Smt. Manadala Likitha

APCH110016502021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: PALAMANER

PRESENT: SMT. M.LIKHITHA,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner.

Thursday, this the Seventh (7th ) day of May, 2026

C.C.No: 1223 of 2021

Between :- The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V. Kota Urban P.S.

..Complainant.

And :-

1. A.Srikanth, aged 45 years, S/o Ramappa, resident of Govindanagar @ P.Kothuru Village, V.Kota Mandal and Panchayat.

2. B.Gajendra, aged 38 years, S/o Late Balappa, resident of Chinthamakulapalli Village and Panchayat, V.Kota Mandal.

3. Kalyan Kumar @ Nagaraju, aged 26 years, S/o Narayanappa, R/o Patrapalli Village, V.Kota Panchayat and Mandal.

4. V.Manikanta, aged 25 years, S/o Venappa, R/o Govindanagar @ P.Kothuru Village, V.Kota Mandal

.. Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on23.04.2026 in the presence of Sri S.Lakshman, Advocate for accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota Urban P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.395 of 2020 for the offences U/Sec.379 IPC and U/Sec.21(4) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 of V.Kota Urban P.S.

2.The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows:-

a)On 17.12.2020 at 4 p.m., LW.5 Y.V.Mallappa Naidu, Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, V.Kota Urban P.S. on credible information about illegal transportation of sand, left along with staff LW.1 B.Panneer Naik, Head 2

Constable, V.Kota Urban P.S., LW.2 Balakrishna, HG, V.Kota Urban P.S. and

LW.3 Venkataramana, SPO, V.Kota Urban P.S., LW.4 Azam Basha, SPO,

V.Kota Urban P.S. reached Peddavanka canal at 4.30 p.m., found two tractors were stationed and two male persons were loading sand to tractors.

On seeing the police vehicle, the two persons left the tractors on the spot and tried to escape, on questioning them, A3 confessed about his name and address particulars and when he approached A1 to give work of money to him, A1 replied that there is no money with him, so saying told him the

Government of A.P. implemented new sand policy, so it is very difficult to get permission to transport the sand and increase demand to the sand. If they transport the sand by committing theft, they earn Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- sand per load. On profit, he will get half amount for his share and on the directions of A1, on 17.12.2021 evening at about 3 p.m., he went to

Peddavanka in A1’s tractor AP 03 AD 1118, A4 who is loading sand in tractor of A2 told him that as per the directions of A2, he went to commit theft of sand to sell at V.Kota. In the mean time, both of them loaded sand to their tractors, police came and caught hold of them. When LW.5 Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police asked about any permission or license from the competent authorities for transporting of sand, for which, he stated that he is not having any permission or records for transporting the sand in tractor.

LW.5 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police examined tractor with trailer loaded with sand bearing registration No.AP 03 AD 1118 without Engine number and Chasis number and trailer with registration No.AP 03 AD 1120, Chasis

No.HEW0622007. On the tractor engine bonnet, having red colour with letters as ‘MASSEEY FERGUSON 1031 DI’ without any records in the tractor.

b)Then LW.5 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on questioning A4, he confessed his name and address particulars and on 17.12.2020, he 3 received a phone call from A2 to unload one load of sand at Gas Office

Street, V. Kota town by committing theft from Peddavanka near P.Kothuru, he will give half amount as his share in profit. For which A4 agreed the deal and in the tractor of A2 bearing No.AP 39 CC 1592 went to Peddavanka and while loading the sand to tractor, on arrival of police party, he tried to escape by leaving the tractor.

c)LW.5 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.395/2020 under Sec.379 IPC and Sec.21 (4) of MMDR Act, 1957 of

V.Kota Urban P.S., submitted FIR copies to all concerned and took up investigation into this case. On 17.12.2020, LW.5 served notice under

Sec.41 (a) Cr.P.C. against A3 and A4, on 19.12.2020, LW.5 Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police served notice under Sec.41 (a) Cr.P.C. against A1 and

A2.

d)LW.5 Assistant Sub Inspector of Police handed over the tractor and trailer with loaded sand to the Tahsildar, V.Kota under proper acknowledgment. After completion of investigation LW.6 Sub Inspector of

Police, V.Kota Urban PS filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.This case is taken on file for the offences U/Sec.379 IPC and U/Sec.

21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 against A1 to A4.

4.On appearance of accused, they were furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.A1 to A4 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec.379 IPC is framed, read over and explained to A1 to A4 for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 documents.

4

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; they denied the evidence, pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the charge U/Sec.379 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10.POIN T :

It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.12.2020 at about 4.30 p.m.

at Peddavanka Canal, Patrapalle village while A3 on the instructions of A1 and A4 on the instructions of A2 were illegally transporting sand in A1’s tractor bearing No.AP 03 AD 1118 without Engine number and Chasis number and trailer with registration No.AP 03 AD 1120, Chasis

No.HEW0622007 and tractor bearing No.AP 39 CC 1592 of A2, PW.2 seized the vehicles under cover of Ex.P-1 and arrested A3 and A4 and brought them to the station along with seized property and PW.2 registered a case in Cr.No.395 of 2025 U/Sec.379 IPC and Sec.21(4) of Mines &

Minerals Development and Regulations Act and issued Ex.P-2 FIR. A1 and

A2 were served with Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice. On 27.07.2021, the Tahsildar,

V.Kota issued proceedings to release the seized sand to A.E. Panchayath

Raj for utilizing to Government purpose.

11.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 who are police personnel. PW.2 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota

Urban PS who conducted investigation, arrested the accused and filed charge sheet in this case.

12.PW.1 who assisted the Investigating Officer during investigation deposed in his evidence that on 17.12.2020 at about 4.00 pm, PW.2 5 received credible information about illegal transportation of sand. Then he,

PW.2, LW’s 2 to 4 went to the scene of offence i.e., Peddavanka Canal,

Patrapalle village, found two tractors and two male persons loading sand to tractors. On seeing them, they tried to escape from the scene of offence and

PW.2 caught hold of them and enquired. PW.2 enquired A3, he voluntarily confessed his name and address particulars and since six months, he is working as driver for A1’s tractor bearing No.AP03AD1118. Due to financial problems, he approached A1 for help and A1 told him to get sand by committing theft and from that income, they can share their respective amount.

13.PW.2 enquired A4, he voluntarily confessed his name and address particulars and he is working as driver for A2. On 17.12.2020, he received phone call from A2 that his tractor driver is unavailable and hence, if he unload one load of sand near P.Koturu village, he will give half amount as his share in the profit. For which, A4 agreed and took the tractor bearing No.

AP39CC1592 of A2 and went to scene of offence. While A3 and A4 were loading the sand into the tractors, PW.2 caught hold of them. PW.2 enquired about bills pertaining to sand, A3, A4 replied that they have no bills pertaining to sand. PW.2 arrested A3, A4 and seized the tractors along with sand under Ex.P1 police proceedings.

14.During the cross-examination of PW.1, he admitted that on 17.12.2020, COVID-19 pandemic restrictions are there, he did not sign in police proceedings, the alleged scene of offence is adjacent to P.Koturu village of V.Kota mandal, and Patrapalle under limits of Patrapalle Revenue village. He further admitted that Patrapalle beside P.Koturu village, there are

V.R.O., and V.R.A., are available. He further stated that PW.2 tried to secure the mediators near the scene of offence, but none were available. He further admitted that PW.2 did not mentioned the names of police who caught hold 6

A3 and A4. PW.2 had not secured any documents relating to the seized vehicles. He further admitted that one cannot say the name of owner of the vehicle without going through the particulars of R.C. of vehicle. He further stated that he framed A1 to A4 as accused without having any basis to frame them as accused, there is no recital in the police proceedings as to the scribe of police proceedings. He further stated that it took about one hour to prepare police proceedings, only one set of police proceedings were prepared. He further admitted that PW.2 did not obtain signatures of A3, A4 in each and every page of police proceedings and did not prepared scene observation mahazarnamma and rough sketch of the scene of offence, except PW.2, no other police person signed in the police proceedings.

15.PW.2 who is the Investigating Officer who did entire investigation in this case deposed in his evidence that on 17.12.2020 at about 4.00 pm, he received credible information about illegal transportation of sand.

Immediately, he, PW1 and LW’s 2 to 4 went to the scene of offence i.e.,

Peddavanka Canal, Patrapalle village, found two tractors and two male persons loading sand to tractors. On seeing them, they tried to escape from the scene of offence, he caught hold them and enquired separately. On enquiry of A3, he voluntarily confessed his name and address and since six months, he is working as driver for A1’s tractor bearing No.AP03AD1118.

Due to financial problems, he approached A1 for help and A1 told him to get sand by committing theft and from that income, they can share their respective amount.

16.PW.2 further deposed that on enquiry of A4, he voluntarily confessed his name and address and working as a driver for A2. On 17.12.2020, he received phone call from A2 that his tractor driver is unavailable and hence, if he unload one load of sand near P.Koturu village, he will give half amount 7 as his share in the profit. For which, A4 agreed and took the tractor bearing no.AP39CC1592 of A2 and went to the scene of offence. While A3 and A4 were loading the sand into the tractors, he caught hold them. On his enquiry about bills pertaining to sand, A3 and A4 replied that they have no bills pertaining to sand. He arrested A3 and A4, seized the tractors along with sand under Ex.P1police proceedings.Basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.395/2025 U/Sec.379 IPC and Sec.21(4) of M.M.D.R Act. He sent Ex.P2F.I.R. copies to all concerned officials. On the same day, gave a

Ex.P3 requisition to Tahsildar, V.Kota to take necessary action regarding the sand seized which was illegally transported in tractor No.AP39CC1592 and

AP03AD1118 along with trailers.On the same day, he served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C. notice to A3 and A4. On 19.12.2020, he served section 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to A1 and A2. On 22.12.2020, he handed over C.D. file to LW.6 and he verified it and found it on correct lines. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A4. On 27.07.2021, the Tahsildar, V.Kota issued Ex.P4 proceedings to release the seized sand to A.E. Panchayath

Raj for utilizing to Government purpose.

17.During the cross-examination of PW.2, he admitted that he is the complainant and the Investigation Officer to this case. He stated that the scene of offence is a busy locality, he tried to secure the mediators, but none was came forward to act as mediators and the same is not mentioned in Ex.P1, in general, to know the ownership of vehicle, they have to check the R.C. He further admitted that as per Ex.P1, he searched for the vehicle documents and no documents are available. He further stated that basing on confession given by A3 and A4, he impeded A3 and A4 and owners as

A1 and A2 in Ex.P1. He further admitted that he did not take the signature of

PW1 in Ex.P1, except him, no one signed in Ex.P1, there is no endorsement in Ex.P1 that the accused received copies, he did not took the signatures of 8 the accused in each page of Ex.P1, he did not mentioned the Trailer numbers in Ex.P3, the alleged incident date was occurred during the

COVID-19 pandemic and there are restrictions on vehicle movements. He admitted that he never prepared rough sketch and scene observation proceedings of the scene of offence.

18.It is pertinent to note that except the police officials, there is no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. Further the

Investigating Officer cum Assistant Sub Inspector of Police also did not choose to get any independent witnesses at the time of seizure of vehicles and the sand from the possession of A3 and A4 and he has also failed to offer plausible explanation as to why he could not secure the presence of independent witness. Further PW.2 failed to show the staff members as witnesses who accompanied him at the scene of offence.

19.Admittedly the Investigating Officer did not secure any proof from

PW1 to show that the sand was allegedly dumped by the A3 and A4. In this case, except the tractor and trailer, the sand was not brought to the notice of this court. Even though the VRO and VRA are available at Patrapalle beside of P.Koturu Village, PW.2 failed to secure the mediators near the scene of offence. There is no sufficient document relating to the seized vehicles.

PW.2 framed A1 to A4 as accused without having any basis to frame them as accused. In the entire case, sand is the crucial property to decide whether the accused are transporting the said sand illegally, but here the very existence of the sand is not in clear terms. Except the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 who are the officials in this case, there is no evidence to corroborate the version of the prosecution.

20.Therefore, A1 to A4 cannot be held liable for the said offence.

Moreover, in the circumstances, it is highly difficult to rely on the evidence of police officials which alone is not sufficient to inculpate the accused for the 9 said offence. Therefore, A1 to A4 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

21.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379

IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall stands cancelled after six (6) months from the date of this

Judgment. The unmarked case property i.e. tractor bearing No.AP03

AD1118 and trolley bearing No.AP03AD1120 which is in the interim custody of owner of vehicle as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.517/2020, dt.06.01.2021, tractor bearing No.AP39CC1592 which is in the interim custody of owner of vehicle/A2 as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.515/2020, dt.06.01.2021, and trolley bearing No.AP02AH6508 which is in the interim custody of owner of vehicle as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.28-A/2021, dt.25.01.2021 are made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 7th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION :- DEFENCE : PW1: B.Panner Naik, HC None PW2: Y.V.Mallappa Naidu, ASI

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION :- Ex.P-1 : Police Proceedings Ex.P-2 : First Information Report Ex.P-3 : Requisition dt.17.12.2020 made to Tahsildar, V.Kota Ex.P-4 : Proceedings dt.27.07.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, V.Kota

DEFENCE : NIL 10

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Id/- MLKT JMFC, PLMNR.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAMANER

C.C.No: 1223 of 2021

Date of occurrence::17.12.2020 Date of complaint::17.12.2020 Date of taken on file::25.11.2021 Date of commencement of trial::01.04.2026 Date of closure of trial::08.04.2026 Date of sentence or order::07.05.2026 Name of the Complainant::The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, V. Kota Urban Police Station. (Cr.No.395/2020 of V. Kota Urban P.S.)

Name of the accused Father's / Husband's name Age

A.SrikanthRamappa45 years

B.GajendraLate Balappa38 years

Kalyan Kumar @ NagarajuNarayanappa26 years

V.ManikantaVenappa25 years

Village Mandal Religion Calling Govindanagar @ P.KothuruV.KotaHinduCultivation ChinthamakulapalliV.KotaHinduCultivation PatrapalliV.KotaHinduDriver Govindanagar @ P.KothuruV.KotaHinduDriver Nature of offence :U/Sec.379 IPC and U/Sec.21(4) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act,1957 Finding of the Court : Accused found not guilty Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.379 IPC and they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall stands cancelled after six (6) months from the date of this Judgment. The unmarked case property i.e. tractor bearing No.AP03 AD1118 and trolley bearing No.AP03AD1120 which is in the interim custody of owner of vehicle as per the orders in

Crl.M.P.No.517/2020,dt.06.01.2021,tractorbearing

No.AP39CC1592 which is in the interim custody of owner of vehicle/A2 as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.515/2020, dt.06.01.2021, and trolley bearing No.AP02AH6508 which is in the interim custody of owner of vehicle as per the orders in

Crl.M.P.No.28-A/2021, dt.25.01.2021 are made absolute after

expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

12

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Dis.No.____________, Dt:______________

APCH110008722020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: PALAMANER

PRESENT: SMT. M.LIKHITHA,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner.

Friday, this the Eighth (8th ) day of May, 2026

C.C.No: 572 of 2020

Between:

The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota Urban Police Station. … Complainant And:

1. M.Mohan Kumar, aged 35 years, S/o R.Manohar, R/o Dasarlapalli Village, V.Kota Mandal.

2. B.V.Naresh, aged 30 years, S/o Bestha Venkatesh, R/o Dasarlapalli Village, V.Kota Mandal.

3. T.M.Balu, aged 33 years, S/o T.S.Muneppa, R/o Nakkanapalli Village, H/o Javunipalli, V.Kota Mandal.

4. S.Ayaz Basha, aged 29 years, S/o S.Gouse Basha, R/o Nernipalli Village, V.Kota Mandal.

5. Ghouse Peer, aged 35 years, S/o K.M.Masood, R/o D.No.6-66, Nehru Street, V.Kota.

6. K.Samivulla @ Kaalu, aged 37 years, S/o K.Masood Ahammad, R/o D.No.6-66, Nehru Street, V.Kota.

7. K.M.Mahammad Moosa, aged 43 years, S/o K.Masood Ahammad, R/o D.No.6-66, Nehru Street, V.Kota.

8. R.Uday Kumar, aged 31 years, S/o R.M.Narayanaraju, R/o Gummireddipalle Village, H/o Pamuganipalli, V.Kota Mandal.

9. Abid, aged 36 years, S/o Late Sathar, R/o D.No.4-271, Venugopalaswamy Temple Street, V.Kota Town.

10. M.Somappa @ Somasekhar, aged 49 years, S/o M.Chengappa, r/o D.No.1-32, Sivunikuppam Village, H/o Kongatam, V.Kota.

11. P.N.Ramachandrappa, aged 46 years, S/o P.V.Narayanappa, D.No.18-527, Patrapalli, V.Kota Mandal.

12. V.Narayanappa, aged 50 years, S/o Venkatappa, R/o D.No.2-23/2, Dayyalapalli Village, Nernipalli Panchayat, V.Kota Mandal.

JMFC, Palamaner2CC.No.572 of 2020

13. R.S.Raghu Shabareesh, aged 30 years, S/o R.Srinivasulu, R/o D.No.4-16/1, Bramhana Street, V.Kota Town.

14. V.Thyagaraju, aged 31 years, S/o Late Venkataswamy, R/o D.No.6-107, Suddulakuppam Village, H/o Mudaramdoddi, V. Kota Mandal. *Case against A12 abated on 22.01.2026 … Accused This case is coming for final hearing on 22.04.2026 before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Palamaner for the complainant and Sri S.Lakshman, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, V.Kota Urban Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.51/2020 alleging that they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:

a) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued notification for the

ZPTC/MPTC Elections, 2020. Due to above elections, LW.2 S.Gane Naik,

Deputy Executive Engineer of Irrigation Department, V. Kota Mandal appointed as Returning Officer and LW.3 K.N.Balaji, MPDO, V.Kota appointed as Assistant Retuning Officer. Due to elections in between 09.03.2020 and 11.03.2020, some of the candidates have filed their nominations for MPTC

Elections and after scrutiny, the last date on 14.03.2020 for withdrawals of

MPTC candidates. In this connection, as per the instructions of LW.2 and

LW.3 in the RO’s chamber, LW.1 S.K.Mahesh, Administrative Officer, MPP,

V.Kota along with LW.2 RO, LW.3 ARO, LW.4 K.Adarsh, LW.5

R.K.Somasekhar, LW.6 V.N.Sreeramulu and LW.7 S.M.Ghouse and E.O.,

Yadavapathi were preparing final list of MPTC candidates by verifying

JMFC, Palamaner3CC.No.572 of 2020 nomination papers, at about 6.30 p.m., V.Kota Mandal, A1 to A14 being the leaders and followers of Telugu Desam Party formed into a group, suddenly all of them have entered into RO Chamber, argued with the Election Returning

Officer and MPDO, to let them immediately give the MPTC contesting candidate list to them. On that, RO being the election officer has informed the persons that after preparing the final list of eligible contesting candidates of

MPTC will be displayed on Notice Board. On that, A1 to A14 argued with RO and ARO, let them to give the final list of candidates to them and thus, deterred the RO and ARO while discharging their legitimate duties. At that time, LWs.4 to 8 went and rescued LWs.2 and 3 from the clutches of accused.

b) Upon complaint of LW.1 Administrative Officer, on 15.03.2020 at 10 a.m., a case in Cr.No.51/2020 for the offence U/Sec.353 r/w 34 IPC of

V.Kota Urban PS was registered by LW.9 P.Mahesh Babu, Sub Inspector of

Police, V.Kota Urban PS, submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned and took up investigation into this case.

c) During the course of investigation, LW.9 Sub Inspector of

Police secured the presence of LW.1 Administrative Officer and other witnesses, examined them as LWs.1 to 8, recorded their detailed statements under Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C., observed the scene of offence.

d) During the further course of investigation, on 17.03.2020, LW.9

Sub Inspector of Police served notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. on A1 to A14.

After completion of investigation, LW.9 Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against A1 to A14. Hence, the charge.

3.The learned predecessor in office took cognizance for the offence

U/Sec.353 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A14 and issued summons to them.

4.On appearance of A1 to A14 before this Court, they were supplied with copies of case documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused were examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of

JMFC, Palamaner4CC.No.572 of 2020 accusation for the offence U/Sec.353 r/w 34 of IPC, for which they denied the commission of offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. PW.1 is the defacto complainant cum

MPDO. PWs.2 to 8 are the official witnesses. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer.

Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW.1 on report. Exs.P2 to P9 are the Sec.161 (3)

Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.1 to 9. Ex.P10 is the First Information Report.

Ex.P11 is the Rough Sketch.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A11, A13 and A14 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in

Telugu. A1 to A11, A13 and A14 denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of

A1 to A11, A13 and A14 for the offence U/Sec.353

r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.POINT:

To bring home the guilt of the accused, for the said offence, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P11.

10.The defacto complainant who set the law in criminal motion was examined as PW.1. His evidence is to the effect that in the year 2020, during

MPTC elections, some galata took place infront of their office. Some unknown person called him over phone and informed him about the galata. He informed the same to his superior officials and as per the instructions of his superior, he signed in the report given to V.Kota Police.

JMFC, Palamaner5CC.No.572 of 2020

11.S.Gane Naik, DEE was examined as PW.2. He deposed in his evidence that on 14.03.2020 in between 6.30 to 7 p.m. while he was present in the office, he heard some huge sound of galata happening outside of the office. Later some time, galata was pacified. Police examined him.

12.K.N.Balaji, MPDO was examined as PW.3. He deposed in his evidence that on 14.03.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., while he was present in the office, he heard some huge sound of galata happening outside of the office.

Later some time, galata was pacified. Police examined him.

13.Adarsh, R.K.Somasekhar, Sreeramulu, S.M.Ghouse, and Yadava

Pathi who were the Panchayat Secretaries were examined as PWs.4 to 8.

They deposed in their evidence that on 14.03.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., while they were present in the office for election duty, they heard some huge sound of galata happening outside of the office. Later some time, galata was pacified. Police examined them.

14.PWs.1 to 8 were turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. During their cross-examination by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court, nothing could be elicited from their evidence favour to the case of prosecution except marking their

Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements as Exs.P2 to P9.

15.P.Mahesh Babu who did the investigation in this case was examined as PW.9. He deposed in his evidence that on 15.03.2020 at about 10.00 am, he received a written report from PW1. Basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.No.51/2020 U/Sec.353 r/w 34 IPC, registered Ex.P10

F.I.R.,sent Ex.P10 F.I.R to all concerned officials. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P11 rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined PW’s.1 to 7. On 16.03.2020, he conducted further investigation and examined PW.8. On 17.03.2020, he served section 41-A

Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A14. On 02.05.2020, he completed his investigation, he

JMFC, Palamaner6CC.No.572 of 2020 filed charge sheet against A1 to A14.

16.During the course of cross-examination of PW.9, he denied the suggestion that PW1 never gave written report on 15.03.2020 at 10.00 am., he never visited the scene of offence and never prepared Ex.P11, he never examined PW’s.1 to 7 and never recorded their statements, on 16.03.2020, never secured the presence of PW8 and never examined him and never recorded his statement. He further denied the suggestion that he obtained the signature of PW1 in empty paper and filled the contents on it. He admitted that on the date of alleged incident, the ruling party is Y.S.R.C.P. He further denied the suggestion that he filed a false case against A1 to A14 due to political influence, A1 to A14 never committed any alleged offence and they are no way connected to this case and they are falsely implicated and he conducted table investigation of this case.

17.A careful perusal of the evidence on record, PW.1 who set the law in criminal motion stated that in the year 2020, during MPTC elections, some galata took place infront of their office. Some unknown person called him over phone and informed him about the galata. He informed the same to his superior officials and as per the instructions of his superior, he signed in the report given to V.Kota Police. PW.2 who is the D.E.E. stated that on 14.03.2020 in between 6.30 to 7 p.m., while he was present in the office, he heard some huge sound of galata happening outside of the office. Later some time, galata was pacified. Police examined him. PW.3 who is the MPDO stated that on 14.03.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., while he was present in the office, he heard some huge sound of galata happening outside of the office.

Later some time, galata was pacified. Police examined him. PWs.4 to 8 who were the Panchayath Secretaries deposed in their evidence that on 14.03.2020 at about 6.30 p.m., while they were present in the office for election duty, they heard some huge sound of galata happening outside of the

JMFC, Palamaner7CC.No.572 of 2020 office. Later some time, galata was pacified. Police examined them. PWs.1 to 8 were turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Though the PWs.1 to 8 were cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, but they denied the suggestion that they stated before the police as in Exs.P2 to P9 and deposed false to help the accused. The Exs.P2 to P9

Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements are not substantial evidence and therefore, this Court is of view that they are noway helpful to the case of prosecution.

Therefore, there is no evidence against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the accused deterred the officials PWs.2 and 3 while discharging their duties. The evidence of PW.9 is only to the procedural aspects of receiving written report and registering it as Ex.P10 First

Information Report, his visiting the scene of offence and preparation of Ex.P11 rough sketch and arrest of the accused. An over all perusal of the evidence on record, it seems that, there is no direct evidence against the A1 to A11, A13 and A14 that they were present infront of their office and thereby they too involved in the commission of offence. Though the prosecution witnesses have stated against A12, but the case against him was abated on account of his death. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 is of no avail to the case of prosecution as there is no whisper against A1 to A11, A13 and A14. In such circumstances, it can be safely hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that A1 to A11, A13 and A14 threatened PWs.2 and 3 while discharging their legitimate duties.

18.In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against A1 to A11, A13 and

A14 for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, A1 to A11, A13 and A14 are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of A1 to A11, A13 and A14 and against the prosecution.

JMFC, Palamaner8CC.No.572 of 2020

19.In the result, A1 to A11, A13 and A14 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.353 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of A1 to A11, A13 and A14 and their sureties executed earlier shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from 08.05.2026 as contemplated U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PROSECUTION:

PW.1 : Mahesh, MPDO PW.2 : S.Gane Naik, DEE PW.3 : K.N.Balaji, MPDO PW.4 : Adarsh, Panchayath Secretary PW.5 : R.K.Somasekhar, Panchayath Secretary PW.6 : Sreeramulu, Panchayath Secretary PW.7 : S.M.Ghouse, Panchayath Secretary PW.8 : Yadava Pathi, Panchayath Secretary PW.9 : P.Mahesh Babu, Sub Inspector of Police

FOR DEFENCE:

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on report Ex.P2: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P5: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P6: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P7: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6

JMFC, Palamaner9CC.No.572 of 2020

Ex.P8: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7 Ex.P9: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8 Ex.P10: First Information Report Ex.P11: Rough Sketch

FOR DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Id/- MLKT JMFC, Palamaner

JMFC, Palamaner10CC.No.572 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PALAMANER

Calendar in C.C.No: 572 of 2020

Date of occurrence::14.03.2020 Date of complaint::15.03.2020 Date of taken on file::17.12.2020 Date of commencement of trial::07.04.2026 Date of closure of trial::17.04.2026 Date of sentence or order::08.05.2026 Name of the Complainant::The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Palamaner Police station. (Cr.No.26/2012 of Palamaner P.S.)

Name of the accused Father's / Husband's name Age

M.Mohan KumarR.Manohar35 years

B.V.NareshBestha Venkatesh30 years

T.M.BaluT.S.Muneppa33 years

S.Ayaz BashaS.Gouse Basha29 years

Ghouse PeeerK.M.Masood35 years

K.Samivulla @ KaaluK.Masood Ahammad37 years

K.M.Mahammad MoosaK.Masood Ahammad43 years

R.Uday KumarR.M.Narayanaraju31 years

AbidLate Sathar36 years

M.Somappa @ SomasekharM.Chengappa49 years

P.N.RamachandrappaP.V.Narayanappa46 years

V.NarayanappaVenkatappa50 years Case against A12 abated on 22.01.2026 R.S.Raghu ShabareeshR.Srinivasulu30 years

V.ThyagarajuLate Venkataswamy31 years

Village Mandal Religion Calling DasarlapalliV.KotaHinduAgriculture DasarlapalliV.KotaHinduAgriculture

JMFC, Palamaner11CC.No.572 of 2020

NakkanapalliV.KotaHinduAgriculture NernipalliV.KotaMuslimBusiness V.KotaV.KotaMuslimBusiness V.KotaV.KotaMuslimBusiness V.KotaV.KotaMuslimBusiness GummireddipalleV.KotaHinduAgriculture V.KotaV.KotaMuslimBusiness SivunikuppamV.KotaHinduAgriculture PatrapalliV.KotaHinduBusiness DayyalapalliV.KotaHinduAgriculture V.KotaV.KotaHinduAgriculture SuddulakuppamV.KotaHinduAgriculture Nature of offence:U/Sec.353 r/w 34 of IPC Finding of the Court :A1 to A11, A13, A14 found not guilty Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 to A11, A13 and A14 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.353 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of A1 to A11, A13 and A14 and their sureties executed earlier shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from 08.05.2026 as contemplated U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APCH110015972021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAMANER

PRESENT: SMT.M.LIKHITHA,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner.

