Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Bhimadole

Junior Civil Court, Bhimadole · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik, Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Bhimadole, is posted at Junior Civil Court, Bhimadole, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 369 court orders on record since 2023. 20 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

369

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/456/2024 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Manikala Radhakrishna

14 Nov 2024

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I CLASS:: BHIMADOLE

PRESENT: Sri. Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)-cum-III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru. FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Thursday, the 14th day of November 2024

CALENDAR CASE. No. 456/2024

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimadole in Cr. No. 350/2021.

...Complainant

And

Manikala Radha Krishna, S/o Gangaraju, Age 38 years, C/Yadava, R/o Vempadu Village, Dwarakatirumala Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming up before me for a final hearing on 08.11.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri S. Gopala Krishna, Advocate for Accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Bhimadole Police Station, has filed Charge-Sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 350/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:

i.On 01.12.2021 at 07:00 A.M., the L.W.1. K.Subbarao,

Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Bhimadole

along with L.W.2. Head Constable of SEB, Bhimadole,

L.W.3. Constable of SEB, Bhimadole and Staff conducted 2

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

raids for detention of Prohibition and Excise Offences at

Vempadu Village, Dwarakatirumala Mandal, there they found one person with One Plastic Can containing 25 Liters of

I.D Liquor and One Drum Containing 200 Liters of F.J

Wash, and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there. Then, on suspicion, the L.W.1 detained the accused and, on verification, found:

1. One Plastic Can containing 25 Liters of I.D Liquor;

2. One Drum Containing 200 Liters of F.J Wash in possession of the accused.

ii.During interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity particulars. The accused further stated that he purchased the said ID liquor from one unknown person in his

Village. The Sub-Inspector deputed one Constable to secure mediators but in vain. As such, he arrested the accused, seized the contraband from him, and drew samples for analysis and drafted Special report. Later, L.W.1 handed over the C.D. file along with accused and seized property to L.W.4 S.I. of Police,

SEB, Bhimadole for further investigation.

iii.Based on the Special report, L.W.1 registered a case in Cr. No.

350/2021 under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition

Amended Act. Later, he sent to judicial custody to the accused and sent the samples for analysis. The chemical examiner who analyzed the samples opined in the Chemical Analysis Report, i.e., C.E. No. 178/2022 and sample at Sl. Nos. 4211, Dt.

28.01.2024, that the samples are “Illicit Distilled Liquor”,

Unfit for Human Consumption and Injuries to Health.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

iv.Later, on 05.04.2022, L.W.4. destroyed the seized property,

before the mediators, as per the orders of the Superintendent

of Police, Eluru, vide RC.No.287/2021/C, Dt. 30.03.2022. After completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3. The Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of the A.P Prohibition Amended Act. On the accused's appearance before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 230 of BNSS.

The accused was examined under Section 262 BNSS 1973. The contents of the charge were explained and read over to him for the offences punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition

Amended Act, in Telugu, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined L.W.1.

K.Subbarao, Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector,

Bhimadole, as P.W.1, L.W.4. G. Venkata Lakshmi, E.S.I. of

Police as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, M.O.1 and

M.O.2. Later, the Learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

L.W.2. K.Sudarsana Rao, Head Constable of SEB, L.W.3.

Y.S.R.Murthy, Constable of SEB, Bhimadole.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS, by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in Telugu, which he denied and reported no evidence from his side. No exhibits were marked in the "D" Series.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

6. Heard both the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Learned Counsel for Defence.

Point for Determination:

7. Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt for

the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P

Prohibition Amended Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8. P.W.1 is the Investigation Officer and conducted raid. As per

P.W.1, he, along with L.W.2, L.W.3 and staff, arrested the accused on 01.12.2021 at 07:00 A.M., drafted the Ex.P1 Special Report, and collected the M.O.1 and M.O.2. Sample bottles. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he registered Ex.P2 F.I.R. on the same day. After receiving

Ex.P1 Special report, and thereafter, the accused was sent to judicial custody. Later, he forwarded M.O.1 Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack, 300 m.l., and M.O.2 Sample of F.J Wash, 500 m.l for chemical analysis,

Ex.P.3 Letter of Advice and later, the P.W.2 received Ex.P4 Chemical

Analysis Report with the result that the M.O.1 and M.O.2 is Illicit

Distilled Liquor, Unfit for Human Consumption and Injuries to Health.

Subsequently, based on Ex.P5 Destruction Proceedings, the P.W.2 destroyed the unmarked case property in the presence of mediators, and the Ex.P6 Attested Copy of Mediator’s Report was drafted to such effect.

09. As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that P.W.1 did not make any effort to secure the presence of any independent witness or Village Sarpanch, Ward Members, or V.R.O. to act as mediators. It should not be forgotten that the raid was during the 07:00 A.M., when pedestrians would possibly have been moving around on the 5

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

pavements. Despite having sufficient time, P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

10.It is pertinent to refer to "Kalpnath v. State (Through CBI), 1997 (2) A.L.D. Cri 805”, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court that "Indeed, the evidence of the official (Police) witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the Police force and are, either interested in the investigation or the prosecuting agency, but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence, in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation; requires greater care to appreciate their testimony.” The rule of prudence is that the testimony of a Police

Official witness shall be corroborated in order to prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.1 failed to establish any cogent proof of the same. The evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the Accused was found possessing ID arrack and F.J Wash cannot be relied upon without any corroboration.

