex.P3, L.W.5 sent a letter to the Superintendent of

Police, Vizianagaram for destruction of seized remaining property and he destructed the seized property in the presence of mediators i.e., L.Ws. 4 and 5 on 20-05-2024.

14.Admittedly PW.2 did not try to secure any independent witnesses and also did not try to secure the official at Tippalavalasa village, Vizianagaram. The scene of offence is a residential area, even though, the investigating office did not try to secure the mediators from the place where accused was alleged to be seized property and arrested, without having any license nor permission from the government. Further,

PW.1 corroborated version of PW.2 in all aspects they are police officials to the support of the evidence of the one another.

15.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW.2 being the investigating officer, who is an interested witness to this case and PW.

1 and LWs. 2, LW3 and L.W.5 are also police staff, they assist the PW.2 at the time of arrest of accused seized of the alleged property i.e., 40 liters of ID liquor from the possession of accused, and also he assist the drafting of occurrence report by the PW.2 at the scene i.e.,Ex.P1, and their evidence cannot be relied without supporting evidence of mediators 8 and official witness from the Ashoknagar, Vizianagaram. Then, the learned counsel further submitted that U/s 100 (4) Cr.P.C was not followed the procedure, at the time of search and seizure of alleged property at the scene, seizure and drafting of police proceedings at the scene. It is submitted that the alleged recovery i.e., 40 liters of ID liquor, and drafting of Ex.P1 occurrence report is required U/s 25 and 27 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 casts serious aspersions on the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested at the alleged scene of offence on the alleged date and time.

The Judgment reported in 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 11 (A.P)., - Boina

Chinnam Naidu Vs State of A.P., wherein their lordships held that -“Normally conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone in the absence of any other independent evidence. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard but at the same time, it would be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the investigating Officer in the absence of any other independent evidence to convict the accused normally.”

The Judgment reported in 2005(3) ALT (Crl) AP(1)page - wherein their Lordship held that: “Evidence of Excise officials, who are official and certainly interested witnesses does not inspire the confidence.

Therefore, have been considered the observation and discussions of above relied cases of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the police official/investigation officer is himself complainant and 9 other witness also police constables, but they did not procure independent/official witness is cited to prove their case alleged against accused, thus the evidence of police officials cannot be looked into without supporting the evidence of independent witness and official witness as per the provisions of Sec.25 & 27 of Indian Evidence act,1872 and also required U/sec. 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. at the time of search and seizer.

16.Furthermore, the seizure of the sample bottles, MO.1 & M.O.2 were not sent for analysis on the same day. Further all the bottles recovered from the possession of the accused is not sent to the Chemical

Examiner. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh inMudavath Mothia v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.), was pleased to hold that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that all bottles seized from the accused contain Indian Liquor. In this case all the bottles are not sent to the Chemical Examiner.

17.Therefore, in view of my above discussion and relying upon the decisions, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Police

Officials have seized the property from the possession of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

18. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 7(a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds 10 of Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged

Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the Appellate Court if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW.1 : A.Apparao -None-

PW.2 : M.Venkatarao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Occurrence report

Ex.P2: First Information Report.

Ex.P3: Chemical analysis report

Ex.P4: Destruction proceedings.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 & M.O.2 : Drawn two sample bottles from the seized property.

Sd/- M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

CC/1203/2024 Acquitted

Spl. Enforcement Bureau, Bhogapuram. vs Yerukonda Ramulu

24 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE): VIZIANAGARAM

Present:Sri M. Srinivasarao, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram,

Wednesday, this the 23rd day April, 2025

C.C.No. 1203/2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB., Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram. … Complainant

And:

Yerukonda Ramulu, S/o.late Lakshamanaidu, aged 58 years, r/o.Chodamma Agraharam village of Pusapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram district.

….… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 21-04-2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

Complainant State represented by the Police and Sri.Vijaykumar, Learned

Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB.,

Bhogapuram Police Station, Vizianagaram laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7 r/w. 8(b)(i) of AP.Prohibition Act in Cr.No.45/2023.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief are that: On 24-11-2023 at about 11.30 hrs, L.W.3/E.Ramakrishna and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 and 2 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with one polythene bag containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW3 asked the said person whether he is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that he did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW3 opened the said polythene bags and found i.e., 10 nip bottles of Classic blue finest whisky each 180 Ml, and LW3 seized the same under cover of occurrence report and separated each one bottle from each brand from seized bottles for chemical analysis. The occurrence report was drafted at scene of offence. Later they return to the police station along with seized property and accused for further investigation.

