Smt. N. Lavanya

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – Cum - JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT MADUGULA

Present: N.Lavanya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madugula.

Monday, This 17 th day of November, 2025

C.C.No. 117/2022

Between State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Mamidi Prakash, S/o.(L) Suryanarayana, age 58 years, ST-Gadhaba by caste, Cultivation, Kasipuram Village and Thatiparthy Panchayath and V.Madugula Mandal.

… Accused.

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 11.11.2025 in the presence of the Learned APP for the Complainant and Sri G.K.M.Naidu, Advocate

for the accused and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this

court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Police Station, against the accused, for the offence punishable U/section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.

Prohibition Act,1995 and Amendment Act No.18 of 2020, in Cr. No. 628/2020 of his

Police Station.

1. The brief facts of the prosecution case, is that, on 17.12.2020 at about 08.00hrs, on credible information received by LW5/S.Rama Rao, Asst.Sub-

Inspector of Police about selling of ID liquor, then he along with LW1/B.Leela

Prasad, Police Constable and LW2/V.R.Demudu, Police Constable and

LW3/P.Srinivasa Rao, HG rushed to the house of accused of Kasipuram Village,

V.Madugula Mandal, found accused person was possessing and selling ID Arrack.

Thereafter LW5 found 05 litres of ID Arrack. Then LW.5 asked the accused to show licence of the Govt. to store and selling the Arrack but he did not show any licence, on that LW.5 seized 05 litres of ID Arrack from the possession of accused,

LW1 drafted occurrence report. LW5 arrested the accused person along with seized property.

2. Basing on the occurrence report, LW5/S.Ramarao, Asst.Sub-Inspector of

Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 628/2020, U/sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act 18 of 2020. He sent sample to the

Chemical Examiner, for analysis and after due analysis, the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, and received the chemical analysis report.

After completion of investigation he filed this case against the Accused person.

This Court took cognizance against Accused for the offence under Section 3. 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act-2020 against Accused. On appearance of Accused before this Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, he was explained in 4. Telugu, the charge framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under

Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act-2020, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were 5. examined, Exs.P.1 to P.3 and M.O.1 are marked. Ex.P1 is the occurrence report.

Ex.P2 is F.I.R. Ex.P3 is chemical analysis report. MO-1 is sample. The Ld.

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW2/V.R.Demudu– PC,

LW3/P.Srinivasa Rao, HG and LW3/Sri G.Srinivasulu, Govt.Chemical Examiner for

Proh. And Excise Regional Excise and Prohibition Laboratory, Visakhapatnam.

After closure of evidence on prosecution side, the accused was examined 6. under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Heard the arguments of both sides. 7.

Now the point that has arisen for consideration is: “Whether the

8.

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under

Section 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act- 2020 beyond

reasonable doubt ?

POINT: To prove the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and 9. Exs.P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked. P.W.1 is the Police Constable who conducted raid along with P.W2. PW.2 is the investigating officer and who conducted raid detection of the case, seizure of the property and arrest of the accused and filed charge sheet etc facts.

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that two witnesses were examined by the prosecution, both the prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of contraband from the possession of accused.

She argued that the sample is tested and proved to be ID liquor, the accused is proved to be in possession of ID liquor and so the prosecution proved the case against the accused and she prays to convict the accused.

11.Prosecution Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses, the investigation officer did not secure any mediators at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is a busy locality. He argued that the investigation officer failed to follow the procedure under

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. for search and seizure and Ex.P3 is chemical analysi report which was marked through investigating officer, chemical analyst was not examined. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case against accused and he prays to acquit the accused.

12.PW1 is the Police Constable deposed that on 17.12.2020, PW2 received credible information, about illegal possession of I.D.Liquor at about 08.00 hrs., while himself, PW2, LW2 and LW3 rushed to the house of accused at Kasipuram village, V.Madugula Mandal. There they detected one male person who was in possession of I.D.liquor and he tried to escape on seeing them, but they caught hold him and on interrogation he revealed his name, and address particulars. Then,

PW2 verified and found 05 litres of ID liquor. PW2 seized the contraband, draw 250 ml I.D liquor from the contraband as a sample for chemical analysis under the cover of occurrence report, which is drafted by PW2.

13.PW2 who is investigating officer and deposed that on 17.12.2020, he received credible information, about illegal possession of I.D.Liquor at about 08.00 hrs., while himself, PW1, LW2 and LW3 rushed to the house of accused at Kasipuram village, V.Madugula Mandal. There they detected one male person who was in possession of I.D.liquor and he tried to escape on seeing them, but they caught hold him and on interrogation he revealed his name, and address particulars. Then, he verified and found 05 litres of ID liquor.He seized the contraband, draw 250 ml

I.D liquor from the contraband as a sample for chemical analysis under the cover of occurrence report, which is drafted by him.

14.PW2 further deposed that based on the occurrence report, he registered a case in Cr.No.628/2020 for the offence U/Sec 7(B) r/w. 8 (B) of APP Amendment

Act and he sent the sample to the chemical analysis laboratory and received report and examined P.W1, L.W2 and LW3 and recorded their statements.

.

15.During cross examination, PW1 and PW2 stated that they know the contents of Ex.P1 and similar type of sample bottles will be available in public places and they did not secure VRO, Panchayat Secretary as mediators. They denied further suggestions.

16.Now coming to appreciation of evidence on hand, the case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of illicitly distilled liquor which was seized by the investigating officer. The investigating officer filed charge sheet for the offence under Sec.7B r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act-2020.

17. Sec.7B defines the offence of Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing, transporting, setting, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any

alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the

manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in

accordance with the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.

18.The accused herein is charged for the offence of illegal possession of illicitly distilled liquor. P.W.2 deposed that he found the accused in possession of illicitly distilled arrack of 05 litres. He also deposed that the contraband wasseized at the scene of offence from the accused, under cover of an occurrence report Ex.1 and

Ex.P4 which is the chemical analysis report, prima facie shows that the sample of contraband is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious tohealth, thereby the contraband is prohibited under Sec.7B of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act. However as this case was registered based on police proceedings, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the seizure of the contraband from the possession of accused.

19.As per Sec.23 of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 P.W.2 is bound to follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search. It follows that Sec.100 of Cr.P.C has to be followed by P.W.2 at the time of search and seizure of the contraband. As per Sec.100 Cr.P.C any investigating officer is bound to conduct the search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

20.The very own admissions of the prosecution witnesses, leads to the inference that there was ample scope for the investigating officer to secure the revenue officials or the villagers or the public to act as mediators, so it is the duty of

PW2 to prove such efforts made by him. Ex.P1 also does not disclose the efforts made by P.W.2. So this Court finds that the prosecution did not prove the efforts made by the investigation officer to comply the provisions of Section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C.

21. This Court further relies on the decision reported in Gajamker Naryana Vs.

State of A.P., which is also relied on by learned defence counsel, reported in 2005 (3) ALT (CRL.) 1 (A.P) wherein it was held at paragraph No.5 as follows:

Here in the case on hand, the accused was found in possession of I.D liquor at Bypass Road, Rangadampally, near Siddipet. The evidence of P.W.1, the excise Sub-Inspector, discloses that there are residential houses at a distance of 25 yards from the scene of offence. There are hotels also near the scene of offence. As per the evidence of P.W.1, they took the panch witnesses along with them to the scene. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station is about three kilometers as per the evidence of P.W.3, the then excise Inspector, Siddipet. 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 allegedlycommitted, to act as mediators. Ex.P1, panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by excise officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

22.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 police officials while seizing the can containing ID liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.

23. The learned defense counsel contended that PW2 admitted it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 that they carried the accused along with property to their police station and they have not mentioned in Ex.P1 about the arrest particulars of the accused and people will attend at request of police when called and it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 that Ex.P1 is scribed by PW2. Therefore, the contention of learned defense counsel is not tenable. The entire case of the prosecution is based on Ex.P1 and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are police officials. However Ex.P1 contains the confession of accused hit under Sec.25 Evidence Act-1872.

24.It was also argued by learned defence counsel that the report is not proved through expert. Ex.P3 was marked through the investigating officer and infact though the expert is cited as a witness in this case, the prosecution fail to examine them. The Ex.P3 is the crucial document to prove the nature of the contraband and to prove the charges against the accused, but it was argued that the accused lost his opportunity to cross-examine the expert. These aspects pertaining to Ex.P3 affect the credibility of the report.

25. Hence in view of foregoing discussion, this Court finds that though the prosecution got marked the documents, it failed to prove the possession of the contraband by accused, which forms the very basis for the case of the prosecution.

So this Court finds the charges against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act,2020 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C, The property i.e., MO1 sample bottle of I.D liquor is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of November, 2025.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madugula.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW 1B.Leela Prasadh, Police Constable PW 2S.Ramarao, Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex. P1: Occurrence Report Ex. P2: First Information Report Ex. P3: Chemical Analysis Report

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: MO.1 Sample bottle.

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madugula.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

AT MADUGULA

Date of Offence:17.12.2020 Date of Report or Complaint:17.12.2020 Date of appearance of Accused:17.12.2020 Date of accused released on bail:21.12.2020 Date of Commencement of Trial:12.09.2022 Date of Closure of trial:11.11.2025 Date of sentence or order of Court:17.11.2025

Explanation for Delay & Remarks:Prosecution failed to produce witnesses on time.

Calendar Case No.:C.C.No. 117/2022

Name & Address of complainant :State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Police Station.

Name and address of accused : Mamidi Prakash, S/o.(L) Suryanarayana, age 58 years, ST-Gadhaba by caste, Cultivation, Kasipuram Village and Thatiparthy Panchayath and V.Madugula Mandal.

Section of law7B r/w 8B of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act : Finding of Court:Accused not guilty

Sentence or Order of the Court:17.11.2025

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under

Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act,2020 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C, The property i.e., MO1 sample bottle of I.D liquor is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – Cum - JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT MADUGULA

Present: N.Lavanya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) - Cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madugula.

Friday, This 14 th day of November, 2025

C.C.No. 158/2023

Between State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Police Station. … Complainant.

And

Molli Varaha Murthy, S/o.(L) Appa Rao, age 40 years, caste by Yadava, Coolie, R/o.M.Koduru village, V.Madugula Mandal, Anakapalli District.

… Accused.

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 11.11.2025 in the presence of the Learned APP for the Complainant and Sri M.Yella Rao and Sri M.M.Patrudu, Advocates for the accused and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Police Station, against the accused, for the offence punishable U/section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.

Prohibition Act,1995 and Amendment Act No.18 of 2020, in Cr. No. 131/2023 of his

Police Station.

1. The brief facts of the prosecution case, is that, on 14.07.2023 at about 08.00hrs, on credible information received by LW4/S.Prasada Rao, Asst.Sub-

Inspector of Police about selling of ID liquor, then he along with

LW1/V.Venkateswara Rao, Police Constable and LW2/G.Mohan, Police Constable rushed to the house of accused M.Koduru Village, V.Madugula Mandal, found 2 accused person was possessing and selling ID Arrack. Thereafter LW4 found 05 litres of ID Arrack. Then LW.4 asked the accused to show licence of the Govt. to store and selling the Arrack but he did not show any licence, on that LW.4 seized 05 litres of ID Arrack from the possession of accused, LW1 drafted occurrence report. LW4 arrested the accused person along with seized property.

2. Basing on the occurrence report, LW4/S.Prasada Rao, Asst.Sub-Inspector of

Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 131/2023, U/sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 and Amendment Act 18 of 2020. He sent sample to the

Chemical Examiner, for analysis and after due analysis, the Chemical Examiner opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health, and received the chemical analysis report.

After completion of investigation LW5/P.Damodar Naidu, Sub-Inspector of Police filed this case against the Accused person.

This Court took cognizance against Accused for the offence under Section 3. 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act-2020 against Accused. On appearance of Accused before this Court, relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, he was explained in 4. Telugu, the charge framed for the accusation of the offence punishable under

Section 7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act-2020, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were 5. examined, Exs.P.1 to P3 and M.O.1 are marked. Ex.P1 is the occurrence report.

Ex.P2 is F.I.R. Ex.P3 is chemical analysis report. MO-1 is sample. The Ld.

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW1/V.Venkateswara

Rao– PC, LW4/S.Prasada Rao, ASI and LW3/Sri A.Muneeswari, Govt.Chemical 3

Examiner for Proh. And Excise Regional Excise and Prohibition Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam.

After closure of evidence on prosecution side, the accused was examined 6. under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

Heard the arguments of both sides. 7.

8. Now the point that has arisen for consideration is: “Whether the

prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence under

Section 7 (B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.Prohibition Amendment Act- 2020 beyond

reasonable doubt ?

POINT: To prove the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and 9. Exs.P1 to P3 and MO1 were marked. P.W.1 is the Police Constable who conducted raid along with P.W2. PW.2 is the Sub-Inspector of Police and who filed charge sheet etc facts.

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that two witnesses were examined by the prosecution, both the prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of contraband from the possession of accused.

She argued that the sample is tested and proved to be ID liquor, the accused is proved to be in possession of ID liquor and so the prosecution proved the case against the accused and she prays to convict the accused.

11.Prosecution Per contra, the learned defence counsel argued that prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses, the investigation officer did not secure any mediators at the scene of offence though the scene of offence is a busy 4 locality. He argued that the investigation officer failed to follow the procedure under

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. for search and seizure and Ex.P3 is chemical analysi report which was marked through investigating officer, chemical analyst was not examined. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case against accused and he prays to acquit the accused.

12.PW1 is the Police Constable deposed that on 14.07.2023, LW4 received credible information, about illegal possession of I.D.Liquor at about 08.00 hrs., while himself, LW4 and LW1 rushed to the house of accused at M.Koduru village,

V.Madugula Mandal. There they detected one male person who was in possession of I.D.liquor and he tried to escape on seeing them, but they caught hold him and on interrogation he revealed his name, and address particulars. Then, LW4 verified and found 05 litres of ID liquor. LW4 seized the contraband, draw 250 ml I.D liquor from the contraband as a sample for chemical analysis under the cover of occurrence report, which is drafted by him.

13.PW2 who is investigating officer and deposed that on 14.07.2023, LW4 received credible information, about illegal possession of I.D.Liquor at about 08.00 hrs., while PW1, LW4 and LW1 rushed to the house of accused at M.Koduru village, V.Madugula Mandal. There they detected one male person who was in possession of I.D.liquor and he tried to escape on seeing them, but they caught hold him and on interrogation he revealed his name, and address particulars.

Then, LW4 verified and found 05 litres of ID liquor. LW4 seized the contraband, draw 250 ml I.D liquor from the contraband as a sample for chemical analysis under the cover of occurrence report, which is drafted by PW1.

14.PW2 further deposed that based on the occurrence report, LW4 registered a case in Cr.No.131/2023 for the offence U/Sec 7(B) r/w. 8 (B) of APP Amendment

Act and he sent the sample to the chemical analysis laboratory and received report and examined P.W1 and LW1 and recorded their statements.

.

5

15.During cross examination, PW1 and PW2 stated that they know the contents of Ex.P1 and similar type of sample bottles will be available in public places and they did not secure VRO, Panchayat Secretary as mediators. They denied further suggestions.

16.Now coming to appreciation of evidence on hand, the case of the prosecution is that the accused was found in possession of illicitly distilled liquor which was seized by the investigating officer. The investigating officer filed charge sheet for the offence under Sec.7B r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act-2020.

17. Sec.7B defines the offence of Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing, transporting, setting, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any

alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the

manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in

accordance with the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.

18.The accused herein is charged for the offence of illegal possession of illicitly distilled liquor. P.W.2 deposed that he found the accused in possession of illicitly distilled arrack of 05 litres. He also deposed that the contraband wasseized at the scene of offence from the accused, under cover of an occurrence report Ex.P1 and

Ex.P3 which is the chemical analysis report, prima facie shows that the sample of contraband is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious tohealth, thereby the contraband is prohibited under Sec.7B of A.P. Prohibition

Amendment Act. However as this case was registered based on police proceedings, the entire case of the prosecution is based on the seizure of the contraband from the possession of accused.

19.As per Sec.23 of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 P.W.2 is bound to follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to search. It follows that Sec.100 of Cr.P.C has to be followed by P.W.2 at the time of search 6 and seizure of the contraband. As per Sec.100 Cr.P.C any investigating officer is bound to conduct the search in the presence of two respectable inhabitants of the locality.

20.The very own admissions of the prosecution witnesses, leads to the inference that there was ample scope for the investigating officer to secure the revenue officials or the villagers or the public to act as mediators, so it is the duty of

PW2 to prove such efforts made by him. Ex.P1 also does not disclose the efforts made by P.W.1. So this Court finds that the prosecution did not prove the efforts made by the investigation officer to comply the provisions of Section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C.

21. This Court further relies on the decision reported in Gajamker Naryana Vs.

State of A.P., which is also relied on by learned defence counsel, reported in 2005 (3) ALT (CRL.) 1 (A.P) wherein it was held at paragraph No.5 as follows:

Here in the case on hand, the accused was found in possession of I.D liquor at Bypass Road, Rangadampally, near Siddipet. The evidence of P.W.1, the excise Sub-Inspector, discloses that there are residential houses at a distance of 25 yards from the scene of offence. There are hotels also near the scene of offence. As per the evidence of P.W.1, they took the panch witnesses along with them to the scene. The distance between the scene of offence and the police station is about three kilometers as per the evidence of P.W.3, the then excise Inspector, Siddipet. 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 7 allegedlycommitted, to act as mediators. Ex.P1, panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by excise officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

22.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 police officials while seizing the can containing ID liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.

23. The learned defense counsel contended that PW2 admitted it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 that they carried the accused along with property to their police station and they have not mentioned in Ex.P1 about the arrest particulars of the accused and people will attend at request of police when called and it is not mentioned in Ex.P1 that Ex.P1 is scribed by PW1. Therefore, the contention of learned defense counsel is not tenable. The entire case of the prosecution is based on Ex.P1 and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are police officials. However Ex.P1 contains the confession of accused hit under Sec.25 Evidence Act-1872.

24.It was also argued by learned defence counsel that the report is not proved through expert. Ex.P3 was marked through the investigating officer and infact though the expert is cited as a witness in this case, the prosecution fail to examine them. The Ex.P3 is the crucial document to prove the nature of the contraband and to prove the charges against the accused, but it was argued that the accused lost his opportunity to cross-examine the expert. These aspects pertaining to Ex.P3 affect the credibility of the report.

25. Hence in view of foregoing discussion, this Court finds that though the 8 prosecution got marked the documents, it failed to prove the possession of the contraband by accused, which forms the very basis for the case of the prosecution.

So this Court finds the charges against the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act,2020 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C, The property i.e., MO1 sample bottle of I.D liquor is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14 th day of November, 2025.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madugula.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW 1G.Mohan, Police Constable PW 2P.Damodar Naidu, Sub-Inspector of Police

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex. P1: Occurrence Report Ex. P2: First Information Report Ex. P3: Chemical Analysis Report

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: MO.1 Sample bottle.

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madugula.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

9

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

AT MADUGULA

Date of Offence:14.07.2023 Date of Report or Complaint:14.07.2023 Date of appearance of Accused:14.07.2023 Date of accused released on bail:18.07.2023 Date of Commencement of Trial:04.02.2025 Date of Closure of trial:11.11.2025 Date of sentence or order of Court:14.11.2025

Explanation for Delay & Remarks:Prosecution failed to produce witnesses on time.

Calendar Case No.:C.C.No. 158/2023

Name & Address of complainant :State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Police Station.

