Smt. N.lavanya

Junior Civil Judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kalyandurg (Taluka) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

SMT. N.LAVANYA, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kalyandurg (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3,291 court orders on record since 2020. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

3,291

Total Orders

Judgments

266

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/606/2022 Acquitted

The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Mangala Anjinyya

19 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

Present : Smt. Nakka Lavanya,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayadurg.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.606 of 2022

Between: -

The State Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, D. Hirehal Police Station … Complainant.

And

Mangala Anjinayya, aged 74 years, S/o. Late M. Balappa, M. Hanumapuram Village, D. Hirehal Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming on 12.04.2023 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri R.T. Jaganmohan Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the argument on both side I am delivering the following Judgment:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, D. Hirehal P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.97/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

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

On 14.04.2021 at about 11.00 am on credible information

P.Ws.1 and 4 went to Pennampalli gate, Near Kotta Hadagali Village, D.

Hirehal mandal and found the accused along plastic bag on motorcycle, on seeing police, the accused tried to skulk away from that 19.04.20232C.C.No.606/2022 place. Immediately they caught hold the accused, on enquiry he voluntarily disclosed his name and identity particulars. They verified the plastic bag and found 192 Haywards cheers whisky 90 ml tetra packets. They arrested the accused after informing the grounds.

Hence they took the accused into the custody and seized above said liquor from his possession under cover of special report. Among the liquor pocket, one liquor pocket of each brand was kept in separate for chemical analysis and pasted the identification slip on it. On the strength of special report P.W.2 registered a case in crime No.97/2021 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act of D. Hirehal P.S. and investigated into. P.W.3 received chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act against the Accused and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court copies of documents furnished to the Accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and when he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

about the substance of allegation leveled against him in the charge sheet the accused denied the same and hence a charge under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu under section 240(2) Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11, M.O.1 got marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and further stated that he did not 19.04.20233C.C.No.606/2022 commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case due to statistical purpose. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor marking documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for the accused.

NOW THE POINT THAT AROSE FOR DETERMINATION IS AS

FOLLOWS:

1. Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Section 34(a)of A.P. Excise Act?

POINT No.1:-

8.The arguments of the prosecution is that accused in order to gain unlawful income he used to sell liquor bottles for higher prices to public which is offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, Further argued that as per the recent amendment of A.P. Excise Act and as per the G.O.Ms.No.411 issued by the Excise Department in September, 2019 one person has to carry 3 bottles of any size of Indian made liquor without any licence, but herein in the present case the accused without any license transporting 192 liquor bottles which is more than the prescribed quantity. And argued that as per section 42 of AP

Prohibition Act the court shall presume that accused is committed offence unless contrary is proved Hence prays to convict the accused for the offence charged against him.

9.On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that, the confession recorded by Police is hit by Section 25 and 26 of

Indian Evidence Act. In the present case police recorded confession of 19.04.20234C.C.No.606/2022 accused and seized liquor bottles which is hit by section 25 and 26 of

Indian evidence Act, Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

10.One of the argument of prosecution is as per section 42 of

AP Prohibition Act the court shall presume that accused is committed offence unless contrary is proved. Here accused has to disprove the case of prosecution. To that I am reiterating section 42 of AP Excise

Act.

42. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases. - In prosecutions under Section 34, Sections 37 and 37-A it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of,-

(a) any intoxicant; or

(b) any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy; or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of an intoxicant or from which an intoxicant has been manufactured; for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily.

11.In general Presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal natural jurisprudence which automatically enunciates that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This principal by default applies to general and special statues unless a provision stating otherwise exists in the stature. For instance, Exceptions to have principle are contemplated in general statues like Indian Penal code, by virtue of section 111A, 113A &B, 114A etc of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 similarly, certain provision in special statues like Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, Prevention of corruption Act, and Protection of children from sexual offences Act. Requires the courts to presume the existence of certain circumstances which point towards the guilt of the accused, thereby carving out an exception to the principle. For 19.04.20235C.C.No.606/2022 example a person charged with an offence under NDPS Act would have to rebut the presumption against him and the burden of proof would lie on him to show that he has not committed the act constituting an offence. But whether mere charge under the statue enough for the reverse burden/presumption to apply, to that I am relying on

Nareshm Kumar Vs. State of Himachal pradesh 2017 AIR(SC)

3859

The Honorable Supreme court of India set aside the conviction imposed by the High Court against the accused who was charged under Sections 20 and 61 of the NDPS Act wherein the allegation against the Appellant was that two kilograms of charas was recovered from a bag in his possession. The Apex Court observed- “9. The presumption against the accused of culpability under Section 35 and under Section 54 of the Act to explain possession satisfactorily, are rebuttable. It does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt….

that the right of the accused to a fair trial could not be whittled down under the Act was considered in Noor Aga v.

State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, observing:- “58……An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift.

Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of 19.04.20236C.C.No.606/2022 probability” on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.

59. With a view to bring within its purview the requirements of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband was essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” in M/s Seema Silk and Sarees v. Directorate of

Enforcement SLP (Criminal) No. 6812 of 2007 it was observed- “Reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the Negotiable

Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, TADA, etc.

Presumption is raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. The accused in such an event would be entitled to show that he has not violated the provisions of the Act.”

12.Thus, it is pellucid that unless the foundational facts are not established by the prosecution, a mere charge under a statute would not be enough for the presumption to apply.As per the above rulings of supreme court of India, the prosecution has to establish the foundational facts beyond all reasonable doubts. That the prosecution 19.04.20237C.C.No.606/2022 has to establish that accused is in possession more than 3 liquor bottles. And the prosecution has to establish that they have followed the procedure while seizing of liquor bottles and recording confession of accused which are foundational facts of the case.

13.The prosecution in order to establish the foundational facts got examined Police Constable (LW.1) as P.W.1, Police Constable (LW.2) as P.W.4, SI of Police (L.W.3) as P.W.2 and SI of Police (LW.4) as

P.W.3, who are police officials. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 by in large is on similar lines, their evidence shows that on information about transportation of illegal liquor when they reached near Pennampalli gate, Near Kotta Hadagali Village, D. Hirehal Mandal, there they found the accused on seeing the arrival of Police the accused tried to ran away from that place immediately they detained him. On interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles to the public on higher price without licence or permit and bills thereby he is earning unlawful income. As per the confession of the accused Police arrested the accused and seized M.O.1. Admittedly they admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. When that being so, why they failed to secure independent mediator at scene of offence though the scene of offence is near Pennampalli gate, Near Kotta Hadagali Village, D. Hirehal

Mandal and non-securing independent mediators at the place of search and seizure itself creates a doubt with regard to seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused. As per Sec.100(4) and (5)

Cr.P.C it provides the process for conducting search and seizure.

