Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

1 THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: KUPPAM

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kuppam,

Thursday, the 25 th day of April, 2019

C.C. No. 29 of 2019

The State represented by The Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Kuppam. … Complainant -Versus- A1) A. Armugam, aged about 36 years, S/o Amavasappa, R/o Chinnaobba Village, Kuppam Mandal.

A2) K. Sankarappa, aged about 25 years, S/o Kannappa, R/o Bikkiligattu Village, Kuppam Mandal.

… Accused

This case is presented before me on 18th day of April, 2019 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State and Sri R. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the accused/A1 and A2 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 Prohibition (in short Proh.) & Excise Sub-Inspector, Proh. & Excise

Station, Kuppam laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.40 of 2018 for the offence under section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (hereafter called as A.P. Excise Act, 1968)

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

That on 18.07.2018 at about 09.30 A.M. during the raids conducted by

G. Chandra Sekhar Naidu-LW7 along with his staff found two persons

Motlachenu bus stand on Paipalyam to Singarapuram bus road of Kuppam

Mandal and with white polythene bag each on their right hands. On seeing 2 the Excise Officials in Uniform from a distance of 30 meters he tried to escape. On suspicion G. Chandra Sekhar Naidu-LW7 along with his staff surrounded and detained accused. On enquiry, the accused revealed that the can contains liquor bottles. M. Veeraswamy -LW5 verified the white polythene bag in front of mediators and found 9 nips of of Any Time Fine

Whisky of Duty Paid Liquor (for sale in A.P. State only) from A1 and found 8 nips of Any Time Fine Whisky of Duty Paid Liquor (for sale in A.P. State only) from A2. M. Veeraswamy -LW5 arrested the accused and seized Contraband after drawing one 180 ml sample bottle of Any Time Fine Whisky from each bag of A1 and A2 each as a sample for chemical analysis purpose, duly sealed and labelled under the cover of panchanama drafted on the spot.

Adverting to the above, basing on the Panchanama, a case in Crime Number 40 of 2018 was registered and investigated into. The accused/A1 and A2 were sent to the court for judicial custody.

During the course of investigation, the sample was sent to the

Chemical Examiner, Chittoor for analysis, who in turn analysed and issued report that the sample is “Indian made Liquor”. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been laid against the accused/A1 and A2. .

3. Cognizance of the offence under Section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against accused/A1 and Aw was taken and proceeded.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, Copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure

Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.) were furnished to them.

5. The accused/A1 and A2 was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation levelled against them for which they denied the same. On that charges under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 have been framed, read 3 over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally four witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4, marked Exs.P-1 to P-5, M.O.1 and

M.O.2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

LW4-A. Vinod Kumar, LW6-D.K. Surya Prakash, LW7-G. Chandra Sekhar

Naidu and LW8-G. Naidu.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances against the accused/A1 and A2 is read over and explained to the accused. They 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/A1 and A2 for the offence under

Section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt or

not?

ARGUMENTS

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued before the court that the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with exhibits marked in this case would clearly establish that the accused committed the offence levelled against them and hence they are liable for conviction

11. The learned counsel for the defence 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 the Excise Officials who are interested witnesses. He 4 further argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 cannot be believable as there are material contradictions in their evidence and the alleged panchayatdars did not support the case. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Finally, prayed to acquit the accused.

EVIDENCE:-

12. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally Four witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5, M.O.1 and M.O.2. I have gone through the evidence.

13. P.W.1 is the Excise Constable of Prohibition & Excise Station,

Kuppam. He deposed as per contents of the Panchanama and through him

Ex.P-1 is received in evidence.

14. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are said to be panchayatdars to the alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared these witnesses as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court, but failed to elicit any useful information in favour of the prosecution.

15. P.W.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise Station,

Kuppam who registered the case and investigated the matter. He deposed about his investigation as per contents of the charge sheet. Through him

Ex.P4, Ex.P5, M.O.1 and M.O.2 are received in evidence.

16. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally four witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4. A careful perusal of evidence,

P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are said to be panchayatdars to the alleged incident did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. This is a great set back to the case of the prosecution.

5

17. Further a careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W4 it shows that their evidence is not consistant and corroborating with each other and with regard to the material particulars of the case.

18. As scene from the evidence, the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality. It is the duty of the Investigation Officer to collect the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As scene from the evidence the Investigating Officer failed to examine any one of the independent witnesses at the scene of offence. The prosecution has examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 who said to be panchayatdars but they did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. The Investigating

Officer also failed to secure any independent panchayatdars to the arrest and 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.

