Smt Nageedi Sree Lakshmi

1

:: IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT:- Smt.N.Sree Lakshmi,

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.

Monday, this the 10th day of February, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.505/2020

Between:

Ajjarapu Suvarchala, W/o. Venkata Rao, A/36 years, R/o.D.No.4-390, 1st floor, F-2, Aparajitha enclave, Navabharath Nagar, Bommuru, Opp.Bhasyam school, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.

... Plaintiff

And :

Nandika Sudhakar Reddy, S/o. Pentayya Reddy, A/46 years, Business, R/o. K.V.R.Nagar, K.V.R.Enclave, Bommuru, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.

... Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 03.02.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri P.M.M.V.Ramana, Advocate for plaintiff, and of Sri M.J.Prakash, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,05,600/- being the principal and interest basing on the suit promissory note, with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 23.12.2017 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of Business Investment, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, to the plaintiff or her order immediately on demand and executed a suit promissory note at the residence of plaintiff, on the even date in favour of plaintiff. The defendant received the consideration in the presence of attestor and scribe. After that, she is very much in need of money, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the entire amount due under the promissory note along with interest, the defendant admitted his liability, postponed the same on some pretext or other. After repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque bearing no.000399, dt.05.02.2020 for 2 an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of the above said debt drawn on the Kanaka Mahalakshmi Co-operative Bank limited, Rajahmundry

Branch, in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff presented the said cheque in his bankers, Corporation Bank, Rajahmundry Branch for collection on 19.02.2020.

But the said cheque was dishonoured and returned unpaid by Corporation Bank,

Rajahmundry Branch, on 20.02.2020 stating that “Cheque irregularly drawn” to the plaintiff’s bank. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to discharge the said debt, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 09.03.2020 and the defendant received the said notice on 10.03.2020 but failed to repay any amount nor complied the notice. Hence, the suit.

3. The averments mentioned in the written statement are that:

a)The defendant denied the allegations mentioned in the plaint and submitted that he is the business man in Dowleswaram area and he is running a Sudha hair oil business at Dowleswaram. Stood thus, the husband of the plaintiff approached the defendant and asked him that he wanted to do the business as a distributor in the defendant business. Then the defendant agreed to do the business as a distributor in his business, the husband of the plaintiff paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards distribution deposit amount to the defendant for his security purpose. Later, in the year of 2020-2021 the defendant’s business was effected huge loss due to covid-19, the defendant could not continue his business smoothly like before past years. The plaintiff’s husband expressed his inability

before the defendant to continue in the business. The defendant requested him

some time to repay the amount to him, he agreed that same and surprisingly, he got this suit filed with help of his wife, who is the plaintiff herein with all false and untenable allegations against the defendant, the defendant has no way concerned with this case directly or indirectly with the plaintiff at any point of time.

b) The defendant further submitted that he never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff nor executed any suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on any date much less on 23.12.2017 for the alleged amount of

Rs.3,00,000/-. The defendant has no necessity to borrow such amount from the plaintiff or anyone else.

3

c) The defendant further submitted that no consideration was passed to the defendant on the alleged suit promissory note and the suit promissory note is rank forged one brought into existence for the purpose of filing the suit with a view to make wrongful gain and thereby cause wrongful loss to the defendant.

Moreover, after repeated demands by the plaintiff the defendant issued a cheque bearing no. 00399 dt.15.02.2020 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of the above said debt and said cheque was dishonoured are totally false. The defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and he is not aware the scribe of the suit promissory note. The plaintiff and scribe colluded together and got filed the suit with a view to harass the defendant and grab money from him. He sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed her chief-affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief as PW1, also got marked Ex.A1 and got examined PW2 on his behalf. The defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Inspite of specific direction given to learned counsel for defendant, he didn’t attend before the court to submit his arguments, hence treated as heard.

6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration?

3) Whether the suit promissory note is rank forged one?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

5) To what relief?

7. ISSUE no.s 1 to 3:

According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and also agreed to repay the same with an interest @ 24% per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order and accordingly, the defendant executed promissory note on 23.12.2017, after receiving of cash consideration from the plaintiff in presence of 4 attesters and scribe. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt and postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The plaitniff got issued legal notice dt.09.03.2020 to the defendant but he did not pay any amount nor gave reply to the plaintiff. Where as the contention of the defendant is that the defendant didn’t borrow such amount from the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.