Sec.59 of A.P.Excise Act also provides whenever an officer conducting search and seizure he has to follow the processor contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure. For better appreciation Sec.100(4) (5)

Cr.P.C reads as follows:

19.04.20238C.C.No.606/2022 “Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless especially summoned by it.

Mandal which is a busy locality, there is every chance to secure independent mediators. But police officials not try to secure mediators. Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 4 not made efforts to secure local respectable inhabitants of the locality in strict compliance of provisions of Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. If for any reason the local inhabitants of the locality did not co-operate the police officials, Police officials are authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators as per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. The object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted. Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable 19.04.20239C.C.No.606/2022 mediators, did not make any efforts to take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators. As already stated above, PW.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of local mediators. In this regard, it is relevant to mention a decision between Gajamker Narayan Vs State of A.P. wherein our

Hon'ble High Court while dealing with Excise case held as follows:

“Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of P. W. 1 nor that of P. W. 3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex. P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr. P. C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing I. D. liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

14. In the present case, as already discussed above, Pws1 to 4 did not make any efforts to secure the independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore the prosecution failed to establish seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused. For the forgoing discussion and by perusing entire case records, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act and hence he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be 19.04.202310C.C.No.606/2022 in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : Y. Ram Mohan -None- PW.2 : U. Vali Bashu PW.3 : B. Rama Krishna Reddy PW.4 : M. Hari Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Special Report -NIL- Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Police Proceedings Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Attested copy of proceedings in C.No.1847/SEB-ATP/2021, dt.27.09.2021 Ex.P6: Attested copy of panchanama dated 26.05.2022 Ex.P7: Attested copy of proceedings in C.No.1164/SEB-ATP/2021,

dated 13.06.2022

Ex.P8: Attested copy of proceedings in R.C.No.APL/SEB/ES/ATP/1,

dated 24.06.2022

Ex.P9: Attested copy of auctioned notice dated 24.06.2022 Ex.P10: Attested copy of challan of Enforcement Bureau of Ananthapuramu Ex.P11: Attested copy of panchanama dated 04.07.2022

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : One sample tetra packet of haywards cheers whisky 90 ml

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

J.M.F.C, Rayadurg. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

Date of OffenceReportAppreheReleased CommencClose of Sentence nsion of on baile-ment of trial Accusedtrial 19.04.202311C.C.No.606/2022 14.04.202114.04.202114.04.2120.04.202106.03.202312.04.2023 19.04.2023

Judgment in C.C.No.606/2022 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Rayadurg.

Complainant :: Sub Inspector of Police, D. Hirehal P.S.

Cr.No:97/2021

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidence NoAccused 1Mangala 74 Late M. Balappa CoolieHinduM. Hanumapuram Village, D. Anjinayya yearHirehal Mandal. s

Offence :- U/sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 Accused found not guilty. Finding :- Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) - A.P. Excise Act and hence he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

Dis No. Dt. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

CC/1028/2022 Acquitted

The SHO. Bommanahal PS vs Vetti Chandra Babu

19 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

Present : Smt. Nakka Lavanya,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayadurg.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.1028 of 2022

Between: -

The State Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommanahal Police Station … Complainant.

And

Vetti Chandra Babu, aged about 23 years, S/o. Vetti Uliganna, Kalludevanahalli Village, Bommanahal Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming on 12.04.2023 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri S. Raghavendra, Advocate for the Accused, perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the argument on both side I am delivering the following Judgment:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommanahal P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.238/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

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

On 08.10.2021 at about 10.00 am on credible information about illegal transporting of Karnataka Liquor, P.W.1 and L.W.2 were went to Govindawada Cross, Bommanahal Village and found the accused came there by foot and try to ran away by leaving one plastic 19.04.20232C.C.No.1028/2022 white bag, on seeing police, immediately they detained the accused and produced before P.W.2. On interrogation of P.W.2 the accused revealed his name and identity particulars. Further stated that he purchased liquor from Karnataka and selling the same to public in his village for higher prices without licence or bills. P.W.2 verified the bags and found 89 Original Choice Deluxe Whisky 90 ml tetra packets.

After informing the ground P.W.2 arrested the accused along with case property and brought him to Police Station. Basing on the strength of special report P.W.2 registered the same as case in Cr.No.238/2021 under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act of Bommanahal P.S. During the course of investigation P.W.3 received chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act against the Accused and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court copies of documents furnished to the Accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and when he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Telugu under section 240(2) Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8, M.O.1 got marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and further stated that he did not 19.04.20233C.C.No.1028/2022 commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case due to statistical purpose. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor marking documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for the accused.

NOW THE POINT THAT AROSE FOR DETERMINATION IS AS

FOLLOWS:

1. Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Section 34(a)of A.P. Excise Act?

POINT No.1:-

8.The arguments of the prosecution is that accused in order to gain unlawful income he used to sell liquor bottles for higher prices to public which is offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, Further argued that as per the recent amendment of A.P. Excise Act and as per the G.O.Ms.No.411 issued by the Excise Department in September, 2019 one person has to carry 3 bottles of any size of Indian made liquor without any licence, but herein in the present case the accused without any license transporting 89 liquor bottles which is more than the prescribed quantity. And argued that as per section 42 of AP

Prohibition Act the court shall presume that accused is committed offence unless contrary is proved Hence prays to convict the accused for the offence charged against him.

9.On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that, the confession recorded by Police is hit by Section 25 and 26 of

Indian Evidence Act. In the present case police recorded confession of 19.04.20234C.C.No.1028/2022 accused and seized liquor bottles which is hit by section 25 and 26 of

Indian evidence Act, Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

10.One of the argument of prosecution is as per section 42 of

Act.

