N.Apurva Ravali

CC No: 349 of 2017 Old CC No: 1075 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum I ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SURYAPET

Present: Ms N. APURVA RAVALI, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet (Dated, this the 13th day of May, 2026)

CC No. 349 of 2017

Old CC No. 1075 of 2014

Between: The State of AP, through, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer, Suryapet …Complainant

And

Cherlapa Krishna, S/o Selvam, Age: 50 Years, Occ: Cooking Master, R/o Indiramma Colony, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 11-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Sripal Reddy learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Gaddala Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, today this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police Excise Police Station filed this case against the accused vide PCOR No. 680/2013-14 alleging that the accused has 1/8

CC No: 349 of 2017 Old CC No: 1075 of 2014 committed the offence punishable under section 7 A r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition

Act, 1995.

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows :

a) On 27-09-2013, LW-3/L.Hanumanthu P & ESI, SHO Suryapet received reliable information about illegal possession and selling of ID liquor at

Indiramma Colony, Suryapet. Acting upon the said information, LW-3 along with his staff proceeded to the spot and secured the presence of mediators i.e., LW-1/Kattoju Gopi and LW-2/Doomguntla Srikanth and conducted raid on the house of Cherlapa Krishna/Accused in the presence of the said mediators and that LW-3 after issuing a search memo to the accused has searched his house at about 09:15 AM. On search, LW-3 found one white plastic can containing (05) liters of ID liquor. On enquiry, the accused failed to produce the license. Then, LW-3 arrested the accused and on enquiry, the accused admitted that he possessed the liquor and was selling the same at higher prices.

b) Then, LW-3 has drawn two samples of ID liquor in the presence of LW-1 and LW-2 and accused by following due procedure. Thereafter LW-3 took the seized case property, samples and the accused to the police station. Then, he registered a case in PCOR no. 680/2013-14 under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused, arrested the accused and on his production, he was remanded to judicial custody by the Hon'ble Court.

c) During the course of investigation, LW-3 deposited the case property to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nalgonda for custody and confiscation and sent one of the samples to the chemical examiner at 2/8

CC No: 349 of 2017 Old CC No: 1075 of 2014

Warangal and on 25-01-2014, LW-3 received chemical examiner report no.2967/2013 opining that the sample contained sediment which is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption.

d) After the completion of investigation, LW-3 laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition

Act, 1995.

3.Based on the contents of the charge sheet, the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet took cognizance of the offence under section 7A r/w 8

(e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as

Cr.P.C in short) were furnished to him.

5.Thereafter, the accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C wherein a charge framed for offence under section 7 A r/w 8 (e) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused was read over and explained to him in vernacular, after having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial proceeded.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6, as indicated in the appendix of evidence. The learned APP reported no further prosecution evidence. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.When the case is coming up for 313 Cr.P.C examination of the accused, at this stage, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3/8

CC No: 349 of 2017 Old CC No: 1075 of 2014

Nalgonda, this case has been transferred to this Court vide Pro.Dis no. 566 of 2017, dated: 17-08-2017 and re-numbered as CC No.349 of 2017.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against her from the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

9.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for the accused who submitted that the matter may be decide the matter on merits. Perused the record.

10.Now, the point for determination is,

“Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond

reasonable doubt?”

Answer to Point:-

11.The essence of accusation levelled against the accused is that he is illegally possessing liquor and selling the same at high price without a valid licence in contravention of provisions of Prohibition Act, wherein the prosecution is required to prove not only the seizure of illicitly distilled liquor, but also the conscious and exclusive possession of the same by the accused through cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence.

12. In the present case, the prosecution substantially rests upon the testimony of PW-3, the Investigating Officer. However, the very foundation of the 4/8

CC No: 349 of 2017 Old CC No: 1075 of 2014 prosecution case relating to seizure and recovery becomes doubtful in view of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who were cited as independent mediators to the confession cum seizure proceedings. Both PW-1 and PW-2, in their examination-in-chief, categorically denied that any confession or seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence. They further deposed that the police obtained their signatures on blank papers. Though they identified their signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, they specifically denied knowledge of the contents of panchanama. Moreover, mere identification of signatures without supporting the contents of the panchanama does not advance the prosecution case. Even during their cross examination by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, nothing material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

Thus, the independent mediators have completely disowned the prosecution version, rendering the seizure doubtful.

13.Though PW-3 deposed in his examination-in-chief regarding registration of the case, conduct of search, seizure of illicitly distilled liquor and completion of investigation, his testimony remains unsupported by any reliable independent evidence. It is true that the evidence of an official witness cannot be discarded merely because he belongs to the excise department. However, when the alleged seizure is not supported by independent mediators and the surrounding circumstances create doubt regarding the prosecution version, the sole testimony of the Investigating Officer requires careful scrutiny and satisfactory corroboration. In the present case, except the interested version of PW-3, there is no convincing material establishing actual seizure of illicitly distilled liquor under Ex.P4/Panchanama from the conscious possession of the accused.

14.Further, though Ex.P3 discloses issuance of search memo prior to conducting search, the prosecution failed to establish that the house allegedly searched belonged to or was in the conscious and exclusive possession of the 5/8

CC No: 349 of 2017 Old CC No: 1075 of 2014 accused. No documentary evidence as to the ownership has been produced to connect the accused with the said house. No independent witness from the locality was examined to establish that the accused was residing in the said house. In the absence of such evidence, the essential ingredient of conscious possession remains unproved. Further, Ex.P5, being the COR prepared consequential to the alleged panchanama/Ex.P4, cannot by itself prove the factum of seizure in the absence of reliable substantive evidence. When the seizure itself becomes doubtful and the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession of contraband by the accused, Ex.P5 loses its evidentiary value.

15.It is also significant to note that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the sample allegedly drawn from the seized liquor. Though

Ex.P6, the CE Report, discloses that the sample examined was illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption, there is no satisfactory evidence regarding the manner in which the sample was drawn, sealed, preserved and transmitted to the chemical laboratory. The prosecution failed to establish that the sample seal remained intact throughout the custody till examination. In the absence of satisfactory evidence connecting the sample examined under Ex.P6 with the alleged contraband seized from the accused, the CE Report by itself cannot conclusively establish the guilt of the accused.

16.Another important infirmity in the prosecution case is that the material objects allegedly seized were not marked before the Court during trial. Though the prosecution asserts that illicitly distilled liquor was seized, the said case property was not exhibited through any competent witness. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the prosecution for non-marking of the material objects. Such omission creates a serious doubt regarding the very seizure, preservation and identity of the alleged contraband.

6/8

CC No: 349 of 2017 Old CC No: 1075 of 2014

17.Thus, in the light of the above discussion, this Court opines that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of every reasonable doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof. The evidence available on record suffers from material inconsistencies and serious procedural lapses, thereby creating reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 7A r/w Section 8(e) of the AP Prohibition Act.

Accordingly, the accused is entitled to acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w section 8(e) of the AP Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

The unmarked case property i.e., one sealed 180ml sample bottle of ID liquor deposited vide CP.no. 518/2014 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

(Typed by myself and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13th day of May, 2026).

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

7/8

CC No: 349 of 2017 Old CC No: 1075 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Witnesses No. Name of Witnesses Description

1Kattoju GopiPanch witness 2Doomguntla SrilanthPanch witness 3 L.Hanumanthu Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

Defence Witnesses No. Name of Witnesses Description

-NONE-

FOR PROSECUTION EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

1Signature PW-1 2Signature PW-2 3Search memoPW-3 4PanchanamaPW-3 5CORPW-3 6CE reportPW-3

FOR DEFENCE EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

-- NONE --

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS

Material Object No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

-- NONE --

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

8/8

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Dated: 11-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum I ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SURYAPET

Present: Ms N. APURVA RAVALI,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet (Dated, this the 11th day of May, 2026)

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Station House Officer, Mothey …Complainant

And

Korra Sakku, W/o Shankar, Age: 55 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Rampuram Thanda village of Mothey Mandal, Suryapet District.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 07-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Sripal Reddy learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P. Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, today this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police Mothey Police Station filed this case against the accused vide Cr. No. 255/2023 alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 7 A r/w 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

1/8

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Dated: 11-05-2026

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows :

a) On 01-11-2023 at about 19:30 hours, LW-5/D. Venkateshwarlu, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Mothey Police Station received credible information regarding illegal preparation and sale of illicit liquor at Rampuram village. Acting upon the said information, LW-5 along with police staff including LW-1 and LW-2 proceeded to the house of the accused/Korra

