Mis. A. Manjulatha, Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PIDUGURALLA

PRESENT: M S . M ANJULATHA A RAVETI , Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla

Friday, this the 27 th day of May, 2022.

C.C.No.215 of 2021

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S (Cr.No.124/2020) . . Complainant.

And

1.Kavati Chanakya, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 30 years. 2.Kavati Saibabu @ Sai, S/o.Yekalavyudu, 22 years. Both are R/o.Machavaram village and Mandal.

. . Accused.

This case is coming before me on 25-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.K.Koteswara Rao, learned Advocate for the Accused, and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.124/2020 for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968.

The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

2.The accused are resident of Machavaram village and Mandal and they used to purchase liquor bottles illegally at Matampalli of Telangana State on

MRP rates and sold away them at higher rates in their village. On 15.08.2020 at 5.00 PM on receipt of credible information about having unauthorised liquor bottles at the accused, L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana

Reddy, SI of police, Machavaram P.S., along with his staff L.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the scene of offence situated near Vemavaram Bridge of

Machavaram Mandal and conducted vehicle checking, at that time they noticed the accused/A1 and A2 came in an auto bearing No.AP 27 TW 5489 coming from Chennayapalem side to Piduguralla side with white gunny bag, on seeing the Excise officials in uniform, they tried to escape from the scene of offence by seeing the police officials. On suspicion, L.W.3-

M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, SI of police, Machavaram P.S apprehended the said persons with the help of other staff and made enquiry as to their nature of escaping by seeing the police officials and asked about their identity 2 particulars on that, the said persons revealed their identity particulars and also confessed that they are having possession of liquor bottles without having any valid licence or permit. On that, L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana

Reddy, SI of police, Machavaram P.S, verified the said bag and found 150- 180 ml. Old Admiral whisky bottles. On further enquiry, the accused herein failed to show their accountability as to their possession of contraband, on that L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, SI of police of Machavaram P.S, seized above said liquor bottles from the possession of the said persons who are the accused herein and drawn one sample from the seized contraband for the sake of chemical analysis, at last L.W.3-M.Lakshmi

Narayana Reddy, SI of police of Machavaram P.S, after giving reasons made arrest of the accused and prepared a police proceedings as to confession, seizure and arrest of accused. After returning to the Police Station,

Machavaram P.S, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.124/2020 for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and submitted original

FIR to the Hon'ble court and copies to all concerned and later he sent the accused for judicial remand. Thereafter, L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy,

SI of police of Machavaram P.S, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene and thereafter he sent the sample bottles to the

Chemical Examiner Guntur, through letter of advice for analysis and thereafter L.W.3 handed over the case file to L.W.4 for further investigation and later the Chemical Examiner issued report vide Rc.No.1738/2020, dt.22.09.2020 in Sl.No.53484 opining that the sample is Indian Liquor.

Thereafter, L.W.4-M.Raja, Sub-Inspector of police who verified the investigation done by L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, SI of police, L.W.4-

M.Raja, Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Hence the charge sheet.

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was taken against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, has been framed read over and explained to them in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined totally One witness out of Four witnesses, as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 got marked. The 3 evidence of LW.1-B.Satyam Raj, HC, L.W.2-Ch.Das, PC, L.W.4-M.Raja, SI of police was givenup by learned A.P.P.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point :-In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 got marked.

11.The case of the prosecution is that on the receipt of credible information about the illegal transportation of liquor bottles from Telangana

State, P.W.1/L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, SI of police, Machavaram P.S along with L.Ws.1 and 2 and other staff proceeded to Vemavaram New bridge of Machavaram Mandal, and while they conducting vehicle checking where they noticed the accused came on a auto bearing No.AP 27 TW 5489 coming from Chennayapalem side to Piduguralla side with white bag, and during the raid at the scene of offence they apprehended the accused herein and found the contraband of 150-180 ml. Old Admiral whisky bottles, from the possession of accused and on enquiry, L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana

Reddy, SI of police, Machavaram P.S, found that the accused was transporting the contraband by without having licence for the possession of the said contraband, on that L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, SI of police,

Machavaram P.S seized the said contraband from the possession of accused i.e. 150-180 ml. Old Admiral whisky bottles, with company seals as no mediators were available, for which, P.W.1/L.W.3-M.Lakshmi Narayana

Reddy, SI of police, Machavaram P.S himself prepared police proceedings as to seizure of contraband and confession made by the accused as well as apprehension of the accused. Basing on the police proceedings/Ex.P1, PW.1 registered a crime and followed the procedure as per Criminal Procedure

Code during the course of investigation, L.W.4-M.Raja, SI of police filed charge sheet.