(a) any intoxicant; or

(b) any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy; or

11.In general Presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal natural jurisprudence which automatically enunciates that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This principal by default applies to general and special statues unless a provision stating otherwise exists in the stature. For instance, Exceptions to have principle are contemplated in general statues like Indian Penal code, by virtue of section 111A, 113A &B, 114A etc of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 similarly, certain provision in special statues like Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, Prevention of corruption Act, and Protection of children from sexual offences Act. Requires the courts to presume the existence of certain circumstances which point towards the guilt of the accused, thereby carving out an exception to the principle. For 19.04.20235C.C.No.1028/2022 example a person charged with an offence under NDPS Act would have to rebut the presumption against him and the burden of proof would lie on him to show that he has not committed the act constituting an offence. But whether mere charge under the statue enough for the reverse burden/presumption to apply, to that I am relying on

Nareshm Kumar Vs. State of Himachal pradesh 2017 AIR(SC)

3859

that the right of the accused to a fair trial could not be whittled down under the Act was considered in Noor Aga v.

State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, observing:- “58……An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift.

Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of 19.04.20236C.C.No.1028/2022 probability” on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.

Enforcement SLP (Criminal) No. 6812 of 2007 it was observed- “Reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the Negotiable

Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, TADA, etc.

12.Thus, it is pellucid that unless the foundational facts are not established by the prosecution, a mere charge under a statute would not be enough for the presumption to apply.As per the above rulings of Hon’ble supreme court of India, the prosecution has to establish the foundational facts beyond all reasonable doubts. That 19.04.20237C.C.No.1028/2022 the prosecution has to establish that accused is in possession more than 3 liquor bottles. And the prosecution has to establish that they have followed the procedure while seizing of liquor bottles and recording confession of accused which are foundational facts of the case.

13.The prosecution in order to establish the foundational facts got examined Head Constable (LW.1) as P.W.1, SI of Police (L.W.3) as

P.W.2 and SI of Police (L.W.4) as P.W.3, who are police officials. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 by in large is on similar lines, their evidence shows that on credible information they reached Govindawada Cross,

Bommanahal Mandal and when they went to scene of offence there they found the accused on seeing the arrival of Police the accused tried to ran away from that place immediately they detained him. On interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles to the public on higher price without licence or permit and bills thereby he is earning unlawful income. As per the confession of the accused Police arrested the accused and seized M.O.1. Admittedly they admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. When that being so, why they failed to secure independent mediator at scene of offence though the scene of offence is Govindawada Cross, Bommanahal Mandal and non-securing independent mediators at the place of search and seizure itself creates a doubt with regard to seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused. As per Sec.100(4) and (5) Cr.P.C it provides the process for conducting search and seizure. Sec.59 of A.P.Excise Act also provides whenever an officer conducting search and seizure he has to follow the processor contemplated under the Code of Criminal

Procedure. For better appreciation Sec.100(4) (5) Cr.P.C reads as follows:

19.04.20238C.C.No.1028/2022 “Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

13.In view of the above statutory provisions, it is clear that whenever any search and seizure is conducted by any officer, he has to take effective steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality. Here police officials found the accused at Govindawada Cross, Bommanahal Mandal, which is a busy locality, there is every chance to secure independent mediators. But police officials not try to secure mediators. Therefore, either P.Ws.1 to 3 not made efforts to secure local respectable inhabitants of the locality in strict compliance of provisions of Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. If for any reason the local inhabitants of the locality did not co-operate the police officials, Police officials are authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators as per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. The object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted. Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any efforts to 19.04.20239C.C.No.1028/2022 take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators. As already stated above, PW.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of local mediators. In this regard, it is relevant to mention a decision between Gajamker

Narayan Vs State of A.P. wherein our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with Excise case held as follows:

14. In the present case, as already discussed above, Pws1 to 3 did not make any efforts to secure the independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore the prosecution failed to establish seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused. For the forgoing discussion and by perusing entire case records, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act and hence he is acquitted of 19.04.202310C.C.No.1028/2022 the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : K. Sreenivasulu -None- PW.2 : K. Ramana Reddy PW.3 : G. Siva

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Special Report -NIL- Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Police Proceedings Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Attested copy of proceedings in C.No.546/SEB-ATP/2022, dt.27.05.2022 Ex.P6: Attested copy of Panchanama dated 09.06.2022 Ex.P7: Attested copy of proceedings in C.No.571/SEB-ATP/2022,

dated 20.01.2023

Ex.P8: Attested copy of panchanama dated 02.02.2023

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : One sample tetra packet of Original Choice Deluxe Whisky 90 ml

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

J.M.F.C, Rayadurg. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

19.04.202311C.C.No.1028/2022

Date of OffenceReportAppreheReleased CommencClose of Sentence nsion of on baile-ment of trial Accusedtrial 08.10.202108.10.202108.10.2121.10.202102.03.202312.04.2023 19.04.2023

Judgment in C.C.No.1028/2022 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Rayadurg.

Complainant :: Sub Inspector of Police, Bommanahal P.S.

Cr.No:238/2021

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidence NoAccused 1Vetti Chandra 23 Vetti Uliganna CoolieHinduKalludevanahalli Village, Babu yearsBommanahal Mandal

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

Dis No. Dt. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

CC/846/2022 Acquitted

The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Mondi Suresh

19 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

Present : Smt. Nakka Lavanya,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayadurg.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.846 of 2022

Between: -

The State Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommanahal Police Station … Complainant.

And

Mondi Suresh, aged 24 years, S/o. Mondi Venkatesulu, Jammanu Street, Darga Honnur Village, Bommanahal Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming on 12.04.2023 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri G. Venkata Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the argument on both side I am delivering the following Judgment:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bommanahal P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.239/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

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

On 08.10.2021 at about 10.00 am on credible information about illegal transporting of Karnataka Liquor, P.W.1 and L.W.2 were went to Bollanaguddam Village Check Post, Bommanahal Village and found the accused came there by foot and try to ran away by leaving 19.04.20232C.C.No.846/2022 one plastic white bag, on seeing police, immediately they detained the accused and produced before P.W.2. On interrogation of P.W.2 the accused revealed his name and identity particulars. Further stated that he purchased liquor from Karnataka and selling the same to public in his village for higher prices without licence or bills. P.W.2 verified the bags and found 95 Bangalore Whisky 90 ml tetra packets. After informing the ground P.W.2 arrested the accused along with case property and brought him to Police Station. Basing on the strength of special report P.W.2 registered the same as case in Cr.No.239/2021 under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act of Bommanahal P.S. During the course of investigation P.W.3 received chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act against the Accused and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court copies of documents furnished to the Accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and when he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Telugu under section 240(2) Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6, M.O.1 got marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and further stated that he did not 19.04.20233C.C.No.846/2022 commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case due to statistical purpose. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor marking documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for the accused.