Basing on the occurrence report LW3 registered the case in

Cr.no.45/2023 under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act. Later accused produced before the honourable court for judicial remand.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., a charges were framed for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act against accused was read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 is marked.

08. Heard both sides, perused the record.

09.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 34 (A) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.POINT:-The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1.

11.PW.1/I.Simhachalam, police Constable, deposed that on 17-09- 2022 at about 9.00 hrs, L.W.3/E.Ramakrishna and accompanied with

L.Ws. 1 and 2 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, 4 who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with one polythene bag containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW3 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that he did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW3 opened the said two plastic bags and found i.e., 12 nip bottles of Gold choice superior whisky each 180 Ml and seized the property under the cover of occurrence report by L.Ws.4 and 5, after explaining that transporting illegal possession and selling of liquor bottles in higher price in an offence. The occurrence report was got drafted at scene of offence i.e., marked as Ex.P.1. Later they return to the police station along with accused and seized property. Admittedly in her cross examination deposed that scene of offence is busy locality there are so many men are roaming there, himself and LW3 did not secure the proper persons as independent witness in this case. He denied that they never went to the scene offence nor arrested the accused nor seized the property from the possession of accused.

12.P.W.3/E.Ramakrishna, Sub Inspector, who arrested accused, seized the property from the accused and registered the case and filed charge sheet. He corroborated with the version of P.W.1 in his chief.

Further, deposed that himself prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence i.e., Ex.P1. Later, he returned to the SEB., Bhogapuram Police 5

Station, Vizianagaram along with seized property and accused. Basing on

Ex.P1, registered a case in Cr.No.114/2021 U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P2. Later LW3 conducted further investigation in this case and LW5 received the chemical examination report i.e., Ex.P3, later he received the destruction proceedings from the

Superintendant of Police, Vizianagaram for destruction of case property along with the other case property. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. Admittedly, in P.W.2 cross examination deposed that they did not arrest the accused nor seized the liquor bottles from the possession of accused. He denied that false case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose.

13.On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is elicited from them that on 17-09-2022 at about 9.00 hrs,

L.W.3/E.Ramakrishna and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 4 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW5 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said one polythene bag and found i.e., 12 nip bottles of Gold 6 choice superior whisky each 180 Ml and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of his house and caught from police and admitted accused guilty.

On that LW5 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW5 opened the said polythene bag and found the above contraband and LW5 seized the same under cover of occurrence report and separated each one bottle from each brand from seized bottles for chemical analysis i.e., M.O.1. The occurrence report was drafted at scene of offence. Later they return to the police station along with seized property and accused for further investigation. Basing on the occurrence report LW3 registered the case in

Cr.no.114/2021 under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act. Later accused produced before the honourable court for judicial remand.

PW1 took up one sample bottle from seized property i.e., MO.1 to the Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory of Visakhapatnam for analysis through the letter of advice and PW1 received analysis report i.e., Ex.P3, L.W.5 sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police,

Vizianagaram for destruction of seized remaining property and he destructed the seized property in the presence of mediators i.e., L.Ws. 1 and 2.

14.Admittedly PW.2 did not try to secure any independent witnesses and also did not try to secure the official at munjeru village,

Vizianagaram. The scene of offence is a residential area, even though, the 7 investigating office did not try to secure the mediators from the place where accused was alleged to be seized property and arrested, without having any license nor permission from the government. Further, PW.1 corroborated version of PW.2 in all aspects they are police officials to the support of the evidence of the one another.

15.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW.2 being the investigating officer, who is an interested witness to this case and PW.