Sakku at Rampuram village. On search of the premises, they found 200 liters of fermented jaggery wash stored in one plastic drum and 10 liters of illicit distilled liquor stored in two litres water bottles. Immediately,

LW-5 secured the mediators i.e., LW-3/Sama Prabhakar Reddy and LW- 4/Gunti Saidulu and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama. The accused confessed that she was manufacturing and selling illicit liquor in the village. The 200 litres of fermented jaggery wash was destroyed at the spot and 10 liters of illicit liquor was seized and brought to the police station along with the accused.

b) Based on the confession cum seizure panchanama, LW-5 registered a suo moto case vide Cr.No. 255/2023 for offence under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of

Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and took up the investigation.

c) During the course of investigation, LW-5 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1/Surnkari Ravi Kumar and LW-2/Nimmala Narsi

Reddy who are Police Head Constable and Home guard of Mothey Police

Station. Later, LW-5 served notice under section 41 A (1) and (3) of

Code Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C in short) to the accused on 01-12-2023 and on 04-12-2023. Afterwards, LW-5 sent the samples to RFSL Warangal for analysis and received a report vide CE

No.1688 and 1689 of 2023 dated 07-11-2023 from Government Chemical 2/8

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Dated: 11-05-2026

Examiner of Regional Prohibition and Excise laboratory Warangal, in which it was stated that the sample is illicit distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

d) After the completion of investigation, LW-5 laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act, 1995.

3. Based on the contents of the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offence under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to her.

5. Thereafter, the accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C wherein a charge framed for offence under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of Telangana

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused was read over and explained to her in vernacular, after having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial proceeded.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-5 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, as indicated in the appendix of evidence. The learned APP reported no further prosecution evidence. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared 3/8

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Dated: 11-05-2026

against her from the prosecution evidence, for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for the accused who submitted that the matter may be decided on merits. Perused the record.

9.The point for determination is,

“Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under section 7A r/w 8 (e) of Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Answer to Point:-

10.The essence of accusation levelled against the accused is that she is illegally possessing liquor and selling the same at high price without a valid licence in contravention of provisions of Prohibition Act.

11.PW-1 and PW-2, who are police personnel, deposed that on receipt of reliable information they accompanied PW-5 to the house of the accused and found fermented jaggery wash and illicit liquor therein. According to them, seizure proceedings were conducted in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 and the accused along with seized property was brought to the police station. During cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-1 and PW-2 admitted that no search proceedings were issued prior to conducting the search. However, they denied the suggestion that they were falsely deposing at the instance of

PW-5.

4/8

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Dated: 11-05-2026

12.PW-3 and PW-4, who are independent mediators to the seizure proceedings, did not support the prosecution case. They categorically deposed that police never conducted any panchanama in their presence and nothing was seized before them. According to them, police obtained their signatures on blank papers. Though they admitted their signatures marked as Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2, they denied the conduct of any panchanama and also denied knowledge of the contents thereof. Even during cross examination by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, nothing worthwhile material could be elicited to support the prosecution case.

13.PW-5, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding receipt of reliable information, proceeding to the scene, conduct of seizure proceedings and filing of charge sheet. During cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW- 5 admitted that he did not collect or file any documentary proof regarding ownership of the house allegedly belonging to the accused. He denied the suggestion that no illicit liquor was seized and that a false case was foisted against the accused.

14.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden always rests upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through legally admissible, cogent and reliable evidence. The accused is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proved by the prosecution. It is equally settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.

15.In the present case, the prosecution substantially rests upon the oral testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 who are the official witnesses. The most material circumstance against the prosecution is that PW-3 and PW-4, who were allegedly present during confession cum seizure proceedings, did not support 5/8

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Dated: 11-05-2026

the case of prosecution. They specifically denied that confession and seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence and further stated that their signatures were obtained on blank papers. Their evidence strikes at the root of the prosecution version regarding seizure and recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused. Though Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were marked as signatures of PW-3 and PW-4, the prosecution failed to exhibit the alleged confession cum seizure panchanama itself. Mere marking of signatures without exhibiting the document containing the recitals does not amount to proof of the contents of such document. Consequently, the alleged confession cum seizure proceedings are not proved in accordance with law.