NOW THE POINT THAT AROSE FOR DETERMINATION IS AS

FOLLOWS:

1. Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Section 34(a)of A.P. Excise Act?

POINT No.1:-

8.The arguments of the prosecution is that accused in order to gain unlawful income he used to sell liquor bottles for higher prices to public which is offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, Further argued that as per the recent amendment of A.P. Excise Act and as per the G.O.Ms.No.411 issued by the Excise Department in September, 2019 one person has to carry 3 bottles of any size of Indian made liquor without any licence, but herein in the present case the accused without any license transporting 95 liquor bottles which is more than the prescribed quantity. And argued that as per section 42 of AP

Prohibition Act the court shall presume that accused is committed offence unless contrary is proved Hence prays to convict the accused for the offence charged against him.

9.On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that, the confession recorded by Police is hit by Section 25 and 26 of

Indian Evidence Act. In the present case police recorded confession of 19.04.20234C.C.No.846/2022 accused and seized liquor bottles which is hit by section 25 and 26 of

Indian evidence Act, Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

10.One of the argument of prosecution is as per section 42 of

Act.

(a) any intoxicant; or

(b) any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy; or

11.In general Presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal natural jurisprudence which automatically enunciates that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This principal by default applies to general and special statues unless a provision stating otherwise exists in the stature. For instance, Exceptions to have principle are contemplated in general statues like Indian Penal code, by virtue of section 111A, 113A &B, 114A etc of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 similarly, certain provision in special statues like Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, Prevention of corruption Act, and Protection of children from sexual offences Act. Requires the courts to presume the existence of certain circumstances which point towards the guilt of the accused, thereby carving out an exception to the principle. For 19.04.20235C.C.No.846/2022 example a person charged with an offence under NDPS Act would have to rebut the presumption against him and the burden of proof would lie on him to show that he has not committed the act constituting an offence. But whether mere charge under the statue enough for the reverse burden/presumption to apply, to that I am relying on

Nareshm Kumar Vs. State of Himachal pradesh 2017 AIR(SC)

3859

that the right of the accused to a fair trial could not be whittled down under the Act was considered in Noor Aga v.

State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, observing:- “58……An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift.

Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of 19.04.20236C.C.No.846/2022 probability” on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.

Enforcement SLP (Criminal) No. 6812 of 2007 it was observed- “Reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the Negotiable

Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, TADA, etc.

12.Thus, it is pellucid that unless the foundational facts are not established by the prosecution, a mere charge under a statute would not be enough for the presumption to apply.As per the above rulings of Hon’ble supreme court of India, the prosecution has to establish the foundational facts beyond all reasonable doubts. That 19.04.20237C.C.No.846/2022 the prosecution has to establish that accused is in possession more than 3 liquor bottles. And the prosecution has to establish that they have followed the procedure while seizing of liquor bottles and recording confession of accused which are foundational facts of the case.

13.The prosecution in order to establish the foundational facts got examined Head Constable (LW.1) as P.W.1, SI of Police (L.W.3) as

Village Check Post, Bommanahal Mandal and when they went to scene of offence there they found the accused on seeing the arrival of Police the accused tried to ran away from that place immediately they detained him. On interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles to the public on higher price without licence or permit and bills thereby he is earning unlawful income. As per the confession of the accused Police arrested the accused and seized M.O.1. Admittedly they admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. When that being so, why they failed to secure independent mediator at scene of offence though the scene of offence is Bollanaguddam Village Check Post, Bommanahal

Cr.P.C it provides the process for conducting search and seizure.

Cr.P.C reads as follows:

19.04.20238C.C.No.846/2022 “Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. If for any reason the local inhabitants of the locality did not co-operate the police officials, Police officials are authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators as per

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. The object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted.

Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not 19.04.20239C.C.No.846/2022 make any efforts to take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators. As already stated above, PW.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of local mediators. In this regard, it is relevant to mention a decision between

Gajamker Narayan Vs State of A.P. wherein our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with Excise case held as follows:

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act and hence he is acquitted of 19.04.202310C.C.No.846/2022 the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : S. Hanumantha Naik -None- PW.2 : K. Ramana Reddy PW.3 : G. Siva

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : One sample tetra packet of Haywards cheers Whisky 90 ml

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

J.M.F.C, Rayadurg.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

19.04.202311C.C.No.846/2022

Date of OffenceReportAppreheReleased CommencClose of Sentence nsion of on baile-ment of trial Accusedtrial 08.10.202108.10.202108.10.2123.10.202121.02.202312.04.2023 19.04.2023

Judgment in C.C.No.846/2022 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Rayadurg.

Complainant :: Sub Inspector of Police, Bommanahal P.S.

Cr.No:239/2021

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidence NoAccused 1Mondi Suresh 24 Mondi CoolieHinduJammanu Street, Darga Honnur yearsVenkatesulu Village, Bommanahal Mandal

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

Dis No. Dt. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

CC/120/2021 Acquitted

Station House Officer, Kanekal P.S vs Vadde Manju

19 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

Present : Smt. Nakka Lavanya,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayadurg.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.120 of 2021

Between: -

The State Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanekal Police Station … Complainant.

And

Vadde Manju, aged 25 years, S/o. V. Venkateshulu, B.C. Colony, Yarragunta Village, Kanekal Mandal …Accused

This case is coming on 13.04.2023 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri G. Venkata Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the argument on both side I am delivering the following Judgment:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanekal P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.200/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

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

On 09.09.2020 at 7.00 pm P.W.2 along with P.Ws.1 and 3 conducted raid at the house of the accused in Yarragunta Village,

Kanekal Mandal and found in illegal possession of 32 Haywards Cheers whisky 90 ml liquor pockets belongs to Karnatkaa state and selling the 19.04.20232C.C.No.120/2021 same to the public in higher rates without having any valid license to carry/possess/sell the said liquor pockets from concerned authorities.