11.Even it was held by Hon'ble High Court in Botcha Raju v.

State Represented by Inspector of Police, 1994 (2) A.L.T. 69

(A.P.) that the conviction could not be based on the sole evidence of

Police officers without corroboration by a disinterested witness.

Similarly, in Gyam Singh and Ors v. State of U.P., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that conviction could not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an official witness.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

12. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that, the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 are both not reliable as no independent witnesses were examined. Despite having a chance of securing evidence in their support, the non-examination of the independent witness or even the presence of such a witness during the raid, casts an added duty on the Court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the police officers, especially when the police failed to show any reasonable cause as to what prevented them in securing the presence of independent witnesses.

13.At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the P.W.1 who conducted raid and arrested the accused and seized the contraband from the possession of accused and P.W.1 is the Investigation Officer alone. Then again, it may be noted that the entire prosecution case rests solely on the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the police officials. Moreover, the mediators, in whose presence the unmarked case property was destroyed, were also not brought onto the record to buttress the fact of seizure.

14.Indeed, the prosecution's version does not become vulnerable, and no doubt would be cast upon it merely because the complainant investigated the case because the matter must be decided on a case- to-case basis without any universal generalization. But, in view of the facts mentioned earlier, viz., failure to secure the presence of an independent witness inspite of having sufficient time and failure to bring the mediators before whom the unmarked case property was destroyed, onto the record, is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. If a Police Officer, who register a complainant is subsequently asked to investigate the 7

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

matter, it would not be inappropriate to consider the possibility of a biased investigation, which could undermine the very foundation of a fair trial, thereafter, serves as an affront to the public conscience. A fair and just investigation should not only be carried out but must also manifestly be seen to be carried out. This is essential to maintain society's faith in the apparatus of criminal investigations.

Therefore, in view of the foregoing analysis, this Court opines that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence charged against him.

16. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended

Act; hence, he is acquitted of the same under section 271(1) of

BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

The M.O.1 Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack, 300 m.l and M.O.2

Sample of F.J Wash, 500 m.l, deposited vide C.P. No. 107/2024, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of November

2024. Sd/Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru, FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Subbarao, S.I of SEB, Bhimadole. None PW.2: G.Venkata Lakshmi, SI, SEB, Bhimadole.

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings Ex.P6: Attested copy of Mediators report.

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack, 300 m.l

M.O.2: Sample of F.J Wash, 500 m.l

Id/ S.M.A.P

III A.C.J.(J.D)-CUM-

S.J.F.C.M. (M), ELURU

FAC C.J.(J.D)-CUM-

J.M.F.C, BMDL.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 456/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

CALENDAR CASE No. 456/2024

1.Date of offence : 01.12.2021

2.Date of complaint or report : 01.12.2021

3.Date of apprehension of Accused : 01.12.2021

4.Date of release on bail of Accused : 03.12.2021

5.Date of commencement of trial : 08.11.2024

6.Date of close of trial : 08.11.2024

7.Date of sentence or Order : 14.11.2024

8.Explanation of delay if any : --- COMPLAINANT: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimadole in Cr. No. 350/2021.

ACCUSED:

Manikala Radha Krishna, S/o Gangaraju, Age 38 years, C/Yadava, R/o Vempadu Village, Dwarakatirumala Mandal.

Section of Law : 7(b) r/w 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act Finding of the Court : Not found guilty

Sentence/Order:

The Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended Act; hence, he is acquitted of the same under section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment. The M.O.1 Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack, 300 m.l and M.O.2 Sample of F.J Wash, 500 m.l, deposited vide C.P. No. 107/2024, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Sd/Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru, FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Seal: Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

CC/458/2024 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Balam Naga Durga Rao

14 Nov 2024

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I CLASS:: BHIMADOLE

Thursday, the 14th day of November 2024

CALENDAR CASE. No. 458/2024

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimadole in Cr. No. 355/2021.

...Complainant

And

Balam Naga Durga Rao, S/o Paparao, Age 29 years, C/Settibalija, R/o Malasanikunta Village, Dwarakatirumala Mandal. …Accused

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Bhimadole Police Station, has filed Charge-Sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 355/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:

i.On 03.12.2021 at 09:30 A.M., the L.W.1. K.Subbarao,

Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Bhimadole

along with L.W.2. Constable of SEB, Bhimadole,

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

L.W.4.K.M.N.B.K.Prasad, Constable of SEB, Bhimadole

and Staff conducted raids for detention of Prohibition and

Excise Offences at Malasanikunta Village, Dwarakatirumala

Mandal, there they found one person with One Polythene

Cover containing 05 Liters of I.D Liquor and One Drum

Containing 100 Liters of F.J Wash, and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there. Then, on suspicion, the

L.W.1 detained the accused and, on verification, found:

1. One Polythene Cover containing 05 Liters of I.D Liquor;

2. One Drum Containing 100 Liters of F.J Wash in possession of the accused.

ii.During interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity particulars. The accused further stated that he purchased the said ID liquor from one unknown person in his

SEB, Bhimadole for further investigation.

iii.Based on the Special report, L.W.1 registered a case in Cr. No.

355/2021 under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

Dt. 28.01.2024, that the sample are “Illicit Distilled Liquor”,

Unfit for Human Consumption and Injuries to Health.

iv.Later, on 05.04.2022, L.W.4. destroyed the seized property,

before the mediators, as per the orders of the Superintendent

of Police, Eluru, vide RC.No.287/2021/C, Dt. 30.03.2022. After completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector filed the charge sheet against the accused.

The accused was examined under Section 262 BNSS 1973. The contents of the charge was explained and read over to him for the offences punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition

Amended Act, in Telugu, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined L.W.1.

K.Subbarao, Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector,

Bhimadole, as P.W.1, L.W.4. G. Venkata Lakshmi, E.S.I. of

Police as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, M.O.1 and

M.O.2. Later, the Learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

L.W.2. Ch.Raja, Head Constable of SEB, L.W.3. K.M.N.B.K. Prasad,

Constable of SEB, Bhimadole.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 BNSS, by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in Telugu, which he denied and 4

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

reported no evidence from his side. No exhibits were marked in the "D" Series.

6. Heard both the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Learned Counsel for Defence.

Point for Determination:

7. Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt for

the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P

Prohibition Amended Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8. P.W.1 is the Investigation Officer and conducted raid. As per

P.W.1, he, along with L.W.2, L.W.3 and staff, arrested the accused on 03.12.2021 at 09:30 A.M., drafted the Ex.P1 Special Report, and collected the M.O.1 and M.O.2. Sample bottles. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he registered Ex.P2 F.I.R. on the same day. After receiving

Ex.P1 Special report, and thereafter, the accused was sent to judicial custody. Later, he forwarded M.O.1 and M.O.2 for chemical analysis,

Ex.P.3 Letter of Advice and later, the P.W.2 received Ex.P4 Chemical

Analysis Report with the result that the M.O.1 and M.O.2 is Illicit

Distilled Liquor, Unfit for Human Consumption and Injuries to Health.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

when pedestrians would possibly have been moving around on the pavements. Despite having sufficient time, P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

10.It is pertinent to refer to "Kalpnath v. State (Through CBI), 1997 (2) A.L.D. Cri 805”, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble

P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the Accused was found possessing ID arrack cannot be relied upon without any corroboration.

11.Even it was held by Hon'ble High Court in Botcha Raju v.

State Represented by Inspector of Police, 1994 (2) A.L.T. 69

(A.P.) that the conviction could not be based on the sole evidence of

Police officers without corroboration by a disinterested witness.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

12. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that, the evidence of PW1 and

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

16. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended

Act; hence, he is acquitted of the same under section 271(1) of

BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

The M.O.1 Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack, 300 m.l, M.O.2 Sample of F.J Wash, 500 m.l, deposited vide C.P. No. 106/2024, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of November

Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Subbarao, S.I of SEB, Bhimadole. None PW.2: G.Venkata Lakshmi, SI, SEB, Bhimadole.

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings Ex.P6: Attested copy of Mediators report.

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack, 300 m.l

M.O.2: Sample of F.J Wash, 500 m.l

Id/ S.M.A.P

III A.C.J.(J.D)-CUM-

S.J.F.C.M. (M), ELURU

FAC C.J.(J.D)-CUM-

J.M.F.C, BMDL.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 458/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

CALENDAR CASE No. 458/2024

1.Date of offence : 03.12.2021

2.Date of complaint or report : 03.12.2021

3.Date of apprehension of Accused : 03.12.2021

4.Date of release on bail of Accused : 07.12.2021

5.Date of commencement of trial : 08.11.2024

6.Date of close of trial : 08.11.2024

7.Date of sentence or Order : 14.11.2024

8.Explanation of delay if any : --- COMPLAINANT: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimadole in Cr. No. 355/2021.

ACCUSED:

Balam Naga Durga Rao, S/o Paparao, Age 29 years, C/Settibalija, R/o Malasanikunta Village, Dwarakatirumala Mandal.

Section of Law : 7(b) r/w 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act Finding of the Court : Not found guilty Sentence/Order:

The Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended Act; hence, he is acquitted of the same under section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment. The M.O.1 Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack, 300 m.l, M.O.2 Sample of F.J Wash, 500 m.l, deposited vide C.P. No. 106/2024, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Sd/Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru, FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Seal: Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

CC/460/2024 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Palli Uday Kumar

14 Nov 2024

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I CLASS:: BHIMADOLE

Thursday, the 14th day of November 2024

CALENDAR CASE. No. 460/2024

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimadole in Cr. No. 366/2021.

...Complainant

And

Palli Uday Kumar, S/o Jayaraju, Age 43 years, C/S.C- Madiga, R/o Arundati Colony, Bhimadole Village and Bhimadole Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming up before me for a final hearing on 08.11.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri T. Jaya Prakash, Advocate for Accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Bhimadole Police Station, has filed Charge-Sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 366/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:

i.On 09.12.2021 at 05:30 A.M., the L.W.1. K.Subbarao,

Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Bhimadole

along with L.W.2. HC of SEB, Bhimadole and Staff

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

conducted raids for detention of Prohibition and Excise Offences at Bhimadole Village, Bhimadole Mandal, there they found one person with one polythene cover containing 05 Liters of I.D

Arrack and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there. Then, on suspicion, the L.W.1 detained the accused and, on verification, found:

One Polythene Cover containing 05 Liters of I.D

Arrack in possession of the accused.

ii.During interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity particulars. The accused further stated that he purchased the said ID liquor from one unknown person in his

SEB, Bhimadole for further investigation.

iii.Based on the Special report, L.W.1 registered a case in Cr. No.

366/2021 under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition

29.01.2024, that the sample is “Illicit Distilled Liquor”, Unfit for Human Consumption and Injuries to Health.

iv.Later, on 05.04.2022, L.W.3. destroyed the seized property,

before the mediators, as per the orders of the Superintendent

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

of Police, Eluru, vide RC.No.287/2021/C, Dt. 30.03.2022. After completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector filed the charge sheet against the accused.

The accused was examined under Section 262 BNSS 1973. The contents of the charge were explained and read over to him for the offences punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition

Amended Act, in Telugu, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined L.W.1.

K.Subbarao, Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector,

Bhimadole, as P.W.1, L.W.3. G. Venkata Lakshmi, E.S.I. of

Police as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, M.O.1. Later, the

Learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.W.2. Ch.Raja,

SEB, Head Constable, Bhimadole.

6. Heard both the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Learned Counsel for Defence.

Point for Determination:

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

7. Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt for

the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P

Prohibition Amended Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8. P.W.1 is the Investigation Officer and conducted raid. As per

P.W.1, he, along with L.W.2 and staff, arrested the accused on 09.12.2021 at 05:30 A.M., drafted the Ex.P1 Special Report, and collected the M.O.1. Sample bottle. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he registered Ex.P2 F.I.R. on the same day. After receiving Ex.P1

Special report, and thereafter, the accused was sent to judicial custody. Later, he forwarded M.O.1 for chemical analysis, Ex.P.3

Letter of Advice and later, the P.W.2 received Ex.P4 Chemical

Analysis Report with the result that the M.O.1 is Illicit Distilled

Liquor, Unfit for Human Consumption and Injuries to Health.

09. As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that P.W.1 did not make any effort to secure the presence of any independent witness or Village Sarpanch, Ward Members, or V.R.O. to act as mediators. It should not be forgotten that the raid was during the 5:30 A.M. when pedestrians would possibly have been moving around on the pavements. Despite having sufficient time, P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

10.It is pertinent to refer to "Kalpnath v. State (Through CBI), 1997 (2) A.L.D. Cri 805”, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble 5

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the Accused was found possessing ID arrack cannot be relied upon without any corroboration.

11.Even it was held by Hon'ble High Court in Botcha Raju v.

State Represented by Inspector of Police, 1994 (2) A.L.T. 69

(A.P.) that the conviction could not be based on the sole evidence of

Police officers without corroboration by a disinterested witness.

12. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that, the evidence of PW1 and

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

the Court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the police officers, especially when the police failed to show any reasonable cause as to what prevented them in securing the presence of independent witnesses.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

also manifestly be seen to be carried out. This is essential to maintain society's faith in the apparatus of criminal investigations.

16. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended

Act; hence, he is acquitted of the same under section 271(1) of

BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

The M.O.1 Sample Bottle, deposited vide C.P. No. 104/2024, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of November

2024. Sd/Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Subbarao, S.I of SEB, Bhimadole. None 8

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

PW.2: G.Venkata Lakshmi, SI, SEB, Bhimadole.

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings Ex.P6: Attested copy of Mediators report.

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1. Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack

Id/ S.M.A.P

III A.C.J.(J.D)-CUM-

S.J.F.C.M. (M), ELURU

FAC C.J.(J.D)-CUM-

J.M.F.C, BMDL.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 460/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

CALENDAR CASE No. 460/2024

1.Date of offence : 09.12.2021

2.Date of complaint or report : 09.12.2021

3.Date of apprehension of Accused : 09.12.2021

4.Date of release on bail of Accused : 13.12.2021

5.Date of commencement of trial : 08.11.2024

6.Date of close of trial : 08.11.2024

7.Date of sentence or Order : 14.11.2024

8.Explanation of delay if any : --- COMPLAINANT: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimadole in Cr. No. 366/2021. ACCUSED: Palli Uday Kumar, S/o Jayaraju, Age 43 years, C/S.C- Madiga, R/o Arundati Colony, Bhimadole Village and Bhimadole Mandal.

Section of Law : 7(b) r/w 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act Finding of the Court : Not found guilty

Sentence/Order:

The Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended Act; hence, he is acquitted of the same under section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment. The M.O.1 Sample Bottle, deposited vide C.P.No.104/2024, shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time. Sd/Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Seal: Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions

Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

CC/459/2024 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Pecheti Sivannarayana

14 Nov 2024

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE I CLASS:: BHIMADOLE

Thursday, the 14th day of November 2024

CALENDAR CASE. No. 459/2024

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimadole in Cr. No. 348/2021.

...Complainant

And

Peccheti Sivannarayana, S/o Somulu, Age 51 years, C/Settibalija, R/o Amberpeta Village, Bhimadole Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming up before me for a final hearing on 08.11.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri A. Gangadhara Rao and K. Gangaraju, Advocate

for Accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having

stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Bhimadole Police Station, has filed Charge-Sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 348/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended Act.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:

i.On 27.11.2021 at 11:00 A.M., the L.W.1. K.Subbarao,

Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector, Bhimadole

along with L.W.2. Head Constable of SEB, Bhimadole and

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

Staff conducted raids for detention of Prohibition and Excise

Offences at Amberpeta Village, Bhimadole Mandal, there they found one person with One Polythene Cover containing 05

Liters of I.D Liquor and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there. Then, on suspicion, the L.W.1 detained the accused and, on verification, found:

One Polythene Cover containing 05 Liters of I.D

Arrack in possession of the accused.

ii.During interrogation, the accused revealed his name and identity particulars. The accused further stated that he purchased the said ID liquor from one unknown person in his

SEB, Bhimadole for further investigation.

iii.Based on the Special report, L.W.1 registered a case in Cr. No.

348/2021 under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition

29.01.2024, that the sample is “Illicit Distilled Liquor”, Unfit for Human Consumption and Injuries to Health.

iv.Later, on 05.04.2022, L.W.3. destroyed the seized property,

before the mediators, as per the orders of the Superintendent

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

of Police, Eluru, vide RC.No.287/2021/C, Dt. 30.03.2022. After completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector filed the charge sheet against the accused.

The accused was examined under Section 262 BNSS 1973. The contents of the charge were explained and read over to him for the offences punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition

Amended Act, in Telugu, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined L.W.1.

K.Subbarao, Special Enforcement Bureau Sub Inspector,

Bhimadole, as P.W.1, L.W.3. G. Venkata Lakshmi, E.S.I. of

Police as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, M.O.1. Later, the

Learned Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of

L.W.2.K.Sudarsana Rao, Head Constable of SEB, Bhimadole.

6. Heard both the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the

Learned Counsel for Defence.

Point for Determination:

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

7. Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt for

the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P

Prohibition Amended Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8. P.W.1 is the Investigation Officer and conducted raid. As per

P.W.1, he, along with L.W.2 and staff, arrested the accused on 27.11.2021 at 11:00 A.M., drafted the Ex.P1 Special Report, and collected the M.O.1. Sample bottle. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he registered Ex.P2 F.I.R. on the same day. After receiving Ex.P1

Special report, and thereafter, the accused was sent to judicial custody. Later, he forwarded M.O.1 for chemical analysis, Ex.P.3

Letter of Advice and later, the P.W.2 received Ex.P4 Chemical

Analysis Report with the result that the M.O.1 is Illicit Distilled

Liquor, Unfit for Human Consumption and Injuries to Health.

when pedestrians would possibly have been moving around on the pavements. Despite having sufficient time, P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

10.It is pertinent to refer to "Kalpnath v. State (Through CBI), 1997 (2) A.L.D. Cri 805”, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble 5

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the Accused was found possessing ID arrack cannot be relied upon without any corroboration.

11.Even it was held by Hon'ble High Court in Botcha Raju v.

State Represented by Inspector of Police, 1994 (2) A.L.T. 69

(A.P.) that the conviction could not be based on the sole evidence of

Police officers without corroboration by a disinterested witness.

12. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that, the evidence of PW1 and

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

also manifestly be seen to be carried out. This is essential to maintain society's faith in the apparatus of criminal investigations.

16. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(b) r/w 8(b) of A.P Prohibition Amended

Act; hence, he is acquitted of the same under section 271(1) of

BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

The M.O.1 Sample Bottle, deposited vide C.P. No. 108/2024, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14th day of November

2024.

Sd/Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: K.Subbarao, S.I of SEB, Bhimadole. None 8

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

PW.2: G.Venkata Lakshmi, SI, SEB, Bhimadole.

Documents Marked:

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Special Report Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Letter of Advice Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings Ex.P6: Attested copy of Mediators report.

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1. Sample Bottle of I.D Arrack

Id/ S.M.A.P

III A.C.J.(J.D)-CUM-

S.J.F.C.M. (M), ELURU

FAC C.J.(J.D)-CUM-

J.M.F.C, BMDL.

Dt. 14.11.2024 C.C. No. 459/2024

C.J(J.D)-CUM-JMFC, BDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

CALENDAR CASE No. 459/2024

1.Date of offence : 27.11.2021

2.Date of complaint or report : 27.11.2021

3.Date of apprehension of Accused : 27.11.2021

4.Date of release on bail of Accused : 30.11.2021

5.Date of commencement of trial : 08.11.2024

6.Date of close of trial : 08.11.2024

7.Date of sentence or Order : 14.11.2024

8.Explanation of delay if any : --- COMPLAINANT: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, Bhimadole in Cr. No. 348/2021. ACCUSED: Peccheti Sivannarayana, S/o Somulu, Age 51 years, C/Settibalija, R/o Amberpeta Village, Bhimadole Mandal.

Section of Law : 7(b) r/w 8(b) of the A.P. Prohibition Act Finding of the Court : Not found guilty

Sentence/Order:

Sd/Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Seal: Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions

Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

CC/367/2023 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Maragani subbarao

17 May 2024

1 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE I CLASS:: BHIMADOLE

PRESENT: Sri. Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez, Special Magistrate Judicial First Class (Mobile) -cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru. FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Friday, the 17th day of May 2024

CALENDAR CASE. No. 367/2023

Between:

State: Proh. Excise Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Police Station in Cr. No. 324/2020 ……Complainant

and

Maragani Subbarao, S/o Gangaraju, Aged 49 years, C/Gowda, R/o Gundugolanu Village, Bhimadole Mandal.

