Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: MADAKASIRA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira.

Friday, the 24th day of March, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.294 of 2022

Between:

Sub – Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Madakasira (Cr.No.294/2019). …. Complainant -Versus-

Mudlappa gari Srinivasulu, age 55 years, S/o Late Govindappa, R/o Chigaturpi Village, Gudibanda Mandal. …. Accused

This case is presented before me on 23.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.P.Gopinath, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub - Inspector, SEB, Madakasira Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.294/2019 for the offence U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968.

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

a) On 18.12.2019 upon receiving credible information P.W.1/Dorces along with her staff members were conducting raids to detect Excise offences and at 2.30 P.M. they reached to K.Nagepalli cross which is situated between

Madakasira to Amarapuram bus road of Gudibanda Mandal and there they found accused with one white polythene bag and that upon seeing them the accused tried to run away. P.W.1 with the assistance of her staff caught hold of the 2 accused and questioned him and he stated to P.W.1 that the bag in his possession contains liquor packets and that P.W.1 sent her staff to secure mediators but due to unavailability of government officers and as none came forward to act as mediators she returned to the scene of offence. Later P.W.1 verified the bag and found 35 Nips of Old tavern Whiskey packets of each 90 ml in quantity without labels and printed as for sale in Karnataka State only. On questioning, the accused confessed that he purchased said packets from shops at Karnataka State to sell the same at higher rates. P.W.1 seized liquor packets from the possession of accused and arrested the accused and also took one packet among them for the chemical analysis under the cover of special report, dt.18.12.2019. Adverting to the above, basing on the Special report, dt.18.12.2019 a case in Crime Number 294/2019 was registered and investigated into.

b) During the course of investigation, P.W.1 served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to accused and sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Chittor for analysis, who in turn analysed and issued report that the sample is “Indian made liquor”. After completion of investigation L.W.4/Farooq Azam laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance of the offence under section Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 against accused was taken and proceeded.

4. The accused was served with copies of case documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.).

5. The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation leveled against him, for which he denied the same. On that charge under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against him have been framed, 3 read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1, marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (in short A.P.P.) has given up the evidence of L.W.1/M.Chandra Sekhar,

L.W.2/N.Vijayamma and L.W.4/M.Farooq Azam.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused was read over and explained to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record.

9. The point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) (1) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

ARGUMENTS

10. The learned A.P.P. argued before this court that the evidence of prosecution witness coupled with exhibits P.1 to P.3 in this case clearly establish that the accused committed the offence and hence he is liable for conviction.

11. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is innocent, falsely implicated in this case and no such incident was happened as stated by the prosecution. He further argued that the evidence available is only the evidence of SEB, Madakasira officials who are interested witness. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Finally, prays to acquit the accused.

4

EVIDENCE:-

12. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. This Court has perused the material available on record and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned A.P.P. and Learned Counsel for accused.

13. P.W.1/A.Dorcas is the Sub - Inspector, SEB, Madakasira station who is the investigating officer in this case, she tried to depose as per the records prepared by her as to conducting of raids over illegal possession of liquor, seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused under Special report, registering of F.I.R against accused, arresting the accused and sending of sample to Chemical Analysis and filing of charge sheet before this Court by

L.W.4/M.Farooq Azam, through her Exs.P.1 to P.3 are marked. During the cross examination of P.W.1 deposed that scene of offence is a busy locality and that there are residential houses and shops near the scene of offence. She admitted that she has not requested none of the persons who were at scene of offence to act as mediators. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that she foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14. A careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1 shows that her evidence is not consistent. It has come on record from the evidence of P.W.1 that she had not secured independent witnesses to act as mediators at the scene of offence. It is not the case of P.W.1 that the scene of offence is an isolated area where no one would be available to secure mediators. It is a common prudence that there is no chance of unavailability of even a single person near to the scene of offence when it is a busy locality. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer failed to secure any independent panchayatdars to the seizure of the contraband from the possession of accused, though there is possibility to secure them. There is no explanation 5 from the prosecution or from the Investigating Officer during the course of evidence.