Hence P.W.2 took the accused into the custody and seized above said liquor from his possession under cover of Ex.P.1 police proceedings.

Among the liquor bottles, one liquor bottle each brand were kept in separate for chemical analysis and pasted the identification slip on it.

On the strength of Ex.P.1 police proceedings P.W.2 registered a case in crime No.200/2020 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act of Kanekal

P.S. and investigated into. P.W.2 received chemical analysis report.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act against the Accused and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court copies of documents furnished to the Accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and when he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Telugu under section 240(2) Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5, M.O.1 got marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and further stated that he did not commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case due to 19.04.20233C.C.No.120/2021 statistical purpose. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor marking documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for the accused.

NOW THE POINT THAT AROSE FOR DETERMINATION IS AS

FOLLOWS:

1. Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under Section 34(a)of A.P. Excise Act?

POINT No.1:-

8.The arguments of the prosecution is that accused in order to gain unlawful income he used to sell liquor bottles for higher prices to public which is offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, Further argued that as per the recent amendment of A.P. Excise Act and as per the G.O.Ms.No.411 issued by the Excise Department in September, 2019 one person has to carry 3 bottles of any size of Indian made liquor without any licence, but herein in the present case the accused without any license transporting 32 liquor bottles which is more than the prescribed quantity. And argued that as per section 42 of AP

Prohibition Act the court shall presume that accused is committed offence unless contrary is proved Hence prays to convict the accused for the offence charged against him.

9.On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that, the confession recorded by Police is hit by Section 25 and 26 of

Indian Evidence Act. In the present case police recorded confession of accused and seized liquor bottles which is hit by section 25 and 26 of

Indian evidence Act, Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

19.04.20234C.C.No.120/2021 10.One of the argument of prosecution is as per section 42 of

Act.

(a) any intoxicant; or

(b) any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy; or

11.In general Presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal natural jurisprudence which automatically enunciates that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This principal by default applies to general and special statues unless a provision stating otherwise exists in the stature. For instance, Exceptions to have principle are contemplated in general statues like Indian Penal code, by virtue of section 111A, 113A &B, 114A etc of the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 similarly, certain provision in special statues like Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, Prevention of corruption Act, and Protection of children from sexual offences Act. Requires the courts to presume the existence of certain circumstances which point towards the guilt of the accused, thereby carving out an exception to the principle. For example a person charged with an offence under NDPS Act would have to rebut the presumption against him and the burden of proof would lie 19.04.20235C.C.No.120/2021 on him to show that he has not committed the act constituting an offence. But whether mere charge under the statue enough for the reverse burden/presumption to apply, to that I am relying on

Nareshm Kumar Vs. State of Himachal pradesh 2017 AIR(SC)

3859

that the right of the accused to a fair trial could not be whittled down under the Act was considered in Noor Aga v.

State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, observing:- “58……An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift.

Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of probability” on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 19.04.20236C.C.No.120/2021 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.

Enforcement SLP (Criminal) No. 6812 of 2007 it was observed- “Reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the Negotiable

Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, TADA, etc.

12.Thus, it is pellucid that unless the foundational facts are not established by the prosecution, a mere charge under a statute would not be enough for the presumption to apply.As per the above rulings of Hon’ble supreme court of India, the prosecution has to establish the foundational facts beyond all reasonable doubts. That the prosecution has to establish that accused is in possession more than 3 liquor bottles. And the prosecution has to establish that they 19.04.20237C.C.No.120/2021 have followed the procedure while seizing of liquor bottles and recording confession of accused which are foundational facts of the case.

13.The prosecution in order to establish the foundational facts got examined Police Constable (LW.1) as P.W.3, Police Constable (L.W.2) as P.W.1 and SI of Police (L.W.3) as P.W.2, who are police officials. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 by in large is on similar lines, their evidence shows that when they conducting raid at the house of accused in Yarragunta Village, Kanekal Mandal, there they found the accused on seeing the arrival of Police the accused tried to ran away from that place immediately they detained him. On interrogation the accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed that he used to sell the liquor bottles to the public on higher price without licence or permit and bills thereby he is earning unlawful income. As per the confession of the accused Police arrested the accused and seized

M.O.1. Admittedly they admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality. When that being so, why they failed to secure independent mediator at scene of offence though the scene of offence is at the house of accused in Yarragunta Village, Kanekal Mandal and non- securing independent mediators at the place of search and seizure itself creates a doubt with regard to seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of accused. As per Sec.100(4) and (5) Cr.P.C it provides the process for conducting search and seizure. Sec.59 of A.P.Excise Act also provides whenever an officer conducting search and seizure he has to follow the processor contemplated under the Code of Criminal

Procedure. For better appreciation Sec.100(4) (5) Cr.P.C reads as follows:

“Section 100.Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- 19.04.20238C.C.No.120/2021 (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

P.Ws.1 to 3 not made efforts to secure local respectable inhabitants of the locality in strict compliance of provisions of Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. If for any reason the local inhabitants of the locality did not co-operate the police officials, Police officials are authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators as per Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. The object of Sec.100 Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public that a genuine search has been made and the incriminating material is found and not planted. Therefore, the presence of independent respectable mediators at the time of search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of that locality is more suggestible. But where, in a case, the police officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any efforts to take such mediators, certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution 19.04.20239C.C.No.120/2021 version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators. As already stated above, PW.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of local mediators. In this regard, it is relevant to mention a decision between Gajamker

Narayan Vs State of A.P. wherein our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with Excise case held as follows:

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in 19.04.202310C.C.No.120/2021 force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : C. Ramanjineyulu -None- PW.2 : K. Suresh PW.3 : N. Thippeswamy

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Confession, arrest cum seizure police procedings -NIL- Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis report Ex.P4: Attested copy of proceedings of in C.No.567/SEB-ATP/2022,

dated 06.06.2022

Ex.P5: Attested copy of panchanama, dated 20.06.2022

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : One sample tetra packet of Haywards cheers whisky of 90 ml

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

J.M.F.C, Rayadurg.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

19.04.202311C.C.No.120/2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

Date of OffenceReportAppreheReleased CommencClose of Sentence nsion of on baile-ment of trial Accusedtrial 09.09.202 09.09.202009.09.2016.09.202022.02.202313.04.2023 19.04.0223 0

Judgment in C.C.No.120/2021 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Rayadurg.

