Sri N Venkatram

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt. K.Maruthi Devi, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, For Excise offences, Sangareddy.

FRIDAY, THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2014

C.C.No.224 OsF 2013

Between:-

The State of A.P. through, P.S. R.C. Puram. …Prosecution A N D

Medipally Devender Goud, S/o: Pandu Goud, Age: 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Kollur village of Ramachandrapuram (m), Medak District … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sr. APP for the prosecution and of Sri G. Goverdhan Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Ramachandrapuram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.327/2013 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The brief facts are that:-

On 12-07-2013 at 1700 hours while the SI of Police,

Ramachandrapuram was attending P.S. routine duty, he received credible information that one Medipalli Devender Goud, S/o Pandu Goud was selling liquor in his house at Kollur village, on receiving of the above information he along with his staff proceeded to Kollur village and found that the accused

Devendar Goud was keeping liquor in front of his house and selling the same to the Public by collecting extra money without having any valid license from the concerned authorities. On seeing of the Police the accused 2 escaped from there. Upon which they secured the presence of panch witnesses and conducted scene and seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators at 17-40 hours and seized 1. Kingfisher Strong beers (33),

2. Royal Challenge beer bottles (16), 3. Breezer bottles (2), 4. AC Premium full bottles (2), 5. Royal Stag full bottles (2), 6. Officer Choice full bottles (5),

7. Royal Stag quarter bottles (4), 8. IB quarter bottles (5), 9. IB half bottles (2), 10. Premium (3), 11. AC Premium quarter (3) bottles, 12. Officers

Choice quarter bottles (11), 13. Kinglife quarter bottles (9), 14. Mension

House Quarter bottles (2), 15. Director Special Quarter bottles (2) and 16

Director Special quarter bottles (4) from the place of offence and returned to

P.S. on 12-07-2013 at 20-20 hours with the case property. Basing on the above panchanama PW5 registered a sue-motto case in Cr.No.327/2013

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and took up the investigation. During the further course of investigation he examined PW1, 4 and LW2 A. Murali

PC1185, R.C. Puram and recorded their statement. The sample of each one of each brand was sent to Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise

Laboratory, Nizamabad for Chemical Examination. While the investigation was in progress on 16-07-2013 at 1100 hours the accused surrendered

before him, on interrogation the accused confessed to have committed this

offence which affected his arrest and sent him to the Court for judicial remand. The chemical examiner furnished his opinion that some samples contain alcohol and sugars and they are beers and some samples contain sugars and it was breezer, some samples contain alcohol and they are

Indian Liquor and some samples contain alcohol and it was liquor. After completion of investigation, he filed chare sheet against the accused.

3

2.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been furnished to him.

3.The accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and a charge for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, and he denied the same. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubts?

8.POINT: The prosecution has examined PW-1 to 5. PW1 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the said incident and who assisted the

Investigating Officer, PW3 and 4 are the panchas for scene and seizure panchanama and PW5 is the Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet in this case.

4

9.PW1 stated that on 12-07-2013 at 5.00 p.m., the SI of Police received reliable information that in Kollur village one Devender Goud was selling IML Liquor without license with high rates at his house and he along with PW4 and SI of Police went to the scene of offence, on seeing them, the accused managed to escape. On search of house they found (33) bottles of

Kingfisher Strong beers 650 ml., (16) Royal Challenge beer bottles, (2)

Breezer bottles, (2) AC Premium full bottles, (5) Royal Stag full bottles, (5)

OC full bottles, (4) Royal Stag quarter bottles, (5) IB quarter bottles (2) IB half bottles, (3) Premium bottles, (3) AC Premium Quarter bottles, (11) OC

Quarter bottles, (9) Kings life quarter bottles, (2) Mansion house quarter bottles, (2) DSP half bottles, (4) DSP quarter bottles and they seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of witnesses and later they brought the case property to Police Station. In his cross-examination he stated that the SI of Police received information when he was at Police

Station by 4.00 p.m., and when they went to the house no person was present and they did not collect the house number of accused. They did not enquire the Village Sarpanch about the accused house.