4

12.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, P.W.1 deposed his evidence in chief into the procedural aspect. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and also admitted that the village of Chennayapalem, where the scene of offence is situated having revenue officials and no summons were issued to secure the mediators and denied the formal suggestions.

13.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witness No.1 he is the

Investigating officer who registered the crime and obtained the relevant documents in accordance with the procedure under Ex.P2 to Ex.P.4and also he deposed his evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is levelled against the accused and thereafter he handed over the case file to L.W.4-M.Raja, Sub-Inspector of police for further investigation and who received the analysis report from the Lab and who verified the investigation done by P.W.1 and filed charge sheet.

14. Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution and all are the police officials, therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality in which the scene of offence is situated having revenue officials and further PW.1 stated that as none of the villagers come-forward to act as mediator, and further admitted that the said fact was not mentioned in Ex.P1, further PW.1 evidence could be considered for the procedural aspect to complete the investigation only and no incriminating material was levelled in his evidence against the accused.

15.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused.

Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100 Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

5

16.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu Reddy

Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated”

17. In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437

AP wherein it is held that :

“the panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

18.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.1 did not issue any written notice to any of the villagers with a request to act as mediators. Merely, the villagers refused to act as mediators does not entitles the PW.1 to proceed with recording of police proceedings. PW.1 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Sri Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also Mudavat Motia case, which he did not do so. All these lacunas in the investigation of PW.2 shows that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

19.Since P.W.1 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and also the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.W.1 is highly interested witnesses being police officials, as such his evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

20.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 150-180 ml. Old Admiral whisky bottles.

21.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances, as such the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

6

22.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and thereby they are acquitted U/s.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment. The unmarked case property, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27 th day of May, 2022.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: M.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, SI of police. None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Police proceedings. -NIL- Ex.P2: Rough sketch. Ex.P3: FIR in P.R.No.124/2020. Ex.P4: Analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA

CALENDER CASE No.215/2021

DATE OF :-

Offence: 15.08.2020

Complaint: 15.08.2020

Apprehension of accused: 16.08.2020

Released on bail: 17.08.2020

Commencement of trial: 11.03.2022

Close of trial: 25.05.2022

Sentence or order: 27.05.2022

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:-Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram P.S (Cr.No.124/2020) Name of the accused :

1.Kavati Chanakya, S/o.Nageswara Rao, 30 years. 2.Kavati Saibabu @ Sai, S/o.Yekalavyudu, 22 years. Both are R/o.Machavaram village and Mandal.

Offence : U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

Finding : Found not guilty. Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and thereby they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment. The unmarked case property, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

Copy submitted to :

1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PIDUGURALLA

PRESENT: M S . M ANJULATHA A RAVETI , Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla

Friday, this the 13 th day of May, 2022.

C.C.No.308 of 2018

Between:

The State: Proh.& Excise Inspector, Piduguralla. (Pr.No.40/2018) . . Complainant.

And

Sk.Meera Vali, S/o.Masthan Saheb, 45 years, R/o.Kondamodu village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. . . Accused.

This case is coming before me on 09-05-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.K.Jala Rao, learned Advocate for the Accused, and on hearing both the sides, this matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Proh.& Excise Inspector, Piduguralla P.S laid charge sheet against the accused in Pr.No.40/2018 for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968.