Complainant :: Sub Inspector of Police, Kanekal P.S.

Cr.No:200/2020

Sl. Name of the AgeFather’s CallingReligionResidence NoAccusedName 1Vadde Manju25 V. CoolieHinduB.C. Colony, Yarragunta Village, yearVenkateshuluKanekal Mandal s

Offence :- U/sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 Accused found not guilty. Finding :- Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) - A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

Dis No. Dt. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

CC/641/2022 Acquitted

The SHO, Kanekal SEB PS vs Akula Rahiman

19 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : RAYADURG

Present : Smt. Nakka Lavanya,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayadurg.

Wednesday, the 19th day of April, 2023

C.C.No.641 of 2022

Between:

The State Represented through Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Kanekal. … Complainant.

And

Akula Rahiman, aged 25 years, S/o. A. Mahammod, R/o. D. Honnur Village, Bommanahal Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 13.04.2023 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri S. Raghavendra, Advocate for the Accused, perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the argument on both side I am delivering the following Judgment:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Kanekal filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.72/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

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

On 05.09.2020 during the raids conducted by the P.W.5 along with his staff and mediators while conducting Proh. & Excise raids they reached and vehicle checking at Govindawada Cross in Govindawada

Village of Bommanahal Mandal at about 10.30 am and found accused was coming towards from Kanekal on motorcycle in possession of one gunny bag, on seeing the Excise Officials he tried to escape. On suspicion P.W.5 with the help of staff surrounded and detained him. P.W.5 verified the bag 19.04.2023 2 C.C.No.641/2022 and found 96 Dipts of Haywards Cheers Whisky 180 ml tetra packets. On enquiry of P.W.5 accused revealed his name and identity particulars. Then the P.W.5 arrested the accused after informing the grounds of arrest and took one bottle sample for chemical analysis purpose duly sealed, labeled and affixed identification slips and also to the said bag with remaining liquor bottles and seized the sample, property under cover of Panchanama.

P.W.5 registered the case as in Cr.No.72/2020 under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act of Kanekal SEB P.S. During the course of investigation P.W.5 received chemical analysis report. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the Accused and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court copies of documents furnished to the Accused as contemplated under Section 207

Cr.P.C. and when he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. about the substance of allegation leveled against him in the charge sheet the accused denied the same and hence a charge under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu under section 240(2)

Cr.P.C. for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.P.1 to P.7, M.O.1 got marked.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and further stated that he did not commit any offence and he was implicated in a false case due to statistical 19.04.2023 3 C.C.No.641/2022 purpose. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witness nor marking documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for the accused.

NOW THE POINT THAT AROSE FOR DETERMINATION IS AS

FOLLOWS:

1. Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act?

POINT No.1:

G.O.Ms.No.411 issued by the Excise Department in September, 2019 one person has to carry 3 bottles of any size of Indian made liquor without any licence, but herein in the present case the accused without any license transporting 7 liquor bottles which is more than the prescribed quantity.

And argued that as per section 42 of AP Prohibition Act the court shall presume that accused is committed offence unless contrary is proved

Hence prays to convict the accused for the offence charged against him.

9.On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that, the confession recorded by Police is hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian

Evidence Act. In the present case police recorded confession of accused and seized liquor bottles which is hit by section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act, Hence prayed to acquit the accused.

19.04.2023 4 C.C.No.641/2022

10.One of the argument of prosecution is as per section 42 of AP

Prohibition Act the court shall presume that accused is committed offence unless contrary is proved. Here accused has to disprove the case of prosecution. To that I am reiterating section 42 of AP Excise Act.

42. Presumption as to commission of offence in certain cases. In prosecutions under Section 34, Sections 37 and 37A it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of,

(a) any intoxicant; or

(b) any still, utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy; or

This principal by default applies to general and special statues unless a provision stating otherwise exists in the stature. For instance, Exceptions to have principle are contemplated in general statues like Indian Penal code, by virtue of section 111A, 113A &B, 114A etc of the Indian Evidence

Act. 1872 similarly, certain provision in special statues like Narcotic

Drugs and psychotropic substances Act, Prevention of corruption Act, and

Protection of children from sexual offences Act. Requires the courts to presume the existence of certain circumstances which point towards the guilt of the accused, thereby carving out an exception to the principle.

For example a person charged with an offence under NDPS Act would have to rebut the presumption against him and the burden of proof would lie on him to show that he has not committed the act constituting an offence.

But whether mere charge under the statue enough for the reverse burden/presumption to apply, to that I am relying on Nareshm Kumar

Vs. State of Himachal pradesh 2017 AIR(SC) 3859 19.04.2023 5 C.C.No.641/2022

Court observed “9. The presumption against the accused of culpability under Section 35 and under Section 54 of the Act to explain possession satisfactorily, are rebuttable. It does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt….

that the right of the accused to a fair trial could not be whittled down under the Act was considered in Noor Aga v. State of

Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, observing: “58……An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift. Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of probability” on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of

Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.

59. With a view to bring within its purview the requirements of

Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband 19.04.2023 6 C.C.No.641/2022 was essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” in M/s Seema Silk and Sarees v. Directorate of

Enforcement SLP (Criminal) No. 6812 of 2007 it was observed “Reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the Negotiable Instruments

Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, TADA, etc. Presumption is raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. The accused in such an event would be entitled to show that he has not violated the provisions of the Act.”

Hon’ble supreme court of India, the prosecution has to establish the

foundational facts beyond all reasonable doubts. That the prosecution has to establish that accused is in possession more than 3 liquor bottles. And the prosecution has to establish that they have followed the procedure while seizing of liquor bottles and recording confession of accused which are foundational facts of the case.