1 and LWs. 2, LW3 and L.W.5 are also police staff, they assist the PW.2 at the time of arrest of accused seized of the alleged property i.e., 12 nip bottles of Gold choice superior whisky each 180 Ml from the possession of accused, and also he assist the drafting of occurrence report by the

PW.2 at the scene i.e.,Ex.P1, and their evidence cannot be relied without supporting evidence of mediators and official witness from the

Ashoknagar, Vizianagaram. Then, the learned counsel further submitted that U/s 100 (4) Cr.P.C was not followed the procedure, at the time of search and seizure of alleged property at the scene, seizure and drafting of police proceedings at the scene. It is submitted that the alleged recovery i.e., (1) Manjeera Blue premium deluxe whisky 180 ML-200 bottles and (2) 8 PM black Exclusive whisky 180 ml-39 bottles and (3)

Brillant Blend Superior Grain whisky 180 Ml-74 bottles, and drafting of

Ex.P1 occurrence report is required U/s 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 casts serious aspersions on the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested at the alleged scene of offence on the alleged date and time.

The Judgment reported in 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 11 (A.P)., - Boina

Therefore, have been considered the observation and discussions of above relied cases of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the police official/investigation officer is himself complainant and other witness also police constables, but they did not procure independent/official witness is cited to prove their case alleged against accused, thus the evidence of police officials cannot be looked into without supporting the evidence of independent witness and official witness as per the provisions of Sec.25 & 27 of Indian Evidence act,1872 and also required U/sec. 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. at the time of search and seizer.

16.Furthermore, the seizure of the sample bottles, MO.1 to M.O.3 were not sent for analysis on the same day. Further all the bottles 9 recovered from the possession of the accused is not sent to the Chemical

17.Therefore, in view of my above discussion and relying upon the decisions, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Police

Officials have seized the property from the possession of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise (Amendment) Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the Appellate Court if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW.1 : I.Simhachalam -None-

PW.2 : E.Ramakrishna

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Occurrence report

Ex.P2: First Information Report.

Ex.P3: Chemical analysis report

Ex.P4: Destruction proceedings.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : Drawn one sample bottle from the seized property.

Sd/-M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

CC/1812/2024 Acquitted

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs L.Appalanaidu

24 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE): VIZIANAGARAM

Present:Sri M. Srinivasarao, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram,

Wednesday, this the 23rd day April, 2025

C.C.No. 1812/2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gantyada Police Station, Vizianagaram. … Complainant

And:

Landa Appalanaidu, S/o.Narayanappadu, aged 26 years, r/o.Narava village of Gantyada mandal, Vizianagaram district.

….… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 21-04-2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

Complainant State represented by the Police and Sri.P.Ravi, Learned

Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB.,

Gantyada Police Station, Vizianagaram laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act in

Cr.No.76/2024.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief are that: On 24-11-2023 at about 11.30 hrs, L.W.3/E.Ramakrishna and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 2 and 2 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with one polythene bag containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW3 asked the said person whether he is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that he did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW3 opened the said polythene bags and found i.e., 96 nip bottles of Hyderabad blue reserve whisky each 180 Ml, and LW3 seized the same under cover of occurrence report and separated each one bottle from each brand from seized bottles for chemical analysis. The occurrence report was drafted at scene of offence. Later they return to the police station along with seized property and accused for further investigation.

Basing on the occurrence report LW3 registered the case in

Cr.no.45/2023 under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act. Later accused produced before the honourable court for judicial remand.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 is marked.

08. Heard both sides, perused the record.

10.POINT:-The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1.

11.PW.1/I.Simhachalam, police Constable, deposed that on 17-09- 2022 at about 9.00 hrs, L.W.3/E.Ramakrishna and accompanied with

L.Ws. 1 and 2 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in 4 front of her house with one polythene bag containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW3 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that he did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW3 opened the said two plastic bags and found i.e., 12 nip bottles of Gold choice superior whisky each 180 Ml and seized the property under the cover of occurrence report by L.Ws.4 and 5, after explaining that transporting illegal possession and selling of liquor bottles in higher price in an offence. The occurrence report was got drafted at scene of offence i.e., marked as Ex.P.1. Later they return to the police station along with accused and seized property. Admittedly in her cross examination deposed that scene of offence is busy locality there are so many men are roaming there, himself and LW3 did not secure the proper persons as independent witness in this case. He denied that they never went to the scene offence nor arrested the accused nor seized the property from the possession of accused.