The brief facts of the prosecution is that:

2.On 17.04.2018, during the course of raids about P&E offences, L.W.3-

G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&EI, Enforcement, Guntur along with LW.1-Ch.Srinivasa

Rao, P&EC, Enforcement, Guntur and L.W.2-D.Venkateswara Rao, P&EC,

Enforcement, Guntur started to conduct raids to detect Proh. & Excise

Offences, and they reached near Water tank on Piduguralla to Pillutla road at Lenin Nagar of Piduguralla Town and conducted raid and during the raid at about 8.00 a.m., the accused having a white plastic Bag and doing sales of liquor, on seeing the Excise officials in uniform, he tried to escape from the scene of offence by seeing the Excise officials. On suspicion, L.W.3-

G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&EI, Enforcement, Guntur apprehended the said person with the help of other staff and made enquiry as to his nature of escaping by seeing the Excise officials and asked about his identity particulars on that, the said person revealed his identity particulars and also confessed that he is having possession of liquor bottles without having any valid licence or permit. Basing on the statement of the said person in order to verify the bag carried by him, L.W.3-G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&EI, Enforcement,

Guntur sent LW.2-D.Venkateswara Rao, P&EC, Enforcement, Guntur for mediators, after some time L.W.2 returned and informed that none of the 2 villagers were willing to act as mediators, whereas VRO and VRA were not available. On that, L.W.3-G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&EI, Enforcement, Guntur, verified the said plastic bag and found 18-180 ml. Bangalore Malt whisky

Tetra packets with company seals, labels with inscriptions as “For sale in

Andhra Pradesh only” and their HEAL Labels were torned. On further enquiry, the accused herein failed to show his accountability as to his possession of contraband, on that L.W.3-G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&EI,

Enforcement, Guntur, seized above said liquor Tetra packets from the possession of the said person who is the accused herein and drawn one sample from the seized contraband for the sake of chemical analysis, at last

L.W.3-G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&EI, Enforcement, Guntur, after giving reasons made arrest of the accused and prepared a Special Report as to confession, seizure and arrest of accused and returned to Piduguralla Excise police station and handed over the accused along with seized contraband to L.W.4-

K.Bujji Babu, P&EI, Pidugualla on the point of jurisdiction. Basing on it,

L.W.4-K.Bujji Babu, P&EI, Pidugualla registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.40/2018 for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, and submitted original FIR to the Hon'ble court and copies to all concerned and produced the accused before the court and sent him for judicial custody, later he was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, LW.4-K.Bujji Babu, P&E

Inspector, Piduguralla, sent the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner

Guntur, through letter of advice for analysis and the Chemical Examiner issued report vide Rc.No.1483/2018, dt.23.06.2018 in Sl.No.1021 opining that the sample is Indian Liquor. Thereafter, LW.4-K.Bujji Babu, P&EI,

Piduguralla, made proposals for confiscation and destruction of remaining contraband before the Deputy Commissioner, Proh.& Excise, Guntur and obtained proceedings vide in RC.No.289/2018/B2, dt.03.08.2019 and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Hence the charge sheet.

3.Cognizance of the offence punishable U/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 was taken against the Accused.

4. On appearance of the Accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and charge for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, has been framed read over and explained to him in Telugu. The Accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined totally Two witnesses out of four witnesses, as P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P4 got marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which the accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the Point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point :-In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 got marked.

11.The case of the prosecution is that during the course of raid about the

P&E offences, PW.2-G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&E Inspector, Enforcement, Guntur along with LW.1-Ch.Srinivasa Rao, P&EC, Enforcement, Guntur and L.W.2-

D.Venkateswara Rao, P&EC, Enforcement, Guntur other staff reached near

Water tank on Piduguralla to Pillutla road in Lenin Nagar of Piduguralla

Town, and while they conducting raid to detect Prohibition and Excise of this crime and during the raid at the scene of offence they apprehended the accused herein and found the contraband of 18-180 ml. Bangalore Malt whisky Tetra packets with seals and labels of the company which are to be sold at Andhra Pradesh State only from the possession of accused and on enquiry, PW.2-G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&E Inspector, Enforcement, Guntur found that the accused was selling the contraband by without having license for the possession of the said contraband, on that PW.2-G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&E

Inspector, Enforcement, Guntur seized the said contraband from the possession of accused i.e. 18-180 ml. Bangalore Malt whisky Tetra packets with company seals as no mediators were available, for which, PW.2-

G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&E Inspector, Enforcement, Guntur himself prepared

Special Report as to seizure of contraband and confession made by the accused as well as apprehension of the accused. Basing on the Special report/Ex.P4, PW.1 registered a crime and followed the procedure as per

Criminal Procedure Code during the course of his investigation.

4

12.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witness No.1 he is the

Investigating officer who registered the crime as Ex.P.1/FIR and to getting of

Chemical Ex.P.2/Analysis report and Ex.P3/confiscation orders and filing of charge sheet and also he deposed his evidence into the procedural aspect only and no incriminating evidence is levelled against the accused and denied the formal suggestions.