16.Further, despite the prosecution case that samples were sent to the

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory and chemical examination report was obtained, the said report was not exhibited before the Court. In the absence of the chemical examiner’s report, there is no scientific evidence available on record to establish that the seized contraband was illicit distilled liquor. The prosecution also failed to mark FIR, seizure memo or any other contemporaneous record connected with investigation. The prosecution further failed to produce the material objects allegedly seized from the possession of the accused. Non-production of the contraband articles before the Court creates a serious lapse in the prosecution case, particularly when the seizure itself is disputed by the mediators.

17.Another significant circumstance is that PW-1 and PW-2 admitted during cross-examination that no search proceedings were issued before conducting the alleged raid. PW-5 also admitted that no documentary evidence was collected to establish ownership of the house by the accused. These omissions assume importance in view of the denial of the prosecution case by the independent witnesses.

6/8

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Dated: 11-05-2026

18.The Court is conscious of the settled principle that evidence of hostile witnesses need not be rejected in toto and that conviction can, in appropriate cases, be based upon the testimony of official witnesses alone. However, in the present case, the evidence of official witnesses is unsupported by any legally proved documentary evidence. The independent mediators did not merely fail to support the prosecution but specifically denied seizure itself. The prosecution also omitted to exhibit the very documents upon which the case was founded.

19.The cumulative effect of non-proof of seizure proceedings, non- exhibition of chemical analysis report, non-production of material objects, hostility of independent witnesses and absence of corroborative documentary evidence creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offence under section 7A r/w section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7A r/w section 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property i.e., sample of illicit liquor quarter bottles (02) and one plastic white can deposited vide C.P

No.204/2023 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

(Typed by myself and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026).

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

7/8

CC No. 1384 of 2023

Dated: 11-05-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Witnesses No. Name of Witnesses Description

1Sunkari Ravi KumarEye witness 2Nimmala NarsireddyEye witness 3Sama Prabhakar ReddyPanch witness 4Gunti SaiduluPanch witness 5D.VenkateshwarluInvestigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

Defence Witnesses No. Name of Witnesses Description

-NONE-

FOR PROSECUTION EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

1Signature on Confession cum seizurePW-3 panchanama 2Signature on Confession cum seizurePW-4 panchanama

FOR DEFENCE EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

-- NONE --

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS

Material Object No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

-- NONE --

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

8/8

C.C No.1205/2020

Dated: 28-11-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT SURYAPET

Present: Ms N.Apurva Ravali I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Suryapet,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Suryapet,

(Dated, this the 28th day of November, 2024)

C.C. No. 1205 of 2020

(Old CC No. 3604 of 2018)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Penpahad. …Complainant

AND

1. Dandem Saritha, W/o Ravi, Age: 22 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: Machavaram Village, Penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District

2. Itikyala Sandhya, D/o Guruvaiah, Age: 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o: Machavaram Village, Penpahad Mandal, Suryapet District …Accused no.1 and 2 / A1 and A2

This case is coming up before me on 25-11-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Jatangi Venkateshwarlu Yadav Counsel for the Accused no.1 and 2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, today this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penpahad Police Station filed the Charge

Sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 435 of IPC (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity) 1

C.C No.1205/2020

Dated: 28-11-2024

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows: -

a) On 02-07-2018 at 18:00 hours, the complainant Itikyala Srinu/LW-1 went to the police station and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 02- 07-2018 at 12:45 hours, their neighbours Itikyala Roshi Babu S/o

Guruvaiah along with family members namely Dandem Saritha W/o Ravi,

Itikyala Sandhya D/o Guruvaiah and Itikyala Venkata Ramana D/o

Guruvaiah and Itikyala Guruvaiah S/o Roshaiah set fire to his hay stock in his absence. When the hay stock was burning, the neighbours saw and informed LW-1, then immediately he along with his family members approached village elders and reported the matter to them. Meantime, the above said persons attacked him with stones and knife plank and LW-1 dailled to the fire station who then came and extinguished the flames.

Finally the complainant requested to take legal action against the above said persons.

b) Based on the report, LW-8/K.T.Mallesh, SI of Police Penpahad Police

Station has registered a case in Cr.No: 73 of 3018 for the offence under section 435 of IPC and took up the investigation.

c) During the course of investigation, LW-8 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 at the police station and on 03-07-2018 he visited the scene of offence situated at Macharam village, conducted panchanama in the presence of LW-6/Chithram Shoban and LW-7/Kanneboina Venkanna and also drew a rough sketch. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of LW-2/Chithram Nagamani, LW-3/Chithram Ankamma, LW- 2

C.C No.1205/2020

Dated: 28-11-2024

4/Gaddala Pramila and LW-5/Gaddala Nagamma. As per the evidence collected, no offence was established against Itikyala Roshi Babu, Itikyala

Venkata Ramana and Itikyala Guruvaiah.

d) On 03-07-2018, LW-8 issued a notice to the accused no.1 and 2 u/sec 41 (A) (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C for brevity) with a direction to appear before him within 3 days and on 05-07- 2018, LW-8 issued a notice u/s 41 (A) (3) of Cr.P.C to the accused no.1 and 2 with a direction to appear before the Hon'ble Court on the receipt of summons.

e) After the completion of investigation, LW-8 filed a charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence u/s 435 of IPC.

3. Based upon the contents of the charge sheet, the Hon'ble Principal Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has taken cognizance for the offence

punishable under section 435 of IPC against the accused no.1 and 2 and issued summons to them.

4. On the appearance of the accused no.1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When the case is coming up for examination, at this stage, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District Court, Nalgonda, this case has been transferred from Hon'ble Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet to 3

C.C No.1205/2020

Dated: 28-11-2024

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Suryapet vide Pro.Dis no.2263/2020/A1, dated: 23-06-2020 and re-numbered as CC No.1205 of 2020.

6. The accused no.1 and 2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, wherein the charges for offence u/s 435 of IPC had been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, after having understood the same, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove their case, the prosecution examined PW-1 and PW-2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked. PW-1 is the Complainant and Victim, PW-2 is an Eye witness. Ex.P1 is Signature of PW-1 on complaint, Ex.P2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, Ex.P3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW-2, LW-4 to LW-8 endorsing that the matter was settled between the complainant/victim and the accused no.1 and 2.

8. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused no.1 and 2 u/s 313 Cr.P.C has been dispensed with, as no incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

9. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the record.

10. Now the point germane for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable u/sec 435 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?" 4

C.C No.1205/2020

Dated: 28-11-2024

POINT: -

11.The essence of accusation levelled against the accused no.1 and 2 is that they committed mischief by setting fire to hay stock belonging to PW-1 with an intention to cause damage to PW-1.

12. PW-1 who is cited as a Complainant and Victim deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knew PW-2, LW-2, LW-4, LW-5 and the accused no.1 and 2. He further deposed that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that the accused never committed any offence or set fire to his hay stock. He also deposed that the one day when he went to the police station on his personal work, the police obtained his signature on blank papers and identified that Ex.P1 is his signature on complaint. He further deposed that the police never examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-1 denied that she stated before the police as in the complaint and in Ex.P2 and deposing false before the Court as he had compromised the matter with the accused no.1 and 2.

13. PW-2 who is cited as an Eye witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knew PW-1, LW-2, LW-4, LW-5 and the accused no.1 and 2. He further deposed that he did not see any alleged incident and that the police never examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-2 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3 and deposing false before the Court.

5

C.C No.1205/2020

Dated: 28-11-2024

14. Upon perusal of material on record, it is evident that PW-1/defacto complainant who sets the criminal law into motion and PW-2/Eye witness didn't support the prosecution on any fact to incriminate the accused persons for the charges framed against them. During their cross examination by the learned

APP, nothing worthwhile material could be elicited to show that they are deposing false. In view of their evidence, the learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW-2, LW-4 to LW-8. Thus, it can be said that the prosecution didn't produce cogent evidence to attach the culpability of the accused no.1 and 2 with the offence arraigned for. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 435 of IPC. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

15. In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 435 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C for the offence under section 435 of IPC. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled, after the expiry of the appeal period. No order as to property, as nothing was deposited before this Court.

(Typed by myself and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of November, 2024.)

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SURYAPET

6

C.C No.1205/2020

Dated: 28-11-2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : PW-1 (LW-1) : Itikyala Srinu/Complainant and Victim PW-2 (LW-2) : Chithram Ankamma/Eye witness

FOR DEFENCE:

-- NONE --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Signature of PW-1 on complaint Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2

FOR DEFENCE:

NIL

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SURYAPET

7

CC No. 205 of 2026

Dated: 08-05-2026

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum I ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SURYAPET

Present: Ms N. APURVA RAVALI

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet (Dated, this the 8th day of May, 2026)

CC No. 205 of 2026

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, SHO Suryapet …Complainant

And

Dharavath Murali, S/o Srinu, Age: 27 Years, Occ: Labour, R/o Mangalithanda, H/o Valyathanda, Chivvemla Mandal, Suryapet District.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 04-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Sripal Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Thandu Saidulu, Learned Counsel for the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, today this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Suryapet Excise Station filed this case against the accused vide PCOR No. 233/2025 alleging that the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 34 (e) of

Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

1/7

CC No. 205 of 2026

Dated: 08-05-2026

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows :

a) On 21-11-2025, LW-3/D.Shobha Rani, P & ESI, Stn Suryapet received reliable information about illegal transportation of black jaggery and alum by some persons on the road from Chivvemla to Khammam,

Suryapet. LW-3 along with his staff conducted a route check at 03:30

AM at the said place. During the route check, LW-3 and his staff observed a person on a Two wheeler Pulsar vehicle without registration number coming towards them. On search, they found (20) kgs of black jaggery and (10) kgs of alum. On enquiry, the person disclosed his name as Dharavath Murali/Accused. Later, LW-3 has drawn two samples of black jaggery each 100 grams, two samples of alum each 100 grams, in the presence of LW-1/Dharavath Murali and LW-2/Dharavath Jagan and accused by following due procedure. Thereafter LW-3 took the seized case property, samples and the Pulsar vehicle of the accused and took the same to the police station. Later, she registered a case in PCOR no.

233/2025 dt. 21-11-2025 under section 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act 1968. Later, on the same day, LW-3 issued a notice under section 35 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS in short) to the accused with a direction to appear before her on 21-11- 2025 at 10:00 am.

b) During the course of investigation, LW-3 deposited the case property to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Nalgonda for custody and confiscation and sent one of the samples to the chemical examiner and on 16-12-2025, LW-3 received chemical examiner report no.1955/2025 opining that the sample contained black jaggery and alum which are unfit for human consumption.

2/7

CC No. 205 of 2026

Dated: 08-05-2026

c) After the completion of investigation, LW-4/S.Mallaiah, P & EI Suryapet laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 34

(e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968.

3.Based on the contents of the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offence under section 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968 against the accused.

4. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents as contemplated under section 230 of BNSS were furnished to him.

5. Thereafter, the accused was examined under section 262 of BNSS wherein a charge framed under section 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968 against the accused was read over and explained to him in vernacular, after having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial proceeded.

6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. PW-1 is panch witness for panchanama and

PW-2 is Investigation officer. Ex.P1 is Signature of PW-1 on Panchanama,

Ex.P2 is Panchanama, Ex.P3 is PCOR and Ex.P4 is Analysis report. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW-2 and LW-3 and reported no further Prosecution evidence. Hence Prosecution evidence is closed.

7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating material appeared against him from the prosecution evidence, in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.

3/7

CC No. 205 of 2026

Dated: 08-05-2026

8. Heard the learned APP and learned counsel for the accused who submitted to decide the matter on merits. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is,

“Whether prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under section 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968 beyond

reasonable doubt?”

Answer to Point :-

10. The essence of accusation levelled against the accused is that he is illegally possessing black jaggery and alum and selling the same at high price without a valid licence in contravention of provisions of Excise Act.

11.A perusal of entire evidence on record, it appears that PW-1 who is the independent panch witness, in his examination-in-chief, categorically denied the conduct of any panchanama or seizure in his presence. The witness stated that his signature was obtained by the police on blank paper while he was on personal work. Though he identified his signature on Ex.P1, mere identification of signature without supporting the contents of the panchanama does not advance the prosecution case. Even during his cross-examination by the learned

APP, nothing incriminating was elicited from PW-1 to support the alleged seizure. Thus, he has completely disowned the prosecution version, rendering the seizure doubtful. Coming to PW-2, the Investigating Officer, though he spoke in his examination-in-chief about the investigation in line with the charge sheet, his evidence went on procedural aspect.

4/7

CC No. 205 of 2026

Dated: 08-05-2026

12.Further, the prosecution failed to establish ownership or possession of the searched house as belonging to the accused by producing any documentary proof. The case is one registered suomoto by the excise officers and the investigation conducted by them. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that PW-2/Investigating officer evidence has to be corroborated by some more independent evidence, but the same is absent on record. So, in the absence of such corroborative evidence, this Court is hesitant to rely on the sole testimony of PW-2 in proof of seizure of ID liquor under

Ex.P2/Panchanama. Ex.P4 which is the Analysis Report discloses that sample tested is illicitly distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption, but in view of the evidence of PW-1, it is not substantially established that the sample which was tested was drawn from the ID liquor that was in the accused's house. Ex.P3 which is the PCOR issued consequential to Ex.P2 is not a substantial piece of evidence, therefore the same is not helping the prosecution. Additionally, the case property was not produced before the Court, and no explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution for such non-production, which further weakens the case.

13.Thus, in the light of the above discussion, this Court opines that in criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution has to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. When there is no single independent witness to corroborate evidence and support the prosecution, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW-2 who is an excise official interested in the outcome of the case. Thus, this Court holds that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences arraigned for.

Therefore, the benefit of doubt must necessarily be given to the accused and thereby the accused is entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

5/7

CC No. 205 of 2026

Dated: 08-05-2026

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (e) of Telangana Excise Act, 1968. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 271 (1) of BNSS. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. No order as to property, as nothing is deposited before this Court.

(Typed by myself, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of May, 2026).

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Name of Witnesses Description

Witnesses No.

1.Dharavath JaganPanch witness 2S.MallaiahInvestigating officer who filed Charge sheet.

FOR DEFENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

Defence Witnesses No. Name of Witnesses Description

-NONE-

FOR PROSECUTION EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

1Signature on PanchanamaPW-1 2PanchanamaPW-2 3PCORPW-2 4Analysis reportPW-2 6/7

CC No. 205 of 2026

Dated: 08-05-2026

FOR DEFENCE EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

-- NONE --

FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/MUDDAMALS

Material Object No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

-- NONE --

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE cum

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET

7/7

C.C No.1841/2018

Dt:10-03-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT SURYAPET

Present: Ms N.APURVA RAVALI

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Suryapet,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Suryapet

(Dated, this the 10th day of March, 2025)

C.C. No. 1841 of 2018

Old CC no. 115/2015

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Chivvemla.

…Complainant AND Alavala Nageshwar Rao, S/o Venkatramaiah, Age: 42 Years, Occ: Driver of RTC Bus bearing no. AP-28-Z-0223, R/o Ramapuram Nadigud Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming up before me on 06-03-2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S. Someshwar Counsel for the Accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, today this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chivvemla Police Station filed the

Charge Sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity)

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows: - 1

C.C No.1841/2018

Dt:10-03-2025

a) On 07-12-2014 at 10:00 hours, the complainant Parvatham Veera

Chary/LW-1 went to the police station and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 06-12-2014 at about 03-30 PM while his sister Swathi was returning to Spandana College Suryapet in RTC

Bus Bearing No. AP-28-Z-0223 and when reached the outskirts of

Gumpula, the driver of the above said RTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and applied sudden brakes, as such, his sister fell down from the bus and sustained severe head injury. Then she was shifted to Area hospital

Surypaet through 108 vehicle for treatment and on the advice of a medical officer, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital

Secunderabad for better treatment. Finally the complainant requested to take legal action against the RTC driver.

b) Based on the report, LW-14/K. Narsimha Rao, SI of Police

Chivvemla Police Station has registered a case in Cr.No: 201 of 2014 for the offence under section 338 of IPC and took up the investigation.

c) During the course of investigation, LW-14 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 at the police station. Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at the outskirts of Gumpula on NH-65, conducted panchanama in the presence of LW-8/Dubbaka

Prabhakar Reddy and LW-9/Kancharla Sudhakar Reddy and also drew a rough sketch. Later, he proceeded to Gandhi Hospital 2

C.C No.1841/2018

Dt:10-03-2025

Hyderabad and tried to examine the injured/veladi Swathi, but she was unable to speak. Then, LW-14 examined and recorded the statement of LW-3/Veladi Brahama Chary.

d) On 10-12-2014, LW-4/Veladi Gopi lodged a complaint stating that the injured/Veladi Swathi who met with road accident on 06-01- 2014 at 03-30 PM in this crime succumbed to the injuries on 09- 12-2014 at 05-05 PM while undergoing treatment in Gandhi

Hospital Secunderabad. Based on the said complaint of LW-4, LW- 14 altered the section of law to 304-A of IPC from 338 of IPC.

Then he visited Gandhi Hospital Hyderabad, examined and recorded the statements of LW-4/Veladi Gopi, LW-5/Veggalam

Sinivasa Chary, LW-6/Cheenoju Shyam @ Sharavan and

LW-7/Chanda Saidi Reddy and then secured the presence of panchas/LW-8 and LW-9 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the body for PME. Then,

LW-12/Dr.Vijaya Sagar, Asst. Professor, Gandhi Hospital

Secunderabad held an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased.

e) On 11-12-2014, LW-14 served a notice to the accused u/sec 41 (1) (A) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as

Cr.P.C for brevity) with a direction to appear before him, as such, the accused appeared at the police station and admitted his guilt in committing the said offence. Then, LW-14 verified driving 3

C.C No.1841/2018

Dt:10-03-2025

license and vehicle documents, but there was no insurance to the vehicle, as such, he added Sec. 196 of MV Act to the existing section of Law and later granted station bail to the accused. On 12-12-2014, LW-13/CH.Kondaiah, MVI Suryapet inspected the crime vehicle and issued an MVI report, in which he opined that the “accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle”. On 24-01-2015, LW-14 collected a PME Report from LW- 12 in which it was opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to “Head injury”.

f) After the completion of investigation, LW-14 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s 304-A of IPC & Sec. 196 of MV Act.

3. Based upon the contents of the charge sheet, the learned

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has taken

cognizance for the offences punishable under section 304-A of IPC and section 196 of MVAct against the accused and issued summons to him.

4. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When the case is coming up for examination, at this stage, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalgonda, this case has been transferred from Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Suryapet to Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Suryapet vide 4

C.C No.1841/2018

Dt:10-03-2025

Pro.Dis no.588/2017 dated. 17-08-2017 and re-numbered as CC

No.1841 of 2018

6. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C, wherein the substance of accusation leveled against the accused for offence u/s 304-A of IPC, 196 of MV Act was read over and explained to him in

Telugu, after having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. At the stage of trial, this case has been transferred to this Court as per the orders of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Suryapet vide

Pro.Disc.No.66/2024/A1, dated.22-02-2024.

8. During the trial, the prosecution did not examine any witnesses and did not mark any exhibit.

9. Since there is no incriminating material evidence found against the accused, the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

10. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused who submitted to decide the matter on merits.

Perused the record.

11. Now the point germane for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

for the offences punishable u/sec 304-A of IPC, 196 of MV Act,

beyond all reasonable doubt?" 5

C.C No.1841/2018

Dt:10-03-2025

POINT: -

12. It is the version of the prosecution that the accused is the driver of TSRTC bus bearing No. AP-28-Z-0223 who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and applied sudden brake, as such, the sister of LW-1 who was travelling in the bus fell down from the bus and succumbed to the injuries. On the complaint of LW-1, a case in Cr.No.201 of 2014 was registered and a charge sheet has been filed. On perusal of the record, it appears that inspite of several adjournments and a fair chance was given to the prosecution to examine the witnesses who are arrayed in the charge sheet, the prosecution did not evince any interest to examine any of them.

Moreover, the prosecution did not took any steps to procure any witnesses to unfold its story, inspite of recalling the witnesses and conditional orders passed. Hence, no evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. Thus, the accused is entitled for acquittal, as the prosecution has utterly failed in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, by considering all the above said aspects, this court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the offences arraigned for. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 304A of IPC, 196 of MV Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted 6

C.C No.1841/2018

Dt:10-03-2025

under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after the expiry of the appeal period. No order as to property, as nothing was deposited

before this Court.

(Typed by myself, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of March, 2025.)

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : –NIL–

FOR DEFENCE: –NONE–

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: –NIL–

FOR DEFENCE: –NIL–

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SURYAPET

7