10.PW2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. PW5 stated that on 12-07-2013 at 5.00 p.m., he received reliable information that in Kollur village one Devender Goud was selling IML Liquor without license with high rates at his house and he along with his staff went to the scene of offence, on seeing them, the accused managed to escape.

On search of house they found (33) bottles of Kingfisher Strong beers 650 ml., (16) Royal Challenge beer bottles, (2) Breezer bottles, (2) AC Premium full bottles, (5) Royal Stag full bottles, (5) OC full bottles, (4) Royal Stag quarter bottles, (5) IB quarter bottles (2) IB half bottles, (3) Premium bottles, (3) AC Premium Quarter bottles, (11) OC Quarter bottles, (9) Kings life 5 quarter bottles, (2) Mansion house quarter bottles, (2) DSP half bottles, (4)

DSP quarter bottles and they seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of witnesses and later they brought the case property to

Police Station. Basing on panchanama i.e., Ex.P3 he registered a case in

Cr.No.327/2013 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P4.

During the course of investigation he recorded the statement of PW1 and 4,

LW2 A. Murali and sent one sample to Chemical Analysis and another sample to Court. On 16-07-2013 he arrested the accused and produced

before the Court for judicial remand. After receiving of C.E. Report i.e.,

Ex.P5 he filed chare sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that before going to the raid he did not issue FIR before receiving reliable information. In Kollur village there are Sarpanch and Secretary present. He did not collect the ownership certificate of accused and he did not enquire the Village Sarpanch about the accused. There was a delay of one month five days to deposit the property before the Court and the said property was lying in the Police Station. He did not file any Affidavit before the Court about property.

11.Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the material on record. PW1, 4 and 5 are the Police Officials and they are the interested witnesses to this case. PW2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for the scene and seizure panchanama but they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Even if the evidence of PW-1, 4 and 5 is taken to be true in respect of the above lapses none of the panch witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In the above circumstances the evidence of the Investigating agency cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty. Therefore, the prosecution has failed 6 to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.POINT NO.2:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked property shall destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WINTNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution:Defence

PW-1 H. Narsimulu -Nil – PW-2 B. Vishnu PW-3 S. Janardhan Reddy PW-4 B. Ramchandraiah PW-5 J. Venkat

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:Defence

Ex.P-1 Signature on panchanama by PW2 -Nil- Ex.P-2 Signature on panchanama by PW3 Ex.P-3 Panchanama Ex.P-4 FIR Ex.P-5 CE Report

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt. K.Maruthi Devi, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, For Excise offences, Sangareddy.

FRIDAY, THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2014

C.C.No.224 OsF 2013

Between:-

The State of A.P. through, P.S. R.C. Puram. …Prosecution A N D

Medipally Devender Goud, S/o: Pandu Goud, Age: 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Kollur village of Ramachandrapuram (m), Medak District … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sr. APP for the prosecution and of Sri G. Goverdhan Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Ramachandrapuram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.327/2013 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The brief facts are that:-

On 12-07-2013 at 1700 hours while the SI of Police,

Ramachandrapuram was attending P.S. routine duty, he received credible information that one Medipalli Devender Goud, S/o Pandu Goud was selling liquor in his house at Kollur village, on receiving of the above information he along with his staff proceeded to Kollur village and found that the accused

Devendar Goud was keeping liquor in front of his house and selling the same to the Public by collecting extra money without having any valid license from the concerned authorities. On seeing of the Police the accused 2 escaped from there. Upon which they secured the presence of panch witnesses and conducted scene and seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators at 17-40 hours and seized 1. Kingfisher Strong beers (33),

2. Royal Challenge beer bottles (16), 3. Breezer bottles (2), 4. AC Premium full bottles (2), 5. Royal Stag full bottles (2), 6. Officer Choice full bottles (5),

7. Royal Stag quarter bottles (4), 8. IB quarter bottles (5), 9. IB half bottles (2), 10. Premium (3), 11. AC Premium quarter (3) bottles, 12. Officers

Choice quarter bottles (11), 13. Kinglife quarter bottles (9), 14. Mension

House Quarter bottles (2), 15. Director Special Quarter bottles (2) and 16

Director Special quarter bottles (4) from the place of offence and returned to

P.S. on 12-07-2013 at 20-20 hours with the case property. Basing on the above panchanama PW5 registered a sue-motto case in Cr.No.327/2013

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and took up the investigation. During the further course of investigation he examined PW1, 4 and LW2 A. Murali

PC1185, R.C. Puram and recorded their statement. The sample of each one of each brand was sent to Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise

Laboratory, Nizamabad for Chemical Examination. While the investigation was in progress on 16-07-2013 at 1100 hours the accused surrendered

before him, on interrogation the accused confessed to have committed this

offence which affected his arrest and sent him to the Court for judicial remand. The chemical examiner furnished his opinion that some samples contain alcohol and sugars and they are beers and some samples contain sugars and it was breezer, some samples contain alcohol and they are

Indian Liquor and some samples contain alcohol and it was liquor. After completion of investigation, he filed chare sheet against the accused.

3

2.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been furnished to him.

3.The accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and a charge for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, and he denied the same. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubts?

8.POINT: The prosecution has examined PW-1 to 5. PW1 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the said incident and who assisted the

Investigating Officer, PW3 and 4 are the panchas for scene and seizure panchanama and PW5 is the Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet in this case.

4

9.PW1 stated that on 12-07-2013 at 5.00 p.m., the SI of Police received reliable information that in Kollur village one Devender Goud was selling IML Liquor without license with high rates at his house and he along with PW4 and SI of Police went to the scene of offence, on seeing them, the accused managed to escape. On search of house they found (33) bottles of

Kingfisher Strong beers 650 ml., (16) Royal Challenge beer bottles, (2)

Breezer bottles, (2) AC Premium full bottles, (5) Royal Stag full bottles, (5)

OC full bottles, (4) Royal Stag quarter bottles, (5) IB quarter bottles (2) IB half bottles, (3) Premium bottles, (3) AC Premium Quarter bottles, (11) OC

Quarter bottles, (9) Kings life quarter bottles, (2) Mansion house quarter bottles, (2) DSP half bottles, (4) DSP quarter bottles and they seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of witnesses and later they brought the case property to Police Station. In his cross-examination he stated that the SI of Police received information when he was at Police

Station by 4.00 p.m., and when they went to the house no person was present and they did not collect the house number of accused. They did not enquire the Village Sarpanch about the accused house.

10.PW2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. PW5 stated that on 12-07-2013 at 5.00 p.m., he received reliable information that in Kollur village one Devender Goud was selling IML Liquor without license with high rates at his house and he along with his staff went to the scene of offence, on seeing them, the accused managed to escape.

On search of house they found (33) bottles of Kingfisher Strong beers 650 ml., (16) Royal Challenge beer bottles, (2) Breezer bottles, (2) AC Premium full bottles, (5) Royal Stag full bottles, (5) OC full bottles, (4) Royal Stag quarter bottles, (5) IB quarter bottles (2) IB half bottles, (3) Premium bottles, (3) AC Premium Quarter bottles, (11) OC Quarter bottles, (9) Kings life 5 quarter bottles, (2) Mansion house quarter bottles, (2) DSP half bottles, (4)

DSP quarter bottles and they seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of witnesses and later they brought the case property to

Police Station. Basing on panchanama i.e., Ex.P3 he registered a case in

Cr.No.327/2013 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P4.

During the course of investigation he recorded the statement of PW1 and 4,

LW2 A. Murali and sent one sample to Chemical Analysis and another sample to Court. On 16-07-2013 he arrested the accused and produced

before the Court for judicial remand. After receiving of C.E. Report i.e.,

Ex.P5 he filed chare sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that before going to the raid he did not issue FIR before receiving reliable information. In Kollur village there are Sarpanch and Secretary present. He did not collect the ownership certificate of accused and he did not enquire the Village Sarpanch about the accused. There was a delay of one month five days to deposit the property before the Court and the said property was lying in the Police Station. He did not file any Affidavit before the Court about property.

11.Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the material on record. PW1, 4 and 5 are the Police Officials and they are the interested witnesses to this case. PW2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for the scene and seizure panchanama but they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Even if the evidence of PW-1, 4 and 5 is taken to be true in respect of the above lapses none of the panch witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In the above circumstances the evidence of the Investigating agency cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty. Therefore, the prosecution has failed 6 to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.POINT NO.2:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked property shall destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WINTNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution:Defence

PW-1 H. Narsimulu -Nil – PW-2 B. Vishnu PW-3 S. Janardhan Reddy PW-4 B. Ramchandraiah PW-5 J. Venkat

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:Defence

Ex.P-1 Signature on panchanama by PW2 -Nil- Ex.P-2 Signature on panchanama by PW3 Ex.P-3 Panchanama Ex.P-4 FIR Ex.P-5 CE Report

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt. K.Maruthi Devi, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, For Excise offences, Sangareddy.

THURSDAY, THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2014

C.C.No.67 OF 2013

Between:-

The State of A.P. through, P.S. B.D.L. Bhanur. …Prosecution A N D

Bakaram Bixapathi, S/o: Danaiah Goud, Age: 48 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Kirana Shop, R/o: Ghanapur village … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sr. APP for the prosecution and of Sri K. Krishna Rao and Sri P. Ravi, Advocates for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, P.S. B.D.L. Bhanur filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.227/2012 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) (f) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. The brief facts are that:-

On 16-11-2012 at 1600 hours on reliable information that one

Bakaram Bixapathi, S/o Danaiah Goud was in possession of IFML Liquor in his Kirana Shop and selling the same on high price to the people illegally,

PW4 along with his staff proceeded to Ghanapur village, on seeing the

Police the said person fled away from the spot, on search in his Kirana Shop found (15) Officer Choice bottles each 180 ML and (04) Aristocrat Premium bottles. Later he secured the presence of two mediators in their presence and conducted scene cum seizure panchanama and seized the above illicit 2 under cover of panchanama duly taking (2) samples from each brand and returned to PS and registered a sue-motto case in Cr.No.227/2012

U/Sec.34(a) (f) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 at 1930 hours and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses

LW1 V. Pochaiah the Police Constable and PW2 and recorded their statement. While the investigation was in progress, on 05-12-2012 he received information from the Court that the accused was surrendered in the

Court. During the further course of investigation on 17-11-2012 he deposited the illicit liquor which was seized from the possession of accused and deposited at FSL, Hyderabad. Later he handed over the file to LW6

S.R. Dhamodhar Reddy the Inspector of Police and after completion of investigation, he filed chare sheet against the accused.

2.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.34(a) (f) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been furnished to him.

3.The accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and a charge for the offence U/Sec.34(a) (f) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has been framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, and he denied the same. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

3

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.34(a)

(f) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, beyond all reasonable doubts?

8.POINT: The prosecution has examined PW-1 to 4. PW1 and 2 are the panchas for confession and seizure panchanama, PW3 is the witness to the said incident and PW4 is the first Investigating Officer.

9.PW1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. PW3 stated that on 16-11-2012 in the evening the SI of Police received reliable information that in Ghanapur village one Bikshapathi Goud was running a Kirana Shop and at the same time he was selling IML liquor without license with high rates. Upon which he along with SI of Police and

PC 1968 went to the scene of offence, on seeing them the accused managed to escape. On search of Kirana Shop they found (4) bottles of

Aristocrat Premium Whisky 180 ml., and (15) OC Quarter bottles and they seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. Later they brought the case property to the Police Station and the CI of Police examined and recorded his statement. In his cross- examination he stated that they will enter the duty particulars in GD before performing their duties. The distance between scene of offence and Police

Station was about 10 kms. There are 500 to 600 houses in the Village and he has no previous acquaintance with the accused. He has no idea about

Kirana Shop and also the name of accused. He along with

PC1968 went to the scene of offence and they did not issue search memo against the accused. They did not enquire about accused Village Sarpanch 4 and Secretary and they did not collect Ownership Certificate from Gram

Panchayath. He admitted that the seized property may get in the open market.