13.Whereas coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, PW.2 is the Investigating Officer who conducted raids deposed his evidence in chief into the procedural aspect. During the course of cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that he himself prepared mediator-cum-confession report but not special report and admitted that he cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence and no incriminating evidence is levelled against the accused where the scene of offence is situated having revenue officials and no summons were issued to secure the mediators.

14. Since there are no independent witnesses for the case of the prosecution and all are the Excise officials, therefore the evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their cross-examination have admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality in which the scene of offence is situated having revenue officials and further PW.2 stated that as none of the villagers com-forward to act as mediator, and further admitted that the said fact was not mentioned in Ex.P1 to P4, and no incriminating material was levelled in his evidence against the accused.

15.In the present case, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged seizure of liquor Tetra packets from the possession of the accused.

Therefore, it is to be noticed whether the investigating agency has followed the procedure relating to search and seizure, section 100 Cr.P.C. deals with the search and seizure. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of officer, who conducted search and seizure to secure the local inhabitants to prove the seizure and when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubtful and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

16.Further our Hon'ble High Court in a case of Y. Srinivasulu Reddy

Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) L.S. 242 held that :

“if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case the entire search conducted by the prosecution is vitiated” 5

17. In Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of A.P. 2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437

AP wherein it is held that :

“the panchanama is hit by sec.25 and 27 of Indian Evidence Act and sec.161 of Cr.P.C and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the sachets from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion.”

18.Coming to the present case, admittedly P.W.2 did not issue any written notice to any of the villagers with a request to act as mediators. Merely, the villagers refused to act as mediators does not entitles the PW.2 to proceed with recording of Special Report. PW.2 ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C, and also law laid down by the

Hon'ble High Court in Sri Y.Srinivasulu Reddy case and also

Mudavat Motia case, which he did not do so. All these lacunas in the investigation of PW.2 shows that he has not done proper investigation in seizure of the alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

19.Since P.W.2 did not follow the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High

Court in Srinivasulu Reddy case and in Mudavath Mothia case and also the case of the prosecution is not believable and further P.Ws.1 to 3 are highly interested witnesses being Excise officials, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from the independent witnesses.

20.In the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was found in possession of 17 180 ml., Bangalore Malt Whisky Tetra packets.

21.In view of the above findings, it is appeared that the evidence of the prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances,as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

6

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

A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment. The unmarked case property, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 13 th day of May, 2022.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: K.Bujji Babu, P&EI, Piduguralla. None. P.W.2: G.Veeranjaneyulu, P&EI, Enforcement, Guntur.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: FIR in P.R.No.40/2018. -NIL- Ex.P2: Analysis report. Ex.P3: Confiscation Proceedings. Ex.P4: Special Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA.

CALENDER CASE No. 308/2018

DATE OF :-

Offence: 17.04.2018

Complaint: 17.04.2018

Apprehension of accused: 17.04.2018

Released on bail: 20.04.2018

Commencement of trial: 12.03.2019

Close of trial: 09.05.2022

Sentence or order: 13.05.2022

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:-Proh.& Excise Inspector, Piduguralla (Cr.No.40/2018)

Name of the accused : Sk.Meera Vali, S/o.Masthan Saheb, 45 years, R/o.Kondamodu village, Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District.

Offence: U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968.

Finding: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment. The unmarked case property, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA

Copy submitted to :

1)The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PIDUGURALLA

PRESENT: M S . A.MANJULATHA,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala. FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla.

Tuesday, the 31st day of May, 2022.

C.C.No. 634/2021

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S., (Cr.No.172/2021 ) …Complainant. And.

Peerakala Koushik, S/o.Subba Rami Reddy, 41 years, R/o.Bhagya Nagar 4th lane, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Driver of Car bearing No.AP 27 BK 8244.

...Accused

This case is coming on 30-05-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. D.Chennaiah, learned Advocate for the accused, and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S, filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.172/2021 for the offence U/s.304-A of IPC, against the accused.

2.The brief avernments of the charge sheet are as follows:

The deceased/Chowdavarapu Sai Teja is resident of Narayanapuram village of Dachepalli Mandal he is studying in MCA 2nd year at Loyola

Engineering College at Sattenapalli and on every day he went to the

College on his Unicorn Motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 AX 1209. As usual on 05.04.2021 at about 10.00 AM the deceased started and went to college on his motor cycle, when the deceased reached near Toll,

Thummalacheruvu, opposite to Bharat Petrol bunk, at about 10.30 AM, the accused being the driver of car bearing No.AP 27BK 8244, drove it, in a rash and negligent manner came upon with wrong route to Dachepalli to Piduguralla side and hit the back side of the deceased, as a result, the right leg of the deceased was broken and also sustained blood injuries and immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,

Gurazala for treatment in an ambulance where the doctor examined and declared the death of the deceased. Immediately the father of the

2

deceased i.e, L.W.1- Chowdavarapu Guru Krishna went to police station and lodged a complaint.

Basing on the statement of LW.1, L.W.11-P.Hanumantha Rao, Head

Constable, Piduguralla P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.172/2021, U/s.304-A of IPC and submitted original FIR to the Court and copies to all officers concerned and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, L.W.11-P.Hanumantha Rao, Head

Constable, Piduguralla P.S visited the scene of offence situated on

Addanki-Narketpalli State Highway-2 near Thummalacheruvu village, prepared observation report in the presence of LW.6-Challapalli Srinivasa

Rao and LW.7-Yarramsetti Anjaneyulu duly attested by them and prepared rough sketch of the scene and held Inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 05.04.2021 in the presence of L.W.6-Challapalli Srinivasa

Rao and LW.8-Muthana Brahmananda Reddy at Gurazala Government

Hospital and sent the body to LW.9-Dr.M.Satish, CAS, Community Health

Center, Gurazala to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased with instructions to hand over the dead body of the deceased after Postmortem Examination to blood relatives.

On 07.042021 L.W.12-J.V.Narasimha Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,

Piduguralla P.S arrested the accused on that he served notice U/s.41-A

Cr.P.C. to the accused and intimated him to furnish two sureties, on that the accused came to police station along with two sureties and produced the documents of the crime vehicle and driving licence before him.

LW.10-Dr.M.Satish,CAS, Community Health Center, Gurazala, conducted autopsy over the corpse of deceased and opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to “ shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries ”. LW.10-Chandra Ram Babu, Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Macherla inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. After obtaining the postmortem certificate, MVI report and after completion of investigation, L.W.12 filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

3. This case was taken cognizance of the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the accused.

3

4.On appearance of the accused before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, for the offence u/s.304-A of IPC, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P10 got marked. The evidence of

LW.2-Chowdavarapu Sita Lakshmi, L.W.3-Chowdavarapu Sudheer Kumar,

L.W.4-SwamySuresh, L.W.5-Rekkala Venkateswara Reddy, L.W.8-Muthana

Brahamananda Reddy, L.W.9-Dr. M.Satish, L.W.10-Chandra Ram Babu,

MVI, L.W.12-J.V.Narasimha Rao, SI of police, was given up by the learned

A.P.P.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material placed against the accused, for which he denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section U/Sec.304-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. Point: As per the case of prosecution, the deceased was died due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P10 got marked. P.W.1 is the direct witness to the occurrence and father of the deceased. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the inquest and scene observation panchayatdars and PW.4 is the Investigating officer in this case.

11.P.W.1, who is the father of deceased /Chowdavarapu Sai Teja that in the year 2021 April 15th his younger son as usual went to college on his motor cycle at Sattenapalli, at about 10.00 AM L.W.5 informed him that his son met with an accident at Thummalacheruvu and his son was shifted to Government Hospital, Gurazala and immediately he went to

Community Health Center, Gurazala where he noticed his son was no

4

more, later he came to know that his son was died in a road accident , but he do not know how the accident was occurred and who was reasonable for the said accident, at that time, the police recorded his statement at Community Health Center, Gurazala, which is marked as

Ex.P.1, except that he do not know anything about this case.

12.P.Ws.2 and 3 are the inquest and scene observation panchayatdars, who deposed that police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Chowdavarapu Sai Teja, and in their presence police prepared inquest report which is marked as Ex.P3. They further deposed that police obtained their signatures on some written papers at hospital, but they do not know the contents of the same and they identified their signatures on Scene observation report, which is marked as Exs.P4, and P5.