15. P.W.1 is the SEB official and interested witness in the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances it creates a doubt in the mind of the Court whether really the SEB officials seized the contraband from the possession of the accused under cover of Ex.P.1 as stated by the prosecution. There is no report from any person that the accused is selling the liquor at higher price. Merely because the analyst opined that the sample is “Indian made liquor” it cannot be presumed that the same was recorded from the possession of the accused. In view of the above evidence, it is not safe to base conviction basing on the interested testimony of P.W.1 who is the SEB official.

16. On conglomeration of the above evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is filled up with unexplained doubts which are reasonable in nature. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the benefit of doubt is given to him.

RESULT:-

17. In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provision of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass,

Madakasira (FAC) 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

P.W.1: A.Dorcas - NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

Ex.P1: Special report. Ex.P2: F.I.R. - NIL - Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

Material objects :- - NIL -

J.M.F.C.,/MADAKASIRA (FAC).

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MADAKASIRA

Date ofDate ofApprehensionDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orof accusedreleased oncommenclose ofsentence complainbailcementtrial or order tof trial 1234567 18-12-1918-12-19Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice17-02-2323-03-2324-03-23

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 294/2022 IN CRIME NUMBER 294/2019 OF SEB, MADAKASIRA STATION ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS AT MADAKASIRA.

COMPLAINANTSub Inspector, SEB Madakasira station.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mudlappa gari Srinivasulu, age 55 years, S/o Late Govindappa, R/o Chigaturpi Village, Gudibanda Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCEU/Sec. 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968

FINDINGAccused found not guilty.

In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and

SENTENCE

thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provision of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

SEAL: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADAKASIRA (FAC).

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur. CALENDAR CASE NUMBER294/2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT 24-03-2023 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 24-03-2023

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: MADAKASIRA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira.

Friday, the 24th day of March, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.291 of 2022

Between:

Sub – Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Madakasira (Cr.No.304/2020). …. Complainant -Versus-

Mareppa gari Nagappa, age 59 years, S/o Late Mareppa, R/o A.R.Roppam Village, Madakasira Mandal. …. Accused

This case is presented before me on 23.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.Nagendra, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub - Inspector, SEB, Madakasira Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.304/2020 for the offence U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968.

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

a) On 15.12.2020 upon receiving credible information to

P.W.1/K.Azmathulla along with his staff members were conducting raids to detect

Excise offences and at 11-45 A.M. they reached to A.R.Roppam cross which is situated between Madakasira to Pavagada and there they found accused coming on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP02-AD-8634 with one white polythene bag and that upon seeing them the accused tried to run away. P.W.1 with the 2 assistance of his staff caught hold of the accused and questioned him and he stated to P.W.1 that the bag in his possession contains liquor packets and that

P.W.1 sent his staff to secure mediators but due to unavailability of government officers and as none came forward to act as mediators he returned to the scene of offence. Later P.W.1 verified the bag and found 30 Dips of Raja Whiskey packets of each 90 ml in quantity without labels and printed as for sale in Karnataka State only. On questioning, the accused confessed that he purchased said packets from shops at Karnataka State to sell the same at higher rates. P.W.1 seized liquor packets from the possession of accused and arrested the accused and also took one packet among them for the chemical analysis under the cover of special report, dt.15.12.2020. Adverting to the above, basing on the Special report, dt.15.12.2020 a case in Crime Number 304/2020 was registered and investigated into.

b) During the course of investigation, P.W.1 sent the sample to the

Chemical Examiner, Chittor for analysis, who in turn analysed and issued report that the sample is “Indian made liquor”. After completion of investigation

L.W.4/Farooq Azam laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance of the offence under section Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 against accused was taken and proceeded.

4. The accused was served with copies of case documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.).

5. The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation leveled against him, for which he denied the same. On that charge under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against him have been framed, 3 read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1, marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (in short A.P.P.) has given up the evidence of L.W.1/M.Chandra Sekhar,

L.W.2/C.S.Surya Sekhar Reddy and L.W.4/M.Farooq Azam.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused was read over and explained to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record.

9. The point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) (1) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

ARGUMENTS

10. The learned A.P.P. argued before this court that the evidence of prosecution witness coupled with exhibits P.1 to P.3 in this case clearly establish that the accused committed the offence and hence he is liable for conviction.

11. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is innocent, falsely implicated in this case and no such incident was happened as stated by the prosecution. He further argued that the evidence available is only the evidence of SEB, Madakasira officials who are interested witness. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Finally, prays to acquit the accused.

4

EVIDENCE:-

12. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. This Court has perused the material available on record and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned A.P.P. and Learned Counsel for accused.

13. P.W.1/K.Azmathulla is the Sub - Inspector, SEB, Madakasira station who is the investigating officer in this case, he tried to depose as per the records prepared by him as to conducting of raids over illegal possession of liquor, seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused under Special report, registering of F.I.R against accused, arresting the accused and producing him

before this court for judicial custody and sending of sample to Chemical Analysis

and filing of charge sheet before this Court by L.W.4/M.Farooq Azam, through him

Exs.P.1 to P.3 are marked. During the cross examination of P.W.1 deposed that scene of offence is situated near Madakasira – Pavagada road. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14. A careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1 shows that his evidence is not consistent. It has come on record from the evidence of P.W.1 that he had not secured independent witnesses to act as mediators at the scene of offence. It is not the case of P.W.1 that the scene of offence is an isolated area where no one would be available to secure mediators. It is a common prudence that there is no chance of unavailability of even a single person near to the scene of offence is within the limits of A.R.Roppam Village. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer failed to secure any independent panchayatdars to the seizure of the contraband from the possession of accused, though there is possibility to secure them. There is no 5 explanation from the prosecution or from the Investigating Officer during the course of evidence.

15. P.W.1 is the SEB official and interested witness in the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances it creates a doubt in the mind of the Court whether really the SEB officials seized the contraband from the possession of the accused under cover of Ex.P.1 as stated by the prosecution. There is no report from any person that the accused is selling the liquor at higher price. Merely because the analyst opined that the sample is “Indian made liquor” it cannot be presumed that the same was recorded from the possession of the accused. In view of the above evidence, it is not safe to base conviction basing on the interested testimony of P.W.1 who is the SEB official.

16. On conglomeration of the above evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is filled up with unexplained doubts which are reasonable in nature. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the benefit of doubt is given to him.

RESULT:-

17. In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provision of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass,

Madakasira (FAC) 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

P.W.1: K.Azmathulla - NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

Ex.P1: Special report. Ex.P2: F.I.R. - NIL - Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

Material objects :- - NIL -

J.M.F.C.,/MADAKASIRA (FAC).

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MADAKASIRA

Date ofDate ofApprehensionDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orof accusedreleased oncommenclose ofsentence complainbailcementtrial or order tof trial 1234567 15-12-2015-12-2015-12-2020 18-12-202003-02-2323-03-2324-03-23

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 291/2022 IN CRIME NUMBER 304/2020 OF SEB, MADAKASIRA STATION ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS AT MADAKASIRA.

COMPLAINANTSub Inspector, SEB Madakasira station.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mareppa gari Nagappa, age 59 years, S/o Late Mareppa, R/o A.R.Roppam Village, Madakasira Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCEU/Sec. 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968

FINDINGAccused found not guilty.

In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and

SENTENCE

thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provision of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

SEAL: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADAKASIRA (FAC).

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur. CALENDAR CASE NUMBER291/2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT 24-03-2023 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 24-03-2023

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: MADAKASIRA

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madakasira.

Friday, the 24th day of March, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.296 of 2022

Between:

Sub – Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Madakasira (Cr.No.263/2019). …. Complainant -Versus-

M.P. Siva Lingappa, age 41 years, S/o Pathalingappa, R/o Jambulabanda Village, Gudibanda Mandal. …. Accused

This case is presented before me on 23.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri D.Govindappa, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub - Inspector, SEB, Madakasira Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.263/2019 for the offence U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, 1968.