19. P.W.1 and P.W.4 are the Excise officials and interested in the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is not consistant and corroborating with each other and with regard to the material particulars of the case. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is also not supported by any other independent evidence. In these circumstances, it creates a doubt in the mind of the court whether really the Excise officials seized the contraband from the possession of the accused and arrested under cover of Panchanama 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 “Indian made Liquor” it cannot be presumed that the same was seized from the possession of the accused. In view of the above evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused basing on the interested testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.4 who are Excise officials.

6

20. 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:-

21. In the result, this Court found the accused/A1 and A2 are not guilty for the offence under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and thereby they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six months from the date of this Judgment as per provisions of Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

DISPOSAL OF THE CASE PROPERTY:-

The case property i.e., M.O.1 sample bottle of Any time fine whisky and

M.O.2 sample bottle of Any time fine whisky are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, Corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2019

Sd/- xxxxxxx,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam.

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

PW.1 S. Jayasankar - None - PW.2 Ramu PW.3 Kumar PW.4 G. Veeraswamy

Exhibits marked. For Prosecution :- Ex.P1 Panchanama dated 18.07.2018

Ex.P2 Signature of PW2 in Panchanama dated 18.07.2018

Ex.P3 Signature of PW3 in Panchanama dated 18.07.2018 7 Ex.P4 First Information Report in Cr.No.40/2018 of Proh. & Excise Police Station, Kuppam

Ex.P5 Analysis Report

For Defence :- None. Material objects : M.O.1: Sample bottle of Any time fine whisky M.O.2: Sample bottle of Any time fine whisky

Sd/- xxxxxxx

J.M.F.C. KUPPAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KUPPAM

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam

Friday, the 26th day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 89 of 2017

Between:-

R. Murugesh, aged about 42 years, S/o Ramappa, Indian, Hindu, Driver, residing at Door No.6-107/3, Manjunath Layout, Paibata, H.P. Road, Kuppam Town Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

...Plaintiff

And: -

D. Palani, aged about 45 years, son of M. Damodram, Indian, Hindu, Carpenter and Landlord, residing at # 6-77, H.P. Road, Paibata, Kuppam Town, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

…Defendant

This suit is presented befoe me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

P.V. Madhusudhan, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri C. Viswanatha Reddy,

Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today and the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The suit is filed for directing the defendant to pay sum of

Rs.2.20,933/- to the plaintiff with further interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit to till the realization.

02. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

As seen from the plaint, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant offered to let out the residential building bearing D.No.6-63/23 in the second floor sitauted at H.P. Road, Kuppam with a condition to pay earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest free and the same is refunable to the plaintiff after vacating of said property. It is agreed between both parties that the interest payble on the Rs.2,00,000/- will be adjusted towards the monthly rent of said building and after mutual negotiations a 2 conditional agreemnt is entered beween both the parties on 29.08.2016 and the same day the defendant received Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and exccuted conditional agreement in favour of the plaintiff. As per the conditional agreement the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- received by the defendant shall be payable only after vocating the said buidling and the interest will be adjusted towards rent, the plaintiff need not pay rent to said building as long as he resides in the said building, the plaintiff is permitted to stay as tenant for a period of 3 years from the date of execution of agreement and plaintiff has to pay electiricity charges during his stay.

The plaintiff submitted that on 29.08.2016 the defendant received Rs.2,00,000/- but did not allow the plaintiff to occupy the premises.

It is orally agreed between both parties that the interest to be of 24% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- and the same into adjusted towards rent. The defendant failed to return Rs.2,00,000/- and mutually agreed accrued interest and thereby breached the contract conditions. The plaintiff is forced to stay in different place and to pay rent of Rs.4,000/- per month. The defendant is also liable damages towards breach of contract.

The plaintiff submitted that he demanded the defendant to repay the amount several times but in vain and that he issued legal notice on 16.11.2016 calling upon the defendant to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with accrued interest i.e., 24% per annum. The defendant issued reply notice on 28.11.2016 with unteable grounds stating that he has paid

Rs.1,50,000/- on 29.10.2016 to the plaintiff in the presence of Suban Saheb and Md. Firoz Khan and that he has agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- without interest to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that he performed his part of contract but the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and the defendnat caused loss and damage to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff is entitled for the refund of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defendant as per agreement and also damages. Therefore, the plaintiff filed suit for refund of 3 earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- with damages of 24% per annum interest which is equalent to rent in view of damages. Hence, the suit.

03.On the other hand the defendant filed written statement admitting that he received earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.08.2016 and also admitted the exchange of notices betwen both the parties. The defendant denied that he did not allow the plaintiff to occupy the building. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff is his close friend and he is an illiterate and that believing the words of the plaintiff he has executed agreement in favour of plaintif for Rs.2,00,000/-. The defendnat submitted that the plaintiff never stayed in the leased building though it was vacant. The plaintiff requested the defendant to refund Rs.2,00,000/- and the defendant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- on 29.10.2016 to the plaintiff in the presence of Suban Saheb and Md. Firoz Khan at his house and at the time the defendant requested the plaintiff to grant one month time to pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant submitted that he is liable to pay only balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore prayed this court to decree the suit for Rs.50,000/- and to dismiss the suit for rest of the claim with costs.

04.Basing on the pleadings and documents, this Court framed the following Issues for trial.

(1) Whether the defendant made payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to plaintiff?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount as prayed

for?

(3) To what relief?

05. During the course of trial on behalf of the Plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A3 got marked and the scirbe of the promissory note is examined as PW2. Ex.A1 is the original suit agreement between the plaintiff and defendnat dated 29.08.2016, Ex.A2 is office copy 4 of legal notice, dated 16.11.2016, Ex.A3 is served reply notice to the plaintiff

dated 28.11.2016. The defendant though opportunity given failed to

adduce any evidence.

06. Heard. Perused the material on record.

07.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has examined Pw1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. This court has perused the depositions of witnesses and exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff, so also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments adduced by both counsel in this case.

08. Issue No.1 and 2:- In order to avoid conflict of finding and repetition of facts and evidence in the case issues Nos.1 and 2 are jointly taken up for consideration.

(a) In order to discharge his burden the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 through him Ex.A1 to A3 are marked. No plea is greater than admission. The defendant admitted that he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff proved his initial burden of proof. The defendant set up plea that he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff in the presence of Subhan Saheb and Md Faroz Khan at his house and that he is liable to give only Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff. It is the burden of the defendant to prove that he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendant neither adduced any documentary evidence or oral evidence regarding the same. The defendant admitted that he had not taken any receipts for payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. Hence, the defence set by the defendant to set to naught. The plea that the interest orally agreed as 24% per annum cannot be countenanced without any proof. Having considered the above discussion this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff proved case against defendant and the defendant failed to prove his case. Accordingly 5 issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9. Issue No.3:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,20,933/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty thousand nine hundred thirty three only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the realization on the

principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, Corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2019

Sd/- xxxxxxx

Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam

Apendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff :- Defendant:-

PW-1: R. Murugesh DW1: D. Palani

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 Original suit agreement between the plaintiff and defendnat dated 29.08.2016 Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice, dated 16.11.2016 Ex.A3 Served reply notice to the plaintiff dated 28.11.2016.

Defendant:

--Nil--

Sd/- xxxxxxx

Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam

OS.No.31/2015 JCJ, KP

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: :: KUPPAM

Present: Sri MUZEEB PASAPALA SYED Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kuppam

Dated this the 25th day of April, 2019

O.S.NO. 31 of 2015

Between:-

A. Ramesh

...Plaintiff.

Vs.

And:-

1. The C.E.O. P.A.C.S. Kuppam

2. The officer on special duty, the Chittoor District Co-op. Central Bank Ltd., Chittoor

3. M. Annaiah Naidu

... Defendants

This Original suit coming before me in the presence of Sri M. Subramanyam, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents in any manner with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and also restraining the defendants 1 and 2 by bringing the suit lands to public acution and directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff called absent. The counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of the court and prayed to dismiss the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed as settled out of court. No costs..

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 25th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- xxxxxxx

Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: -NIL-.

Sd/- xxxxxxx

Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: :: KUPPAM

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam.

Thursday, this 25th day of April, 2019.

O.E.P.No. 15 OF 2016

Between:-

G.V. Lakshmi, … Petitioner/Decree Holder

Vs.

And:- K.P. Krishna

..Respondent/Judgment Debtor

This Petition coming before me in the presence of Sri V Harikrishna, Advocate for the Petitioner/Decree Holder and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :-

DOCKET ORDER DATED 25.04.2019

The Superintendent, RTC Depot, Kuppam present. The Superintendent stated that depot manager is on leave and submitted a letter showing that the details of pay of JDR perused found no attachment amount. Hence EP closed.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 25th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam.