N Venkat Ram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

PRESENT: Sri N. VENKAT RAM

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

C.C.No.464 OF 2014

Between:-

The State through., Prohibition & Excise Station, Andole.

…Prosecution A N D

Nimmanagari Srinivas Goud S/o. Ramchander Goud, Aged: 45 years, Occupation: Toddy Seller, R/o: H.No.5-37, B.C.Colony, Pulkal Village & Mandal, Medak District, T.S. … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 04-10-2016 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri S. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a charge sheet filed by the Prohibition & Excise

Sub-Inspector, Excise Station, Andole against sole accused for the offence

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that on 10-01-2014 the

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Andole, received reliable information about illegal possession and sale of toddy at a shop situated at

Pulkal Village & Mandal. The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff reached to the spot and secured the presence of V. Satish

Kumar and Vannpuram Kittu as panch witness. They found the accused while conducting sales of toddy and on enquiry accused revealed his descriptive 2 particulars. The Investigating Officer issued search memo and on verification found (35) plastic crates containing 420 bottles of toddy of 650 ml each. The

Investigating Officer conducted spot test and found that the toddy is free from chloral Hydrate and drawn two samples, each about 350 ml., and destroyed the remaining contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. Later the investigating Officer handed over the case papers property and accused to the second investigating Officer for further investigation. Later the Second Investigating Officer registered a case in Cr.No.677/2013-14,

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation one sample sent for chemical examination and second sample deposited before Court and the remaining seized property was deposited

before Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise for confiscation. Later

effected the arrest of the accused and produced before the Hon'ble court for judicial custody. Basing on the material collected filed charged sheet against accused.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 against the accused and numbered as CC.No.464/2014. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him.

4.The accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against him and he denied the same. Later charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, was framed and the same is read over and explained to the accused for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs-1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating circumstances 3 appeared against him in the evidence, and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused and perused the record.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, beyond reasonable doubt?

9.POINT:- The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in illegal possession and sale of toddy at a shop situated at Pulkal village. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the panch witnesses for seizure as PW1 and PW3, the Investigation Officers as PW2 and

PW4. Apart from this oral evidence the Prosecution marked Ex.P3 C.E.Report.

10.This Court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. PW4 the

First Investigating Officer testified the fact of his raid and noticing of 35 plastic crates each containing 12 bottles filled with 650 ml of toddy in the presence of PW1 and PW2. Further PW4 during cross-examination testified that he did not collect any ownership certificate and also did not examine the neighbours of scene of offence. However, PW1 and PW3 who are the independent mediators did not support this contention. They testified that Police obtained their signatures on blank papers but denied conducting panchanama and as well as destroying toddy by collecting samples. Therefore, the prosecution in order to prove the illegal possession and sales of toddy by the accused, relied on the sole testimony of PW4 Investigating Officer. When PW1 and PW3 independent mediators denied conducting panchanama and seizure of tody under cover of panchanama, this Court is of the opinion that it is unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of PW4 Investigating Officer. The evidence of PW2

Second Investigating Officer confined to the Investigating procedures like 4 registering of case, depositing of case property and sending of samples for chemical examination, filing charge sheet and arrest of accused. Ex.P3 is the

C.E.Report which discloses that the toddy is free from chloral hydrate. But as noted supra the destruction and collection of very sample of toddy by PW4 under cover of panchanama is under suspicion. The evidence of PW2 and PW4 did not corroborate with the independent evidence. In the absence of such corroborative evidence, this court hesitated to rely on the testimonies of PW2 and PW4 who are Investigating Officers.

11.In the light of aforesaid discussion, for the lack of corroborative evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution is failed to establish that accused was in indulged in sales of toddy illegally. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused are stands canceled subject to Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 07th day of October, 2016.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at Jogipet 5 Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW1 Satish Kumar -NIL- PW2 V. Laxminaryana PW3 Vannapuram Kittu PW4 R. Sravan Kumar

Exhibits marked for

Ex.P1 Portion of Signature on search memo by PW1 Ex.P2 Portion of Signature on Panchanama by PW1 Ex.P3 C.E.Report Ex.P4 Portion of signature on search memo by PW3 Ex.P5 Portion of signature on panchanama by PW3

Material Objects marked for -NIL-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at Jogipet

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ANDOLE AT JOGIPET

PRESENT: Sri N. VENKAT RAM

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

C.C.No.440 OF 2014

Between:-

The State through., Prohibition & Excise Station, Andole.

…Prosecution A N D

Gaddameedi Narendar Goud S/o. Malla Goud, Age: 36 years, Occupation: Toddy Business, R/o: Choutakur Village, Pulkal Mandal, Medak District, T.S. … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 27-09-2016 in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri S. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a charge sheet filed by the Prohibition & Excise

Sub-Inspector, SHO, Excise Station, Andole against sole accused for the offence

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968.

2.The allegations leveled against the accused are as follows:

On 17-10-2013 the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector received reliable information about possession and sales of toddy by the accused at his house situated at Choutakur Village. Then he proceeded to the said spot, along with his staff by securing two panch witnesses K. Satya Goud and P. Murali

Goud. At spot they found accused conducting sales and on noticing the officials he ran away. The Excise Officials tried to apprehend the said person but he managed to escape and on enquiry with the locals the Excise Sub-Inspector came to know the descriptive particulars of the accused. Later they found (08) 2 plastic crates, each containing (12) bottles of toddy of 650 ml each and conducted spot test and found free from Chloral Hydrate and drawn two samples of toddy and later destructed remaining toddy under cover of panchanama.

3.Basing on the panchanama, the Excise Sub-Inspector registered a case in COR.No.481/2013-14, U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. One sample sent for chemical examination and second sample deposited before

Court. On 15-09-2014, the accused was arrested and produced before Hon'ble

Court for judicial Custody. Later, basing on the material collected filed charged sheet against accused.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 against the accused and numbered as CC.No.440/2014. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him.

5.The accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusations leveled against him and he denied the same. A charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968, was framed and the same was read over and explained to the accused for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs-1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence, and the accused denied the same and reported no evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused and perused the record.

9.Now, the point that arises for determination is:

3 Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:- The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in possession and sales of toddy at his house situated in Choutakur village. In order to prove the said facts, the prosecution has examined the panch witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and the Investigating Officers as PW3 and PW4.

Further marked Ex.P5 Panchanama, Ex.P6 COR and Ex.P7 C.E.Report.

11.This Court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. PW3 the

First Investigating Officer testified the fact of his raid and noticing of 8 crates of toddy each containing 12 bottles filled with 650 ml of toddy and when he conducted spot test found free from Chloral Hydrate. Later drawn two samples by destroying the remaining toddy under Ex.P5 in the presence of PW1 and PW2.

However, PW1 and PW2 did not support this contention. They testified that

Police obtained their signatures on blank papers but denied conducting panchanama and as well as destroying toddy by collecting samples. Therefore, the prosecution in order to prove the illegal possession and sales of toddy by the accused, relied on the sole testimony of PW3 Investigating Officer. When PW1 and PW2 independent mediators denied the Ex.P5 panchanama, this Court is of the opinion that it is unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of PW3 Investigating

Officer. The evidence of PW4 Second Investigating Officer confined to the

Investigating procedures as such it is not helping the prosecution. Ex.P7 is the

C.E.Report which discloses that the fermented toddy is free from chloral hydrate.

But as noted supra the destruction and collection of very sample of toddy by

PW3 under Ex.P5 is under suspicion.

12.In view of aforesaid discussion, for the lack of adequate evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution is failed to establish that accused was in possession and conducting sales of toddy at his house situated in Choutakur 4 Village. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused are stands canceled subject to Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 04th day of October, 2016.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at Jogipet

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW1 K. Satya Goud -NIL- PW2 P. Murali Goud PW3 V. Laxminarayana PW4 Y. Pattabhi Choudary

Exhibits marked for

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Portion of Signature on Panchanama by PW1 -NIL- Ex.P2 Portion of Signature on Panchanama by PW1 Ex.P3 Portion of Signature on Panchanama by PW2 Ex.P4 Portion of Signature on Panchanama by PW2 Ex.P5 Panchanama Ex.P6 COR Ex.P7 C.E.Report Material Objects marked for -NIL-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Proh. & Excise Offences Court, Sangareddy

FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at Jogipet

TSSN060006752013

Presented on : 21-12-2013 Registered on : 21-12-2013 Decided on : 07-10-2016 Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 17 days

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet

CC/524/2013

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Dannaram Vittal Through Police Station Officer Dubbak 80, Ro Chevella Village of Alladurg Mandal Medak District.

ANDOLE MEDAK

Dannaram Vittal VERSUS : A-1 Papammagari Shankarappa Age: 50 Occupation : Ro Chevella Village of Alladurg Mandal Medak District.

2:A-2 Papammagari Sangappa Age: 55 Occupation : Agriculture Ro Chevella Village of Alladurg Mandal Medak District 3:A-3 Papammagari Chandrappa Age: 50 Occupation : Agriculture Ro Chevella Village of Alladurg Mandal Medak District 4:A-4 Papammagari Santhosh Kumar

Age: 20 Occupation : Agriculture Ro Chevella Village of Alladurg Mandal Medak District 5:A-5 Papammagari Anjaneyulu Age: 35 Occupation : Agriculture Ro Chevella Village of Alladurg Mandal Medak Distric ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APPO, Advocate for M.Anjaiah appearing for A-1 Papammagari Shankarappa Advocate M.Anjaiah,

Offence punishable under : 324R/w34IPC of INDIAN PENAL

CODE,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 07-10-2016)

ORDER

Copy of DC of A3 filed. The case against A3 is abated. A1, A2, A4, A5 and Lw 1, 2 who are the victims are present. Both parties filed a memo seeking to refer the matter to Lok Adalat. Hence the case is referred to Lok Adalat. Perused the case record and the wound certificates of the injured which shows that the victims suffered grievous and simple injuries. Hence permission is accorded U/Sec. 320(2) Cr.P.C to compound the offence U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 I.P.C and the compromise is recorded at Lok Adalat. \ \ As per Judgment of Honble High court of Judicature Telangana and A.P rendered in Darapunani Raj Kumar V/s State of A.P and another reported in 2015 (1) ALD (Crl) 380 Sec 324 IPC is compoundable one. \ \ In the result, A1, A2, A4, A5 are acquitted U/Sec.320 (8) Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 I.P.C and their bail bonds, if any shall stands cancelled and they are set at liberty.

Date : 07-10-2016 Junior

Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet

TSSN060000532016

Presented on : 27-02-2016 Registered on : 27-02-2016 Decided on : 04-10-2016 Duration : 0 years, 7 months, 6 days

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet

PRC/8/2016

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Pandani Sadananadam Through Police Station Officer Thoguta 13, Age. 44 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ro Kodapaka Village of Papannapet Mandal.

ANDOLE MEDAK

Pandani Sadananadam VERSUS : MD. Nayeemuddin Age: 0 Occupation : Age. 32 years, Occ. Driver Ro Ravindranagar colony Sadashivpet Village and Mandal.

2:Golla Raju @ Mekala Raju Age: 30 Occupation : Ro Sadasivpet Now at Sajjapur Village of Kohir Mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for MD. Nayeemuddin Advocate appearing for , 2 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 302r/w34IPCandSec32VofSC/ STPOAAct1989 of INDIAN PENAL

CODE,

of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 04-10-2016)

ORDER

A1 and A2 are present. A1 furnished committal bonds. Heard and perused the record. The record prima facie shows a case against the A1 and A2 for the offence U/Sec. 302 r/w 34 IPC and 3(2) (V) of SC and ST (POA ) Act of 1989. As the offence U/Sec 3(2) (V) of SC and ST (POA ) Act of 1989, is exclusively triable by the Honble Spl. Court for SC/ST (POA)/ Vth Additional sessions court, Sangareddy, hence the case is committed to the Honble Spl. Court for SC/ST (POA)/ Vth Addl

sessions court, Sangareddy vide separate committal order U/Sec 209 Cr.P.C. A1 is

directed to appear before the Honble Spl. Court for SC/ST (POA) / Vth Additional

Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy on 14-10-2016 and the Superintendent,

District Jail, Nizamabad is directed to produce A2 before the Honble Special Court on 18.10.2016. The entire case record and properties, if any shall be submitted to the

Honble sessions court. Remand extension till then.

Date : 04-10-2016 Junior

Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at jogipet

TSSN060000482016

Presented on : 27-02-2016 Registered on : 27-02-2016 Decided on : 04-10-2016 Duration : 0 years, 7 months, 6 days

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet

STC/8/2016

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Kukunuri Madhavareddy Through Police Station Officer Siddipet Rural 138, Age. 28 years, Occ. Private employee Ro Korpole village of Pulkal Mandal.

ANDOLE MEDAK

Kukunuri Madhavareddy VERSUS : Syed Javved Age: 0 Occupation : Age. 28 years, Occ Driver of Innova car Ro Malkapur Village of Hatnoora village and Mandal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Syed Javved Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 337IPC of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 04-10-2016)

ORDER

Accused present and he is examined U/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. and the accusation for the offence U/Sec. 337 IPC is read over and explained to him, for which he voluntarily pleaded guilty and this court considered the pleaded guilty of accused is voluntarily one. Hence pleaded guilty is accepted. Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence and accused pleaded that he is a first offender and pleaded mercy. \ \ In view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in my view it is a fit case to take a lenient view in imposing sentence. \ \ In the result, I found the accused guilty for the offence U/Sec. 337 IPC and is convicted U/Sec. 252 Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Five hundered only) for 337 IPC, for the said offence and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer a simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days for each offence. Total fine of Rs.500/-.

Date : 04-10-2016 Junior

Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at jogipet

ANDOLE MEDAK

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Andole at jogipet