13.Now coming to the facts of the case, prosecution examined six witnesses in which Pw1 and Pw4 are mediators, Pw2 is constable, P.W.3

Enforcement Inspector, P.W.5 Enforcement Inspector and P.W.6 is

Constable. The evidence of Police Officials i.e., P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 6 by and 19.04.2023 7 C.C.No.641/2022 large is on similar lines their evidence shows that on credible information about transportation of liquor they went to scene of offence and conducting raids and reached near Govindawada Cross, Govindawada

Village, Bommanahal Mandal, there they noticed accused holding one polythene bag on seeing the same accused tried to escape from that place.

Immediately they detained them and interrogated in the presence of mediators on that the accused voluntarily confessed that they purchased liquor from karnataka state in order to sell them at their village for higher price without licence or bills. P.W.5 arrested the accused along with case property and recorded confession of accused in the presence of mediators.

Generally in seizure proceedings mediator evidence is essential to prove that the police officials followed the procedure while seizing the liquor bottles. But the mediators Pws.1 turned hositle and not supported the version of prosecution, hence the evidence of Pw1 is not useful for prosecuton to prove the siezure proceedings. On seeing the evidence of

Pw4 he deposed on 592020 at about 10:30 am himself, pw1 went to govindawada cross along with excise police, there they noticed one person came on motor cycle by keeping bag, on that police stoped the vehicle and qeustioned about boxes, and ntoiced the three card borad boxes containing 96 liquor bottles. But during cross he deposed that he cannot identy the accused. Moreover in his chief examination he deposed that accused keeping bag, but police seized liquor bottles from three card board boxes. The evidence of pw4 is creating doubt and not inspiring with regard seizing of liquor bottles from the possesion of accused. Hence the evidence of Pw4 cannot be taken into consideration with regard to seizure. As the mediators evidence pw1 and pw4 is not useful for prosecution to prove the case the entire case rests on evidence of police officials.

14.Another argument of the defence counsel is that basing on the confession given by the accused in the custody of the police is hit by 26 of 19.04.2023 8 C.C.No.641/2022

Indian Evidence Act. On seeing mahazarnama which disclosed that the accused given confession in the custody of the Police thereby the confession given by the accused is hit by Section 26 of Indian Evidence

Act. The prosecution argued that as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act basing on the confession of disclosure of material objects cannot be taken into consideration. Here in this case on credible information Police went to scene of offence there they found the accused and on seeing the Police accused tried to went away from that place. On that Police detained the accused. On interrogation accused stated that he purchased liquor from

Karnataka. Here material object was discovered basing on the confession of the accused. But the independent mediators evidence failed to show the seizure proceedings. Hence recovery of material objects basing on the confession not established. Therefore the prosecution failed to establish that basing on the confession of accused material objects i.e., liquor bottles were seized.

15.The evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 6 who are police officials it clear that in general Police officials are interested to see that the accused to be convicted with a view to get fruitful result to the part of their investigation. Police officials evidence cannot corroborated by independent witnesses without corroboration of independent witnesses it is not safe to convict the accused merely basing on the evidence of Police Officials as they are interested parties to the case and want to convict the accused.

For the forgoing reasons and by perusing entire case records, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act and hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

19.04.2023 9 C.C.No.641/2022

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same under

Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/ Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : D. Mallikarjuna None PW.2 : S. David PW.3 : D. Somashekhar PW.4 : K. Rajasekhar PW.5 : A. Gopi Krishna PW.6 : P. Maruthi Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 in Mahazarnama,dt.05.09.2020 NIL Ex.P2: Mahazarnama Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report Ex.P5: Attested copy of proceedings of Dy. Commissioner, Proh. & Excise, Ananthapuramu in RC.No.293/SEBKNKL/2020,

dated 15.12.2020

Ex.P6: Attested copy of Panchanama dated 20.06.2022 Ex.P7: Attested copy of auction proceedings in Rc.No.177/2020/B,

dated 15.12.2020

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

NIL

MOS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : Three sample tetra packets of Haywards Cheers whisky 90 ml

Sd/ Smt. N. Lavanya, J.M.F.C, Rayadurg. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

19.04.2023 10 C.C.No.641/2022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg.

Date of OffenceReportApprehenReleasedCommenceClose ofSentence sion ofon bailment oftrial Accusedtrial 05.09.202005.09.202005.9.202009.09.202013.12.2022 13.04.202319.04.2023

Judgment in C.C.No.641/2022 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Rayadurg.

Complainant :: Enforcement Inspector, Kanekal SEB

Cr.No:72/2020

Sl.Name of theAgeFather’s NameCallingReligionResidence NoAccused 1Akula 25 A. MahammodCoolieD. Honnur Village, Bommanahal RahimanyearsMandal.

Offence : U/sec.34(A) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1968 Accused found not guilty. Finding : Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.34(a) A.P.

Excise Act and he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437A

Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/ Smt. N. Lavanya,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYADURG

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

Dis No. Dt. // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rayadurg.

Order Record 3,228 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/120/2021	Station House Officer, Kanekal P.S vs Vadde Manju	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/606/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Mangala Anjinyya	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/641/2022	The SHO, Kanekal SEB PS vs Akula Rahiman	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/846/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Mondi Suresh	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/1028/2022	The SHO. Bommanahal PS vs Vetti Chandra Babu	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	Acquitted
CC/1032/2022	The SHO, Kanekal SEB PS vs Boya Hanumantharayudu	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1297/2022	The SHo, Rayadurg SEB PS vs Kuruba Manjunatha	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1298/2022	The SHO, Rayadurg SEB PS vs Koti Virupakshi	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1520/2022	The SHO, Kanekal SEB PS vs Gajula Yerriswamy	19 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/71/2023	L.Yerriswamy vs K.Annapurna @ A.Ayesha	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/599/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Bondaripalli Lingareddy	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/600/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Valmiki Seenappa	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/630/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Rallaseema Marenna	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/749/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Harijana Thippaiah	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/890/2022	The SHO, Kanekal SEB PS vs Jambaiah Gari Venkatesh	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1065/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Pegu Ennappa	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1385/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Jyothi Prakash	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1420/2022	The SHO, Rayadurg SEB PS vs Pujari Rammurthy	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1513/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Basappagari Parasanna	18 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/458/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Mangali Naresh	17 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/494/2022	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Pinjari Babu Saab	17 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/501/2020	The Sho Bommanahal Ps vs M. Rajasekhar	17 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/545/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Vadde Gajendra	17 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/948/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Boya Vannuruswamy	17 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1042/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Sugali Gopi Naik	17 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1138/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs V.Bojaraja	17 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/183/2022	A.Musthafa vs K.Ramakrishna Reddy	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/271/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Madiri Mukkanna	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/342/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Kareppagari Devendar @ Buglappagari Devendra	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/343/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs K.C.Thippeswamy @ Boya Thippeswamy	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/391/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Kavali Lingappa	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/457/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Badige Sreenivasulu	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/490/2022	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Jayaramulu	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/491/2022	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Kalti Ramanjineyulu	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/701/2022	The SHO, Kanekal SEB PS vs Mahammed Rafi	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1045/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs K.Yerriswamy	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1281/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Harijana Suresh	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1336/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Boya Seenu	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1343/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Kalekurthi Obulesh	13 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/24/2021	Golla Pennaiahgari Anjinamma vs Kuruba Guthanna	12 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/536/2022	The SHO, Rayadurg SEB PS vs Nayakula Obulesh	11 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/1073/2022	The SHO, Kanekal SEB PS vs Kuruba Kullayappa	11 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/1234/2022	The SHO, Kanekal SEB PS vs Kuruba Kullayappa	11 Apr 2023	Copy of Order	—
MC/19/2019	K. Krishnaveni vs Kuruba Yeriswamy	11 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/167/2019	K. Palani Swamy vs D. Mallaiah	10 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1395/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Kummathi Chenna Reddy	10 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/210/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Pujaril Narasimha	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/337/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Dudekula Basha	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/493/2022	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs C.M.Thippeswamy	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/589/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs S.Gangadhara	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/728/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Boya Gangadhara	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/840/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Muddula Jambhunatha @ Jambunna	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/843/2020	Station House Officer, Bommanahal PS vs H Gangappa	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/873/2020	Station House Officer, D.Hirehal PS vs Harijana Hanumanthu	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/921/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Kalavayi Ashok	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/939/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Boya Rajasekhar	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/991/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Boya Vannurswamy	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1790/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Rajal Anand	03 Apr 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/9/2015	P.Nabi Khan vs Bandi Kirhnamurthy	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/43/2019	P.Sreenivasulu vs T.Gangadhara	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/44/2019	P.Sreenivasulu vs T.Vannuruswamy	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/107/2016	B.Tayabu Sab vs M.Sathyanarayana	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/261/2022	M.Channambika vs R.M.Siddharudha Swamy	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/281/2022	Boya Chandranna vs Chakali Seenappa	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/127/2021	Station House Officer, Kanekal PS vs Boya Chikkanna	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/422/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs V.Chowdanna	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1346/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal vs Harijana Thippeswamy	31 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/7/2014	G. Jayamma vs G.Thippeswamy	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/72/2017	Kamurthi Sreenivasulu vs Nagalli Suryanarayana	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/152/2022	M.Sailaja vs M.Kistamma	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/182/2022	Madiga Rangamma vs Shivamma	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/242/2022	E.V.Dasappa vs T.H.Somanath	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/268/2022	T.Balachandra Reddy vs T.Eswar Reddy	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/158/2019	Ps Gummagatta vs Giddappagari Manjunath	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
CC/185/2018	K.Ganesh vs K.Thippeswamy	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/232/2018	B.Raghavendra vs K.Thippeswamy	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/233/2018	B.Raghavendra vs K.Thippeswamy	29 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/11/2015	K.A.Adilakshmi vs Kapu Lingamma	28 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/15/2017	The SHO D.Hirehal PS vs T.Ravi	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/523/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Kanimappa Vannurswamy	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/601/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Harijana Hanumantharayudu	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/730/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Boya Gangadhara	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/878/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Sivamurthy	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1270/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs G.Channayya	27 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/76/2016	Channakesavulu vs Jangam Rajasekhar	24 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/69/2021	K.Hanumantha Reddy vs Vadde Varalaskhmamma	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/98/2020	Andhra Bank, Kanekal vs K. Mahipal Reddy	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/116/2016	Dudekula Imam Bee vs Pinjari Rasool	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/196/2022	Dudekula Chand Peera vs Dudekula Jainaabee	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/231/2022	Shaik Rahamath Bi vs Shaik Shaikshavali	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/247/2022	K.Annapurna vs L.Yerriswamy	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/380/2019	Sub Inspector of police D. Hirehal PS vs Boya Hanumanthappa	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/523/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Kanimappa Vannurswamy	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/601/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Harijana Hanumantharayudu	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/730/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Boya Gangadhara	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/878/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Sivamurthy	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1270/2022	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs G.Channayya	23 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/221/2022	The SHO, Rayadurg SEB PS vs Harijana Thimmappa	21 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/291/2019	The Sho Bommanahal vs Vadde Gurrappa	21 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/374/2022	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Golla Eranna	21 Mar 2023	Copy of Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 3,228 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		58
Mar 2023		96
Feb 2023		169
Jan 2023		108
Dec 2022		106
Nov 2022		234
Oct 2022		72
Sep 2022		97
Aug 2022		104
Jul 2022		91
Jun 2022		223
May 2022		97

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SMT. N.LAVANYA handled?

SMT. N.LAVANYA has handled 3291 court orders since 2020 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kalyandurg (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 266 orders per month.

What types of cases does SMT. N.LAVANYA hear?

Based on available records, SMT. N.LAVANYA primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kalyandurg (Taluka).

Where is SMT. N.LAVANYA currently posted?

SMT. N.LAVANYA is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kalyandurg (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SMT. N.LAVANYA available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by SMT. N.LAVANYA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SMT. N.LAVANYA dispose cases?

SMT. N.LAVANYA disposes approximately 266 cases per month, based on 3291 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kalyandurg (Taluka).

Since when is SMT. N.LAVANYA serving?

SMT. N.LAVANYA has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kalyandurg (Taluka) since 2020.

Case Types

CC 79%

OS 16%

PRC 3%

EP 1%

MC 1%

STC 0%

CRLMP 0%

Posting History

Oct 2020 — Aug 2021

Junior Civil Judge · 619 orders
Jul 2020 — Apr 2023

junior civil judge · 2,672 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Settled Before Lok Adalat 3

Other Judges at this Court

K.bhanu

Junior Civil Judge

1,839 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Kalyandurg (Taluka)