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

a) On 12.11.2019 upon receiving credible information

P.W.1/K.Azmathulla along with his staff members were conducting raids to detect

Excise offences and at 11.30 A.M. they reached to Singepalli cross which is situated between Madakasira to Amarapuram road of Madakasira Mandal and there they found accused with one white polythene bag and that upon seeing them the accused tried to run away. P.W.1 with the assistance of his staff caught 2 hold of the accused and questioned him and he stated to P.W.1 that the bag in his possession contains liquor packets and that P.W.1 sent his staff to secure mediators but due to unavailability of government officers and as none came forward to act as mediators he returned to the scene of offence. Later P.W.1 verified the bag and found 30 Nips of Old tavern Whiskey packets of each 90 ml in quantity without labels and printed as for sale in Karnataka State only. On questioning, the accused confessed that he purchased said packets from shops at

Karnataka State to sell the same at higher rates. P.W.1 seized liquor packets from the possession of accused and arrested the accused and also took one packet among them for the chemical analysis under the cover of special report, dt.12.11.2019. Adverting to the above, basing on the Special report, dt.12.11.2019 a case in Crime Number 263/2019 was registered and investigated into.

b) During the course of investigation, P.W.1 served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to accused and sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, Chittor for analysis, who in turn analysed and issued report that the sample is “Indian made liquor”. After completion of investigation L.W.4/Farooq Azam laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance of the offence under section Sec.34 (a) (1) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 against accused was taken and proceeded.

4. The accused was served with copies of case documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.).

5. The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation leveled against him, for which he denied the same. On that charge under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against him have been framed, 3 read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1, marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (in short A.P.P.) has given up the evidence of L.W.1/M.Chandra Sekhar,

L.W.2/B.Nagaraju and L.W.4/M.Farooq Azam.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused was read over and explained to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments. Perused the material available on record.

9. The point for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) (1) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

ARGUMENTS

10. The learned A.P.P. argued before this court that the evidence of prosecution witness coupled with exhibits P.1 to P.3 in this case clearly establish that the accused committed the offence and hence he is liable for conviction.

11. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused is innocent, falsely implicated in this case and no such incident was happened as stated by the prosecution. He further argued that the evidence available is only the evidence of SEB, Madakasira officials who are interested witness. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Finally, prays to acquit the accused.

4

EVIDENCE:-

12. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. This Court has perused the material available on record and gave thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned A.P.P. and Learned Counsel for accused.

13. P.W.1/K.Azmathulla is the Sub - Inspector, SEB, Madakasira station who is the investigating officer in this case, he tried to depose as per the records prepared by him as to conducting of raids over illegal possession of liquor, seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused under Special report, registering of F.I.R against accused, arresting the accused and sending of sample to Chemical Analysis and filing of charge sheet before this Court by

L.W.4/M.Farooq Azam, through him Exs.P.1 to P.3 are marked. During the cross examination of P.W.1 deposed that the distance from scene of offence to

Jambulabanda Village is 100 meters. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14. A careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1 shows that his evidence is not consistent. It has come on record from the evidence of P.W.1 that he had not secured independent witnesses to act as mediators at the scene of offence. It is not the case of P.W.1 that the scene of offence is an isolated area where no one would be available to secure mediators. It is a common prudence that there is no chance of unavailability of even a single person near to the scene of offence is within the limits of Singepalli Village. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer failed to secure any independent panchayatdars to the seizure of the contraband from the possession of accused, though there is possibility to secure them. There is no explanation from the prosecution or from the Investigating Officer during the course of evidence.

5

15. P.W.1 is the SEB official and interested witness in the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances it creates a doubt in the mind of the Court whether really the SEB officials seized the contraband from the possession of the accused under cover of Ex.P.1 as stated by the prosecution. There is no report from any person that the accused is selling the liquor at higher price. Merely because the analyst opined that the sample is “Indian made liquor” it cannot be presumed that the same was recorded from the possession of the accused. In view of the above evidence, it is not safe to base conviction basing on the interested testimony of P.W.1 who is the SEB official.

16. On conglomeration of the above evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution is filled up with unexplained doubts which are reasonable in nature. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the benefit of doubt is given to him.

RESULT:-

17. In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provision of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2023.

Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass,

Madakasira (FAC) 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

P.W.1: K.Azmathulla - NONE –

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

Ex.P1: Special report. Ex.P2: F.I.R. - NIL - Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report.

Material objects :- - NIL -

J.M.F.C.,/MADAKASIRA (FAC).

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANATHAPURAM

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MADAKASIRA

Date ofDate ofApprehensionDate ofDate ofDate ofDate of offencereport orof accusedreleased oncommenclose ofsentence complainbailcementtrial or order tof trial 1234567 12-11-1912-11-19Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice03-02-2323-03-2324-03-23

Explanation of delay and remarksNIL.

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 296/2022 IN CRIME NUMBER 263/2019 OF SEB, MADAKASIRA STATION ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS AT MADAKASIRA.

COMPLAINANTSub Inspector, SEB Madakasira station.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Father’s Religion Sex /Age Calling Village Mandal accused name ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.P. Siva Lingappa, age 41 years, S/o Pathalingappa, R/o Jambulabanda Village, Gudibanda Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCEU/Sec. 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968

FINDINGAccused found not guilty.

In the result, this Court found the accused is not guilty for the offence under section 34 (a) (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and

SENTENCE

thereby he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provision of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

SEAL: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADAKASIRA (FAC).

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur. CALENDAR CASE NUMBER296/2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT 24-03-2023 DATE OF DISPATCH OF CALENDAR 24-03-2023

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADAKASIRA

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda.

FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira.

Monday, the 13th day of March, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No.173 of 2022

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Madakasira Branch, represented by its Branch Manager. …Plaintiff.

-Versus-

1) Bheemappahari Hanumantharayappa S/o Bheemappa, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Business.

2) M.Chinna Mallappa, S/o Muddaramappa, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Business. Both are residents of Begarlapalli, Madakasira Taluq. ….Defendants.

This suit is coming on 10-03-2023 for final hearing in presence of Sri. P.Raghunatha Sastry, Advocate for Plaintiff Bank and Defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. This a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,15,033/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand and thirty three only) from the defendants 1 and 2.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff bank for the purpose of loan of Rs.25,000/- to maintain Auto and submitted a loan application dated 13.01.2012 and the plaintiff bank considered the request of the 1st defendant and granted the loan for the purpose of purchasing of vehicle and the 1st defendant availed a loan as shown in the extract of the loan account. On 13.01.2012 the 1st defendant executed composite hypothecation agreement in favour of the plaintiff 2 bank and 2nd defendant executed gurantee agreement on 13.01.2012 in favour of plaintiff bank, promising to repay the same together with interest at 13% per annum and changed rates of interest from time to time as guided by the Reserve

Bank of India. The plaintiff bank submitted that the 1st defendant has executed an acknowledgment of debt for all types of loans on 12.01.2015, 10.01.2018 and 06.01.2021 for all types of loans. The plaintiff bank made several oral demands to the defendants to repay the loan amount, but the defendants did not repay the same. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants did not file written statement since 28.10.2022 and hence filing of written statement by defendants is forfeited under order 8 Rule 10 of

Code of Civil Procedure (In short C.P.C.)

4.On behalf of plaintiff bank, the Branch Manager of the said Bank is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A6.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff bank and perused the material on record.

6. (a) Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim ?

(b) The plaintiff Bank in order to establish its contentions, it got examined its Branch Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A6. The Branch Manager filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. The evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged as the defendants remained exparte. A perusal of Exs.A1 to A6 clearly goes to show that the first defendant as principal borrower agreeing to repay the same at the rate of 13 % per annum and changed rates of interest as per terms and conditions of the R.B.I. rules and the second defendant as guarantor agreed to pay the loan amount and they have executed 3 above said documents. The plaintiff bank made a demand to repay the amount covered under Ex.A1 orally but the defendants paid deaf ear and did not pay the amount to plaintiff bank. Therefore, Ex.A1 clearly goes to show that the defendant

No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff bank and failed to repay the amount. Ex.A2 is gurantee agreement executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank dated 13.01.2012. Since the defendants had remained exparte in the suit, an adverse inference can be drawn against them to the effect that they had admitted the case of plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of consistent and on discredited evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A6, this Court concludes that the plaintiff-bank has established that the defendants availed loan under

Ex.A1 and the defendants had failed to discharge the same as such the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit amount as claimed for. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank. A persual of Ex.A6 Account extract it is clear that the defendants are due an amount of Rs.1,15,033/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand and thirty three only).

7. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff Bank, directing the defendants Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,033/- (Rupees one lakh fifteen thousand and thirty three only) with subsequent interest @ 13% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of March, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Penukonda. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W-1 – G.Praveen Kumar None

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 13.01.2012.