Further, deposed that himself prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence i.e., Ex.P1. Later, he returned to the SEB., Bhogapuram Police

Station, Vizianagaram along with seized property and accused. Basing on

Ex.P1, registered a case in Cr.No.114/2021 U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P2. Later LW3 conducted further 5 investigation in this case and LW5 received the chemical examination report i.e., Ex.P3, later he received the destruction proceedings from the

13.On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is elicited from them that on 17-09-2022 at about 9.00 hrs,

L.W.3/E.Ramakrishna and accompanied with L.Ws. 1 to 4 on credible information, he along with staff about illegal possession and sales of liquor conducted raid and nabbed the accused, who stated that she is eking her livelihood by doing servant maid works and also he purchase liquor bottles and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of her house with two plastic bags containing liquor bottles in it, caught to police and admitted his guilty. On that LW5 asked the said person whether she is having any permission for selling or transporting the liquor, he stated that she did not have any permission or license is available at the item, LW8 opened the said one polythene bag and found i.e., 12 nip bottles of Gold choice superior whisky each 180 Ml and to sell them higher price, at the time of conducted raid by police, the accused is sitting at a vacant site in front of his house and caught from police and admitted accused guilty.

Cr.no.114/2021 under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act. Later accused produced before the honourable court for judicial remand.

Vizianagaram for destruction of seized remaining property and he destructed the seized property in the presence of mediators i.e., L.Ws. 1 and 2.

14.Admittedly PW.2 did not try to secure any independent witnesses and also did not try to secure the official at munjeru village,

Vizianagaram. The scene of offence is a residential area, even though, the investigating office did not try to secure the mediators from the place where accused was alleged to be seized property and arrested, without having any license nor permission from the government. Further, PW.1 7 corroborated version of PW.2 in all aspects they are police officials to the support of the evidence of the one another.

15.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW.2 being the investigating officer, who is an interested witness to this case and PW.

PW.2 at the scene i.e.,Ex.P1, and their evidence cannot be relied without supporting evidence of mediators and official witness from the

Brillant Blend Superior Grain whisky 180 Ml-74 bottles, and drafting of

The Judgment reported in 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 11 (A.P)., - Boina

Chinnam Naidu Vs State of A.P., wherein their lordships held that -“Normally conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of the evidence 8 of the Investigating Officer alone in the absence of any other independent evidence. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard but at the same time, it would be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of the investigating Officer in the absence of any other independent evidence to convict the accused normally.”

Therefore, have been considered the observation and discussions of above relied cases of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the police official/investigation officer is himself complainant and other witness also police constables, but they did not procure independent/official witness is cited to prove their case alleged against accused, thus the evidence of police officials cannot be looked into without supporting the evidence of independent witness and official witness as per the provisions of Sec.25 & 27 of Indian Evidence act,1872 and also required U/sec. 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. at the time of search and seizer.

16.Furthermore, the seizure of the sample bottles, MO.1 to M.O.3 were not sent for analysis on the same day. Further all the bottles recovered from the possession of the accused is not sent to the Chemical

Examiner. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh inMudavath Mothia v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.), was pleased to hold that 9 it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that all bottles seized from the accused contain Indian Liquor. In this case all the bottles are not sent to the Chemical Examiner.

17.Therefore, in view of my above discussion and relying upon the decisions, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Police

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the Appellate Court if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW.1 : G.Narayanarao -None-

PW.2 : M.Ganapathirao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Occurrence report

Ex.P2: First Information Report.

Ex.P3: Chemical analysis report

Ex.P4: Destruction proceedings.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : Drawn one sample bottle from the seized property.

Sd/-M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

CC/1813/2024 Acquitted

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs P.Apparao

24 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE): VIZIANAGARAM

Present:Sri M. Srinivasarao, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Wednesday, this the 23rd day April, 2025

C.C.No. 1813/2024

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector, Gantyada police station. … Complainant

And:

Pinninti Apparao, S/o.Thatayyalu, aged 30 years, r/o.Lingannapeta village, Padmanabam mandal, Vizianagaram district. ….… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 21-04-2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Complainant State represented by the Police and Sri.S.Jagannadham naidu, Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gantyada police station laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act in Cr.No.80/2024.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief are that: On 24-04-2024 at about 21.30 hrs LW4/B.Ravindraraju, Sub-Inspector of Police received a credible information regarding the illegal transport of liquor bottles.