Wednesday, this the Sixth (6th ) day of May, 2026

CC No: 1267 of 2021

(Crime No.316 of 2021 of Palamaner Urban Police Station) Between:- The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Palamaner Urban Police Station. … Complainant And:-

1. N.Kodandaram @ Babubilla, aged 41 years, S/o Kannaiah, Chandrasekharapuram Village, H/o Ragimanupenta, Bangarupalem Mandal.

2. G.Ravi Naidu, aged 45 years, S/o Late Subramanyam, Chandrasekharapuram Village, H/o Ragimanupenta, Bangarupalem Mandal.

3. S.Sundaramurthy, aged 50 years, S/o Subramani, R/o D.No.9/20C, K.Pudur Village, Kallapadi Post, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, Tamilnadu State.

4. B. Murali, aged 57 years, S/o Late Balasubramanyam, D.No.39, Oddabajanakoil Street, Pudupet, Gudiyatham Town and Taluk, Vellore District.

5. K.Adhars @ Sathish, aged 23 years, S/o K.Vinayaka, R/o Bommayipalli Village, H/o Nalagampalli, Bangarupalyam Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 22.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri S.Fahmid Basha, Advocate for the accused, and after hearing the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Palamaner Urban Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 in Crime No.316/2021 of Palamaner Urban Police 2

Station for the offences U/Sec.341, 384, 120-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.)

02. The brief case of the case of prosecution is that:-

a)During the year 2018, A2 arranged finance to LW.1 P.Venkatapathi

Naidu to purchase Mahendra Scorpio bearing registration No.AP 03 BU 0369 through A3’s finance agency and A2 stood as surety for the loan. After clearing the dues, LW.1 P.Venkatapathi Naidu has got transferred the ownership of vehicle on his name from LW.2 Uday. A3 being the agent of Mayur Bankers

Finance Company claims that LW.1 P.Venkatapathi Naidu has due to finance and how can he got transfer of ownership to his name without issuing No

Objection Certificate i.e. Form-35. A3 and A4 started forcing A2 either to clear the due amount or to get back the vehicle to finance company. A2 unable to pay the due amount, decided to get back the vehicle, approached A1, induced him that he will arrange loan to him to purchase an auto, if he assists him in getting the Mahendra Scorpio vehicle bearing No.AP 03 BU 0369 from LW.1

P.Venkatapathi Naidu, for which, A1 agreed.

b)On 04.10.2021 night, A1 contacted LW.3 B.Kishore and requested to send the vehicle for hire to go to CMC Vellore for which, LW.3 B.Kishore asked

A1 to come in morning. On 05.10.20241 at about 10.30 a.m., while LW.1

P.Venkatapathi Naidu was engaged in his business at his shop, A1 approached him introducing himself and need the Scorpio vehicle to go to

CMC Vellore to give money to his relatives to purchase medicines and also incuded that he talked to LW.3 B.Kishore over phone. Believing the words of accused, LW.1 P.Venkatapathi Naidu has sent his Scorpio vehicle No.AP 03

BU 0369 through LW.4 Ramakrishna. At about 10.30 a.m., A1 and LW.4

Ramakrishna left Palamaner, in enroute at Church, Palamaner, A1 picked up

A5 and proceeded towards Vellore. At about 12.15 p.m., while LW.4

Ramakrishna was proceeding infront of Triple ITI Center, Kingston 3

Engineering College on Vellore – Katpadi road, Vellore, A2 to A4 restrained the vehicle, got down LW.4 Ramakrishna from the vehicle forcibly. A2 has snatched away his mobile, when LW.4 Ramakrishna requested to return the mobile, the accused has returned. A1 to A5 have taken away the Mahendra

Scorpio of LW.1 P.Venkatapathi Naidu. On that, LW.4 Ramakrishna informed to

LW.1 P.Venkatapathi Naidu.

c)Basing on the complaint of LW.1 P.Venkatapathi Naidu, LW.9

K.Nagaraju, Sub Inspector of Police, Palamaner UPS registered a case in

Cr.No.316/2021 under Sec.384 r/w 34 IPC, submitted copies of FIR to all the concerned and took up investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, LW.9 Sub Inspector of Police examined LW.1 P.Venkatapathi

Naidu, recorded his statement. On 07.11.2021, LW.9 Sub Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, examined, drawn the rough sketch.

d)During the further investigation, on 07.11.2021 at 2 p.m., A1 and A2 were arrested near Dharga, Musalimadugu Village on Palamaner –

Gudiyatham road, H/o Pengaragunta, Palamaner Mandal, seized the Scorpio bearing No.AP 03 BU 0369, served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A1 and A2 and then to A3 to A5. After completion of investigation, LW.9 Sub Inspector of

Police filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

03. On perusal of record, the learned predecessor in office took cognizance for the offences U/Sec.341, 384, 120-B r/w 34 of I.P.C.

04. On appearance of A1 to A5, copies of case documents are furnished as contemplated U/Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.).

05. A1 to A5 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the contents of the charge sheet in Telugu. A charge U/Sec.120-B, 341 and 384 of IPC 4 framed against A1 to A5, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined

P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. The evidence of L.W.2 was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

07. After closure of evidence on the side of Prosecution, A1 to A5 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

08. Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

09. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the offences

U/Sec.120-B, 341 and 384 of IPC against A1 to A5 beyond

all reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:

L.W.1 B.Venkatapathi Naidu is examined as PW.1. L.W.3 B.Kishore is examined as PW.2. L.W.4 Ramakishna Murthy is examined as PW.3. L.W.5

M.Venkatesh is examined as PW.4. L.W.8 Masthan Babu is examined as

PW.5. L.W.6 P.Kesava Kumar is examined as PW.6. LW.7 D.Subramanyam is examined as PW.7. LW.9 K.Nagaraju, Sub Inspector of Police, Palamaner

Urban Police Station is examined as PW.8. Ex.P-1 is the Signature of PW.1 on report dt.06.11.2021. Ex.P-2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6 is the Signature on Confession, Arrest cum Seizure Mahazarnama dt.07.11.2021. Ex.P.7 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P.8 is the 5

Signature of PW.7 on Mahazarnama dt.07.11.2021. Ex.P.9 is the First

Information Report. Ex.P.10 is the Rough sketch dt.07.11.2021. Ex.P11 is the

Confession, Arrest cum Seizure Mahazarnama dt.07.11.2021. Ex.P12 is the

Rough Sketch dt.07.11.2021 at 5 p.m.

11. To prove the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and

Exs.P.1 to P.12 documents are marked. PW-1 who is the defacto complainant deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not examined him. Four years back, he went to Palamaner

Police Station on some personal work, there, police took Ex.P1 signature on some written papers, but he does not know the contents therein.

12.PW.2 who is the son of defacto complainant deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not examine him.

13.PW.3 who is the driver of the crime vehicle has deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not examine him.

14.PW.4 who is the eye witness was deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not examine him.

15.PW.5 who is the mahazardar was deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. In the year 2021, he went to

Palamaner Police Station on some personal work, there, police obtained his

Ex.P6 Signature on some written papers, but he does not know the contents therein.

16.PW.6 who is another eye witness was deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. He did not witness anything. Police did not examine him.