10.PW4 stated that on 16-11-2012 in the evening the SI of Police received reliable information that in Ghanapur Village one Bikshapathi Goud was running a Kirana Shop and at the same time he was selling IMFL without license with high rates. Upon which he along with PW3 and PC1968 went to the scene of offence, on seeing them the accused managed to escape, on search of Kirana Shop they found (4) bottles of Aristocrat

Premium whisky 180 ml., and (15) OC Quarter bottles and they seized the same under cover of panchanama i.e. Ex.P3, in the presence of panch witnesses. Later they brought the case property to the Police Station, basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No.227/2012 U/Sec.34(a) (f) of

A.P. Excise Act and issued FIR i.e., Ex.P4. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses, PW3 and LW1 V. Pochaiah. On 5-12-2012 the accused surrendered before the Court and one sample deposited before Court and another sample sent to Chemical Examination.

After receiving of C.E. Report i.e., Ex.P5 LW6 S.R. Damodar Reddy filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that he was the complainant and Investigation Officer and they may enter the

Duty Particulars in GD before performing those duties and the same was not placed before the Court. The distance between scene of offence and Police

Station was about 6 kms. The Ghanpur Village was major panchayath and he has no previous acquaintance with accused. They did not examine the independent witness and did not enquire about accused with Village

Sarpanch and Secretary. They did not issue search memo against the accused and he has no idea about Kirana Shop name of accused. They did 5 not collect Ownership Certificate from Gram Panchayath and he admitted that the seized property may get in the open market and they did not serve the seized property list to the accused.

11.Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the material on record. PW1 and 2 are the panchas for confession and seizure panchanama but they did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. PW3 and 4 are the Police Witnesses and interested witnesses to this case. Even if the evidence of PW-3 and 4 is taken to be true in respect of the above lapses none of the panch witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and the Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet in this case was not examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. In the above circumstances the evidence of the Investigating agency cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.POINT NO.2:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) (f) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property shall destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court Sangareddy.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WINTNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution:Defence

PW-1 E. Rama Krishna -Nil – PW-2 B. Veeresham Goud PW-3 B. VijayKumar PW-4 P. Narsimlu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:Defence

Ex.P-1 Signature on panchanama by PW1 -Nil- Ex.P-2 Signature on panchanama by PW2 Ex.P-3 Seizure panchanama Ex.P-4 FIR Ex.P-5 CE Report

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt. K.Maruthi Devi, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, For Excise offences, Sangareddy.

FRIDAY, THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2014

C.C.No.209 OF 2013

Between:-

The State of A.P. through, Excise Station, Sangareddy. …Prosecution A N D

Bandagoni Satya Goud, S/o: Ramagoud, Age: 25 years, R/o: Kalwakunta … Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sr. APP for the prosecution and of Sri M. Giridhar, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise

Station, Sangareddy filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.170/2013-14 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act, 1968. The brief facts are that:-

On 01-07-2013 on reliable information about illegal sales of IML at open place, opposite Toddy Shop, Sanjeeva Nagar, Sangareddy PW3 along with his staff went to the above place and secured two panch witnesses PW1 and 2 and at about 4.15 p.m., found the accused was moving suspiciously carrying one hand bag in front of the toddy shop and on seeing the Officer, the accused ran away leaving the bag. On search of the bag found IML bottles and on counting the bottles they are 9 bottles of DSP 2

Fine Whisky, each 180 ml. On verification of the bottles, all the bottles are

Duty Paid Liquor and Excise Adhesive Labels are torn out. On local enquiry it was revealed that accused was Bandagoni Satya Goud, S/o Rama Goud.

Upon which he drawn two samples from each brand, each one bottle and seized the samples and remaining contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW1 and 2. Later he brought the seized samples along with the accused to the P.S. and registered a case in Cr.No.170/2013-14

U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and submitted the case papers before the Court. One sample was sent for chemical examination through Excise

Station, Sangareddy for analysis and the second sample was deposited

before the Court and the remaining seized property was deposited before

Dy. Commissioner, Excise, Medak at Sangareddy for confiscation. The

Government Chemical Examiner after analyzing the sample issued C.E.

