1
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::
KANDUKUR
CALENDAR IN C.C.No. 771/2023
1.Date of offence10.07.2023
2.Date of Report or complaint11.07.2023
3.Date of taken on file02.09.2023 Date of apprehension of
4.-- accused Date of commencement of
5.21.01.2026 trial
6.Date of close of trial30.04.2026 04.05.2026
7.Date of Sentence or Order
The State represented by
8.ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Gudlur Police Station.
1. Kotha Bala Krishna S/o Subba Rao, 31yrs, Vysya by caste, N/o Ponnalur village and mandal, R/o 4th lane, Harinadhapuram, Nellore town, As per Aadhaar card N/o Varigundla Village, TP Gudur mandal,
9.Description of accused Nellore district.
2. Indla Mahesh S/o Malakonda Raidu, 21yrs, Mudiraj by caste, Maddurupadu village, Kavali mandal, As per Aadhaar card N/o Peramgudi Kothapalli, Chinna Irlapadu, prakasam district. 457, 380 Indian Penal Code
10.Section of Law
11.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.
12.Finding of CourtFound not guilty.
13. Sentence or Order :
In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Accused are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and they are set at 2 liberty. The bail bonds of accused and sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced, hence no order is passed.
14. Explanation for delay and Remarks:
This case was taken on file on 21.11.2023. On 04.10.2024 copies furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On 07.01.2026 accused was examined 239 Cr.P.C charges framed under section 457, 380 of IPC against the A1 and A2, read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Telugu in question form, for which, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for trial. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.6 are examined, Exs.P1 to P.5 are marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 01.05.2026 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Heard arguments and Judgment pronounced on 04.05.2026 in open Court. Hence, the delay.
ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KANDUKUR.
Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.
3
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::
KANDUKUR
Present: Sri N.Nikhil Reddy
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.
Monday, this the 04th day of May, 2026.
Calender Case.No. 771/2023
Between:
The State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudlur Police Station… Complainant.
Vs.,
1. Kotha Bala Krishna S/o Subba Rao, 31yrs, Vysya by caste, N/o Ponnalur village and mandal, R/o 4th lane, Harinadhapuram, Nellore town, As per Aadhaar card N/o Varigundla Village, TP Gudur mandal, Nellore district.
2. Indla Mahesh S/o Malakonda Raidu, 21yrs, Mudiraj by caste, Maddurupadu village, Kavali mandal, As per Aadhaar card N/o Peramgudi Kothapalli, Chinna Irlapadu, prakasam district. … Accused
* * *
This matter is coming on this day for Judgment before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. SP Advocate Counsel for accused, and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:
// J U D G M E N T //
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudlur police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 88/2023 of Gudlur Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code with the following allegations:- 4
2. The case of the prosecution alleged against accused are as follows:-
It is the case of the prosecution that the PW1 is a resident of Gudlur mandal who was running a hotel in Gudlur Road and was also doing business like distributing the tobacco products in the neighboring villages. The PW1 placed his tobacco products in his godown, which was located at some distance to his hotel.
On 11.07.2023, the PW1 went to his godown and opened the locks of his godown and found that 18 Hans khaini bags were missing in the godown, and he also observed a hole in the back of the room. Then he suspected that some unknown offenders made a hold to the wall and committed this theft of 18 bags worth of ₹2,12,000.
Later, he went to the police station and gave a report of this crime to the
PW6 who conducted investigation in the present case and filed this chargesheet against the A1 and A2 under section 457, 380 of IPC.
3. This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 r/w 34 IPC.
4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to Accused
No.1 and 2 as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.
5.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C 5 charges framed under section 457, 380 of IPC against the A1 and A2, read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Telugu in question form, for which, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. Hence, the matter was posted for trial.
6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined LW.1 / T.
Venkateswarlu, LW.5 / M Chanikya, LW.9 / D. Chnna Narasaiah, LW.4 / K.
Ranganadh, LW.7 / J. Suresh Babu, LW.10 / L. Ramulu as PW1 to PW.6 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the LW.2 / M. Srinivasulu, LW.3 / Ch. Thirupathaiah, LW.6 / P.
Balaji, LW.8 / I. Chlama Reddy.
7.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. The
PW1 is the complainant. The PW2 and PW4 are the witnesses. The PW3 and PW5 are the mediators. The PW6 is the investigating officer in the present case. The exhibit P1 is the complaint of the PW1. The exhibit P2 is the signature of PW3 upon the arrest mediatornama. The Exhibit P3 is scene observation report. The exhibit P4 is the first information report. The exhibit P5 is the rough sketch. The prosecution has given up LW2, LW3, LW6 and LW8. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the defence.
8.The PW1 had deposed that on 11.07.23 at about 9 AM, when he opened 6 the shutter of his godown, he saw a hole to the wall of the godown and found that 18 bags of Hans, each bag weighing 25 kgs, worth of ₹2,50,000 was missing in the godown and then he went to Police Station and lodged this complaint. He also deposed that he got a call from Mallikarjuna who stated that he found certain stock within 2 km from his godown, and so he went there and found his stock in one auto and brought the said auto to the police station.
9.The PW1 deposed in his cross-examination that he stated to the police, that some unknown offenders committed this offence. He also admitted that he did not state before the police in his statement recorded by the police that one
Mallikarjuna asked him to go to a place where he found this stock in an auto and he brought the said stock to the police station. He also admitted that he stated before the police in his statement recorded by the police that the value of the stock was about ₹2,12,000 only. He further denied to all the suggestions that A1 and A2 never committed this offence and they are falsely implicated in the present case.
10.The PW 2 stated that on 11.07.2023 at about 10 AM, PW1 called him and asked him to come to the godown, and so he went there and saw PW4 and a lot of people at the scene of offence and later he observed that one hole was made for the wall and 18 bags of Hans tobacco were stolen from the godown and
PW1 went to the Gudlur Police Station and lodged this complaint. In his cross 7 examination, the PW2 clearly stated that there are several cases against the
PW1 regarding the unauthorised sale of tobacco. He also admitted that he do not know the A1 and A2 and did not personally witness this offence. He denied to the suggestion that he is deposing false to help PW1.
11.The PW3, who is the mediator for the arrest of the A1 and A2 in the present case, stated that the police requested him and the LW8 to act as mediator in the present case and so he signed on the arrest mediatornama upon the request of the police and so his signature was marked as exhibit P2.
He admitted in his cross-examination that he signed on the arrested mediatornama at the police station upon the request of the police.
12.The PW4 stated that PW1 called him on 11.07.2023 at about 10 AM and informed him that theft took place, and so he went to the scene of offence and saw that one hole was made and observed that 18 bags of Hans packets worth of 2,12,000 were stolen. He admitted in his cross-examination that he personally do not know the details of the theft committed. He denied to the suggestion that he is deposing false to help PW1.
13.The PW5 stated that on 11.07.2023 at about 11:15 AM when he was present at MRO office PW6 called him and requested him to act as mediator, and so he along with LW6 went to the scene of offence where police observed the scene of offence in his presence and drafted the scene observation report, 8 which is marked as exhibit P3 and he signed on it. He admitted in his cross- examination that he did not obtain any permission from his higher authorities to act as mediator in the present case. He also admitted that he cannot say the door number or the electrical meter number or the survey number of the godown which was observed by the police in his presence. He denied to the suggestion that police never observed the scene of offence in his presence and he is deposing false.
14.The PW6, who is the investigating officer in the present case, deposed that on 11.07.2023 at about 11 AM, he received the complaint of PW1 basing on which he registered this FIR and visited the scene of offence where he prepared the rough sketch and the scene observation report in the presence of PW5 and
LW6 and secured the witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the
A1 and A2 on 12.07.23 at about 12:30 AM in the presence of PW3 and LW8 and recorded the confession of the A1 and A2 in the presence of PW3 and LW8 and seized the property from the possession of A1 and A2 and filed charge sheet after completion of the investigation.
15.The PW6 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he did not verify the ownership of the scene of offence, which is a godown, and he also did not obtain the survey number or current meter number of the scene of offence. He also clearly admitted that he did not submit any license of the PW1 to sell such 9 tobacco products. He also clearly admitted that all the witnesses stated before him in their statements recorded by him that some unknown offenders committed this theft. He further denied to the suggestions that he never visited the scene of offence and never conducted any investigation and falsely implicated the A1 and A2 in the present case.
16.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence against the Accused for which they denied the incriminating evidence against him and reported no defence evidence and hence the defence evidence was closed.
8.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire record.
9. Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of
Accused for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 of
Indian Penal Code beyond the reasonable doubt?
10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must prove that the A1 and A2 committed the acts which satisfy the essential ingredients of the sections 457 and 380 of IPC. It is vital to peruse the provisions of 378, 379, 380, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446 and 457 of IPC to understand the essential ingredients of provisions of sections 457 and 380 of IPC
11. Section 378- Theft:
10
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’ consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
12. Explanations
1. A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
2. A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
3. A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
4. A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
5. The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
11
13. Section 379: Punishment for theft
Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
14. Section 380- Theft in a dwelling house, etc.
Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
15. Section 441- Criminal trespass
Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.
16. Section 442- House trespass 12
Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass”.
17. Section 443- Lurking house trespass
Whoever commits house trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit “lurking house-trespass”.
18. Section 444- Lurking house trespass by night
Whoever commits lurking house trespass after sunset and before sunrise, is said to commit “lurking house trespass by night”.
19. Section 445- House breaking
A person is said to commit “house-breaking” who commits house- trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of it in such six ways, that is to say:
13
1. If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.
2. If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
3. If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
4. If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.
5. If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.
6. If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.
20. Explanations 14
1. Any out-house or building occupied with a house, and between which and such house there is an immediate internal communication, is part of the house within the meaning of this section.
21. Section 446- House breaking by night
Whoever commits house breaking after sunset and before sunrise, is said to commit “house-breaking by night”.
22. Section 457- Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment:
Whoever commits lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by night in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
23. POINT- Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the A1 and A2 under section 457 and 380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt??
A perusal of the evidence of the PW-1 shows that the evidence of the 15
PW-1 suffers from material contradictions as he stated that the value of the stock was Rs. 2,50,000, but in his statement before the police recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C, shows that he deposed that the value of the stock was Rs.
2,12,000. So the valuation of this stock was materially altered before this court from 2,12,000 to 2,50,000 by the PW1.
24.The PW1 also clearly admitted that he did not mention to the police in his statement recorded by the police about one Mallikarjuna who informed him about the stock which was present at two kilometers distance from the scene of offence and that he went to the scene of offence and found the stock in an auto. This court opines that this is a material omission that the PW1 did not state before the police about the acts or the conduct of his regarding to the recovery of the property after he got to know about this offense
25.The PW2 is a hearsay witness who stated that he went to the scene of offence after receiving a phone call from PW1 and went to the scene of offence and saw that one hole was made to the wall of the godown of the PW1, but he clearly admitted that he do not know the A1 and A2 and he went to the scene of offence only upon the call made by the PW1 and he did not know any details of the theft. In addition, his evidence is purely hearsay in nature. It is a well- established rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is inadmissible and so the 16 evidence of the PW2 cannot be considered to prove the case of the prosecution.
26.The evidence of the PW3 shows that he acted as a mediator in the present case upon the request of the police and he signed on the arrest mediatornama at the police station. This shows that the arrest mediatornama was not drafted by the police where the police arrested the A1 and A2, but they drafted it at the police station and they requested the PW3 to act as mediator in the present case for the said mediatornama. In addition, the evidence of the
PW-3 does not prove anything relating to the A1 and A2 committing this offence because he just saw the A1 and A2 at the police station after the police arrested the A1 and A2, but he did not witness the offence or he did not witness the police arresting the A1 and A2 at the time of committing of the offence. So the evidence of the PW3 cannot be taken into consideration to prove the case of the prosecution.
27.The PW4 is a hearsay witness who stated that he went to the scene of offence after receiving a phone call from PW1 and went to the scene of offence and saw that one hole was made to the wall of the godown of the PW1, but he clearly admitted that he do not know the A1 and A2 and he went to the scene of offence only upon the call made by the PW1 and he did not know any details of the theft. In addition, his evidence is purely hearsay in nature. It is a well- 17 established rule of evidence that hearsay evidence is inadmissible and so the evidence of the PW2 cannot be considered to prove the case of the prosecution.
28.The evidence of the PW5 shows that he acted as a mediator in the present case upon the request of the police for the scene observation report and police observed the scene of offence in his presence and in the presence of
LW6. In his cross-examination, he clearly stated that he cannot say the door number and the electricity details of the godown. This is little contradicting to his version of his chief examination that he witnessed and saw the scene of offence in the presence of the police, but he cannot say the details of the scene of offence which he observed. In addition, the evidence of the PW5 does not prove anything relating to the A1 and A2 committing this offence because he just observed the scene of offence, but he did not witness the offence or he did not witness the A1 and A2 committing this offence. So the evidence of the PW5 cannot be taken into consideration to prove the case of the prosecution.
29.The evidence of the PW6, who is the investigation officer, shows that the investigation suffers from serious lapses. The PW6 did not verify the ownership of the scene of offence and did not collect any documentary proofs regarding the ownership of the scene of offence. He clearly admitted that he did not collect any licence of the PW1 to sell such tobacco products. In addition, the 18 investigation officer did not collect any scientific evidence from the scene of offence which directly links the A1 and A2 to the present offence. The investigation officer did not obtain any fingerprints at the scene of offence to prove that A1 and A2 committed this offence.
30.The investigation officer also did not collect any CCTV footage to show that A1 and A2 were present at the scene of offence when this offence took place. The investigation officer also did not produce any evidence before this court to prove the exclusive possession of the stolen property by the A1 and A2 in the present case. For the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that the evidence of the PW6 who is the investigation officer shows that the investigation suffers from serious lapses. Hence this court is of the opinion that the evidence of the PW6 is also not reliable to prove the case of the prosecution.
31.It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution that the identity of the offenders is completely doubtful since none of the witnesses deposed any evidence which relates the A1 and A2 to the present case. The PW1 also did not state anywhere that A1 and A2 are the offenders in the present case who committed this offence and he did not state anything relating to the A1 and A2 other than stating that one offence took place at his godown.
32.The evidence of the PW2 to PW5 also does not connect the A1 and A2 19 being involved in this offence because none of those witnesses deposed anything relating to the A1 and A2 who committed this offence allegedly. The
PW6, who is the investigation officer also, did not direct the investigation in such a way that his investigation shall connect the A1 and A2 to the present case. He did not obtain the fingerprints at the godown or did not obtain any
CCTV footage or did not obtain any scientific evidence for that matter. And thus, his investigation suffers from serious lapses which failed to associate or direct the A1 and A2 to the present offence.
33.Hence, this court is of the opinion that the identity of the A1 and A2 for committing this offence is completely doubtful. Moreover, the presence of the
A1 and A2 at the scene of offence when the offence took place was also not established by the prosecution in the present case. None of those witnesses ever stated before this court that the A1 and A2 were present at the scene of offence. None of the aspects of the investigation of the PW6 also proves that the A1 and A2 were present at the scene of offence when the offence took place. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the presence of the A1 and A2 at the scene of offence is not established and the identity of the A1 and A2 who allegedly committed this offence was not established before this court by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
20
34.In the case law of Sahadevan v state of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6
SCC 403 the Hon’ble Supreme Court point out the principles and which would make an extra judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence which can formulate the basis of conviction of an accused. The said principles are quoted herein below:-
(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such a statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law."
35.The only evidence of the prosecution that links the A1 and A2 to the present case is that of the confession of the A1 and A2 before the investigation 21 officer who is the PW6. It is a well-established rule of evidence that the confession made before the police officers is inadmissible unless it is proved that such a confession is satisfying the above mentioned principles. But in the present case this court is of the opinion the voluntariness of the A1 and A2 is not proved by the prosecution and no mediator, who was present at the time of confession before the police officer, was examined by the prosecution which gives a reason for this court to believe that the confession was not voluntary. All the principles mentioned in the above case law are not satisfied by the facts and evidence of the prosecution and so the confession cannot be relied upon
36.Moreover the extra judicial confession may be admissible to the aspects of facts that are covered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In order to understand the exception under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is important to peruse this section, which reads as follows-
How much of information received from accused may be proved.––
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
22
37.A perusal of the section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act shows that such fact which is deposed by the person accused of any offence which is discovered in consequence of the information received from him in the custody of the police officer, such fact shall be relevant to the present case of the prosecution.
But in the present situation, the stock is not recovered basing on the confession of the A1 and A2, and no fact is discovered basing on the confession of the A1 and A2 other than the alleged guilt of the A1 and A2. Hence, the confession of the A1 and A2 cannot be considered relevant to the present case of the prosecution since no fact is discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused in the custody of the police officer as stated under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
38.In the present evidence of the prosecution, the discovery of the alleged stolen stock was also doubtful as the witness who is one Mallikarjuna, who informed the PW1 that the stock was present in an auto, was not examined by the prosecution and he is not produced before this court to prove the case of the prosecution. Hence, the discovery itself is in a question and so the extrajudicial confessional part is inadmissible as it also does not fall under the
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In addition, the confession was not also made before any of the mediators of the prosecution and none of the mediators of the prosecution deposed before this court relating to the 23 confession of the A1 and A2. Hence, the confession of the A1 and A2 cannot be considered as relevant and admissible as evidence of the prosecution in the present case. Hence, the confession of the A1 and A2 plays no role to prove the case of the prosecution.
39.The Hon’ble kerala High Court in Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala reported in 2025 KHC ONLINE 901, held that recovery of stolen items not sufficient for conviction without identification of person who committed the offence. Applying the same analogy to the present facts of the case, none of the witnesses identified the A1 and A2 as the offenders who allegedly committed this offence and PW1 clearly stated that he found the stock in am auto and so the recovery of the stolen items is not sufficient for conviction without identification of the person who committed this offence.
40.In addition, the investigation officer who is PW6 also failed to verify the ownership of the godown and he did not obtain any survey number or he did not obtain any electrical service or current meter details of the godown, which clearly shows that the prosecution failed to establish that the alleged godown belongs to the PW1 and that the PW1 had lawful possession of the scene. It is a general rule that the prosecution must first establish the house or building under the possession of the complainant for the section 457 of IPC to attract.
24
But in the present case, the possession of the said godown is not established by the prosecution through its evidence. So, the possession of the complainant remains unproved.
41.A perusal of the evidence of the prosecution shows that the legality of the alleged stock itself was not only established by the prosecution. The PW1 claims tobacco products were stolen, but the investigation officer admitted that he did not collect or file any license showing PW1 was authorized to sell such tobacco products. In addition, the PW2 also admitted that there were cases against PW1 relating to the unauthorized tobacco selling. This creates reasonable doubt regarding the legality of the alleged stock itself and the lawful possession of the alleged stock by the PW1, which shows that the legality of the alleged stock was not established by the prosecution.
42.So, it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution that there are material improvements and omissions made by the PW1 in his evidence before this court and in the statement made by him before the police and the identity of the A1 and A2 is not established by the prosecution before this court and none of the witnesses deposed that A1 and A2 are responsible for this alleged offence. The legality of the alleged stock was also not established by the prosecution and the investigation of the PW6 also suffers from serious lapses as the investigation of 25 the PW6 does not directly associate with the A1 and A2 committing this alleged offence.
43.In the discussion made above, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.1 and 2 under section 457, 380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt can be given to the accused.
24.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case. The unmarked case property produced vide in CPR No.100/2023 is already given to PW.1 for interim custody.
Typed by the directly computer dictated to the Typist, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 04 th day of May, 2026.
ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KANDUKUR.
26
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED.
For Prosecution : For Defence :
P.W.1: T. Venkateswarlu -NONE –
P.W.2: M. Chanikya
P.W.3: D. Chinna Narasaiah
P.W.4: K. Ranganadh
P.W.5: J. Suresh Babu
P.W.6: L. Ramulu, Sub-Inspector of Police.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: -
Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1
Ex.P.2: Signature of PW.3 on mediatornama
Ex.P.3: Scene observation report
Ex.P.4: First Information report.
Ex.P5: Rough sketch.
FOR DEFENCE: - -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil –
A.J.F.C.M, KANDUKUR.