8. Before, I examine the evidence on record to answer the above issues, it is necessary to refer to certain judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court on the scope of Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In a judgment reported in AIR 1961 SC 1316 in the case of Kundanlal Rallam Vs. Custodian, Evacuee

Property, Bombay, it was held that Sec.118 of NI Act lays down a special rule of evidence applicable to Negotiable Instruments. The presumption is one of law and thereunder a Court shall presume, interalia, that the negotiable instrument or the endorsement made or endorsed for consideration. In effect it throws the burden of proof of failure of consideration on the maker of the note or endorser, as the case may be. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the initial burden would rest on the plaintiff to show that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant. As soon as the execution of the promissory note is proved, the rule of presumption laid down in Sec.118 of NI Act helps to shift the burden to the other side. It was also held that Sec.118 of NI Act imposes a duty on the Court to raise a presumption in favour of the person who holds the instrument that the instrument was made for consideration. It was held that the presumption shifts the burden of proof i.e., the burden of establishing a case that the suit promissory note was not supported by consideration shifts to the defendant. Then the defendant may adduce direct evidence to prove that the promissory note was not supported by consideration and if he had adduced acceptable evidence and the burden again shifts to the plaintiff and so on. The defendant may also rely upon circumstantial evidence, if the circumstances so relied upon or compelling, the burden lay like wise shift again to the plaintiff.

9. At this juncture, I shall also consider the decision reported in A.I.R 2010 S.C 1898 in the case of Rangappa Vrs Mohan, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with Sec.138 & 139 of N.I. Act had incidentally referred itself to

Sec.118(a) of N.I. Act. In such decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 5 presumption drawn u/Sec.118(a) of N.I Act cannot be discharged by merely making some baseless suggestions. It referred itself to the decisions reported in

A.I.R.2008 S.C 2898 in the case of Mallavarapu Kasi Visweswararao Vrs

Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and other wherein it was observed “under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the Court to believe the non-existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal”.

10. In the above said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred itself to a decision reported in A.I.R.1999 S.C.1008 in the case of Bharath Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand Pyarelal wherein it was observed that 'upon consideration of various judgments as noted herein above, the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted the presumption u/sec.118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of

Negotiable Instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non- existence of consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies ........... the bare denial of the passing of consideration apparently does not appear to be a defence......”

11. As noted above in the instant case, the plaintiff examined herself as

PW.1. PW1 filed her chief-affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC and reiterated the contents of plaint. She got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is Original

Promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff, dt.23.12.2017.

6

12. The plaintiff also examined her husband as PW.2 and he filed his chief affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC and supported the evidence of

PW1 in all aspects. During his cross examination, they denied the suggestions put to him. The learned counsel for defendant cross examined PWs1 and 2 but nothing was elicited in favour of the defendant.

13. After closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant got examined himself asDW.1. He filed his affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of

CPC and reiterated the contents of the written statement. During the cross examination, he deposed that the signature on promissory note belongs to him but it was not filled by him. He denied the suggestions put to him.

14. Now the above nature of evidence and more particularly the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, it can be said that the plaintiff had discharged his initial burden. In view of the ratio of the case in Ponuganti Subba Rao

Vs Srikhakollu Pulla Rao reported in 1999 (3) ALT 114, the plaintiff by examining herself as PW.1 and by examining the 3rd parties as PW.2 and by exhibiting the promissory note as Ex.A1, she had proved his case. Once the plaintiff discharged his initial burden, the defendant has to disprove the same lest he should suffer a decree. Thus, the defendant has to rebut the presumption under Sec.118 of NI Act. The defendant took a plea that the defendant agreed to do the business with the husband of plaintiff as a distributor in his business, the husband of the plaintiff paid Rs.1,50,000/- towards distribution deposit amount to the defendant for his security purpose, but the defendant sustained huge loss due to covid-19, the defendant could not continue his business smoothly like

before past years. The plaintiff’s husband expressed his inability before the

defendant to continue in the business and the defendant requested him some time to repay the amount to him, he agreed that same but, he got filed this suit with help of his wife.

15.Further, on careful scrutiny of evidence of DW1, it discloses thathe was stating that the husband of the plaintiff invested an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in oil business run by the defendant, the plaintiff obtained blank promissory note and blank cheque signed by the defendant as security for oil business run by defendant. Subsequently, the defendant sustained loss due to Covid 19 and husband of the plaintiff asked the defendant to return his amount and the 7 defendant asked the husband of the plaintiff to give some time but he got filed this false suit against the defendant through his wife. However, he didn’t adduce any supporting evidence before the court to prove his contention. He admitted that the signature on promissory note belongs to him. Therefore, the contention of the learned defendant counsel that plaintiff obtained blank signed promissory note and blank cheque towards security and filed this false suit against the defendant is not sustainable. Mere contention is sufficient to believe the version of the defendant, he should adduce some cogent and convincing evidence

before the court.

16.It is also the case of Defendant that the Plaintiff created Ex. A1 with the help of attester and scribe . But, the Defendant did not lead any evidence to show that there is any rivalry and differences between him and Plaintiff. So, there is no evidence on record to show that there are any differences and rivalry between

Plaintiff and the Defendant. So, the said contention of the Defendant is held to be not proved by the Defendant. Moreover, if the Plaintiff wants to create a

Promissory Note, there is no necessity for her to create a promissory note, if she wants to create a false document, she would have straight away create a promissory note in the name of Defendant. So, the said circumstance also creates a doubt over the case of Defendant. Further, the Defendant did not make out any grounds to show what made the Plaintiff to file false case against him, by expending court expenses against him. So, all the circumstances in the case and evidence on record disprove the contention of the Defendant.

17.In the above facts and circumstances, the defendant failed to prove

before the court that the husband of the plaintiff invested an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- in oil business run by the defendant and he obtained blank signed promissory note and cheque from the defendant and got filed false suit against the defendant. Thus, it should be held that the defendant was unable to rebut the presumption. Hence, the issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

18.ISSUE No.4:In view of the findings in issue nos.1 to 3, issue no.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

8

19.ISSUE No.5: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,05,600/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer grade-III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of February, 2025.

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1:26.09.2023: A.Suvarchala PW2:22.07.2024:A.Venkata Rao

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW1: 30.12.2024 :N.Sudhakar Reddy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff, dt.23.12.2017.

FOR DEFENDANT :

- NIL -

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Rajamahendravaram.

9 10

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::RAJAHMAHENDRAVARAM

Present : Smt N. Sree Lakshmi,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajahmahendravaram.

Tuesday, this the 11th day of February, 2025

C.C.No.10/2023

Between:

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram Police Station.

... Complainant

And

Vusala Rama Krishna, S/o. Rosaiah, A/34 years, Thallapalem village, Machilipatnam Mandal. R/o. Diwancheruvu village, Rajanagaram Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 05-02-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Complainant State represented by the police, and of Sri P.Rama Raju, Learned Advocate of accused 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, Rajanagaram Police Station, laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.786/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC(Altered from Sec.337 IPC).

2. The deceased/M.Dyvadhinam is father in law of the complainant Challa

Venkata Subbarao/LW.1. LW.1 is residing in Madhurapuram, Vakalapudi,

Kakinada Rural Mandal. He worked as Manager in Andhra Bank and got retired.

His wife Anuradha’s father M.Dyvadhinam resided in Tadepalligudem and he worked as PWD-1 Engineer in Indian Railways and got retired, he was aged about 82 years. On 01.11.2021 at 08.00 am, the deceased/M.Dyvadhinam started on his TVS moped No.AP 37 K 5105 at his house in Tadepalligudem, so as to come to complainant house in Kakinada. In the morning, at about 10.30 am, some unknown person rang to LW.1 and informed that his father in law 2

Dyvadhinam after crossing Diwancheruvu in Rajahmundry nearby Nannayya

University, he met with an accident and has sustained injuries and in unconscious stage. On enquiry with the persons present there, M.Dyvadhinam was shifted to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. On that, LW.1 started in

Kakinada and went to the Government Hospital, Rajahmundry and provided first aid to his father in law, since, he sustained injury to the head. Then, LW.1 took his father in law to Amrutha Hospital in Kakinada for better treatment and admitted him, as his father in law is not in conscious, later, he gave statement to police to the above occurrence. Later, LW.1 enquired about the said accident and he came to know that the accused, who was proceeding in opposite direction from Nannayya university towards Rajahmundry in rash and negligent manner on his Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle no. AP 16 EK 0578 dashed the TVS

Moped No.AP 37 K 5105, who is proceeding from Rajahmundry towards

Rajanagaram on NH-16 Road. On that, the injured fell down and got sustained injuries and in unconscious stage. Hence, LW1 lodged the report to take necessary action.

a)Basing on the report of LW-1, LW-11/Y.Sudhakar, SI of police,

Rajanagaram PS, registered a case in Crime No.786/2021 under Section 337

IPC of Rajanagaram PS and investigated into and when the injured undergoing treatment in Amrutha Hospital, he was unable to recover from sustained injuries and died on 07.11.2021 at 03.00 pm, on that LW.11 altered the

Section of Law from 337 IPC to Section 304-A IPC. After completion of entire investigation, the Investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC against the Accused.

4 .On appearance of Accused, copies have been furnished to him under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure.

3

5. The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. with reference to the allegations made in the charge sheet. The sum and substance of the accusation for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC was explained to the Accused in Telugu for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and Exs.P1 to P10 are marked. The evidence of LW’s 2,4 to 6,8 and 9 are closed.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material and stated that he has no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9. The Learned APP submitted that the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and Exs.P1 to P10 are marked. PW.1 is the defacto complainant, he deposed about the accident and giving statement to Rajanagaram P.S. PW.2 is

M.V.Inspector, he deposed about inspection of crime vehicle, PW.3 is mediator to inquest report, PW.5 is eye witness, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, PW.4 is investigation officer, he deposed about registration of case, investigation done by him and filing of charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC and the accused is liable for conviction.

10.The learned defence counsel contended that since the eye witness turned hostile as such the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether Accused is the driver of Motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 EK 0578 and drove his motorcycle in rash and negligent

manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the

deceased succumbed to injuries?

4

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the Accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

12. POINT No.1:- I have perused the evidence and other material available on record.

13.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-

A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused is the driver of the

Motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 EK 0578 on the date of the accident and he drove his motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased bike in opposite direction and caused death of the deceased and thereby committed the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC. The contention of the defence is total denial.

14.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.5. PW.1 is the son in law of the deceased, he deposed that on 01.11.2021 at about 10.30 am, his wife received phone call that her father met with an accident at Nannayya Univeristy and he was shifted to

Government Hospital and provided first aid, later he shifted his father in law to

Amrutha Hospita, Kakinada for better treatment. He further deposed that his father in law succumbed to head injury and he gave statement to II Town Police,

Kakinada. He further deposed that after the death of his father in law, the

Rajanagaram P.S came to Amrutha Hospital, Kakinada and again recorded his statement but he do not know the manner of the accident. During his cross examination, he denied that this case was filed only to claim insurance and accused is no way concerned with the accident and that the deceased died due to hit by divider.

15. PW 2 is M.V.Inspector, he deposed that on 31.12.2022, he inspected the crime vehicle bearing no. AP 16 EK 0578 and found no damages due to the accident. He conducted vehicle to road test and found the breaking system is in working condition and he issued MVI report.

16. PW.3 is VRA, he deposed that on 08.11.2021, he attended before

GGH, Kakinada and the police conducted inquest over dead body of deceased 5 and at the time of inquest, they opined that the deceased died due to motorcycle accident.

17. PW.5 is the independent witness, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that he do not know anything about the facts of the case and he did not witness the accident. The learned APP cross examined PW.5 but nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution.

18. PW.4 is Investigation officer deposed about registration of case, investigation done by him and filing of charge sheet against the accused.

19.As seen from the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that PW.1 is not an eye witness to the accident, he deposed that he came to know about the accident from unknown person and came to Government Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram and provided first aid to his father in law and later, he shifted his father in law to Amrutha Hospital, Kakinada who died subsequently, due to head injury and PW.1 gave the statement to the police. His evidence is reliable to the extent of his statement only. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 itself is not sufficient to connect the accused for the alleged offence.

20.PW.2 is M.V.Inspector, his evidence is reliable only to the extent of issuing of M.V.Report and itself is not sufficient for the court to prove that the accused was the rider of the crime vehicle on the date of accident. PW.3 is VRA, his evidence is reliable only to the extent of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and drafting the inquest report.

21. In the present case, PW.5 is the material witness since he was cited as eye witness to the accident, however, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that he did not witness the accident and he do not know anything about the facts of the case. Therefore, his evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

22.Now, the question before this court is whether the accused was driving the crime vehicle at the time of the accident and if so, whether there is rash and negligence on his part in causing the death of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle, at the relevant point of time, the motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 EK 0578 hit motorcycle of the deceased. After considering the evidence of PW’s 1 to 4 is of no use to 6 the prosecution to connect the accused with the offence, since the eye witness

PW.5 did not support the case of the prosecution.

23.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 , no witness deposed before the court that the accused was the driver of the motorcycle and he drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased thereby caused the death of the deceased. In the entire evidence available on record, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to connect the accused for the alleged offence. When a doubt is created about the identification and acts of the accused, it is not safe to convict the accused for the alleged offence. Hence, I hold that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Point No.1 is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

24. POINT No.2:In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after Six months from today in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer(Grade-III), corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-N.Sree Lakshmi

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Rajahmahendravaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1/20.08.2024:Ch.Venkata Subba Rao -None- P.W.2/03.09.2024:M.Ravi Kumar P.W.3/08.01.2025: A.Balayya P.W.4/24.01.2025: Y.Sudhakar, SI of Police. P.W.5/27.01.2025: P.Veera Durga @ Pandu.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1:01.11.2021: Statement of PW1. - Nil - Ex.P.2:31.12.2021:M.V.I. Report.

7

Ex.P.3:08.11.2021:Inquest report. Ex.P4: 02.11.2021: Hospital Intimation. Ex.P5:02.11.2021: Original F.I.R. Ex.P6: Rough Sketch. Ex.P7: Death intimation of the deceased/M.Dyvadhinam. Ex.P8: Altered F.I.R for the offence u/Sec.304-A IPC. Ex.P9: Postmortem certificate of deceased. Ex.P10: Sec.161 Cr.p.c statement of PW.5.

Material Objects Marked

- NIL -

Sd/-N.Sree Lakshmi

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Rajahmahendravaram.

//True Copy//

PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM, RJVM.

8

Calendar and Judgment

Calendar Cases tried by the Principal Civil Judge( Junior Division) – Cum –

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rajamahendravaram

CALENDAR CASE No.10/2023

Date of offence01.11.2021 Date of Report02.11.2021 Date of Apprehension of Accused04.11.2021 (Sec.41-A Cr.p.c) Date of Remand of Accused -- Date of Release on bail of Accused -- Date of Taken on file02.01.2023 Date of Commencement of trial 20.08.2024 Date of Close of trial27.01.2025 Date of Sentence or order11.02.2025

Explanation for the delay: No delay

Name of the complainant:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram.

Name of the Accused:

Vusala Rama Krishna, S/o. Rosaiah, A/34 years, Thallapalem village, Machilipatnam Mandal. R/o. Diwancheruvu village, Rajanagaram Mandal.

Crime No.:786/2021 Offence Section 304-A of IPC Sec.304-A of IPC: Causing death by negligence Finding: not guilty. Sentence: Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of Accused shall stand cancelled after Six months from today in view of

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-N.Sree Lakshmi

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) – Cum - Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

//True Copy//

PCJ(J.D)-cum-JFCM, RJVM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Smt N. Sree Lakshmi,

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-CUM-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

Monday, this the 10th day of February, 2025

C.C.No.784/2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram.

...Complainant

And

Mandhala Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Durga Rao, A/40 years, R/o.Chakradwarabandham village, Rajanagaram Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming on 05.02.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.A.Ratnam, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a)of A.P. Excise Act-1968 (Amended as 17 of 2020) in Crime No.101/2024 with the following allegations:

2.That, on 19.02.2024 at about 05.15 pm, the Sub Inspector of police, Rajanagaram(PW.1) along with staff for detection of IMFL Liquor and reached the place of offence i.e., outskirts of Chakradwarabandham village of Rajanagaram Mandal and found the accused in possession and selling of liquor in bulk without having license or permission and arrested the Accused while she tried to skulk away on seeing police. On enquiry, the accused furnished her address particulars as noted above and stated that she is selling of IMFL liquor bottles. The P.W1 seized the 1.Classic Blue finest whisky 180 ML-14 bottles, 2. Kings Well select Indian Brandy 180 ML-4 2 bottles, 3. AC Black Classic whisky 180 ML-4 bottles, 4. Old Tavern

Deluxe Whisky 180 ML-4 bottles, 5. Silver Stripes Original Reserve whisky 180 ML-4 bottles(Total 5.4 litres and All worth Rs.4,500/-) from the possession of accused and on questioning the Accused voluntarily stated that she purchased the bottles from various wine shops and selling the same for higher price and drawn one plastic bottle of 300 ml. as sample for chemical analysis from each bottle, sealed and affixed identity slips to the samples and entire property under the cover of Occurence report drafted at the scene of offence. Based on the Occurence report, PW1 registered a case in Cr.No.101/2024 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 ans submitted the case record to Court and investigated into. Later, he served Sec.41-A cr.p.c notice to the accused to comply the terms and conditions. Subsequently, during the course of investigation submitted the property confiscation proposals to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone,

Rajamahendravaram and forwarded the samples to the Government

Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh., & Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. The case property was destroyed after obtaining permission. PW.1 further investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence charge sheet.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was taken against the accused. On appearance of Accused, she was supplied with the copies of case documents as required U/Sec.230 BNSS and She was examined U/Sec.262 BNSS. with reference to the allegations made in the charge sheet. Then a charge U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused for which she denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case against Accused have examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 to MO.5 and the 3 evidence of Lws.1, 2 are closed by the court. After closure of the

Prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/Sec.351 BNSS, explaining the incriminating evidence against her in the Prosecution evidence, for which she denied as being false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

6.It is the case of the prosecution that prosecution has examined

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1 to M.O.5. P.W.1 is the SI of police. He deposed about the conducting of raid and arrest of the accused, registration of case and investigation done by him. The evidence of P.W.1 is reliable and it is sufficient to convict the accused. Hence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for conviction.

7.The learned counsel for accused contended that as there is no independent witness for arrest and seizure of propertyfrom the accused as such the evidence of P.W.1 and his evidence is not believable and not trustworthy. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

8.Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether Accused found in possession of IMFL liquor relating to various companies thereby committed the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act?

ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused

for the offence U/Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT No.(i):- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and

MO1 to MO5. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 arrested the accused and wherein she was not having any bill and license and selling the brandy 4 bottles to eke out her livelihood and prepared Ex.P1 Occurrence reportand a case in Cr.No.101/2024 and P.W.1 issued Ex.P2 FIR. PW.1 sent the sample for Chemical Analysis and received the Analyst report under Ex.P4. Ex.P3 is

Letter of Advice.

10. PW1 is the Investigation Officer. He deposed about registration of case and investigation done by him in the present case. He deposed about conducting of raid, seizure of bottles from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he admitted that he did not mention the name of the scribe in Ex.P1 and that he did not mention the way of transport in Ex.P1. He further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and

Chakradwarabandham village is an independent panchayat. PW1 admitted that he had not prepared rough sketch. P.W.1 denied that he has conducted table investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for statistical purpose. It is the case of the prosecution that accused was allegedly found in possession of selling of illicit distilled arrack. It is admitted case of the prosecution that possessing liquor bottles is not an offence and one can possess minimum of six bottles without any bill or license. However, it is specific case of the prosecution that the accused was selling liquor so as to eke out her livelihood. However, PW1 did not secure any independent mediators though they were available at the scene of offence and that he also did not issue any notice to them to act as mediators. PW1 also did not do any investigation whether the accused was dealing in selling of liquor in the village. Thus, the evidence of PW1 cannot be believable without there being independent witnesses that accused was allegedly dealing in sale of liquor to eke out her livelihood. More so, the scene of offence is a busy locality and further PW1 did not take any pains to issue any notice to the persons who refused to act as mediators at the scene of offence. The evidence of

PW1 also disclosed that he did not note down the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators. According to Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C., at the time of 5 search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of the officer who conducted the search and seizure to secure local inhabitants to prove the seizure when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubt and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

11.At this juncture, this court has relied on the decision reported by

Honourable High Court of A.P. in a case of

Y.Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. State of AP

2002(1) LS 242

where in it was held that “if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case entire search conducted by the Prosecution is vitiated”.

12.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Sri

Y. Srinivasulu Reddy’s case, in the present case, P.W1 ought to have passed written order in this case before conducting search and seizure when no one was willing to act as punch witnesses. However, PW1 did not take any valid reasons for securing any mediator from the scene of offence which is a busy locality and also PW1 did not take any pains to investigate into the offence by examining any independent witnesses whether the accused is allegedly dealing in sale of liquor as alleged by the PW1 and his party. PW1 did not follow the provisions as contemplated u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C and also above law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Y. Srineevalusu Reddy’s case.