Report opining that the sample contains alcohol and it is Indian liquor. The accused was surrendered before the Court on 15-07-2013 and later sent him for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed chare sheet against the accused.

2.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been furnished to him.

3.The accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and a charge for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 has been framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5.

3

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, and he denied the same. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now, the point that arises for consideration 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 all reasonable doubts?

8.POINT: The prosecution has examined PW-1 to 3. PW1 and 2 are the panch witnesses and PW3 is the Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet in this case.

9.PW1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. PW3 stated that on 1-7-2013 at 4.15 p.m., he received reliable information about illegal sales of IMF liquor at open place at Sanjeevanagar,

Sangareddy. Upon which he along with his staff and panch witnesses i.e.

PW1 and 2 found the accused in suspicious movement carrying one hand bag in front of toddy shop, on seeing them, he managed to escape and left the bag. On search of the bag they found (9) bottles of DSP fine whisky 180 ml, and all are duty paid liquors. On enquiry they came to know that the accused was B. Satya Goud and they drawn two samples from that and seized the same under cover of panchanama i.e., Ex.P3 in the presence of

PW1 and 2 and brought the case property to the Police Station and registered a case in COR.No.170/2013-14 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and issued COR i.e. Ex.P4. One sample was sent to Court and another sample sent to Chemical Analysis and the remaining seized property 4 deposited before Dy. Commissioner, Excise Sangareddy for confiscation.

The accused was surrendered before the Court on 15-7-2013 for judicial remand. After receiving of C.E. Report i.e. Ex.P5, he filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that the toddy shop has license to sell toddy and he did not mention the toddy shop owner in the shop and neighbours of scene of offence.

10.Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the material on record. PW1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. PW3 is the Police witness and interested witness to this case. Even if the evidence of PW-3 is taken to be true in respect of the above lapses none of the panch witnesses support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. In the above circumstances the evidence of the Investigating Officer cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.POINT NO.2:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property shall destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court Sangareddy.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WINTNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution:Defence

PW-1 M. Srinivas Goud -Nil – PW-2 K. Satish Kumar PW-3 D.V. Nagender

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:Defence

Ex.P-1 Signature on panchanama by PW1 -Nil- Ex.P-2 Signature on panchanama by PW2 Ex.P-3 Seizure panchanama Ex.P-4 COR Ex.P-5 CE Report

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Excise Court, Sangareddy.

TSSN040011052015

Presented on : 30-11-2015 Registered on : 26-12-2015 Decided on : 26-04-2017 Duration : 1 years, 4 months, 26 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

CC/200214/2016

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

P.S.R.C.PURAM

Through Police Station Officer RC Puram PS 558, P.S.R.C.PURAM

SANGAREDDYSANGAREDDY

P.S.R.C.PURAM

VERSUS : Bontha Jayamma Age: 0 Occupation : age 28 yrs, Caste, Vaddera, Occ, House Wife, Ro H.No. 9-47, SM Colony, R.c.Puram 2:Bontha Laxmamma Age: 60 Occupation : Caste Vaddera Occ House wife Ro H.No. 9-47 S.N.Colony R.c.Puram 3:Gurram Kalamma Age: 33 Occupation : Caste Vaddera Occ House wife Ro H.No. 1386147 S.N.Colony R.c.Puram 4:Orsu Saidamma Age: 40 Occupation : Caste Vaddera Occ House wife Ro H.No. 9-631 S.N.Colony R.c.Pura ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Bontha Jayamma Advocate , , appearing for , , , 2, 3, 4 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 448,427,323,504,r/w34 of INDIAN

PENAL CODE,

ORDER

Accused 1 to 4 the defacto complainant are present. Counsel for the accused and the police concerned are present and identified the parties and obtained their signatures in mu presnece. The offense u/s A27 323 504 r/w 34 IPC are compoundable. The matter is compromised bvetweent the parties on due conciliations beofre Lok Adalat.The complainant represented that he has no grievance against the accused and that the accused 1 to 4 may be relieved. hence the accused discharged of the offenses u/s 320 (8) CR PC. Accordingly award is passed 9vide separate one)

Date : 26-04-2017

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS