Smt. N. Manjula

1 Cc No.3699 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. J.F.C.M. EXCISE - CUM - V ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM- V ADDL. METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, AT L.B.NAGAR , R.R.DISTRICT, HYD.

(Dated, this, the 23 rd day of April, 2024

Present: Smt. N. Manjula,

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

C.C.No. 3699 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

The State of Telanganana rep., S.H.O,PS Miyapur.

…Complainant AND

Pennada Gopi Krishana, S/o:Nageshwar rao, Age:28 years, Occ:Labour, R/o:H.No.12-186/2 Mummivarappadu Road, Gopalapuram Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, East Godavari District. …Accused.

This case coming on before me on 23.04.2024 for fnal hearing and disposal, in the presence of learned A.P.P appearing for the State and of M/s.Ch.Thandava Krishna, Advocate for Accused and after having stood over for consideration, and upon perusing the material and upon hearing, today this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miyapur fled a charge sheet against the accused in COR.No.306 of 2021 for the ofence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2 Cc No.3699 of 2021

02. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 17.03.2021 at 0020 hours petitioner received information that some persons are illegally transporting the liquor near market open place, near Shivalayam temple, Miyapur. On that petitioner rushed to the spot along with two panchas and found a auto

Br.AP15TB8059 and two persons were transporting the illegal liquor in plastic bags. On questioning the accused person disclosed his name as Pennada Gopi Krishna from past few days he has been facing fnancial crisis. Due to which he thought of earning easy money and selected this business. In his village liquor rates are high. On that he came to Nizampet and tried to put coconut business but places were not accessible. On that he purchased liquor various shops at Bachupally, Miyaur areas and kept in house.

Later he hired an auto by saying him that he is shifting the house and house hold items will shift from new colony to metro station,

Miyapur. While unloading the bagscontaing liquor the police Miyapur

PS came to there and caught him. Further conducted the scene of ofence panchanam in the presence of two mediators, seized the followeign liquor botles 8 cottons boxes containing 384 bottles each bottle is of 180 ml. After completion of panchanama brought the accused and seized property to police station for taking necessary action.

3 Cc No.3699 of 2021

03. Basing on the above report a case was registered in

Cr.No.306/2021, U/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act and the investigation entrusted the investigation to Lw8.

04.During the course of investigation LW-8 recorded the statements of LW-1 to LW-3 and drawn the Rough sketch of the scene and then later the accused person was taken into custody. A notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C has been served to accused on 17.03.2021 and the accused executed explanation that he will be produced in person before the police or in the Hon’ble court whenever required. Later the samples bottle was taken out and sent the same for FSL for analysis report.

06.This case was taken on fle, against the sole accused for the ofence punishable under Sec., 34(a) of TS Excise Act,in C.C.No.3699 of 2021.

07.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him and examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., with the allegations leveled against him, and charges under 34(a) of TS

Excise Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

08.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P.4. PW-1 and 4 Cc No.3699 of 2021 is the panch for confession cum seizure and PW-2 is the

Investigating Ofcer who fled the charge sheet. Ex.P-1 is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama of PW1, Ex.P.2 is the panchanama, dt:17.03.2021, Ex.P.3 is the FIR, Ex.P.4 is the CE report. The The SHO of PS Miyapur fled a report that whereabouts of LW5 is not known, as such this court closed the evidence. Inspite of of given conditional order police failed to secure the presence of

Lw1 to LW3 and LW6 , LW7. Hence the evidence of Lw1 to LW3 and

LW6, LW7 was closed by this court.

09. After closure of the evidence, was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

10.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

11. Now the point for consideration is,

“Whether, the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the ofence

under Sec. 34(a) of TS Excise Act ?”

POINT:

12.The accused stood charged for the ofence under section 34(a) of TS Excise Act. The gravamen of the charge against 5 Cc No.3699 of 2021 accused that he was illegally selling to liquor bottles to needy customers without having valid licence.

13.To substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined has many as TWO witnesses and got marked Four documents.

14. PW-1 is the panch for confession and seizure, and he simply deposed in his evidence that in the year 2021 when he was at Miyapur Auto stand LW8 called him and requested to act as panch when they went to Shivalam market at Miyapur he has seen the carton boxes but he cannot say the number of the carton boxes. Police did not conducted any panchanama in his presence only shown the contraband which was seized by police. Police obtained his signature on the written papers but he does not know the contents in the paper. Ex.P.1 is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama.

During the cross examination nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimony of the PW1 Except putting suggestion.

15.The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of PW-2 who is the police personnel. Her evidence is scrutinized with utmost care and caution, who is interested witnesses.

6 Cc No.3699 of 2021

16.PW-2/ R.Mounika, Sub-Inspector of police had deposed that

On 16.03.2021 at about midnight on credible information that some persons are illegally transporting liquor near open market, near shivalayam temple, Miyapur. she along with staf and two panchas

PW1 and LW5 proceeded to the scene of ofence. There they found auto bearing no.AP15TB8059. On questioning the accused with three bags he revealed that he has been transporting liquor from

Hyderabad to his native place Gopalapuram, Ravulapalem, East

Godavari. So that he can sell them at high prices. On that at on 17.03.2021 at 00.20 hours conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused in the presence of panchas and seized

Old Admiral, VSOP Brandy 384 bottles of 180 ml each by afxing pach chits.

17.Later after completion of panchanama they attested the slips on the seized contraband and brought the seized property along with vehicle and accused person to the station for necessary action and handed to LW7/V.Yadagiri. He can identify the signature of LW7.

Basing on panchanama she registered a case in Cr.306/2021 u/s 34(a) TS Excise Act and entrusted investigation to her. During her course of investigation she recorded the statements of Lw1 and LW2 at Miyapur PS and LW3 at the scene of ofence and also drawn the rough sketch of the scene. Later served 41A Cr.P.C notice to the 7 Cc No.3699 of 2021 accused on 17.03.2021 and accused executed explanation that he will be produced in person before police and the Honble court whenever required. Later she sent the samples to FSL for analysis.

Further collected FSL report from LW8 in which it is found that samples contain 42.3% of ethyl alcohol. After completion of investigation he fled charge sheet against the accused u/s 34(a) TS

Excise Act. Ex.P2 is the panchanama dated 17.03.2021, Ex.P3 is the

FIR., Ex.P4 is the CE Report

18.During the cross examination it is elicited that On 16.03.2021 at around 11.30 PM she received credible information. She admitted that at that time she was at her home. Further admitted that she informed the same to SHO of Ps Miyapur. On 17.03.2021 At around 00.15 am she reached to the scene of ofence, on his two wheeler.

No one were present at the scene of ofence except she and two constables and two panch witnesses and accused. She asked the two constables get with two panch witnesses and they came to the scene of ofecne. There was no CCTV footage. The distance in between her home and scene of ofence is approximately 6 to 7 КМ.

Panchas are residing to near to our police station. As such she asked the constables to get the panchas. After conducting panchanama at scene of ofecne handed over the same to the SHO of Ps Miyapur.

she registered a crime. She denied the suggestion that she had 8 Cc No.3699 of 2021 some personal revange with the accused as such she registered a false case against accused. She denied suggestion that she has not visited the scene of ofence and not conducted any panchanama in the presence of panchas and not seized any contraband from the possession of the accused.

19.The case of the prosecution is that the investigating ofcer has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW5 and seized the contraband from the possession of the accused. Whereas,the socalled pasnchas PW1 simply deposed that, police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. This fact itself establishes that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the property from the possession of the accused. Moreover, in the cross examination of the Pw2 it is elicited that none were present at the scene of ofence. If the accused is illegally selling the contraband defnitely some one has to present at the scene of ofence.

20.As could be seen from the evidence of PW-2, except self serving statement of police personnel, there is no other independent evidence supporting his evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

9 Cc No.3699 of 2021

In Boina Chinnam Naidu vs state of Andhra pradesh reported in 200691) ALT (Crl.)AP 11, his lordships held that, “Normally conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of the evidence of the investigating ofcer along in the absence of any other independent evidence. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard but at the evidence of the investigating ofcer in the absence of any other independent evidence to convict the accused normally”.

21.Thus upon consideration entire evidence on record it has to be held that except interested testimony of PW-2 who is ofcial witnesses which is also not convincing and satisfactory and sufering various infrmities. There is absolutely no evidence on record. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubts for the ofences with which he is charged and as such he is entitled for acquittal for the said ofences under beneft of doubt.

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofence under the accused is found not guilty for the ofence U/Sec.

34(a) of TS Excise Act, and he is acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

10 Cc No.3699 of 2021 and his bail bonds shall stand canceled soon after the expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of April,

2024.

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum -

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1:Pathlavath Thirupathaiah -Nil- P.W.2: R.Mounika

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.2 is the panchanama, dt:17.03.2021,

Ex.P.3 is the FIR

Ex.P.4 is the CE report

DEFENCE:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked:

Nil

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District

1 Cc No.135 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. J.F.C.M. EXCISE - CUM - V ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM- V ADDL. METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, AT L.B.NAGAR , R.R.DISTRICT, HYD.

Dated, this, the 24 th day of April, 2024

Present: Smt. N. Manjula,

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

C.C.No. 135 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telanganana rep., S.H.O,PS Saroornagar …Complainant AND

Mathari Harijana Pedda Kondanna @ Venkatesh, S/o:Lachanna, Age:35 years, Caste:SC, Occ:Labour, R/o:Huts at Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad, N/o:Rampur Village, Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. …Accused.

This case coming on before me on 24.04.2024 for fnal hearing and disposal, in the presence of learned A.P.P appearing for the State and of M/s.Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for Accused and after having stood over for consideration, and upon perusing the material and upon hearing, today this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar fled a charge sheet against the accused in COR.No.318 of 2016 for the ofence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2 Cc No.135 of 2017

02. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 23.06.2016 at 1940 hours the LW3 along with LW4 were while performing patrolling duty on patrol mobile-I at Karmanghat area, mean time they found one persons carrying some bottles in a bag, on suspicious stopped him and checked the bag and found officer choice 48 bottles (180 ml) on iniuiry he revealed his name as

M.Venkatesh and he is carrying liiuor bottles without any valid license or permission from the concern authorities. Further brought him to Ps along with liiuor bottles and produced before the SHO to take necessary action against him.

03. Basing on the above report a case was registered in

Cr.No.433/2016, U/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act and the investigation entrusted the investigation to Lw6.

04.During the course of investigation the LW-6 has examined and recorded the detailed statements of the LWs 3 & 4 in part-II CD detailed. Visited scene of ofence and caused thorough eniuires about the incident. Further issued notice U/s 41 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused for his explanation and involvement of this case and also produce any valid license or permission from concerned department, accordingly the accused submitted his explanation by mentioning that "he was purchased liiuor bottles for the purpose of 3 Cc No.135 of 2017 function at his residence and he is not selling the liiuor bottles", but not satisfed on his explanation and on interrogation the accused admitted his guilty of ofence and ready to give his confessional statement, as such the LW-6 secured the LW-1 & 2 and conducted confessional cum seizure panchanama of the accused in their presence and seized 47 Officer Chaise 180 ML bottles after taking one sample bottle for forwarding to FSL for chemical analysis.

Further issued arrest merno against the accused and after released on PS bail. The samples are sent to the FSL report and the same was pending. Whenever received the FSL report, will be fled the same

before this Hon'ble Court. The seized property deposited before the

Hon'ble Court.

05.This case was taken on fle, against the sole accused for the ofence punishable under Sec., 34(a) of AP Excise Act,in C.C.No.135 of 2017.

05.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him and examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., with the allegations leveled against him, and charges under 34(a) of AP

Excise Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 Cc No.135 of 2017

06.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P.6. PW-1 is the panch for seizure and PW-2 is the complainant and PW-3 ist he

Investigating officer. Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on the panchanama, dt:23.06.2016, Ex.P.2 is the report, Ex.P.3 is the FIR,

Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the FSL report, Ex.p.6 is the CE report. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw4 and LW5. The SHO saroornagar feld a report that whereabouts of LW2 not known as such the evidence was closed by this court.

07. After closure of the evidence, was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point for consideration is,

“Whether, the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the ofence

under Sec. 34(a) of TS Excise Act ?” 5 Cc No.135 of 2017

POINT:

10.The accused stood charged for the ofence under section 34(a) of TS Excise Act. The gravamen of the charge against accused that he was illegally transporting the liiuor without having valid licence or permission from concerned authorities.

11.To substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined as many as Three witnesses and got marked Six documents.

12. PW-1 is the panch for seizure, simply deposed that, in the year 2016 police obtained his signature on some white papers. He does not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. ExP.1 is the signature on the panchanama dated 23.06.2016.

During the cross examination nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimony of the PW1 except putting suggestion.

13.The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of PW-2 and Pw-3 who is the complainant and Investigating officer. Their evidence is scrutinized with utmost care and caution, who are interested witnesses.

14.PW-2/ B.J.Dayakar of Retd.ASI had deposed that On 23.06.2016 he along with LW4 performing patrolling duty at Mobile 6 Cc No.135 of 2017 1 area Green park since from 7.00 am, at about 7.30 pm he noticed one person with bag in his hand moving suspiciously at singareni colony, immediately he stopped the person and eniuired about what was in the bag. On eniuiry he revealed his name as venkatesh and he found officers choice 48 bottles 180 ml each in the said bag.

On iuestioning whether he has permit or license he failed to produce the same, as such he brought the accused along with property to the police station and handedover to the SHO and lodged a report. Ex.P2 is the report.

During the course of cross examination it elicited that he himself drafted Ex.P2 report. Lw4 accompanied while conducting patrolling duty. At the time lodging report he was working as Head constable at Saroornagar PS. He has knowledge about the Excise

Act. He admitted that he has not mentioned about the mode of the transportation of the alleged liiuor bottles. He has not mentioned about the descriptive particulars of the bag. He has not mentioned about the time when he handed over the accused to LW5

15.PW-3/H.Prabhakar , Inspector of Police has deposed that on 23.06.2016 Lw5 received a complaint from PW2 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.433/2016 u/s 34(a) of TS excise Act and issued FIR under Ex.P3 and entrusted to him for further 7 Cc No.135 of 2017 investigation. During his course of investigation he rushed to the scene at Green park colony, Karmanghat and caused eniuiry. Later he came to the police station and secured two panchas PW1 and

LW2 and conducted conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized 48 bottles of officers choice 180 ml. Further he also drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama. Ex.P4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

Further he recorded the statements of Pw1, Lw2 and served 41A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He deposited one sample before the

Honble Court and sent one sample to the FSL and deposited the

remaining property before the Dy.Commissioner, Excise and prohibition RR District under Ex.P5 After collecting the CE report under Ex.P6 and after completion of investigation I fled the Charge sheet.

16.During the cross examination it is elicited that he has not specifcally mentioned in the charge sheet about the mode of transportation of the alleged contraband. He denied the suggestion that he has not visited the scene of ofence and not conducted any panchanama in the presence of panchas and not seized any alleged property from the possession of the accused. Further elicited that no independent witnesses were examined.

8 Cc No.135 of 2017

17.The case of the prosecution is that the investigating officer has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and seized 48 bottles of officers choice from the possession of the accused. Whereas, the socalled pasnchas PW1 simply deposed that, police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. This fact itself establishes that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the property from the possession of the accused. Moreover, in the cross examination of the Pw2 and PW3 it is elicited that none were present at the scene of ofence. If the accused is illegally selling the contraband defnitely some one has to present at the scene of ofence.

18.As could be seen from the evidence of PW-2 and Pw-3, except self serving statement of police personnels, there is no other independent evidence supporting his evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

In Boina Chinnam Naidu vs state of Andhra pradesh reported in 200691) ALT (Crl.)AP 11, his lordships held that, “Normally conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of the evidence of the investigating officer along in the absence of any other independent evidence. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule 9 Cc No.135 of 2017 can be laid down in this regard but at the evidence of the investigating officer in the absence of any other independent evidence to convict the accused normally”.

18.Thus upon consideration entire evidence on record it has to be held that except interested testimony of PW-2 and Pw3 who is official witnesses which is also not convincing and satisfactory and sufering various infrmities. There is absolutely no evidence on record. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubts for the ofences with which he is charged and as such he is entitled for aciuittal for the said ofences under beneft of doubt.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofence under the accused is found not guilty for the ofence U/Sec.

34(a) of TS Excise Act, and he is aciuitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

and his bail bonds shall stand canceled soon after the expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April,

2024.

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum -

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District.

10 Cc No.135 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: V.Ravi-Nil-

P.W.2: B.J.Dayakar

P.W.3: H.Prabhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is the signature on the panchanama, dt:23.06.2016

Ex.P.2 is the report,

Ex.P.3 is the FIR

Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.5 is the FSL report

Ex.p.6 is the CE report

DEFENCE:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked:

Nil 11 Cc No.135 of 2017

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District

1 Cc No.135 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. J.F.C.M. EXCISE - CUM - V ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM- V ADDL. METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, AT L.B.NAGAR , R.R.DISTRICT, HYD.

Dated, this, the 24 th day of April, 2024

Present: Smt. N. Manjula,

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

C.C.No. 135 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telanganana rep., S.H.O,PS Saroornagar …Complainant AND

Mathari Harijana Pedda Kondanna @ Venkatesh, S/o:Lachanna, Age:35 years, Caste:SC, Occ:Labour, R/o:Huts at Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad, N/o:Rampur Village, Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. …Accused.

This case coming on before me on 24.04.2024 for fnal hearing and disposal, in the presence of learned A.P.P appearing for the State and of M/s.Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for Accused and after having stood over for consideration, and upon perusing the material and upon hearing, today this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar fled a charge sheet against the accused in COR.No.318 of 2016 for the ofence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2 Cc No.135 of 2017

02. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 23.06.2016 at 1940 hours the LW3 along with LW4 were while performing patrolling duty on patrol mobile-I at Karmanghat area, mean time they found one persons carrying some bottles in a bag, on suspicious stopped him and checked the bag and found officer choice 48 bottles (180 ml) on iniuiry he revealed his name as

M.Venkatesh and he is carrying liiuor bottles without any valid license or permission from the concern authorities. Further brought him to Ps along with liiuor bottles and produced before the SHO to take necessary action against him.

03. Basing on the above report a case was registered in

Cr.No.433/2016, U/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act and the investigation entrusted the investigation to Lw6.

04.During the course of investigation the LW-6 has examined and recorded the detailed statements of the LWs 3 & 4 in part-II CD detailed. Visited scene of ofence and caused thorough eniuires about the incident. Further issued notice U/s 41 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused for his explanation and involvement of this case and also produce any valid license or permission from concerned department, accordingly the accused submitted his explanation by mentioning that "he was purchased liiuor bottles for the purpose of 3 Cc No.135 of 2017 function at his residence and he is not selling the liiuor bottles", but not satisfed on his explanation and on interrogation the accused admitted his guilty of ofence and ready to give his confessional statement, as such the LW-6 secured the LW-1 & 2 and conducted confessional cum seizure panchanama of the accused in their presence and seized 47 Officer Chaise 180 ML bottles after taking one sample bottle for forwarding to FSL for chemical analysis.

Further issued arrest merno against the accused and after released on PS bail. The samples are sent to the FSL report and the same was pending. Whenever received the FSL report, will be fled the same

before this Hon'ble Court. The seized property deposited before the

Hon'ble Court.

05.This case was taken on fle, against the sole accused for the ofence punishable under Sec., 34(a) of AP Excise Act,in C.C.No.135 of 2017.

05.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him and examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., with the allegations leveled against him, and charges under 34(a) of AP

Excise Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 Cc No.135 of 2017

06.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P.6. PW-1 is the panch for seizure and PW-2 is the complainant and PW-3 ist he

Investigating officer. Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on the panchanama, dt:23.06.2016, Ex.P.2 is the report, Ex.P.3 is the FIR,

Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the FSL report, Ex.p.6 is the CE report. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw4 and LW5. The SHO saroornagar feld a report that whereabouts of LW2 not known as such the evidence was closed by this court.

07. After closure of the evidence, was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point for consideration is,

“Whether, the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the ofence

under Sec. 34(a) of TS Excise Act ?” 5 Cc No.135 of 2017

POINT:

10.The accused stood charged for the ofence under section 34(a) of TS Excise Act. The gravamen of the charge against accused that he was illegally transporting the liiuor without having valid licence or permission from concerned authorities.

11.To substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined as many as Three witnesses and got marked Six documents.

12. PW-1 is the panch for seizure, simply deposed that, in the year 2016 police obtained his signature on some white papers. He does not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. ExP.1 is the signature on the panchanama dated 23.06.2016.

During the cross examination nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimony of the PW1 except putting suggestion.

13.The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of PW-2 and Pw-3 who is the complainant and Investigating officer. Their evidence is scrutinized with utmost care and caution, who are interested witnesses.

14.PW-2/ B.J.Dayakar of Retd.ASI had deposed that On 23.06.2016 he along with LW4 performing patrolling duty at Mobile 6 Cc No.135 of 2017 1 area Green park since from 7.00 am, at about 7.30 pm he noticed one person with bag in his hand moving suspiciously at singareni colony, immediately he stopped the person and eniuired about what was in the bag. On eniuiry he revealed his name as venkatesh and he found officers choice 48 bottles 180 ml each in the said bag.

On iuestioning whether he has permit or license he failed to produce the same, as such he brought the accused along with property to the police station and handedover to the SHO and lodged a report. Ex.P2 is the report.

During the course of cross examination it elicited that he himself drafted Ex.P2 report. Lw4 accompanied while conducting patrolling duty. At the time lodging report he was working as Head constable at Saroornagar PS. He has knowledge about the Excise

Act. He admitted that he has not mentioned about the mode of the transportation of the alleged liiuor bottles. He has not mentioned about the descriptive particulars of the bag. He has not mentioned about the time when he handed over the accused to LW5

15.PW-3/H.Prabhakar , Inspector of Police has deposed that on 23.06.2016 Lw5 received a complaint from PW2 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.433/2016 u/s 34(a) of TS excise Act and issued FIR under Ex.P3 and entrusted to him for further 7 Cc No.135 of 2017 investigation. During his course of investigation he rushed to the scene at Green park colony, Karmanghat and caused eniuiry. Later he came to the police station and secured two panchas PW1 and

LW2 and conducted conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized 48 bottles of officers choice 180 ml. Further he also drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama. Ex.P4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

Further he recorded the statements of Pw1, Lw2 and served 41A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He deposited one sample before the

Honble Court and sent one sample to the FSL and deposited the

remaining property before the Dy.Commissioner, Excise and prohibition RR District under Ex.P5 After collecting the CE report under Ex.P6 and after completion of investigation I fled the Charge sheet.

16.During the cross examination it is elicited that he has not specifcally mentioned in the charge sheet about the mode of transportation of the alleged contraband. He denied the suggestion that he has not visited the scene of ofence and not conducted any panchanama in the presence of panchas and not seized any alleged property from the possession of the accused. Further elicited that no independent witnesses were examined.

8 Cc No.135 of 2017

17.The case of the prosecution is that the investigating officer has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and seized 48 bottles of officers choice from the possession of the accused. Whereas, the socalled pasnchas PW1 simply deposed that, police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. This fact itself establishes that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the property from the possession of the accused. Moreover, in the cross examination of the Pw2 and PW3 it is elicited that none were present at the scene of ofence. If the accused is illegally selling the contraband defnitely some one has to present at the scene of ofence.

18.As could be seen from the evidence of PW-2 and Pw-3, except self serving statement of police personnels, there is no other independent evidence supporting his evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

In Boina Chinnam Naidu vs state of Andhra pradesh reported in 200691) ALT (Crl.)AP 11, his lordships held that, “Normally conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of the evidence of the investigating officer along in the absence of any other independent evidence. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule 9 Cc No.135 of 2017 can be laid down in this regard but at the evidence of the investigating officer in the absence of any other independent evidence to convict the accused normally”.

18.Thus upon consideration entire evidence on record it has to be held that except interested testimony of PW-2 and Pw3 who is official witnesses which is also not convincing and satisfactory and sufering various infrmities. There is absolutely no evidence on record. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubts for the ofences with which he is charged and as such he is entitled for aciuittal for the said ofences under beneft of doubt.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofence under the accused is found not guilty for the ofence U/Sec.

34(a) of TS Excise Act, and he is aciuitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

and his bail bonds shall stand canceled soon after the expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April,

2024.

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum -

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District.

10 Cc No.135 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: V.Ravi-Nil-

P.W.2: B.J.Dayakar

P.W.3: H.Prabhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is the signature on the panchanama, dt:23.06.2016

Ex.P.2 is the report,

Ex.P.3 is the FIR

Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.5 is the FSL report

Ex.p.6 is the CE report

DEFENCE:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked:

Nil 11 Cc No.135 of 2017

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District

1 Cc No.135 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. J.F.C.M. EXCISE - CUM - V ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM- V ADDL. METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, AT L.B.NAGAR , R.R.DISTRICT, HYD.

Dated, this, the 24 th day of April, 2024

Present: Smt. N. Manjula,

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

C.C.No. 135 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telanganana rep., S.H.O,PS Saroornagar …Complainant AND

Mathari Harijana Pedda Kondanna @ Venkatesh, S/o:Lachanna, Age:35 years, Caste:SC, Occ:Labour, R/o:Huts at Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad, N/o:Rampur Village, Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. …Accused.

This case coming on before me on 24.04.2024 for fnal hearing and disposal, in the presence of learned A.P.P appearing for the State and of M/s.Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for Accused and after having stood over for consideration, and upon perusing the material and upon hearing, today this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar fled a charge sheet against the accused in COR.No.318 of 2016 for the ofence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2 Cc No.135 of 2017

02. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 23.06.2016 at 1940 hours the LW3 along with LW4 were while performing patrolling duty on patrol mobile-I at Karmanghat area, mean time they found one persons carrying some bottles in a bag, on suspicious stopped him and checked the bag and found officer choice 48 bottles (180 ml) on iniuiry he revealed his name as

M.Venkatesh and he is carrying liiuor bottles without any valid license or permission from the concern authorities. Further brought him to Ps along with liiuor bottles and produced before the SHO to take necessary action against him.

03. Basing on the above report a case was registered in

Cr.No.433/2016, U/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act and the investigation entrusted the investigation to Lw6.

04.During the course of investigation the LW-6 has examined and recorded the detailed statements of the LWs 3 & 4 in part-II CD detailed. Visited scene of ofence and caused thorough eniuires about the incident. Further issued notice U/s 41 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused for his explanation and involvement of this case and also produce any valid license or permission from concerned department, accordingly the accused submitted his explanation by mentioning that "he was purchased liiuor bottles for the purpose of 3 Cc No.135 of 2017 function at his residence and he is not selling the liiuor bottles", but not satisfed on his explanation and on interrogation the accused admitted his guilty of ofence and ready to give his confessional statement, as such the LW-6 secured the LW-1 & 2 and conducted confessional cum seizure panchanama of the accused in their presence and seized 47 Officer Chaise 180 ML bottles after taking one sample bottle for forwarding to FSL for chemical analysis.

Further issued arrest merno against the accused and after released on PS bail. The samples are sent to the FSL report and the same was pending. Whenever received the FSL report, will be fled the same

before this Hon'ble Court. The seized property deposited before the

Hon'ble Court.

05.This case was taken on fle, against the sole accused for the ofence punishable under Sec., 34(a) of AP Excise Act,in C.C.No.135 of 2017.

05.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him and examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., with the allegations leveled against him, and charges under 34(a) of AP

Excise Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 Cc No.135 of 2017

06.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P.6. PW-1 is the panch for seizure and PW-2 is the complainant and PW-3 ist he

Investigating officer. Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on the panchanama, dt:23.06.2016, Ex.P.2 is the report, Ex.P.3 is the FIR,

Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the FSL report, Ex.p.6 is the CE report. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw4 and LW5. The SHO saroornagar feld a report that whereabouts of LW2 not known as such the evidence was closed by this court.

07. After closure of the evidence, was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point for consideration is,

“Whether, the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the ofence

under Sec. 34(a) of TS Excise Act ?” 5 Cc No.135 of 2017

POINT:

10.The accused stood charged for the ofence under section 34(a) of TS Excise Act. The gravamen of the charge against accused that he was illegally transporting the liiuor without having valid licence or permission from concerned authorities.

11.To substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined as many as Three witnesses and got marked Six documents.

12. PW-1 is the panch for seizure, simply deposed that, in the year 2016 police obtained his signature on some white papers. He does not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. ExP.1 is the signature on the panchanama dated 23.06.2016.

During the cross examination nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimony of the PW1 except putting suggestion.

13.The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of PW-2 and Pw-3 who is the complainant and Investigating officer. Their evidence is scrutinized with utmost care and caution, who are interested witnesses.

14.PW-2/ B.J.Dayakar of Retd.ASI had deposed that On 23.06.2016 he along with LW4 performing patrolling duty at Mobile 6 Cc No.135 of 2017 1 area Green park since from 7.00 am, at about 7.30 pm he noticed one person with bag in his hand moving suspiciously at singareni colony, immediately he stopped the person and eniuired about what was in the bag. On eniuiry he revealed his name as venkatesh and he found officers choice 48 bottles 180 ml each in the said bag.

On iuestioning whether he has permit or license he failed to produce the same, as such he brought the accused along with property to the police station and handedover to the SHO and lodged a report. Ex.P2 is the report.

During the course of cross examination it elicited that he himself drafted Ex.P2 report. Lw4 accompanied while conducting patrolling duty. At the time lodging report he was working as Head constable at Saroornagar PS. He has knowledge about the Excise

Act. He admitted that he has not mentioned about the mode of the transportation of the alleged liiuor bottles. He has not mentioned about the descriptive particulars of the bag. He has not mentioned about the time when he handed over the accused to LW5

15.PW-3/H.Prabhakar , Inspector of Police has deposed that on 23.06.2016 Lw5 received a complaint from PW2 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.433/2016 u/s 34(a) of TS excise Act and issued FIR under Ex.P3 and entrusted to him for further 7 Cc No.135 of 2017 investigation. During his course of investigation he rushed to the scene at Green park colony, Karmanghat and caused eniuiry. Later he came to the police station and secured two panchas PW1 and

LW2 and conducted conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized 48 bottles of officers choice 180 ml. Further he also drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama. Ex.P4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

Further he recorded the statements of Pw1, Lw2 and served 41A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He deposited one sample before the

Honble Court and sent one sample to the FSL and deposited the

remaining property before the Dy.Commissioner, Excise and prohibition RR District under Ex.P5 After collecting the CE report under Ex.P6 and after completion of investigation I fled the Charge sheet.

16.During the cross examination it is elicited that he has not specifcally mentioned in the charge sheet about the mode of transportation of the alleged contraband. He denied the suggestion that he has not visited the scene of ofence and not conducted any panchanama in the presence of panchas and not seized any alleged property from the possession of the accused. Further elicited that no independent witnesses were examined.

8 Cc No.135 of 2017

17.The case of the prosecution is that the investigating officer has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and seized 48 bottles of officers choice from the possession of the accused. Whereas, the socalled pasnchas PW1 simply deposed that, police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. This fact itself establishes that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the property from the possession of the accused. Moreover, in the cross examination of the Pw2 and PW3 it is elicited that none were present at the scene of ofence. If the accused is illegally selling the contraband defnitely some one has to present at the scene of ofence.

18.As could be seen from the evidence of PW-2 and Pw-3, except self serving statement of police personnels, there is no other independent evidence supporting his evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

In Boina Chinnam Naidu vs state of Andhra pradesh reported in 200691) ALT (Crl.)AP 11, his lordships held that, “Normally conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of the evidence of the investigating officer along in the absence of any other independent evidence. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule 9 Cc No.135 of 2017 can be laid down in this regard but at the evidence of the investigating officer in the absence of any other independent evidence to convict the accused normally”.

18.Thus upon consideration entire evidence on record it has to be held that except interested testimony of PW-2 and Pw3 who is official witnesses which is also not convincing and satisfactory and sufering various infrmities. There is absolutely no evidence on record. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubts for the ofences with which he is charged and as such he is entitled for aciuittal for the said ofences under beneft of doubt.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofence under the accused is found not guilty for the ofence U/Sec.

34(a) of TS Excise Act, and he is aciuitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

and his bail bonds shall stand canceled soon after the expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April,

2024.

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum -

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District.

10 Cc No.135 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: V.Ravi-Nil-

P.W.2: B.J.Dayakar

P.W.3: H.Prabhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is the signature on the panchanama, dt:23.06.2016

Ex.P.2 is the report,

Ex.P.3 is the FIR

Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.5 is the FSL report

Ex.p.6 is the CE report

DEFENCE:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked:

Nil 11 Cc No.135 of 2017

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District

1 Cc No.135 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. J.F.C.M. EXCISE - CUM - V ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM- V ADDL. METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, AT L.B.NAGAR , R.R.DISTRICT, HYD.

Dated, this, the 24 th day of April, 2024

Present: Smt. N. Manjula,

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

C.C.No. 135 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telanganana rep., S.H.O,PS Saroornagar …Complainant AND

Mathari Harijana Pedda Kondanna @ Venkatesh, S/o:Lachanna, Age:35 years, Caste:SC, Occ:Labour, R/o:Huts at Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad, N/o:Rampur Village, Narva Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. …Accused.

This case coming on before me on 24.04.2024 for fnal hearing and disposal, in the presence of learned A.P.P appearing for the State and of M/s.Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for Accused and after having stood over for consideration, and upon perusing the material and upon hearing, today this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar fled a charge sheet against the accused in COR.No.318 of 2016 for the ofence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act.

2 Cc No.135 of 2017

02. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 23.06.2016 at 1940 hours the LW3 along with LW4 were while performing patrolling duty on patrol mobile-I at Karmanghat area, mean time they found one persons carrying some bottles in a bag, on suspicious stopped him and checked the bag and found officer choice 48 bottles (180 ml) on iniuiry he revealed his name as

M.Venkatesh and he is carrying liiuor bottles without any valid license or permission from the concern authorities. Further brought him to Ps along with liiuor bottles and produced before the SHO to take necessary action against him.

03. Basing on the above report a case was registered in

Cr.No.433/2016, U/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act and the investigation entrusted the investigation to Lw6.

04.During the course of investigation the LW-6 has examined and recorded the detailed statements of the LWs 3 & 4 in part-II CD detailed. Visited scene of ofence and caused thorough eniuires about the incident. Further issued notice U/s 41 (a) Cr.P.C. to the accused for his explanation and involvement of this case and also produce any valid license or permission from concerned department, accordingly the accused submitted his explanation by mentioning that "he was purchased liiuor bottles for the purpose of 3 Cc No.135 of 2017 function at his residence and he is not selling the liiuor bottles", but not satisfed on his explanation and on interrogation the accused admitted his guilty of ofence and ready to give his confessional statement, as such the LW-6 secured the LW-1 & 2 and conducted confessional cum seizure panchanama of the accused in their presence and seized 47 Officer Chaise 180 ML bottles after taking one sample bottle for forwarding to FSL for chemical analysis.

Further issued arrest merno against the accused and after released on PS bail. The samples are sent to the FSL report and the same was pending. Whenever received the FSL report, will be fled the same

before this Hon'ble Court. The seized property deposited before the

Hon'ble Court.

05.This case was taken on fle, against the sole accused for the ofence punishable under Sec., 34(a) of AP Excise Act,in C.C.No.135 of 2017.

05.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him and examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., with the allegations leveled against him, and charges under 34(a) of AP

Excise Act, have been framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 Cc No.135 of 2017

06.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P.6. PW-1 is the panch for seizure and PW-2 is the complainant and PW-3 ist he

Investigating officer. Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on the panchanama, dt:23.06.2016, Ex.P.2 is the report, Ex.P.3 is the FIR,

Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P.5 is the FSL report, Ex.p.6 is the CE report. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw4 and LW5. The SHO saroornagar feld a report that whereabouts of LW2 not known as such the evidence was closed by this court.

07. After closure of the evidence, was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point for consideration is,

“Whether, the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the ofence

under Sec. 34(a) of TS Excise Act ?” 5 Cc No.135 of 2017

POINT:

10.The accused stood charged for the ofence under section 34(a) of TS Excise Act. The gravamen of the charge against accused that he was illegally transporting the liiuor without having valid licence or permission from concerned authorities.

11.To substantiate the case, the prosecution has examined as many as Three witnesses and got marked Six documents.

12. PW-1 is the panch for seizure, simply deposed that, in the year 2016 police obtained his signature on some white papers. He does not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. ExP.1 is the signature on the panchanama dated 23.06.2016.

During the cross examination nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimony of the PW1 except putting suggestion.

13.The prosecution case mainly rests on the evidence of PW-2 and Pw-3 who is the complainant and Investigating officer. Their evidence is scrutinized with utmost care and caution, who are interested witnesses.

14.PW-2/ B.J.Dayakar of Retd.ASI had deposed that On 23.06.2016 he along with LW4 performing patrolling duty at Mobile 6 Cc No.135 of 2017 1 area Green park since from 7.00 am, at about 7.30 pm he noticed one person with bag in his hand moving suspiciously at singareni colony, immediately he stopped the person and eniuired about what was in the bag. On eniuiry he revealed his name as venkatesh and he found officers choice 48 bottles 180 ml each in the said bag.

On iuestioning whether he has permit or license he failed to produce the same, as such he brought the accused along with property to the police station and handedover to the SHO and lodged a report. Ex.P2 is the report.

During the course of cross examination it elicited that he himself drafted Ex.P2 report. Lw4 accompanied while conducting patrolling duty. At the time lodging report he was working as Head constable at Saroornagar PS. He has knowledge about the Excise

Act. He admitted that he has not mentioned about the mode of the transportation of the alleged liiuor bottles. He has not mentioned about the descriptive particulars of the bag. He has not mentioned about the time when he handed over the accused to LW5

15.PW-3/H.Prabhakar , Inspector of Police has deposed that on 23.06.2016 Lw5 received a complaint from PW2 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.433/2016 u/s 34(a) of TS excise Act and issued FIR under Ex.P3 and entrusted to him for further 7 Cc No.135 of 2017 investigation. During his course of investigation he rushed to the scene at Green park colony, Karmanghat and caused eniuiry. Later he came to the police station and secured two panchas PW1 and

LW2 and conducted conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized 48 bottles of officers choice 180 ml. Further he also drawn two samples under the cover of panchanama. Ex.P4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama.

Further he recorded the statements of Pw1, Lw2 and served 41A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He deposited one sample before the

Honble Court and sent one sample to the FSL and deposited the

remaining property before the Dy.Commissioner, Excise and prohibition RR District under Ex.P5 After collecting the CE report under Ex.P6 and after completion of investigation I fled the Charge sheet.

16.During the cross examination it is elicited that he has not specifcally mentioned in the charge sheet about the mode of transportation of the alleged contraband. He denied the suggestion that he has not visited the scene of ofence and not conducted any panchanama in the presence of panchas and not seized any alleged property from the possession of the accused. Further elicited that no independent witnesses were examined.

8 Cc No.135 of 2017

17.The case of the prosecution is that the investigating officer has conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and seized 48 bottles of officers choice from the possession of the accused. Whereas, the socalled pasnchas PW1 simply deposed that, police did not conduct any panchanama in his presence. PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. This fact itself establishes that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the property from the possession of the accused. Moreover, in the cross examination of the Pw2 and PW3 it is elicited that none were present at the scene of ofence. If the accused is illegally selling the contraband defnitely some one has to present at the scene of ofence.

18.As could be seen from the evidence of PW-2 and Pw-3, except self serving statement of police personnels, there is no other independent evidence supporting his evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.

In Boina Chinnam Naidu vs state of Andhra pradesh reported in 200691) ALT (Crl.)AP 11, his lordships held that, “Normally conviction cannot be sustained on the strength of the evidence of the investigating officer along in the absence of any other independent evidence. It is no doubt true that no hard and fast rule 9 Cc No.135 of 2017 can be laid down in this regard but at the evidence of the investigating officer in the absence of any other independent evidence to convict the accused normally”.

18.Thus upon consideration entire evidence on record it has to be held that except interested testimony of PW-2 and Pw3 who is official witnesses which is also not convincing and satisfactory and sufering various infrmities. There is absolutely no evidence on record. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubts for the ofences with which he is charged and as such he is entitled for aciuittal for the said ofences under beneft of doubt.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofence under the accused is found not guilty for the ofence U/Sec.

34(a) of TS Excise Act, and he is aciuitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

and his bail bonds shall stand canceled soon after the expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to my Dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of April,

2024.

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum -

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District.

10 Cc No.135 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: V.Ravi-Nil-

P.W.2: B.J.Dayakar

P.W.3: H.Prabhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is the signature on the panchanama, dt:23.06.2016

Ex.P.2 is the report,

Ex.P.3 is the FIR

Ex.P.4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.5 is the FSL report

Ex.p.6 is the CE report

DEFENCE:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked:

Nil 11 Cc No.135 of 2017

Spl. J.F.C.M. Excise – cum - V Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate Ranga Reddy District