Name and address of accused : Molli Varaha Murthy, S/o.(L) Appa Rao, age 40 years, caste by Yadava, Coolie, R/o.M.Koduru village, V.Madugula Mandal, Anakapalli District.

Section of law7B r/w 8B of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act : Finding of Court:Accused not guilty

Sentence or Order of the Court:14.11.2025

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under

Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act,2020 and accordingly, he is acquitted for the above offence under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of

Cr.P.C, The property i.e., MO1 sample bottle of I.D liquor is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madugula.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – cum - JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT MADUGULA

Present: N.Lavanya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madugula.

Thursday, This 13 th day of November, 2025

C.C.No. 124/2024

Between State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

V.Madugula Police Station.

… Complainant.

And

Yandapalli Shankar Rao, S/o.Nookaraju, age 33 years, Kapu by caste,

Mason, r/o. K.J.Puram Village of V.Madugula Mandal, Anakapalli District.

… Accused.

This case has come up before me for final hearing on 11.11.2025 in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and Sri S.Pramodh Kumar, Advocate for the accused and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Police Station, against the accused, for the offence punishable U/section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, Amendment Act-2020, in Cr. No. 131/2024 of his Police Station.

1.The facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the charge sheet are in brief as follows: That on 09.04.2024 at 11.00 hrs during the course of patrolling conducted by L.W.4/P.Damodar Naidu, Sub-Inspector of Police along with staff

LW.1/G.Ramu Naidu, PC, LW.2/B.Leela Prasad, PC at outskirts of Kinthali Village of V.Madugula Mandal they found the accused was in possession of 1) Royal Right 2

Grain whisky 180ml – 06 bottles, 2) Old Tavern Deluxe whisky 180ml -02, without having any valid licence to sell the same. Then L.W.4 arrested the accused and seized the bottles and sealed and identification slips were affixed to bottles and drawn two sample bottles each 180ml to send the sample to chemical analysis under cover of occurrence report.

Based on the report, LW.4 Sub Inspector of Police, V.Madugula PS, 2.

registered in the case in Cr.No.131/2024 for the offence under Sec. 34 (a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968, Amendment Act-2020 and produced the accused before the court for remand and sent the samples to Chemical Examiner, for analysis. After receiving analyst report and after completion of investigation LW.4 filed charge sheet.

The above case was taken on file U/sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, 3.

Amendment Act-2020 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. Accused is examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and Charge U/sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968,

Amendment Act-2020 is framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused denied the contents of charges framed, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution cited four 4.

3 witnesses, but examined three witnesses as PW1 & PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and MO1. The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.1 G.Ramu

Naidu, Police Constable and LW.3 A.Muneswari, Govt.Chemical Examiner of proh and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam.

After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined U/s. 313 5.

Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is put forth to the accused, for which he deposed all false and reported no defence evidence.

Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on 6.

record.

Now the point that arise for determination is: 7.

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 34

(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, Amendment Act-2020 beyond all reasonable doubt?

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that three witnesses are 8.

examined by the prosecution, the prosecution witnesses corroborated with each other and proved the seizure of IML liquor from the possession of accused. She argued that the sample is tested and proved to be Indian liquor, the accused is proved to be in possession of Indian liquor and so the prosecution proved the case against the accused and she prays to convict the accused.

The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the accused is 9.

4 innocent and he did not commit any offence and further argued no independent witness was examined and this case, the police not forward section 100 of Cr.P.C except the official witnesses none were examined. The case is filed only for statistical purpose. Hence, he prayed the court to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt in the interests of justice.

Point: In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution 10.

examined P.W.1 & P.W.2 and got marked Ex. P.1 to Ex. P3, MO1.

The Sub Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Police Station, herein, examined 11.

as PW3, he deposed in his evidence on 09.04.2024 at about 11.00 hrs, himself,

PW1 and LW.1/G.Ramu Naidu, PC were rushed to outskirts of Kinthali Village,

V.Madugula Mandal and there they found the accused in possession of IMFL, then

LW4 hold him and on enquiry the Said person disclosed name and address as accused, other particulars and he voluntarily confessed that he purchased the liquor bottles for selling for higher price after closure of wine shops. Then we verified of 1) Royal Right Grain whisky 180ml – 06 bottles, 2) Old Tavern Deluxe whisky 180ml -02, then he arrested accused and draw two bottles as sample to send the same for chemical analysis, seized the 08 bottles from the possession of accused under cover of Ex. P1 occurrence report.

Based on the occurrence report PW.2 registered the case in 12.

5

Cr.No.131/2024 U/sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, Amendment Act-2020 and the accused served with Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice. He send the sample to REL

Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis and received report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

The evidence of PW1 who assisted PW2 in raid, are also stated similar to 13.

the evidence of PW2 about arrest of accused and seizure of property from him and the accused was in possession of IMFL bottles.

During cross-examination, PW1 and PW2 stated that they know the 14.

contents of Ex.P1 and similar type of sample bottle will be available in public places and they did not secure VRO, Panchayath Secretary as mediators and they denied further suggestions.

After scrutiny of the evidence on record, P.W.1 and PW2 are official 15.

witnesses. He admitted that he did not examine any person at the scene of offence. But P.W.2 did not secure any independent witnesses or official witnesses though she admitted that official staff available. The evidence of PW2 is that he did not secure mediators is not substantiated from his evidence as there is no mention about the names of persons whom he requested to act as mediators in Ex.P1 nor he had issued any notice to the villagers to act as mediators. Further he did not try to secure any other official witnesses. Thus, all the circumstances would show that 6

P.W.2 did not put any best or sincere efforts to secure independent mediators. P.W.2 failed to comply the mandatory provision envisaged under

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C to prove that she seized the contraband from the possession of accused.

Further P.W.2 did not prepare any rough sketch and the contention of the 16.

learned counsel for accused that Ex.P1 is prepared in the Police station cannot be ruled out. Basing on the testimony of P.W.3, who is Investigating officer is stated based on the occurrence report Ex.P1 he registered case. PW2 who is no other than the complainant and informant in this case and who is naturally interested in getting conviction to the accused, her evidence cannot be given much credit, in the absence of any corroboration from any independent witness.

In the absence of independent mediator, the seizure of contraband from 17.

the possession of the accused becomes doubtful and it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the liquor bottles were in the possession of the accused and accused had committed the offence.Thus I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence punishable U/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 Amendment Act, 2020. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7

In the result, this court finds that the accused is found not guilty for the 18.

offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 amendment Act- 2020 and he is acquitted of the said offence U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused served with Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice, hence no bail bonds. The property i.e., MO1 and MO2 are sample bottles are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected, signed and pronounced

by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of November, 2025.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madugula.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

PW 1B.Leela Prasad, Police Constable PW 2P.Damodar Naidu, Sub-Inspector of Police

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex. P1: Occurrence report Ex. P2: First Information Report Ex. P3: Chemical Analysis Report

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT: MO.1 and MO.2 are Samples.

FOR ACCUSED: NIL

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madugula.

8

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

AT MADUGULA

Date of Offence:09.04.2024 Date of Report or Complaint:09.04.2024 Date of apprehension of Accused:09.04.2024 Date of accused released on bail:-- Date of Commencement of Trial:10.11.2025 Date of Closure of trial:11.11.2025 Date of sentence or order of Court:13.11.2025 Explanation for Delay & Remarks:Prosecution failed to produce witnesses on time.

Calendar Case No.:C.C.No. 124/2024

Name & Address of complainant :State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, V.Madugula Station.

Name and address of accused : Yandapalli Shankar Rao, S/o.Nookaraju, age 33 years, Kapu by caste,

Mason, r/o. K.J.Puram Village of V.Madugula Mandal, Anakapalli District.

Section of law34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 : amendment Act-2020

Finding of Court:Accused not guilty : Sentence or Order of the Court13.11.2025

In the result, this court finds that the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 amendment

Act-2020 and he is acquitted of the said offence U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused served with Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice, hence no bail bonds. The property i.e., MO1 and MO2 are sample bottles are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Judicial First Class Magistrate,