Immediately, L.W.3 along with L.ws.1 and 2 rushed to Nellimarla village and mandal while they reached that place of accused was in the possession of liquor bottles i.e., 1 nip bottles of White and blue rare oak whisky each 750 ml, 2) Royal stag classic whisky – 5 bottles; and 3) 8 pm premium reserve whisky bottles -2 nos., total 8 bottles and it were tried to took him into his house, on seeing them he tried to escape, but LW3 2 caught the accused with the assistance of L.ws. 1 & 2 and questioned his name and address particular and asked what had in the canes as to why on seeing police and left away from the place, then accused disclosed that his address particulars and also accused stated that, he purchased the above contraband on various shops and to get more profit. On that curiosity with a view to get more profits. He has not any valid permission took the liquor bottles for selling which was prohibited by the government, it is an offence and arrested the accused after informing grounds of his arrest, then LW3 took one bottle of for sending to chemical analysis and seized the same. LW3 tried to secure the mediators, but none came forward to act as mediators. Thereupon LW3 prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence.

Basing on the occurrence report LW3 registered the case in

Cr.No.14/2024 under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act and later accused produced before the Honourable court for judicial custody.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., a charges were framed for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act against accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 to MO.3 are marked.

08. Heard both sides, perused the record.

09.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable 34(a) of

AP.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.POINT:-The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused examined PWs.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 to MO.3.

11.PW.1/M.Ganapathirao, SI of police deposed that on 29-08-2020 at about 20.00 hrs LW3/B.Ravindraraju, Sub-Inspector of Police received a credible information regarding the illegal transport of liquor bottles.

Immediately, L.W.3 along with L.ws.1 and 2 rushed to Nellimarla village and mandal while they reached that place of accused was in the possession of liquor bottles i.e., Hyderabad blue superior whisky each 180 ml. The occurrence report was got drafted at scene of offence as marked Ex.P.1. Later they returned to the police station along with accused and seized property. Later, he returned to the station, along with seized property and accused. Basing on Ex.P1, registered a case under section 34 (a) of AP.Excise Act in Cr.No.80/2024 and issued FIR i.e.,

Ex.P2. He drawn one sample bottle from the seized property i.e., MO.1 to

3. Later he produced the accused before the honourable court and he received the chemical examination report i.e., Ex.P3, he received the destruction proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram for destruction of case property i.e., Ex.P.4 along with the other case property. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. Admittedly, in P.W.1 cross examination deposed that the he has not prepared the separate seizure list and also rough sketch. He denied that false case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose.

13.On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is elicited from them that On 19-01-2024 at about 11.00 hrs

LW4/D.Ramaganesh, Sub-Inspector of Police received a credible information regarding the illegal transport of liquor bottles. Immediately,

L.W.4 along with L.ws.1 to 3 rushed to Gushini village, Nellimarla mandal while they reached that place of accused was in the possession of liquor 4 bottles i.e., Hyderabad blue superior whisky each 180 ml, it were tried to took him into his house, on seeing them he tried to escape, but LW4 caught the accused with the assistance of L.ws. 1 and 2 and questioned his name and address particular and asked what had in the canes as to why on seeing police and left away from the place, then accused disclosed that his address particulars and also accused stated that, he purchased the above contraband on various shops and to get more profit. On that curiosity with a view to get more profits. He has not any valid permission took the liquor bottles for selling which was prohibited by the government, it is an offence and arrested the accused after informing grounds of his arrest, then LW3 took one bottle of for sending to chemical analysis and seized the same. LW3 tried to secure the mediators, but none came forward to act as mediators. Thereupon PW1 prepared self occurrence report. Basing on the occurrence report PW1 registered the case in Cr.No.80/2024 under section.34(a) of AP.Excise Act and later accused produced before the Honourable court for judicial custody. PW1 took up sample of liquor bottles from seized property i.e.,

MO.1 and MO.2 to the Govt. Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory of

Visakhapatnam for analysis through the letter of advice and he received analysis report i.e., Ex.P3, P.W.1 sent a letter to the Superintendent of

Police, Vizianagaram for destruction of seized remaining property i.e.,

Ex.P.4 and he destructed the seized property in the presence.

14.Admittedly PW.1 did not try to secure any independent witnesses and also did not try to secure the official at Ragolu village,

15.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that PW.1 being the investigating officer, who is an interested witness to this case and PWs. 1 and LWs.1 to 3 are also his staff, they assist the PW1 at the time of arrest of accused seized of the alleged property i.e., 52 liquor bottles, from the 5 possession of accused, and also PW1 drafting of occurrence report at the scene i.e.,Ex.P1, and their evidence cannot be relied without supporting evidence of mediators and official witness from the Nellimarla mandal,

Vizianagaram. Then, the learned counsel further submitted that U/s 100 (4) Cr.P.C was not followed the procedure, at the time of search and seizure of alleged property at the scene, seizure and drafting of police proceedings at the scene. It is submitted that the alleged recovery i.e., 1)

Silver stripes 17 bottles; 2) Spy agro – 33 bottles, and drafting of Ex.P1 occurrence report is required U/s 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 casts serious aspersions on the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested at the alleged scene of offence on the alleged date and time.

The Judgment reported in 2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 11 (A.P)., - Boina

Therefore, have been considered the observation and discussions of above relied cases of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the police official/investigation officer is himself complainant and other witness also police constables, but they did not procure independent/official witness is cited to prove their case alleged against accused, thus the evidence of police officials cannot be looked into without supporting the evidence of independent witness and official witness as per the provisions of Sec.25 & 27 of Indian Evidence act,1872 and also required U/sec. 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. at the time of search and seizer.

16.Furthermore, the seizure of the sample bottles, MO.1 was not sent for analysis on the same day. Further all the bottles recovered from the possession of the accused is not sent to the Chemical Examiner. The

Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh inMudavath Mothia v. State of

A.P., 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.), was pleased to hold that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that all bottles seized from the accused contain Indian Liquor. In this case all the bottles are not sent to the

Chemical Examiner.

17.Therefore, in view of my above discussion and relying upon the decisions, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Police

Officials have seized the property from the possession of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of AP.Excise Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

18. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the Appellate Court if any appeal is preferred. M.O.1 to MO.3 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW.1 : M.Ganapathirao-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Occurrence report 7

Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.P3: Chemical analysis report. Ex.P4: Destruction proceedings.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 to 3 : Drawn three sample bottles from the seized property.

Sd/-M. Srinivasarao,

Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

CC/1442/2022 Acquitted

State Rep by Sub Inspector P and E, Vizianagaram II Rural vs Badithamani Rambabu

24 Apr 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE): VIZIANAGARAM

Present:Sri M. Srinivasarao, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of the First Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Wednesday, this the 23rd day April, 2025

C.C.No. 1442/2022

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector, Vizianagaram-II rural police station. … Complainant

And:

Badithamani Rambabu, S/o.Adinarayana, aged 30 years, A.Agraharam village, Bonda mandal, Vizianagaram district. ….… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 21-04-2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Complainant State represented by the Police and Sri.G.Mannu, Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram-II rural police station laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act in

Cr.No.10/2020.

Immediately, L.W.3 along with L.ws.1 and 2 rushed to Nellimarla village and mandal while they reached that place of accused was in the possession of liquor bottles i.e., 12 nip bottles of Green choice superior whisky bottles; (1) 1 bottle of Gold race deluxe whisky bottles - total 13 bottles and it were tried to took him into his house, on seeing them he 2 tried to escape, but LW3 caught the accused with the assistance of L.ws.

1 & 2 and questioned his name and address particular and asked what had in the canes as to why on seeing police and left away from the place, then accused disclosed that his address particulars and also accused stated that, he purchased the above contraband on various shops and to get more profit. On that curiosity with a view to get more profits. He has not any valid permission took the liquor bottles for selling which was prohibited by the government, it is an offence and arrested the accused after informing grounds of his arrest, then LW3 took one bottle of for sending to chemical analysis and seized the same. LW3 tried to secure the mediators, but none came forward to act as mediators. Thereupon

LW3 prepared occurrence report at the scene of offence.

Basing on the occurrence report LW3 registered the case in

Cr.No.10/2020 under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act and later accused produced before the Honourable court for judicial custody.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act.

04.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., a charges were framed for the offence under section 34(a) of AP.Excise Act against accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P4 and MO.1 & MO.2 are marked.