……Accused

This case is coming on before me for a final hearing on 17.05.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. A. Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for the accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Proh. & Excise Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Police Station,

Bhimadole, has filed Charge-Sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 324/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:

i.On 17.12.2020 at 05:00 A.M., the L.W.1. P. Subbireddy, Proh. & Excise

Inspector of Police, Eluru, along with his staff, conducted patrolling, proceeded to Gundugolanu village, and found the accused possessing

I.D. Arrack. On seeing them, the accused tried to run away. Then, on suspicion, the L.W.1 detained the accused and, on verification, found:

(1) 05 liters of I.D. Arrack ii.The accused failed to provide any license for possessing the liquor bottles. On interrogation, the accused stated his name and identity particulars. The Proh. & Excise Inspector deputed one Constable to secure mediators but in vain. As such, she arrested the accused, seized the contraband from them, and drew samples for analysis.

iii.Based on the special report, L.W.3. R. Satyvathi, SEB Inspector of

Police, Bhimadole registered a case in Cr. No. 324/2020 under Section 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Later, Later, she issued Section 41-A

Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and sent the samples for analysis. The chemical examiner who analyzed the samples opined in the Chemical

Analysis Report, i.e., C.E. No. 268/2021 and sample at Sl. No. 4505, Dt.

20.02.2021, that the samples are Illicitly Distilled Liquor.

iv.Later, on 02.04.2021, L.W.3 destroyed the seized property, before the mediators, as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Proh.

Excise, Eluru vide File R.C. No. 200/200/B, Dt. 26.03.2021. After 3 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

completion of the investigation, the Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector filed the charge sheet in this case.

3. The Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. On the accused's appearance

before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to them as

contemplated under Section 207, Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under

Section 239, Cr.P.C., 1973. The contents of the charge were explained and read over to him for the offences punishable under Section 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, in Telugu, and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined L.W.1.P. Subbireddy as

P.W.1, L.W.3. R.Satvathi as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1.

Later, the L.W.2.B. Veerabhadra Rao, and L.W.4. K. Subbarao, Inspector of

Police, evidence given up by A.P.P.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in Telugu, which he denied and reported no evidence from his side. No exhibits were marked in the "D" Series.

6. Heard both the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned

Counsel for Defence.

4 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

Point For Determination:

7. Whether the prosecution proved the accused's guilt for the offence

***punishable under Section* 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act *beyond all***

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8. P.W.1 is the investigating officer. As per P.W.1, he, along with P.W.2, arrested the accused on 17.12.2020 at 05:00 A.M., drafted the Ex.P1 Special

Report, and collected M.O.1 Sample bottle. As per the evidence ofP.W.2, she registered the Ex.P2 F.I.R. on the same day at 10:20 P.M. after preparing the

Ex.P.1 Special-report, and thereafter, Later, she issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused. Later, she forwarded M.O.1 for chemical analysis and received Ex.P3 Chemical Analysis Report with the result that the M.O.1 are

Illicitly Distilled Liquor. Subsequently, based on Ex.P4 Attested Copy of the

Destruction Proceedings, the P.W.2 destroyed the unmarked case property in the presence of mediators, and the Mediator’s report, was drafted to such effect.

09. As per the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that P.W.1 did not make any effort to secure the presence of any independent witness or Village Sarpanch,

Ward Members, or V.R.O. to act as mediators. It should not be forgotten that the raid was during the morning hours when pedestrians would possibly have been trekking on the road or a hawker moving around on the pavements.

5 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

Despite having sufficient time, P.W.1 did not secure independent witnesses as mediators.

10.Having given my anxious consideration to the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to refer to "Kalpnath v. State (Through CBI), 1997 (2) A.L.D. Cri 805”, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "Indeed, the evidence of the official (Police) witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the Police force and are, either interested in the investigation or the prosecuting agency, but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence, in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation; requires greater care to appreciate their testimony.” The rule of prudence is that the testimony of a Police Official witness shall be corroborated in order to prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.2 failed to establish any cogent proof of the same. The evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 that the Accused was found possessing liquor bottles cannot be relied upon without any corroboration.

11.Even it was held by Hon'ble High Court in Botcha Raju v. State

Represented by Inspector of Police, 1994 (2) A.L.T. 69 (A.P.) that the conviction could not be based on the sole evidence of Police officers without corroboration by a disinterested witness. Even in Gyam Singh and Ors v.

State of U.P., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 658, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 6 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

observed that conviction could not be based on the uncorroborated testimony of an official witness.

12. Thus, it is undoubtedly clear that if the police officer's evidence is credible, it would be erroneous to conclude that the prosecution's version must be rejected because no independent witness was examined. However, despite having a chance of securing evidence in their support, the non-examination of the independent witness or even the presence of such a witness during the raid would cast an added duty on the Court to adopt greater care while scrutinising the evidence of the police officers, especially when the police failed to show any reasonable cause as to what prevented them in securing the presence of independent witnesses.

13.At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the complainant and the investigation officer, in this case, are P.W.1 alone. Then again, it may be noted that the entire prosecution case rests solely on the testimonies of P.W.1 and

P.W.2, the police officials. Moreover, the mediators, in whose presence the unmarked case property was destroyed, were also not brought onto the record to buttress the fact of seizure.

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

to secure the presence of an independent witness though the police officials had sufficient time, failure to bring the mediators before whom the unmarked case property was destroyed, onto the record, I feel that the complainant being the investigation officer is an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. If a police officer who registers a complainant is subsequently asked to investigate the matter, it would not be inappropriate to consider the possibility of a biased investigation, which could undermine the very foundation of a fair trial, thereafter, serves as an affront to the public conscience. Such a complainant, in charge of investigating a matter, could go to any extent to justify his complaint. A fair and just investigation should not only be carried out but must also manifestly be seen to be carried out. This is essential to maintain society's faith in the apparatus of criminal investigations.

15.All this raises serious doubt about the involvement of the accused in the present case. When the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is excluded from consideration, there remains nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the said offence. Therefore, in view of the foregoing analysis, I find the accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt for the offence charged against him.

16. As a result, the Accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act; hence, he is acquitted of 8 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

The M.O.1 sample bottle of I.D.Arrack, deposited vide C.P. No. 22/2024, shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17th day of May, 2024.

Sd/-Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez/-

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1:P. Subbireddy, ESTF,Enft of Police None PW.2: R.Satyavathi, HC of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1/-- : Special Report Ex.P2/-- : FIR Ex.P3/--: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P4/--: Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1. sample bottle of I.D. Arrack

Id/-Sk.M.A.P./-

SJMFC(E),ELR

FAC/C.J.(J.D.) -cum-

J.M.F.C., BDL.

9 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BHIMADOLE.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 367/2023

1. Date of offence : 17-12-2020

2. Date of complaint or report : 17-12-2020

3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C.

4. Date of release on bail of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C

5. Date of commencement of trial : 16-10-2023

6. Date of close of trial : 17-05-2024

7. Date of sentence or Order : 17-05-2024

8. Explanation of delay if any : ---

COMPLAINANT:

State: Proh. Excise Inspector of Police, Bhimadole Police Station in Cr. No. 324/2020

ACCUSED:

Maragani Subbarao, S/o Gangaraju, Aged 49 years, C/Gowda, R/o Gundugolanu Village, Bhimadole Mandal. …Accused

Section of Law : U/S. 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act Finding of the Court : Not found guilty

Sentence/Order:

The accused is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act; hence, he is acquitted of the same under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

10 Dt.17.05.2024 C C. No. 367/2023

JCJ-CUM-JMFC, BDL

The M.O.1 sample bottle of I.D. Arrack, deposited vide C.P. No.22/2024, shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

Sd/-Shaik Mohammad Abutalib Parveez/-

Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Mobile)- cum- III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Seal:

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

Order Record 365 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/213/2023	Epuri Venkata Lakshmi vs Epuri Rajani	26 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/169/2024	Moru Satyavathi vs Bale Isaac , Issaku	24 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/170/2024	Moru Ramayya vs Bale Isaac , Issaku	24 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/28/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Siribathina Baby	24 Mar 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/32/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Mynam Gopayya	24 Mar 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/33/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Bollam Kota Satyavathi	24 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/35/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Deyyala Lakshman	24 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/531/2024	Prohibition and excise Bhimadole vs Rajulapati Chandra rao	24 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/22/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Midde Nageswara rao	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/36/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Kukkala Kondala Rao	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/149/2024	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Nalli Thrimurthulu	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/529/2024	Prohibition and excise Bhimadole vs Nakka Suresh Kumar	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/530/2024	Prohibition and excise Bhimadole vs Nangedla Chiranjeevi	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/80/2024	Manukonda Suseela vs Veeranki Suribabu	20 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/13/2021	Kurri Amuktha vs Mettapalli Naga Venkata Satyanarayana	20 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/7/2025	Matta Samba Siva rao vs Naredla Xavier	13 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/61/2024	Boyina Krishna Kumar vs Masimukkala Nagaraju	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/10/2025	Jayamangala Koteswara rao vs Gantasala Sridevi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/160/2019	Taninki Krishna Rao vs Kurukuri Satyanarayana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/7/2025	Bhimadole Police Station vs Sappa Ramu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/55/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Nowal Saroj Tirkey	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/57/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Bommarillu Dharani Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/60/2025	Bhimadole Police Station vs Koduri Prabhakara rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/64/2025	Bhimadole Police Station vs Done Naresh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/77/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Katru Nani	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/78/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Pandranki Durga rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/85/2025	Bhimadole Police Station vs Angalakuduru Ramu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/89/2025	Bhimadole Police Station vs Singavarapu Sai Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/90/2025	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Syed Nausine	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/91/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Gottapu Sai Krishna	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/92/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Thalari Rajkumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/93/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Ambati Achamma	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/94/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Gavva Jagannadham	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/95/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Kotha Surya Naga Ramu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/96/2025	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Jagala Yellamma	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/97/2025	Denduluru Police Station vs Anguluri Prakash Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/98/2025	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Sk Nagur Meeravalli	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/99/2025	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Addanki Dharmendra	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/100/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Kukunoori Veerababu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/101/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Kurama Prakasam	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/102/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Bandi Nagamma	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/103/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Kolli Adavi Dhanajeya Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/104/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Seepani Yesubabu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/105/2025	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Poluboina Nagaraju	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/134/2024	Bhimadole Police Station vs Addanki Pandu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/233/2024	Denduluru Police Station vs Kaila Paramesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/275/2024	Denduluru Police Station vs Gullapalli Shanthi Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/308/2023	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Chavala Manibabu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/352/2024	Uppuluri Trimurthulu vs Veeravalli Naga Venkata Ravikumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/389/2023	Bhimadole Police Station vs Vagala Sunil Babu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/407/2023	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Pitha Rajasekhar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/552/2024	Bhimadole Police Station vs Gogulamudi Ravikumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/554/2024	Bhimadole Police Station vs Gotikala Ashok kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/558/2024	Bhimadole Police Station vs Ganta Prasad	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/581/2024	Bhimadole Police Station vs Moodedla Sridevi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/585/2024	Denduluru Police Station vs Tatapudi Rajesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/596/2021	Denduluru Police Station vs Matthe Suresh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/605/2023	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Kovvuri Venkata reddy	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/638/2023	Bhimadole Police Station vs Velagala Hanumantha reddy	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/745/2023	Bhimadole Police Station vs Pammi Konda	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/8/2025	Uppuluri Trimurthulu vs Dourla Amrutha rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
STC/14/2024	Yandamuri Krupavaram vs Puli Nagaraju	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/54/2021	Garapati Rajendra Prasad vs Kamma Rama Rao	07 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/87/2023	Abburi Satyanarayana vs Devineni Durga Mallikharjuna Rao	05 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/25/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Panamati Srinivasa Rao	05 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/29/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Eedhupalli Chandra Mohan	05 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/31/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Rajulapati Chandra rao	05 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/37/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Vaddi Chandra Nageswara rao	05 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/23/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Kankipati Pothuraju	04 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/24/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Chokka Prasanth	04 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/26/2025	Prohibition and Excise Police station vs Geddapu Gangadhara rao	04 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/532/2024	Prohibition and excise Bhimadole vs Illa Kumar babu	04 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
EP/2/2025	Union Bank of India, Bhimadole Branch vs Chintamaneni Pothuraju	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/34/2024	Nalluri Ramalakshmi vs Kanaparthi Satyanarayana	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
PRC/1/2021	Vadlapatla Srimannarayana vs Mavuluri Srinivasa Rao	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
PRC/10/2024	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Pakanati Durgarao	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
PRC/11/2024	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Gundugonti Maheshbabu and Mahesh	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
CC/87/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Manelli Nagalakshmi	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/450/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Thumpati Srinivasarao	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/501/2024	Prohibition Excise Bhimadole vs Kasani Anil Kumar	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/104/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Kondeti Subba Rao	25 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/500/2024	Prohibition Excise Bhimadole vs Shankula Vara Prasad Kumar	25 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/502/2024	Prohibition Excise Bhimadole vs Davuluri Govardhanarao	25 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/503/2024	Prohibition Excise Bhimadole vs Kukkala Mutyalu	25 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/508/2024	Prohibition Excise Bhimadole vs Kukkala Ramajyothi	25 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/504/2024	Prohibition Excise Bhimadole vs Siribattula Nagamani	24 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/507/2024	Prohibition Excise Bhimadole vs Saila Kondayya	24 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/511/2024	Prohibition Excise Bhimadole vs Gudavalli Venkata Mohanarao	24 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/512/2024	Prohibition and Excise Police Station vs Vendra Venkateswara rao	24 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/95/2019	Yalamarthi Srinivasa Rao vs Nalluri Sai Rama Chandra Rao	21 Feb 2025	Order	—
PRC/1/2025	Bhimadole Police Station vs Kokkirapati Sudheer	21 Feb 2025	Order	—
PRC/12/2024	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Pakalapati Srinivasarao	21 Feb 2025	Order	—
CC/516/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Kondeti Srinu	18 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/44/2025	Dwaraka Tirumala Police Station vs Veera Pratapa Korukonda Bhaskar Raju	17 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/91/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Singavarapu Rajesh	17 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/105/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Gumpula Dhanalakshmi	17 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/172/2023	Balina Varaprasad vs Kallepalli Dilip Sagar Kumar	14 Feb 2025	Order	—
CC/368/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Gorrela Posibabu	14 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/461/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Veeranki Satish	14 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/515/2023	Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Bhimadole vs Karri Manikanta	14 Feb 2025	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 365 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2025		72
Feb 2025		60
Jan 2025		7
Nov 2024		28
Oct 2024		17
Sep 2024		48
Aug 2024		3
May 2024		22
Apr 2024		4
Mar 2024		96
Feb 2024		1
Aug 2023		8

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik handled?

Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik has handled 369 court orders since 2023 at Junior Civil Court, Bhimadole. The average disposal rate is 18 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik hear?

Based on available records, Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Court, Bhimadole.

Where is Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik currently posted?

Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik is posted as Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Bhimadole at Junior Civil Court, Bhimadole, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik available online?

Yes. 20 judgments by Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik dispose cases?

Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik disposes approximately 18 cases per month, based on 369 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Court, Bhimadole.

Since when is Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik serving?

Sri Mohammad Abutalib Parveez Shaik has been serving at Junior Civil Court, Bhimadole since 2023.

Case Types

CC 76%

OS 16%

EP 3%

PRC 3%

STC 1%

MC 1%

Posting History

Jan 2025 — Mar 2025

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Bhimadole · 139 orders
Aug 2024 — Nov 2024

FAC-Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Bhimadole · 96 orders
Feb 2024 — May 2024

FAC-Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Bhimadole · 123 orders
Jul 2023 — Aug 2023

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Bhimadole · 11 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Other Judges at this Court

Ms. S.priyadarshini Nuthakki

Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of Firs...

1,034 orders

← View all judges at Junior Civil Court, Bhimadole