Ex.A2 Guarantee Agreement executed by 2nd defendant dated 13.01.2012.

Ex.A3 Acknowledgment of debt executed by Defendant No.1 dt. 12.01.2015

Ex.A4 Acknowledgment of debt executed by Defendant No.1 dt. 10.01.2018

Ex.A5 Acknowledgment of debt executed by Defendant No.1 dt. 06.01.2021

Ex.A6 Account extract of debt.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

- NIL -

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Penukonda. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADAKASIRA

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda.

FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira.

Monday, the 13th day of March, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No.74 of 2022

Between:

Karnataka Bank, Madakasira Branch, represented by its Branch Manager. …Plaintiff.

-Versus-

1) L.Vasantha Kumar S/o Lakshminarasappa, aged about 23 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o D.No.3-57, H.R.Palyam, H/o Amidalagondi, Madakasira Taluq.

2) Chowdappa, S/o C.Badeppa, age 49 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o D.No.3-57, H.R.Palyam, H/o Amidalagondi, Madakasira Taluq. ….Defendants.

This suit is coming on 10-03-2023 for final hearing in presence of Sri. P.Raghunatha Sastry, Advocate for Plaintiff Bank and Defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. This a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,30,914/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) from the defendants 1 and 2.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

At the request of first defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.09.2019 to purchase 21 sheep under loan No.PSTL 4897001800142701. That on application of the first defendant, the plaintiff bank intimated to the first defendant vide reference No.SMRS/RLPC/22321/2019-20 on 2 27.08.2019. On 05.09.2019 the 1st defendant executed composite hypothecation agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank and 2nd defendant executed gurantee agreement on 05.09.2019 in favour of plaintiff bank, promising to repay the same together with interest at 9.25% per annum. The defendants have executed

Declaration form in favour of the plaintiff bank on 05.09.2019 separately. The plaintiff bank made several oral demands to the defendants to repay the loan amount and also issued legal notice dated 29.05.2021, but the defendants did not repay the same. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants did not file written statement since 04.04.2022 and hence filing of written statement by defendants is forfeited under order 8 Rule 10 of

Code of Civil Procedure (In short C.P.C.)

4.On behalf of plaintiff bank, the Branch Manager of the said Bank is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A.1 to A7.

5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff bank and perused the material on record.

6. (a) Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim ?

(b) The plaintiff Bank in order to establish its contentions, it got examined its Branch Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A7. The Branch Manager filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. The evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged as the defendants remained exparte. A perusal of Exs.A1 to A7 clearly goes to show that the first defendant as principal borrower agreeing to repay the same at the rate of 9.25% per annum and the second defendant as guarantor agreed to pay the loan amount and they have executed above said documents. The plaintiff bank made a demand to repay the 3 amount covered under Ex.A2 orally and also by issuing legal notice but the defendants paid deaf ear and did not pay the amount to plaintiff bank. Therefore,

Ex.A2 clearly goes to show that the defendant No.1 borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank and failed to repay the amount. Ex.A2 is hypothecation agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank dated 05.09.2019. Since the defendants had remained exparte in the suit, an adverse inference can be drawn against them to the effect that they had admitted the case of plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of consistent and on discredited evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A7, this Court concludes that the plaintiff-bank has established that the defendants availed loan under Ex.A2 and the defendants had failed to discharge the same as such the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit amount as claimed for. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank. A persual of Ex.A7 Account extract it is clear that the defendants are due an amount of Rs.1,30,914/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand nine hundred and fourteen only).

7. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff Bank, directing the defendants Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,914/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand nine hundred and fourteen only) with subsequent interest @ 9.25% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of March, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Penukonda. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W-1 – Aravind None

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Sanction order letter Dt.27.08.2019.

Ex.A2Hypothecation Agreement dated 05.09.2019.

Ex.A3Term loan agreement dt. 05.09.2019.

Ex.A4Declaration letter executed by the first defendant dt. 05.09.2019.

Ex.A5Declaration letter executed by the second defendant dt. 05.09.2019.

Ex.A6Office copy of notice dt. 29.05.2021.

Ex.A7Account extract.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

- NIL -

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Penukonda. FAC/Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira.