MS. N. Gayathri

CC 1469 of 2021

8 IS.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

FORM No,72

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Maoistrate of First Class, Vayalpad.

Calendar Case No.1469 of 2021

Nature of Offence: under Section 7A read with 8(c) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act, 1995.

Date of Judgment - 15.12.2023

Offence Report or Apprehen Release on Commen Closure Sentence complaint sion of bail of trial or order cement accused of trial 29.04.2020 29.04.2020 29.04.2020 03.11.2023 01.12.2023 15.12.2023 A1 & A2 30.04.2020 30.04.2020 A3

Explanation for the delay: No delay.

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 1469/2021 (Cr.No. 1 15/2020 of

Kalakada police station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class Court, Vayalpad.

Complainant: The State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakada Police Station.

Father'sReligion Calling| Residence

Mandal Name of Age accused name

A1 Pasupuleti Devaraja, aged 38 years, son of P.Krishnappa, Gerikuntapalli

village, H/o Nadimikandriga, Guramkonda Mandal.

A2 Edagoti Naryana, aged 48 years, son of E.Venkataramana, Gerikuntapalli

village, H/o Nadimikandriga, Gurramkonda Mandal.

A3 Mude Raja Naik, aged 45 years, son of M.Devala Naik, Yeguvathanda

village, H/o Yenugondapalem, Kalakada Mandal.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty. In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not Sentence: guilty of the charge under section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and they are accordingly acquitted

under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused Nos. 1 to shall be in force for a period of six months as

contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M01 sample bottle is

ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and, if any appeal is

preferred, the same shall be subjcct to the result of the appeal.

Addl. J,F.C. MAGISTRATE, PILER

FAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor for favour of information.

CC 1469 of 2021

1S.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MACISTRATE OF FIRSTCbh

:: VAYALPAD

PRESENT: NEELAPU GAYATHRI

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Cla88, Pler

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 15th DAy or DECEMBER, 2022

CALENDAR CASE No. 1469 of 2021

BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakada Police Station.

...COMPLAINANT

and

Al Pasupuleti Devaraja, aged 38 years, son of P.Krishnappa,

Gerikuntapalli village, H/o Nadimikandriga, Gurramkonda Mandal.

A2 Bdagoti Naryana, aged 48 years, son of E.Venkatararnana,

Gerikuntapalli village, H/o Nadimikandriga, Gurramkonda Mandal.

A3 Mude Raja Naik, aged 45 years, son of M.Devala Naik, Yeguvathanda village, H/o Yenugondapalem, Kalakada Mandal.

...ACCUSED

-0o0o0 This case came up before me on 01.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri B.Vijaybhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon

hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and this

matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court

delivered the following:

I/J U DG M EN TI

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakdada Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.115 of 2020 on its file for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, as follows.

2. On 29.04.2020 at 5.30 PM, western side of Nadimicherla village, Kalakada Mandal, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found being in possession of illicitly distilled arrack of 20 literes in white Gunny bag for sale purpose to gain wrongfully and was seized under the cover of

Police proceedings. The accused Nosl and 2 are voluntarily admitted

the offence and they are stated that the accused No.3 manufacture of

the ID arrack. Later LW6/B.Raviprakash Reddy, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kalakada Police Station, brought the seized contraband and, on

the strength of Police proceedings, registered case in,

Cr.No.l15/2020 under section 7A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act and investigated into. On 29.04.2020 LW6 served Section 41-A CrPC notice on the accused Nos.1 and 2 and On 29.04.2020 the accused No.3 with instructions to him to appear before 2 15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

CC 1469 of 2021

the Court, On 30.04.2020, LW5 sent a 180 ML of sample bottle of

Illicitly Distilled Arrack which was collected from the seized

Chemical Exminer, Excise and Prohibition

contraband to Chittoor and accordingly LW6 received the chemical Laboratory, analysis report from the chemical examiner opining that the sample is

Illicitly Distilled Arrack and unfit for human consumption and

O.*2/2020. On the same day, LW6 iniurious to health vide n sent proposals to the Depuy omissioner of Prohibition and Excise.

Chittoor, for destruction of llliclIy Distilled Arrack seized in connection with this case. On 13.08.2020, LW6 received destruction proceedings from the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, vide Rc.No.32/SER-CTR/2020, dated 13.08.2020, to destroy the seized contraband concerned in this case. On 14.09.2020, LW7 destroyed the seized Illicitly Distilled Arrack in this case in the presence of SDPO, Madanapalle, and prepared Mahazarnama in the presence of LW4 and LW5. Hence the charge. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under 3. section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, against the accused. On appearance of accused Nos. 1 to 3, copies of case documents 4 have been furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused Nos.1 to 3 was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for which she denied having committed the offence. Charge under section 7A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, has been framed against the accused Nos. 1 to 3, read over and explained to

them in Telugu for which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. On behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and 5. Exs.P1 to P5 and MO1 were marked. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW1, LW2, LW4 and LW5.

Prosecution side evidence was closed. The accused was examined

under section 313 Cr.P.C puttingforth the incriminating material that

appears against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The

case of all the accused is one of denial. No evidence either oral or

documentary is adduced on behalf of all the accused in defence.

CC 1469 of 2021

3 15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

Heard both sides and perused the

6 material on record.

Now the point that arises for consideration is

7. Whneu

prosecution is able to bring home the milt of all the accused Nos.I to

3 beyond all reasonable doubts for the harge framed against them r

POINT;

8 At this juncture, for better appreciation of the contentions, 1t S

relevant to extract the penal provisions of law i.e., section 7(A) read

with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act. 1995, which reads thus.

"7A. Prohibition of production etc., of arrack.- The production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

8. Punishment for buying, selling, consumption ete., of liquors.- whoever -

(e) contravenes the provisions of section 7-A shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment for term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to five years and with fine which shall not be less than (rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence."

9. PW1/M.Nagi Reddy, Home Gurard, Kalakada, Police Station

deposed that On 29.04.2020 at about 5.30 PM while myself along with

LW1 and LW2 were present in the Police Station, LW6 received credible information about an excise offence. In that connection they reached

Nadimicharla and to the western side found two persons standing with

a plastic bag and on seeing the police personal said persons tried to

escape from the spot and on the instructions of the PW2 questioned

Aland A2 and they answered they were in possession of Ilicitly

Distilled Arrack and on verification by PW2 found two plastic covers

each containing 10 liters of Illicitly Distilled Arrack. On enquiry by the

PW2 Al confessed his name as Devaraja and A2 Narayana and both bought the Contraband from Accused No.3/Rajanaik. PW2 drew two

sample bottles of 180 ML each for the purpose of chemical analysis

from the Ilicitly Distilled Arrack, afixed the labels and took the signatures Al and A2 as well as the PW2. On communicating to the Al and A2 that it is an offence, PW2 arrested them. Ex-P1 is the police

proceedings, MO1, MO2 the 180ml samples drawn each cover of seized

contraband.

10. In his cross-examination, PWI denied that LWs1 and 2 never

went to the Nadimicharla village for securing the mediators and at the

instance of PW2. PW1 admitted that there is no bus facility to

Jarrikuntapalle village. PW1 denied that they never visited the scene

4 15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

CC 1469 of 2021

of offence and they never seized any contraband from the accused

Nosl and 2 and hence never committed any offence PW1 denied that the MOs1 and 2 were not drawn from the seized contraband and were

planted by themselves at the Police Station

11. PW2/B.Raviprkash Reday, Sub Inspector of police, Kalakada

Police Station, at the relevant point of time, on 29.04.2020 at about

530 PM while himself along with PW1, LW1 and LW2 were present in

the Police Station, PW2 received credible information about an excise

offence. On detention PW2 questioned Al and A2 tried to escape and

they answered they were in possession of Illicitly Distilled Arrack and

on verification by I found two plastic covers each containing 10 liters of

Illicitly Distilled Arrack. On enquiry by PW2 A1 confessed his name as

Devaraja and A2 Narayana and the said persons bought the

Contraband from Accused No.3/Rajanaik. PW2 drew two sample

bottles of 180 ML each for the purpose of chemnical analysis from the Illicitly Distilled Arrack, affixed the labels and took the signatures Al and A2 as well as PW2. On comnmunicating to the Al and A2 that it is an offence, PW2 arrested them. Ex.Pl is the police proceedings, MO1, MO2 are the 180ml samples drawn each cover of seized contraband.

Based on the strength of strength of Ex.P1 PW2 registered the case in Cr.No. 115/2020 under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act and submitted Ex.P2 FIR to the court. On 30.04.2020 when PW2 was present in the Police Station A3/ M.Raja Naik appear before me and served section 41-A CrPC notice to A3. On 01.05.2020 PW2 have sent MO1 and MO2

to the, Chemical Examiner prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor

for analysis purpose. On 12.05.2020 I received Ex.P3 analysis report

vide CE.No.442/2020 where in it was opined that the sample at

S.No.3314, 3315 is Illicitly Distilled Arrack and unfit for human

consumption and injurious to health. Then PW2 have sent proposals

for destruction of remaining contraband to Deputy Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor. On 13.08.2020, PW2 received Ex.P4

destruction proceedings from Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, Chittoor vide RC.No. Rc.No.32/SEB-CTR/2020, dated

13.08.2020. and on 14.09.2020 PW2 destroyed the remaining

contraband concerned in this case in the presence of mediators/ LW4

and Lw5 under the cover of the Ex.P5 Mahazarnama duly signed by

CC 1469 of 2021

5 15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD the mediators.

12. In his cross-examination, PW2 denosed that they started at .30 PM from Kalakada Police Station along with LWs1 and 2, and PWI in a Government vehicle. PW2 denied that they never tried to secure une

mediators and PW2 deposing false. PW2 denied that they never visited

the scene of offence and they never seized any contraband from the accused Nosl and 2 and hence never conmmitted any offence and also the MOsl and 2 were not drawn from the seized contraband and were planted by themselves at the Police Station, PW2 denied that PW2 filed the present case against the accused for statistical purpose.

13. From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it is clear that the time of alleged offence police never seized any contraband. The Ex.P1 Police

proceeding is hit by Section.25, 27 of Indian evidence Act and the

same cannot be taken into credence. Hence the Confession is made

before Police and the same is hit by Section.25 of Evidence Act.

Besides the Ex.P1 is also hit by Section.27 of the Evidence Act as there is no consequerntial discovery after the Ex.P1. Hence the Ex.P.1 Police proceeding is hit by Section.25 and 27 of Evidence Act and does not

have any validity in the eye of law. In the absence of independent

witness to seizure the same cannot be taken into consideration as it is hit by Section. 100 of CrPC. If so, it is not known as to how PW2 is intending to connect MO1 to the accused. So, it is clear that PW2 has

completely given a go bye to the Section 100(4) Cr.P.C despite having

an opportunity to comply the same and so the alleged confessional

statement of the accused under Ex.Pl cannot be accepted and is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act.

14. Hence for the reasons 1). Complainant and the investigator is one and the same, 2) No independent witnesses during the police 6 15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

CC 1469 of 2021

proceedings, 3) Rough sketch is not prepared, 4) No independent

witness were examincd, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Therefore, the

Probibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accused is entitled for acquittal.

15. For the above reasons, this Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

for the said offences. Bail bonds of the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 shall stands canceled after expiry of six months. The un-marked non-valuable

property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 15th day of December, 2023.

Addl. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, Piler

FAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: M.Nagir Reddy, HG -NIL PW2: B.Raviprkash Reddy, SI. Documents mnarked For prosecution;

Ex.Pl: Police proceedings

Ex.P2: FIR

Ex.P3: Analysis report

Bx.P4: Proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise.

Ex.P5: Destruction Mahazarnama.

CC 1469 of 202 1

7 15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD For Defence: -NIL

Material Objects

For Prosecution:

For Defence:

MO1 : sample bottle

-NIL

Addl, J,F.C. MAGISTRATE, PILER

FAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

CC 1458 of 2021

15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD 7

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar case tried by the Judiciol Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad.

Calendar Case No.1458 of 2021

Nature of Offence: under Section 7A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995. Date of Judgment - 15.12.2023

|Apprehen Commen

Sentence Report or Closure Release on Offence sion of cement or order of trial complaint bail of trial accused

I0.04.2020|10.04.202011.04.202011.04.202010.11.2023 l01.12.2023|15.12.202.

Explanation for the delay: No delay.

(Cr.No.49/2020 of Calendar Case No.1458/2021 Judgment in Kalakada police station) on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Vayalpad. Complainant: The State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakada Police

Station. Father's Religion Calling| Residence Mandal Name of Age accused name Mude Rajeswari @ chinnari, age about 30 years, wife of Chamala Naik,

Diguvathanda village, H/o Yenugondapalem, Kalakakda Mandal.

Accused is found not guilty. Finding: In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the Sentence: charge under section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 and they are accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 A of Cr.P.C. MO1 sample bottle is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and, if any appeal is preferred, the same shall be subject to the result of the appeal.

Addl. J.F.C. MAGÍSTRATE, PILER

FAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chiet Judicial Magistrate, Chittoor for favour of information.

(

CCHS8 of2021 15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

: VAYLPAD

PRESENT: NEELAPU GAYATHRI

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler

FAC Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 15tlh DAY 0r DECEMBER, 2022 CALENDAR CASE No. 1458 of 2021 BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub ngnector of Police, Kalakada Police Station.

.COMPLAINANT

and

Mude Rajeswari @ chinnari, age about 30 years, wife of Chamala Naik,

Diguvathanda village, H/o Yenugondapalenm, Kalakakda Mandal.

..ACCUSED

-0o0oo This case came up before me on 01.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri B.Vijaybhaskar Reddy., Advocate for the accused, and upon

hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and this

matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court

delivered the following:

/J U D G M EN T/

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakdada Police Station, filed

charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.49 of 2020 on its file for the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, as follows.

2. On 10.04.2020 at 10.00 AM, at the forest area, near

Diguvathanda village, H/o Yenugondapalem, Kalakada Mandal, the

accused was found being in possession of illicitly distilled arrack of 10

literes in one Gunny bag for sale purpose to gain wrongfully and was

seized under the cover of Police proceedings. The accused escaped

from the spot. Later LW7/B.Raviprakash Reddy, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kalakada Police Station, brought the seized contraband and, on

the strength of Police proceedings, registered a case in Cr.No.49/2020

under section 7A r/w 8(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act and

investigated into. On 1.04.2020 LW7 served Section 41-A CrPC notice

on the accused with instructions t0 him to appear before the Court.

On 18.04.2020, LW5 sent a 180 ML of sample bottle of Illicitly Distilled

Arrack which was collected from the seized contraband to the

Chemical Exminer, Excise and Prohibition Laboratory, Chittoor and

accordingly LW7 received the chemical analysis report from the

chemical examiner opining that the sample is llicitly Distilled Arrack

15,12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

CC 1458 of 2021

and unfit for human consumpuon and injurious to health vide in CE No,442/2020. On the same day, LW sent proposals to the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, for destruction of Ilicitly Distilled Arrack seized in comnection with this case. On 13.08.2020, LW7 received destruction proceedings from the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, vide Rc.No.32/SER-

CTR/2020, dated 13.08.2020, to destroy the seized contraband On 14.09.2020, LW7 destroyed the seized concerned in this case. Illicitly Distilled Arrack in this case in the presence of SDPO,

Madanapalle, and prepared Mahazarnama in the presence of LW5 and

LW6. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on nie lOr the offence punishable under section 7A read with 8(e) of the Andnra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

against the accused.

4 On appearance of accused, cop1es of case documents have been furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for which she denied having committed the offence. Charge under section 7A read with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 On behalf of the prosecution, Pws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Pl to P5 and MO1 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW2. LW3, LW4, LW5 and LW6.

Prosecution side evidence was closed

The accused was examined

under section 313 Cr.P.C puttingforth the incriminating material that

appears against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The

case oI all the accused is one of dernial No evidence either oral or

documentary is adduced on behalf of oll the accused in deience.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

Now the point that arises for

7.

consideration is whether the

prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of all the accused beyond

all reasonable doubts for the charge framed against them ?

POINT:

8 At this juncture, for better appreciation of the contentions, it is

cC 1458 of 2021

3 15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

relevant to exract the penal nroicine of law i.e., section 7(A) read

with 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995, which reads thus.-

$7A. Prohibition of prodnetion etc., of arrack.-

production, manufacture, storage, possession, collection, The

purchase, sale and transport of arrack is hereby prohibited.

8. Punishment for buving. selling, consumption etC., 01

liquors.- whoever -

(e) contravenes the provisions of section 7-A shall on

conviction be punished with imprisonment for term which

shall not be less than one vear but which may extend up tO iive years and with fine which shall not be less than (rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence."

PW1/A. Muniraja, Police Constable, Kalakada, Police Station 9. deposed that on 10.04.2020 at about 10.00 AM while he along with

LW1 and LW2/WPC 3381, LW3 and LW4 were present in the Police

Station, PW2 received credible information about an excise offence committed at Digvathanda village. In that connection they reached the western side of Digvathanda village at 11.00 AM. A woman standing in a tamarind tree with a gunny bag on seeing them the said person ran away from the spot leaving the gunny bag. PW2 verified the gurnny bag two plastic covers with Illicitly Distilled Arrack each cover contains 5 liter and make total of 10 liters of Ilicitly Distilled Arrack. On enquiry by the PW2, he came to know particulars of the said woman from one of the villagers as Rajeswari @ Chinnari, D/o Chamla Naik. PW2 drew two sample bottles of 180 ML each cover for the purpose of chemical analysis from the Ilicitly Distilled Arrack, affixed the labels and took the signature of PW2. M.O.1 is the sample bottle. Ex.P1 is the police proceedings. Later they brought the seized contraband to the Police

Station along with sample bottles.

In his cross-examination, they reached the scene of offence in a 10. police jeep five in all. Pwl admitted that there are no signature of accused in the MOs1 and 2. PWI denied that they never visited the scene of offence and they never Selzed any contraband from the

accused hence never committed any offence and the present case is

filed against the accused for statistical purpose.

11. PW2/B.Raviprkash Reddy, Sub Inspector of police, Kalakada

Police Station, at the relevant point of time, on 10.04.2020 at about

4 I5.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD

CC 1458 of 202 1

myself along with PW1, LW2 to LW4

10.00 AM while were present in the Police Station, he received Credible information about an excise

offence committed at Diguvathanda Village. In that connection they

reached the western side ol Diguvathanda village at 11.00 AM. A

woman was standing with a gunny bag in her hand and on seeing them the said person ran away fromn the spot leaving the gunny bag.

and foUnd two plastic covers

PW2 verified the gunny bag with Illicitly

Distilled Arrack each cover contauning 5 liters of llicitly Distilled

Arrack and making total of 10 liters of Illicitly Distilled Arrack. On

enquiry by PW1, came to know particulars of the said woman from one

of the villagers as Rajeshwari @ Chinnari, D/o Chamla Naik. PW1 drew

two sample bottles of 180 ML each cover for the purpose of chemical

analysis from the Illicitly Distilled Arrack, affixed the labels and PW1

signed M.O.1. Ex.Pl is the police proceedings. Later they brought the

seized contraband to the Police Station along with sample bottles.

Based on the strength of strength of Ex.P1, PWl registered the case in

Cr.No.49/2020 under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act and submitted

the Ex.P2 FIR to the court. On 18.04.2020. PW1 have sent MO1 to the

Chemical Examiner prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chittoor for

analysis purpose. On 12.05.2020, PW1 received Ex.P3 analysis report

vide CE.No.442/2020 where in it was opined that the sample at

S.No.3289 is Ilicitly Distilled Arrack and unfit for humnan consumption

and injurious to health. Then PW] sent proposals for destruction of

remaining contraband to Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, Chittoor. On 13.08.2020 pw1 bave received Ex. P4 destruction

proceedings from Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

Chittoor vide RC.No. Rc.No.32 /SER_cTR /2020, dated 13.08.2020. On

14.09.2020 I have destroyed the remaining contraband concerned in this case in the presence of mediators/ LW5 and LW6 under the cover of Ex.P5 Mahazarnama duly signed by the mediators. After completion

of investigation PW1 filed charge sheet in the case.

In his cross-examination, PW2 deposed that they reached the

12.

Diguvathanda at 11.00

AM. PW1 denied that they never visited the scene of offence and they never Seized any contraband from the accused hence accused never committed any offence. PW1 denied that the present case is filed against the accused for statistical purpose.

CC 1458 of 2021

15.12.2023, JFCM, VYPD From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it is clear that the time of 13.

alleged offence police never seized any contraband. The Ex.P1 Police proceeding is hit by Section.25, 27 of Indian evidence Act and the same cannot be taken into credenoe Hence the Confession 1s mnaae

before Police and the same is bit hy Section.25 of Evidence hCt.

Besides the Ex.P1 is also hit by Section 97 of the Evidence Act as there 1s no consequential discovery after the Ex.P1, Hence the Ex.P.1 Police proceeding is hit by Section.25 and 27 of Evidence Act and does not

have arny validity in the eye of law, In the absence of independent

witness to seizure the same cannot be taken into consideration as it is

hit by Section. 100 of CrPC. If so, it is not known as to how PW2 is

intending to connect MØ1 to the accused. So, it is clear that PW2 has completely given a go bye to the Section 100(4) Cr.P.C despite having an opportunity to comply the same and so the alleged confessional statement of the accused under Ex.Pl cannot be accepted and is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act.

14. Hence for the reasons 1). Complainant and the investigator is one

No independent witnesses during the police and the same, 2) proceedings, 3) Rough sketch 1s not prepared, 4) No independent witness were examined, the proSecuuon tailed to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt Therefore, the

Accused is entitled for acquittal.

For the above reasons, this Hon 'ble Court is of the opinion that 15. the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 bevond all reasonable doubt. Tner eoe, the Accused is entitled for 15.12.2023. JFCM, VYPD

CC 1458 of 2021

acquittal. In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences 16. punishable under scction 7(A) r/w 8(c) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

and accordingly they are acquited nder Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for

the said offences. Bail bonds oi the Accused shall stands canceled

afer expiry of six months. The un-narked non-valuable property if

any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 15th day of December,

,Islus

2023.

Addl, J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, Piler

FAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: A.Muniraja, PC -NIL

PW2: B.Raviprkash Reddy, SI.

Documnents marked For prOsecution:

Ex.Pl: Police proceedings

Ex.P2: FIR

Ex.P3: Analysis report

Ex.P4: Proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise.

Ex.P5: Destruction Mahazarnama.

For Defence: -NIL

Material Objects

For Prosecution: For Defence:

MO1 : sample bottle -NIL

Addl, J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, PILER

FAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

Dt. 15. 12. 2023

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgnent

Calendar of case tried by the Judiciul Magistrate of First Class, Va alpad.

Calendar Case No.1453 of 2021

slature of Offence: under section 7(A) r/w 8(c) of AP Prohibition Act against

accuscd

Date of Judgment - 15.12.2023

Date of Offence

:25.03.2020

Date of complaint/ Report

: 25.03.2020

Apprehension of the Accused

:25.03.2020

Commencement of Trial : 29.09.2023 Closure of trial :17.11.2023

Judgment

: 15.12.2023

Judgment in Calendar Case No. 1453/2021 (Cr.No.38/2020 of Kalaknda Police Station) on the file of the Judicial Ficst Class Magistrate Court, Vayaljvad

Complainant :

State Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakada Police Station.

Offence :Under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Probibition Act. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court :Found not guilty

Explanation for the delay: No delay. Name of the Accused:

Valipi Eswaraiah, age 43 years, son of late Vankatramana, Bonthala

varipalli, H/o Kadirayacheruvu, Kalakada Mandal.

Sentence: In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences

punishable under section 7A) r/w S(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and

accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said

offences. Bail bonds of the Accuscd shall stands canceled after expiry o1 six months. The un-marked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time,

Aidl. J.F.d, MAGISTRATE, PILER,

TAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Jdicial Ma gistrate Chittoor for tavour o information.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

Dt. 15. 12. 2023

::VAYALPADU::

Present: NEELAPU GAYATHRI, B.A.LL,B,LL.M,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Piler

FAC JMFC Vayalpadu

Friday, this the 15th day of December, 2023

CALENDER CASE No. 1453 of 2021 Between:

State Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakada Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Valipi Eswaraiah, age 43 years, son of late Vankatramana, Bonthala

varipalli, H/o Kadirayacheruvu, Kalakada Mandal.

....Accused

This case is coming on 24.11.2023 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R.Yella Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the

following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalakada Police Station, filed charge sheet against the Accused alleging that the accused have committed an offence punishable u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act, 1995 in Crime

No.38/2020.

2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is as follows:

That on 25-03-2020 at 4-00 PM at near one tamarind tree situated western side of the Bonthalavaripalli. H/o Kadiravacheruvu, Kalakada

Mandal and reported in the Kalakad� ps. on the same day, in which the

accused was found being with contraband Illicitly Distilled Arrack of 10 liters of white colored plastic bag with his possession, for selling purpose in surrounding villages. The accused was arrested and seized the

Contraband 10 liters of I.D arrack Under a cover of Police Proceedings.

PW2 drew 180 ML ID Arrack for the said contraband 1ot sending

CC. No. 1453/2021

Chemical Analysis purpose. On o03.2020 PW2 served section 41(A)

CrPC notice to the accused. Hence, . W.I preferred a complaint and the same is registered u/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act in Crime

No.38/2020 and after completion O the investigation charge sheet is

filed u/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act against the accused.

The case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/s 7(A) r/w 3. S(e) AP Prohibition Act. After aPpearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to them as per Section.207 Criminal

Procedure Code 1973. The Accused was examined under section 239

Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation alleged for the offences u/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act against the Accused was read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial to substantiate its version, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and

MO1.

After closure of the prosecution side evidence. the accused were 5.

examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. by exnlaining the incriminating material available against them in the evdence of prosecution witnesses for which, the accused denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.

Heard arguments of Assistant 6 Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused and perused the material on record.

determinaton are:

Now the points for 7.

Whether the prosecution

able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishab Act beyond all reasonable doubt? u/s. 7A) r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition

POINT:

The case of the prosecution io as stated above and does not Ie4 8.

to be reiterated herein. To prove its case. the prosecution has placed

reliance on the evidence of p w, i o 2 4nd Exs.P to P5 and MOT.

Based on the above evidence. the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submits that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable

doubt.

9. Per contra the learned coun sel for the Accused submits that the evidence on the record does not connect the accused to the alleged

offence. The Mahazarnama hit by Section.25, 27 of Evidence Act, hence

cannot be taken into consideration. Besides the complainant and

investigation officer are one and the same, and the same is not

permissible under the law. Hence there is nothing on the evidence to

connect the accused to the Crime. The learned counsel for the accused

further submits that there is no rough sketch also. The Police conducted a table investigation and framed an innocent in the crime

10. p w.1 who was working as Pdlice Cornstable deposes on the same lines of prosecution version sayng on receiving credible information, He olong with LW1,LWZ ana rW2 we to the scene of offence, and found

Accused in possession o 10 o1 TD arrak and prepared police proceedings Ex.Pl, and drawn Sample of 180 ML, as MO1 IIlicitly Distilled Arrack drawn by the P.W2 and for the purpose of chemical analysis. In his cross examination,

he admilted that they tried to secure

mediators but none were available.

working as S of Police, Kalakada Police Station P.W.2 who was 11.

innhis chicf examination and based on

reiterated the prosecution version

Ex.Pl police proceeding, he registerg Ex.P2 FIR. On 27.03.2020 he sent

Dt. 15. iz.

4

CC. No. 1453/2021

the M.O.1 for chemical analysis and receivel Ex.P3 report on 08.04.2020 nt Tor consumption. He sent a saying the sample in M.O.I 1S requisition to Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, for confiscation of seized contaband und On 13.08.2020 Ex. P4 proceedings were received. In his Cross examination he deposes that the details of private vehicle, driver and efforts to secure mediators were not mentioned in Ex.Pl. EXPl was scribed by PC.4594 and he was not shown in Ex.P1 as witness. He has not collected 180 ml

from each of the six packets. And the sample is directly sent for

chemical analysis and not from th¹� court. Ex.P1 and M.0.1 are signed by him and Accused only. It is true M.O.1 shows the signature of Accused and mine.

12. A perusal of record along with the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 and

Ex.P.1 to P5, it is case where police have seized the contraband, they arrested the accused, and registered the crime and police have investigated and police have filed charge sheet and the police only deposed in the court to prove the guilt of the accused. They did not even prepare a rough sketch.

The Hon'ble five Judge Benchof Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh 13.

Singh V. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020) 10 SCC 120 held that "I. That the observations 0f this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 15; Megha Singh v. State of Hqryana (1996) 11 SCC 709; and State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Rajangam (2010) 15 SCC &69 and the acquittal of the NIB,

accused by this Court

informant and the investigator n the ground that as the

was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the Cused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be Conf fined to their own facts. It cannot be said that in the Voresaid decisions, this Court laid down any general and every Case where the formant is the investigator of law that in each

CC. No. l453/2021 Dt. 15. 12. 2

there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire

prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is

entitled to acquittal;

II. In Case

where the informant himself is the

investigator, by that 1tself cannot be sald that the

tnvestigation is vitiated on the around of bias or the like

Jactor. The question of bBas or prejudice would �epena

upon the facts and circumstances of each Case.

Therefore, merely because the informant is the

investigator, by that itself the investigation would not

Sfer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the

Sole ground that informant is the investigator, the

�ccused is not entitled to acauittal. The matter has to be decided on a case to case basis. A contrary decision of this Court in the case of Mo han Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically Overruled."

14. The Hon'ble Apex court though its judgment has laid down the proposition that on the sole ground of investigator and complainant is same, no case can be acquitted. The acquittal needs to be based on case to case basis, besides the fact of comnplainant and the investigator are one and the same.

The Ex.P1 Police proceeding is hit by Section.25, 27 of Indian 15.

evidence Act and the same cannot be tak:n into credence. Hence the

Confession is made before Police and the same is hit by Section.25 of

Evidence Act. Besides the Ex.P1 1s also hit by Section.27 of the Evidence

Act as there is no consequential discovery after the Ex.Pl. Hence the

Ex.P.1 Police proceeding is hit by Section.25 and 27 of Evidence Act and does not have any validity n tne eye of law. In the absence of independent witness to seizure the same cannot be taken into consideration as it is hit by Secion.l00 of CrPa

It is pertinent mention that there is no rough sketch, absence of 16.

the rough sketch brings doubts th¡ whether the alleged incident has

occurred or not. Thereiore, this ot undoubtedly concluded that the

6 Dt. 15.

CC. No. 1453/2021

evidence on record is short Comi8 to connect the Accused for the charged offences.

17. Hence for the reasons 1). Complainant and the investigator is one

2) No independent witnesses during the police and the same,

proceedings, 3) Rough sketch is not prepared, 4) No independent witness

were examined, the prosecution failcd tO prove the guilt of the Accused

for the- offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8e) of A.P.Prohibition

Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

19. For the above reasons, this Hon'ble Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under section 7A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Accused is entitled for acquittal.

20. In the result, the accused are found not guilty for the offences

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

accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of the Accuse ehall stands canceled after expiry of six months. Tne un-marked non-valuable property if any shall be

destroyed after expiry of appeal tihe.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of December. 2023.

Addl. J,F.C. MAGISTRATE, PILER.

AC .J.E.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

AC. No. 1453/2021 Dt. 15. 12. 2023 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFECNE: NONE.

PW-1: B.Yogesh PW-2: B.Raviprakash Reddy, SI

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.l is the Police proceeding

Ex.P.2 is the FIR Ex.P.3 is the Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P.4 is the confiscation proceedings of seized contraband Ex.P5 is Mahazarnama dated 14.09.2020.

MATERIL OBJECTS

M.0.1-180 MI of sample of ID Arrak

Addl. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, PILER,

FAC J.F.C. MAGISTRATE, VAYALPAD

OS No.13/2023 1 15.12.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD.

PRESENT: N.GAYATHRI

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIJ, JUDGE,VAYALPAD.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 13 OF 2023 BETWEEN: Gudreddigari Sreerami Reddy, son of Gudreddy, aged about 72 years, Hindu, Cultivation and residing at Jetlipalenn strect, Valmikipuram Town and Mandal, Annamayya (Chittoor) District.

...PLAINTIFF

AND Pothani Ramanjulu son of Chinna Venkatappa, Aged about 47 years, Hindu, Business and cultivation and residing at Nagamvaripalli village, H/o Valmikipuram, Jarravarip:lli post, Valmikipuram Mandal, Annamayya (Chittoor) District.

...DEFENDANT

-o0000 This suit came up before me on 08.12.2023 or final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Venkata Reddy, Aclvocate for Plaintif, and the defendant is set ex parte as having been rer1ained absent when called, ar:d upon hearing the learned counsel for he plaintilf and upon perusing the material on record, and this matter having stooc over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the fol owing:

L|JUDG M¸N T/L

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,32,234/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory not.: datcd 15.01.2020 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff lor Rs.77,000/ - agreeing to repay the said anount with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2. The averments, in brief, of the plaint are that on 15.01.2020 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.77,000/- from the plaintiff for his family and legal necessities and agreed to repay the said amount together with interest @ 24% per annum eithe.: to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. In proof thereof, the defendant had executed the suit promissory

note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. The plaintiff also got issued

legal notice to the defendant on 04,08.2022 calling upon him to discharge

the debt. ln spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant

failed to discharge the debt. Hence, the suit.

3. The suit summons on the defendant through post returned un served as seven days absent. The same is sullicient service and, on 24.02.2023 which the day is fixed for his ajppearance, the defendant was called and as he remained absent and as there was no representation for him, the defendant was set ex parte, The maller was posted for plaintiff's side evidence.

Jer, YPD

OS No.13/2023 2 15.12.2023

In support of his case, the plaintill got liimself examined as PW1l and

4 got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Heard the learned counsel for plaintif" and perused the material on 5 record.

6. Now the point for considcration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. POINT; 7 The plaintiff as PW1 in his chicf examination affidavit reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. Ex.A1 is suit promissory note

dt. 15.01.2020 for Rs.77,000/-executed by the defendant in favour of the

plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 04.08.2022 issued by

the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment dated

05.08.2022. In view of the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff as PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, it can be safcly held that the plaintiff has successfully proved his claim. So, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In the result, the suit is decre:d with costs directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,32,234/- together with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree on a principal sum of Rs.77,000/- and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of realization. Typed by typist to my dictation, corrccted, signed and pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 15 day of December, 2023.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined) For Plaintiff For Defendant PW1: G.Sreerami Reddy -NIL Exhibits marked For Plaintiff

Ex.Al is suit promissory note dt. 15.01.2020 for Rs.77,000/ -

execúted by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 04.08.2022 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment dated 05.08.2022. For Defendant: -NIL

ADDITIONAL JUNIORCIVIL JUDGE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

JCJ, VYPD

08.12.2023, JCJ,VYPD

OS No.260 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

PRESENT:- NEELAPU GAYATHRI

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE, VAYALPAD.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 ORIGINAL SUIT NO.260 of 2019 BETWEEN: Pappu Aruna Kumari, w/o late Rajasekhar Reddy, Aged about 61 years, Hindu, residing at Cheekichatlapalle, H/o Vepurikota, Mualakalacheruvu

...Plaintiff

Mandal.

And

1.Chinthala Ramadevi, W/o Ramakrishan Reddy, Aged about 72 years, Hindu, Residing at Plot No.312, Codiheighats 1-604, Tirupathi Road,

Piler.

2. Chinthala Bramhaputra Reddy, S/o Ramakrishan Reddy, Aged about 72 years, Hindu, Residing at behind Court Compound, Vayalpadu village and Mandal.

3. Chinthala Rathankar Reddy, S/o late Sithapathi Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Hindu, Residing at Booramanda village, Somala Mandal.

4. Chinthala Raja Reddy, s/o late Sithapathi Reddy, Aged about 67 years, Hindu, Residing at opposite Ramalayam, Tirupathi Road, Vayalpadu village and Mandal.

5. Chinthala Pulla Reddy, S/o late Sithapathi Reddy, Aged about 67 years, Hindu, Residing at eguva Veedi, Thondamanadu, Sreedkalahasthi.

6. Nagireddigari Sai Leela, W/o late N. Venkata Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Hindu, Residing K.S. Agraharam, Chitwel Mandal, Kadapa Distirct.

7. Poli Bharathi, D/o late P.Jayaramaireddy Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, Residing at Jettivaripalle vilaleg, Besthapalle post, Rajaampeta Mandatl, Kadapa Ditrict.

8. Poli Sreedevi, D/o late P.Jayaramaireddy Reddy, Aged about 45 years,

Hindu, Residing at Jettivaripalle vilaleg, Besthapalle post, Rajaampeta

Mandatl, Kadapa Ditrict.

9. Poli Ramesh Reddy @ Sreedgar Reddy, S/o late P.Jayaramaireddy Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Hindu, Residing at Jettivaripalle vilaleg, Besthapalle post, Rajaampeta Mandatl, Kadapa Ditrict.

10. Doddipalle Sudharshan, S/o D.Reddeppa, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Residing at d.No.4-1-4-2, Krishna Nagar, Madanapalle. 11 Mutra Venkatramana Reddy, S/o M.Sidda Reddy, aged about 44 years, Hindu, Residing at D.No.2-282-a-1-2 P &T Colony, Madanapalle.

12. Kalamakunta Pranay Reddy, S/o K.Harinatha Reddy, aged about 25 vears, Hindu, Residing at D.No.3-801, Jangavaripalle, HP Gas Godown, Kurabalakota Mandal.

13. Karna Venkataramana, S/o K.Papaiah, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Residing at D.No.2-95, Booragamanda Vllage, Sodum Mandal.

...Defendant

-o00oo

YCJ, VYPD

OS No.260 of 2019 2 08.12.2023, JCJ,VYPD

This suit came up before me ofi O8.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Dwarakanatha Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, and Sri M.Harinatha Guptha, Advocate for D2, Sri P.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for D3 and D4, Sri SAB, Advocate for D10 to D13 and Defendants 1, 7 to 9 are ex parte and upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and upon perusal of the material on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: LJUD G MEN T/L

1. This is a suit filed for partition to divide the plaint schedule property items into 116 shares between the plaintiff and defendants and out of the same to allot 16 shares to the plaint:f oy taking good and bad soils into consideration within the specific metes and bounds and within the specific measurements by way of preliminary decree and put her in separate possession of her legitimate share, and and for costs.

2 The suit is advanced to today vide IA.No.610 of 2023. Sri ADNR fled a petition reporting that the plaintif is interested to withdraw the suit in accordance with law in view of compromise and dismiss the present suit without costs. Accordingly the suit is dismissed and matter was compromised. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 15th day of December,

2023.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

Appendix of Evidence

-NiL

ADDL, JUNIOR CIVIL JÙ�GE, PILER

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VAYALPAD

JCJ, VYPD