13.PW.4 is the Investigating officer, who deposed about registering the case, preparing scene observation report, drawn rough sketch, conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Chowdavarapu

Sai Teja, serving notice to accused and filing charge sheet after obtaining

Postmortem certificate of deceased and MVI report.

14.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 who is the father of the deceased, deposed his evidence before the Court who is not the direct witnesses and his evidence is considered as hearsay evidence. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the mediators for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Chowdavarapu Sai Teja also not corroborated to the evidence of PW.4. Moreover, P.Ws.1 to 3 are declared as hostile by the learned

A.P.P. except marking Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 as in Ex.P2. As per the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, there is no single line to incriminate against the accused to bring into the home of guilt.

15.In view of the above circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution could able to prove the fact of death of the deceased in road accident, but it failed to prove that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle and caused death to the deceased/Chowdavarapu Sai Teja and also there is no iota of evidence to reveal the rash and negligent driving of the accused.

5

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences Under sections 304-A of I.P.C, and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties, shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the Open Court, this the 31 st day of May, 2022.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Chowdavarapu Guru Krishna. None. PW.2: Challapalli Srinivasa Rao. PW.3: Yarramsetty Anjaneyulu. PW.4: P.Hanumantha Rao, Head Constable.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1. - Nil - Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Inquest Report. Ex.P.4: Signature of PW.2 on Scene Observation report. Ex.P.5: Signature of PW.3 in Scene observation report. Ex.P6: F.I.R. Ex.P7: Scene Observation report Ex.P8: Rough sketch. Ex.P9: Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.P10: M.V.I Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURAL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PIDUGURALLA.

C.C.NO. 634/2021

DATE OF :-

Offence: 05.04.2021 Complaint: 05.04.2021 Apprehension of accused: 07.04.2021 Released on bail: 07.04.2021 Commencement of trial: 20.05.2022 Close of trial: 30.05.2022 Sentence or order: 31.05.2022

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

Name of the Complainant: State:-Sub Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S. (Cr.No.172/2021) Name of the accused:

Peerakala Koushik, S/o.Subba Rami Reddy, 41 years, R/o.Bhagya Nagar 4th lane, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. Driver of Car bearing No.AP 27 BK 8244.

Offence: U/s.304-A IPC.

Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence or Order: Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s.304-A of I.P.C, and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate-Cum-Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA.

Present: Ms.Manjulatha Araveti, Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla.

Friday, this the 13th day of May, 2022.

O.S.No. 211 of 2021

Between:

Chintala Amareswara Rao, S/o.Ramachandraiah, R/o.D.No.10-105/5-67/320, Flot No.1023, Indiramma Colony, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District. … Plaintif

A n d :

Darala Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Pullaiah, RTC Driver, Piduguralla Depot, R/o.D.No.8- 543, Chinchalu Donka, Back Side of Bazaar of 11 houses, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on 06.05.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Yedukondalu, Advocate for the Plaintif and defendant having remained set exparte upon considering the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from the defendant and for subsequent interest and for costs.

1. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows :

On 12.03.2019 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif for his family expenses and executed a promissory note at Piduguralla

Town and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 %p.a., either to the plaintif or to him order on demand. Subsequently, the plaintif made several demands through mediators to repay the said pronote debt amounts, but the defendant did not choose to repay the same, the defendant intentionally avoiding to pay the pronote debt amount to the plaintif and postponing the payment on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount under the suit promissory note together with interest and cost.

Hence this suit.

2

2.After registering the plaint this court issued summons to the defendant and the summon was served on him, but the defendant called absent, no representation, hence serving of summons held sufficient. Hence, on 22.04.2022 the defendant remained exparte and posted for plaintif evidence.

3.The plaintif himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A2 got marked as the defendant remained exparte there is no cross examination.

4.Heard on plaintif’s side.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?

6.Heard the counsel for plaintif.

7.The plaintif filed his chief affidavit as that of the plaint avernments and

Exs.A.1 and A2 got marked, as the defendant remained exparte his evidence is not challenged by the defendant however the plaintif has to prove his case on his own strength irrespective of the defendant side evidence, in this aspect plaintif adduced Ex.A.1 suit promissory note which comes under the purview of Sec.4 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. For reference of the Act the promissory note is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker to pay certain amount only to , or to the order of a certain person or to the barer of the instruments, so Ex.A1 i.e promissory note containing all the essential elements of the Negotiable Instrument under sec.4 of the Act. When the instrument of Ex.A1 comes under the definition of the Act, the Act itself providing certain presumptions in favour of the holder of the negotiable instruments. So as per section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act the court has to presume certain 3 favourable presumptions which are applicable to all the negotiable instruments unless the contrary is proved. Every negotiable instrument presumed made, drawn, accepted, endorsed or negotiated or transfer should be for consideration.

So after going through Ex.A1 i.e. promissory note the maker of the promissory notes i.e. defendant accepted to pay the amount mentioned in the instrument, it is presumed that it was accepted within a reasonable time of its date and before its maturity to pay the amount upto this point the plaintif proved his case.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13thday of May, 2022.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:For Defendant: P.W.1: Chintala Amareswara Rao. -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif:For Defendant: Nil. Ex.A1: Suit Promissory note dt.12.03.2019. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.03.09.2021.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA.

Present: Ms.Manjulatha Araveti, Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala FAC.Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla.

Friday, this the 13th day of May, 2022.

O.S.No. 211 of 2021

Between:

Chintala Amareswara Rao, S/o.Ramachandraiah, R/o.D.No.10-105/5-67/320, Flot N0.1023, Indiramma Colony, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District. … Plaintif

A n d :

Darala Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Pullaiah, RTC Driver, Piduguralla Depot, R/o.D.No.8- 543, Chinchalu Donka, Back Side of Bazaar of 11 houses, Piduguralla Town and Mandal, Guntur District. … Defendant. .

This suit is filed to recover the suit amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the defendant and for subsequent interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and for costs.

Plaint presented on:06.10.2021 Plaint registered on:23.10.2021

Cause of action for the suit arose on 12.03.2019 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintif for his family purpose and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintif at Piduguralla

Town and agreeing to repay the same with interest 24 % p.a., either to plaintif or his order on demand, subsequently when the defendant failed to discharge the said debt due under the promissory note and where the suit pronote is executed is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Particulars of claim:

Principal amount under Promissory noteRs.1,00,000/-

Interest @ 24% per annum from 12.03.2019 to 12.09.2021 Rs. 60,000/- ------------------

Rs.1,60,000/- ------------------- 2

Value for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.1,60,000/- on which a Court fee of

Rs.4,026/- is paid U/s.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act, 1956.

This suit is coming on 06.05.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Yedukondalu, Advocate for the Plaintif and defendant having remained set exparte upon considering the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this court doth order and decree as follows:

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- ; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.6,268/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 13th day of May, 2022.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

FAC.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.

Table of Costs

For Plaintif For Defendant

1. Vakalat & Welfare fund102-00

2. Plaint fee4,026-00

3. Process fee 40-00 (CM and FC not

4. Pleader's fee 2,000-00 filed)

5. Typing charges 100-00 Total: Rs.6,268-00

Ild/-A.M.L.

AJCJ, GZL.

FAC. JCJ, PDRL

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PIDUGURALLA

Present :Smt, A.Manjulatha, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Piduguralla.

Friday, this the 15th day of July, 2022

O.S.No.36/2021

Between: Motamarri Pramila Devi W/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, … Plaintiff Aged 62 Years, R/o Pidugurala Town & Mandal.

And

Motamarri Baskara Rao S/o Sambasiva Rao,Hindu, Aged 48 Years, R/O D/No. 16-423/3 Backside of … Defendant Gangamma Temple, Piduguralla Town & Mandal.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of

Smt. P. Chandhrakala, Advocate for the Plaintiff , upon considering the material on record this court delivered the following.

This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs.4,42,,000/-, basing on Promissory note, dt.6/7/2020 for Rs.4,00,000/- payable with interest @18% p.a. with future interest and for costs.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff called Present. And filed a memo submitting that tha matter was setteked out of court and praayaaed to not press the suit as received full

Satisfactain. The maemo is recorded. Accordingly, the suit is disssmissed as not pressed. IA. No.66/2022, Wich is no order shall stands closed.

Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- A.Manjulatha,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Pidugurala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

No oral documentary evidence adduced on both sides.

Sd/- A.Manjulatha,

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PIDUGURALLA.