6

17.PW.7 who is another mahazardar was deposed in his evidence that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. In the year 2021, he went to Palamaner Urban Police Station on some personal work. Police obtained his Ex.P8 Signature on some written papers, but he does not know the contents therein.

18.As PWs.1 to 7 turned hostile to the case of prosecution and cross- examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court, nothing is elicited from their evidence except marking their Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement as Exs.P2 to P5 and P7.

19.The Investigating Officer who did entire investigation in this case was examined as PW.8. On perusal of his evidence, he deposed that on 06.11.2021 at about 8.00 pm, PW.1 gave Ex.P1 report. Basing on report, he registered a case in Cr.No.316/2021 U/Sec.384 r/w 34 IPC. He sent Ex.P9

F.I.R. copies to all the concerned authorities. On the same day in the police station, he examined PW1. On 07.11.2021, he visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P10 rough sketch of the scene of offence dt.07.11.2021, secured

Lw’s 2 to 6, examined and recorded their statements. On the same day at about 1.30 pm, received credible information about A1 and A2, secured the mediators PWs.5, 7 and reached Darga near Musalamadugu village,

Palamaner – Gudiyatham road. At about 2.00 pm, one white Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.AP03BU0369 came towards Palamaner and they did not stop the vehicle and with the help of his staff, he stopped the said vehicle and he enquired them and he prepared Ex.P11 confession, arrest cum seizure mahazarnamma in the presence of the mediators and he arrested them, served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to them. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence i.e., Triple I.T.I., center, Kingston College, on Vellore –

Katpadi road and prepared Ex.P12 rough sketch dt.07.11.2021 at 5.00 pm.

Basing on the Ex.P11, he added the names of accused/A3 to A5, served 7 section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A3 and A5. On the same day, handed over the vehicle to the owner of the vehicle. On 08.11.2021, he served section 41-A

Cr.P.C. notice to A4. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against Accused/A1 to A5.

20.During the course of cross-examination, PW.8 denied that PW.1 never gave complaint and A1 to A5 never took vehicle forcibly from PW.1, he conducted table investigation, registered a false case against A1 to A5, never visited the scene of offence along with mediators, never prepared Ex.P10 to

P12, A1 to A5 falsely implicated in this case, Ex.P11 is prepared at police station and obtained signatures of PWs.5 and 7 at police station in Ex.P11.

21.A careful perusal of evidence, it reveals that during the year 2018, A2 being the relative of LW.1 P.Venkatapathi Naidu arranged finance to him for purchase of Mahendra Scorpio bearing No.AP 03 BU 0369 through A3’s finance agency and A2 stood as surety for the loan. The learned defence counsel contended that A1 to A5 were falsely implicated in this case by PW.1 and they never committed any offence against PW.1. Therefore, any amount of doubt could arise that the PW.1 foisted a false case against the accused.

Since PWs.1 to 7 were turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, it does not inspire the confidence of this Court that incident was happened. This Court is of view that the evidence of PW.8 who is police official cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused unless and until his evidence is corroborated by the independent witnesses. It is well settled in law that if there are two views, if any view is favorable to the accused, the same shall be adopted to the accused. In view of the same, this Court is of view that the evidence available on record is not at all sufficient to convict the accused.

Hence, this Court is of view that benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

Therefore, this Court is of view that the evidence on record not at all sufficient 8 to fix the complicity of A1 to A5 with regard to the offences with which alleged against them.

22.In view of my foregoing discussion, this Court is of view that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case against A1 to A5 for the offences charged U/Sec.120-B, 384, 341 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of

A1 to A5 and against the prosecution.

23.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.120-B, 384, 341 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, A1 to A5 are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 executed earlier shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from 06.05.2026 as contemplated U/Sec.437 of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1: B.Venkatapathi Naidu - None - PW.2: B.Kishore PW.3: Ramakrishna Murthy PW.4: M.Venkatesh PW.5: Masthan Babu PW.6: P.Kesava Kumar PW.7: D.Subramanyam PW.8: K.Nagaraju, Sub Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on report dt.06.11.2021 Ex.P.2 : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement as Ex.P1 Ex.P.3 : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement as Ex.P2 9

Ex.P.4 : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement as Ex.P3 Ex.P.5 : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement as Ex.P4 Ex.P.6 : Signature of PW.5 on Confession, Arrest cum Seizure Mahazarnama dt.07.11.2021 Ex.P.7 : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement as Ex.P6 Ex.P.8 : Signature of PW.7 on Mahazarnama dt.07.11.2021 Ex.P.9 : First Information Report Ex.P.10 : Rough Sketch dt.07.11.2021 Ex.P.11 : Confession, Arrest cum Seizure Mahazarnama dt.07.11.2021 Ex.P.12 : Rough Sketch dt.07.11.2021 at 5 p.m.

DEFENCE: - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

-Nil-

Id/- MLKT

JMFC

PALAMANER

10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAMANER

Calendar in C.C.No: 1267 of 2021

Date of occurrence::05.10.2021 Date of complaint::06.11.2021 Date of taken on file::27.11.2021 Date of commencement of trial::06.08.2025 Date of closure of trial::05.12.2025 Date of sentence or order::06.05.2026 Name of the Complainant::The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Palamaner U.P.S. (Cr.No.316/2021)

Name of the accused Father's / Husband's name Age

N.Kodandaram @ BabubillaKannaiah41 years

G.Ravi NaiduLate Subramanyam45 years

S.SundaramurthySubramani50 years

B.MuraliLate Balasubramanyam57 years

K.Adhars @ SathishK.Vinayaka23 years

Village Mandal Religion Calling ChandrasekharapuramBangarupalemHinduDriver ChandrasekharapuramBangarupalemHinduFarmer K.PudurGudiyatham(Tamilnadu)HinduBusiness Gudiyatham (Tamilnadu)Gudiyatham (Tamilnadu)HinduBusiness BommayipalliBangarupalemHinduDriver Nature of offence:U/Sec.120-B, 384, 341 r/w 34 of IPC Finding of the Court :A1 to A5 are found not guilty Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.120-B, 384, 341 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, A1 to A5 are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 executed earlier shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from 06.05.2026 as contemplated U/Sec.437 of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

11

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Chittoor.

APCH110012682023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: PALAMANER.

PRESENT: SMT. M. LIKHITHA,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner.

Wednesday, this the 6th (Sixth) day of May, 2026

C.C.No: 676 of 2023

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Baireddipalli PS. … Complainant

And: P.Sekhar @Somasekhar, age 34 years, S/o. Pedda Kadirappa, R/o. Mekalanagireddipalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, Chittoor District. … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing on 24.04.2026 before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Palamaner for the complainant and of Sri S. Ranjith Shah, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Baireddipalli PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.97/2023 of Baireddipalli PS for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the Charge Sheet is stated as follows:

a) on 07.05.2023 at 04:30 PM in front of house of Peddakadirappa,

Mekalanagireddipalli Village, Baireddipalli Mandal, wherein the accused was selling

Karnataka Non duty paid liquor. The accused was arrested while he was in possession of Karnataka Non duty paid liquor without having valid permission, seized 28 tetra packets of Johns Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey of 90 ml each, 2 total worth Rs.983/- duly preserved samples for chemical analysis and report by P & E lab expert. The contraband was seized under the cover of Police Proceedings.

Since the accused has in possession of Karnataka non duty paid liquor without having any valid permission, which is an offence punishable u/s 34(a) r/w 34(1) of

AP Excise (New Amendment) Act, LW.4 arrested accused, brought him to

Palamaner urban PS, registered a case in Cr.No.97/2023 u/s 34(a) r/w 34(1) of AP

Excise (New Amendment) Act, submitted the copies of FIR to all the concerned and took up investigation of the case. During the investigation, the and accused was sent to the court along with Remand Report and he was remanded to judicial custody. LW.4 has forwarded the present sample to the P&E lab, Chittoor along with

Letter of advice for examination by expert and report. LW.3 is the Chemical examiner examined the samples furnished her report vide CE No. 621/2023 dt.22.07.2023 stating that "The sample is Indian Made Liquor" and upon completion of investigation LW5 filed charge sheet.

3.After perusing the charge sheet filed U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. and connected documents thereon, this office took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34 (a) r/w 34(1) of A.P Excise Act, 2020 against accused and issued summons to him.

4.On appearance of accused, he was supplied with copies of case documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the contents of the charge sheet in Telugu. A charge U/Sec. 34(a) r/w. 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against accused which was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1.

3

6.After the closure of evidence on the side of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same. No witnesses were examined and no documents marked on behalf of the accused.

7.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and the learned counsel for accused reported that his arguments may be treated as heard. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence charged U/Sec. 34(a) r/w. 34(1)

of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that accused was found in illegal possession of liquor of Karnataka State and thereby committed an offence under

Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of the A.P. Excise Act.

10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the police officials. Ex.P.1 is the

Police Proceedings, Ex.P.2 is the F.I.R., Ex.P.3 is the Chemical Analysis Report.

MO.1 is the sample packet of 90 ml tetra packet of Johns Original Choice Deluxe

Whiskey.

11.It is the evidence of PW.1 that on 07-06-2023 at 4.30 PM, while he was present in the police station, LW4 received information about transport of legal liquor, Immediately, he along with LWs.1 and 4 went to Mekalenagireddipalle. At that time, a person standing infront a house by keeping a black colour bag. On seeing them, he tried to run away, but they caught hold of him. When questioned, 4 he revealed his name as Sekhar, S/o Pedda Khadirappa, Mekalanagireddipalle

Village. When questioned about contents of the bag, he told them that he is keeping liquor packets in it. LW4 sent LW1 to secure mediator, but no one came forward.

Then LW4 opened the bag and found twenty eight 90 ml. tetra packets of Johns

Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey. Total worth of Rs.983/-. The accused did not produce any bills pertaining to the said liquor packets. When questioned about source of contraband, he told them that he purchased the same from Karnataka state for selling them at higher price in his village. Then they took one packet for the purpose of sending it for chemical examination and seized the remaining packets under the cover of police proceedings. Thereafter, they arrested the accused and took him to the police station.

12.PW.2 also deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1 with respect to the events that took place at the scene of offence. PW-2 further deposed that he seized the contraband under the cover of Police Proceedings vide Ex.P1 and took one 90ml tetra packet of Johns Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey as sample vide MO.1 for chemical analysis. Based on Ex. P1, he registered a case in Cr. No.97/2023

U/sec 34 (a) r/w 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act and submitted original FIR to the court and the same is Ex. P2. He has sent copies of FIR to all concerned authorities. He sent the accused for remand. He sent MO.1 for chemical analysis and received the analysis report dt: 22-07-2023 and the same is Ex. P3. As per Ex.

P3, MO.1 contains Indian liquor. After completion of investigation, LW5 filed charge sheet.

13.On keen perusal of cross examination of PW1, he clearly admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. PW2 also deposed in his cross examination that he sent PW1 to secure mediators, but no one came forward and the same is not mention in Ex.P1 that whom PW1 asked to act as mediators. It is the case of 5 the prosecution that PWs 1 and 2 could not find anyone at the scene of offence to act as mediators but they admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. So, it is not difficult to secure the presence of any person to act as mediator. The scene of offence is at Mekalanagireddipalli Village and it is not difficult to secure the presence of mediators at the scene of offence. PW1 and other police personnel who accompanied PW2 to the alleged scene of offence did not sign in Ex.P1 police proceedings. If at all, they really went to the scene of offence and seized the liquor from the possession of the accused, they would have signed in Ex.P1. In view of the above contentions of the prosecution that PWs 1 and 2 seized liquor from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence appears doubtful.

14. According to the prosecution, accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 28 tetra packets of Johns Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey of 90 ml each. But, according to the prosecution, only one packet was drawn as sample and the same were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor who opined that the same is Indian Made Liquor. When the Chemical Examiner gave opinion about samples, it applies to that samples only and it cannot be applied to the remaining packets.

Further the prosecution did not produce the remaining packets before the Court.

The prosecution has to produce all the packets and also has to prove that the remaining packets also contain liquor. The same was laid down in a decision reported in MUDAVATH MOTHIA V. STATE OF A.P., 2002(1) ALT (CRL.) 437 (A.P.) wherein it was held at paragraph No.5 as follows:

5.……… Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the Court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain I.D. liquor and it is not proved.

In the instant case also, as already stated supra, the prosecution neither produced all the packets nor proved that all the packets contain liquor.

6

15.It is the case of the prosecution that accused confessed about the commission of offence in their presence. It is settled law that any confession made by the accused in the presence of police is inadmissible in evidence. Even in the present case on hand, the confession of accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused, no independent witnesses are examined in this case. In the absence of such evidence, it is not ideal to rely on the evidence of official witnesses to base conviction against accused. Even otherwise, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 does not inspire the confidence of the Court as stated earlier.

16.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

17. The point is answered accordingly in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

18.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and sureties executed shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from 06-05-2026 in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 vide C.P.R.No.242/2023 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed by me in my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1: Azam Basha, Constable.

PW.2: CV Narasimhulu, Sub-Inspector.

FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Police Proceedings dated:07.06.2023.

Ex.P2: First Information Report in Cr.No.97/2023 of Baireddipalli PS.

Ex.P3: Analysis Report dt.22.07.2023.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO.1: One 90 ml tetra packet of Johns Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

Id/- MLKT

JMFC, PLMNR.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAMANER

Calendar in C.C.No: 676 of 2023

Date of occurrence::07.06.2023

Date of complaint::07.06.2023

Date of taken on file::30.11.2023

Date of commencement of trial::29.10.2024

Date of closure of trial::04.12.2025

Date of sentence or order::06.05.2026

Name of the Complainant::The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Baireddipalli Police station. (Cr.No.97/2023 of Baireddipalli P.S.)

Name of the accused Father's / Husband's name Age

P.Sekhar @ Soma SekharPedda Kadirappa34 years

Village Mandal Religion Calling MekalanagireddipalliBaireddipalliHinduCoolie Nature of offence:U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act Finding of the Court :Accused is found not guilty. Sentence or Order :In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and sureties executed shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from 06-05-2026 in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 vide C.P.R.No.242/2023 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APCH110001972023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: PALAMANER.

PRESENT: SMT. M. LIKHITHA,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palamaner.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026

C.C.No: 100 of 2023

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,Gangavaram PS.

… Complainant

And: T. Manjunath, aged 35 years, S/o. T. Ramakrishnappa, R/o.Keelapalli village and Panchayat, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor Dt. … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing on 30.04.2026 before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Palamaner for the complainant and of Sri G.S.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gangavaram PS Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.296/2022 of Gangavaram PS for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) r/w. 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act.

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the Charge

Sheet is stated as follows:

On 04-11-2022 at 7.30 a.m., while LW-6 was present in the

Gangavaran Police Station, he received a credible information, regarding to the illegal transportation of liquor, immediately LW-6 was left the police station along with his Staff LWs 3 & 4, at about 8:30 a.m., reached the house of the accused, situated at Keelapalle village and panchayath, Gangavaram mandal., 2 and found the accused noted above, having in possession of white plastic bag, on seeing the police party, he tried to escaping from the spot, however LW-6 was caught hold of him and interrogated him about his identity, but he did not given proper reply. Further LW-6 was secured the presence of the mediators( LWs 1 and 2), in whose presence LW6 interrogated the accused, arrested him at 9.30 am and seized 96 tetra packets of Original Choice Deluxe

Whiskey 90 ml each total worth about Rs.3372/- and also seized a sample for chemical analysis and report, under a cover of Mahazarnama duly attested by

LWs 1 and 2. LW6 brought the arrested accused along with seized contraband to the P.S, registered a case in Cr.No.296/2022 u/s 34(A) AP Excise Act r/w 34(1) New Ament of AP Excise Act-2020 of Gangavaram P.S and investigated into. LW-5 C.Rajeswaramma, Govt., Chemical examiner, for Proh. & Excise,

Regional Proh. & Excise Laboratory, Chittoor who examined the sample, issued report vide CE.No.1421/2022 that the sample is Indian Liquor. After competition of investigation LW7 filed Chargesheet.

3.After perusing the charge sheet filed U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. and connected documents thereon, this office took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P Excise Act, 2020 against accused and issued summons to him.

4.On appearance of accused, he was supplied with copies of case documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused examined

U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the contents of the charge sheet in Telugu.

A charge U/Sec. 34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against accused which was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1.

3

6.After the closure of evidence on the side of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same. No witnesses were examined and no documents marked on behalf of the accused.

7.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and the learned counsel for accused reported that his arguments may be treated as heard.

Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the

guilt of accused for the offence charged U/Sec.

34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

9.POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that accused was found in possession of 96 tetra packets of Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey of 90 ml each of Karnataka State and thereby committed an offence under Section 34(a) r/w 34(1) of the A.P. Excise Act.

10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the police officials. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are mediators. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 in Ex.P3. Ex.P2 is signature of

PW2 in Ex.P3. Ex.P.3 is the Confession cum arrest, Seizure Mahazarnama,

Ex.P.4 is the F.I.R., Ex.P.5 is the Chemical Analysis Report. MO.1 is the sample packet of 90 ml tetra packet of original choice deluxe whiskey.

11.It is the evidence of PW.1 who is a mediator is that in 2022 he went to Gangavaram PS on his personal work. At that time police obtained his signature on some written papers and that he does not know its contents.

PW.2 who is a mediator deposed that in 2022 he went to Gangavaram PS on 4 his personal work. At that time police obtained his signature on some written papers and that he does not know its contents.

12. PW.3 deposed that on 04.11.2022 at about 7.30 am while he was present in the police station Lw6 received credible information about the possession of illegal Karnataka liquor. Immediately, he along with LW's 4 and 6 went to scene of offence by police vehicle and reached the scene of offence at 8.30 am at Keelapali village, in front of a house. A male person was standing infront of the house by carrying a plastic bag and on seeing us he tried to run away but they caught hold of him. When LW6 questioned, him he revealed his name and particulars. LW6 deputed him to secure the mediators and he went to nearby villages to secure the mediators and he secured the mediators/PW1 and PW2 and then LW6 enquired the said person in the presence of mediators, accused he voluntarily confessed his name as T.Manjunath, S/o

T.Ramakrishnappa. Then Lw6 searched the said plastic bag and LW6 found 96 tetra packets of 90 MI Original choice deluxe whiskey each worth of Rs.35/ and total worth of Rs.3,372/- accused did not produce any bills pertaining to the said liquor packets. When LW6 questioned about source of contraband, he told them that he purchased the same from Karnataka state for selling them at higher price in his village. Then LW6 took 01 sample of 90 ml of Original choice deluxe whiskey tetra packet from the above said contraband and for the purpose of sending it for chemical examination and LW6 seized the remaining tetra packets, under the cover of confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnamma in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, LW6 arrested the accused and took him to the police station and on the same day accused was sent to Judicial custody.

13.PW.5 also deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1 with respect to the events that took place at the scene of offence. PW-2 further deposed that he seized the contraband under the cover of Confession cum Arrest, Seizure 5

Mahazarnama dt:04.11.2022 vide Ex.P3 and took one 90ml tetra packet of

Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey as sample vide MO.1 for chemical analysis.

Based on Ex. P3, he registered a case in Cr. No.296/2022 U/sec 34 (a) r/w 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act and submitted original FIR to the court and the same is Ex. P4. He has sent copies of FIR to all concerned authorities. He sent the accused for remand. He sent MO.1 for chemical analysis and received the analysis report dt: 17.11.2022 and the same is Ex. P5. As per Ex.

P5, MO.1 contains Indian liquor. After completion of investigation, LW7 filed charge sheet.

14.On keen perusal of cross-examination of PW3, he clearly deposed that the mediators are not the native of scene offence village and the scene of offence is a busy locality. PWs1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. In view of the above contentions of the prosecution that

PWs 3 and 4 seized liquor from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence appears doubtful.

15.It is the case of the prosecution that accused confessed about the commission of offence in their presence. It is settled law that any confession made by the accused in the presence of police is inadmissible in evidence.

Even in the present case on hand, the confession of accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused, no independent witnesses are examined in this case. In the absence of such evidence, it is not ideal to rely on the evidence of official witnesses to base conviction against accused. Even otherwise, the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 does not inspire the confidence of the Court as stated earlier.

16.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, accused 6 is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

17. The point is answered accordingly in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

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

U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and sureties executed shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from 08-05- 2026 in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO:1 vide C.P.R.No.29/2023 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed by me in my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1: G. Somasekar PW.2: C.Gnanendra PW.3: H. Ganesh, Police Constable PW.4: H. Ashwathanarayana, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police

FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 in Ex.P3. Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 in Ex.P3. Ex.P3: Confession cum Arrest, Seizure Mahazarnama dt:04.11.2022. Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: Analysis Report dt.17.11.2022 7

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

MO.1: 90ml tetra packet of Original Choice Deluxe Whiskey.

FOR DEFENCE:

Nil

Id/- MLKT

JMFC, PLMNR.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PALAMANER

Calendar in C.C.No: 100 of 2023

Date of occurrence::04.11.2022

Date of complaint::04.11.2022

Date of taken on file::28.02.2023

Date of commencement of trial::07.11.2025

Date of closure of trial::27.04.2026

Date of sentence or order::08.05.2026

Name of the Complainant::The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Gangavaram Police station. (Cr.No.296/2021 of Gangavaram P.S.)

Name of the accused Father's / Husband's name Age

T.ManjunathT.Ramakrishnappa35 years

Village Mandal Religion Calling KeelapalliGangavaramHinduCultivation Nature of offence:U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act Finding of the Court :Accused is found not guilty. Sentence or Order :In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) r/w 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused and sureties executed shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from 08-05-2026 in view of Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO:1 vide C.P.R.No.29/2023 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- M. LIKHITHA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALAMANER.

Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chittoor.