In the said circumstances, the entire seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.

Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove that the accused is found in possession and selling of illicit distilled arrack.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

6

13.POINT No.(ii) : In view of my findings in point No.(i), the evidence of prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances as such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

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

14.In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted

U/Sec.271(1) BNSS. The bail bond of the Accused shall stand cancelled after Six months from today in view of Section 481 BNSS. M.O.1 to M.O.5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by my Stenographer grad-III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10 th day of February, 2025.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: PW1:30-01-2025:V.N.V.Pavan Kumar, SI of Police

For Defence: - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1Occurrence Report. Dt.19-02-2024 Ex.P2Original F.I.R. Dt.19-02-2024 Ex.P3Letter of Advice Dt.25.03.2024 Ex.P4Chemical Analysis Report Dt.29-03-2024

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sample bottle M.O.2: Sample bottle M.O.3: Sample bottle 7

M.O.4: Sample bottle M.O.5: Sample bottle

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Prl.Civil Judge( Junior Division)-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Date of Offence : 19.02.2024 Date of report or Complaint : 19.02.2024 Date of apprehension of accused : 19.02.2024(Sec.41-A Cr.p.c notice) Date release on bail, if any: Date of commencement of trail : 30.01.2025 Close of trial : 30.01.2025 Date of sentence or other order : 10.02.2025 Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay. Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.784/2024 on the file of Prl. Civil

Judge( Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram Police Station, in Crime No.101/2024, u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Name of the accused, Father name, Age, calling, Religion, Village and Mandal. Mandhala Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Durga Rao, A/40 years, R/o.Chakradwarabandham village, Rajanagaram Mandal. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Offence : U/s 34(a) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Finding : Not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted

U/Sec.271(1) BNSS. The bail bond of the Accused shall stand cancelled after Six months from today in view of Section 481 BNSS. M.O.1 to M.O.5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-N.Sree Lakshmi

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

// True Copy// 9

PJCJ-CUM-JFCM,

RJVM.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Smt N. Sree Lakshmi,

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-CUM-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday, this the 11th day of February, 2025

C.C.No.785/2024

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram.

...Complainant

And

Marisetti Pandu, S/o. Rama babu, A/34 years, R/o.D.No.9-378, Puntha Road, Konthamuru village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming on 05.02.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Nagendra, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a)of A.P. Excise Act-1968 (Amended as 17 of 2020) in Crime No.86/2024 with the following allegations:

2.That, on 10.02.2024 at about 05.15 pm, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Rajanagaram(PW.1) along with staff for detection of IMFL Liquor and reached the place of offence i.e., outskirts of Konthamuru village of Rajanagaram Mandal and found the accused in possession and selling of liquor in bulk without having license or permission and arrested the Accused while he tried to skulk away on seeing police. On enquiry, the accused furnished his address particulars as noted above and stated that he is selling of IMFL liquor bottles. The P.W1 seized the

SNJ 10000 Gold Strong Beer -1 0 bottles each 650 ml (Total 6.5 litres and All worth Rs.2,100/-) from the possession of accused and on questioning the

Accused voluntarily stated that he purchased the bottles from various wine shops 2 and selling the same for higher price and drawn one plastic bottle of 300 ml. as sample for chemical analysis from each bottle, sealed and affixed identity slips to the samples and entire property under the cover of Occurence report drafted at the scene of offence. Based on the Occurence report, PW1 registered a case in

Cr.No.86/2024 U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 and submitted the case record to Court and investigated into. Later, he served Sec.41-A cr.p.c notice to the accused to comply the terms and conditions. Subsequently, during the course of investigation submitted the property confiscation proposals to the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, East Zone, Rajamahendravaram U/Sec.13(1) of

A.P.P. Act, 1995 and forwarded the sample to the Government Chemical

Examiner, Regional Proh., & Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. The chemical examiner after due analysis opined that the samples at Sl.No.17362 is beer, Unfit for human Consumption and injurious to health. The case property was destroyed after obtaining permission. PW.1 further investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence charge sheet.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was taken against the accused. On appearance of Accused, he was supplied with the copies of case documents as required U/Sec.207 Cr.p.c and he was examined

U/Sec.239 Cr.p.c. with reference to the allegations made in the charge sheet.

Then a charge U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case against Accused have examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO.1 and the evidence of

Lws.1, 2 are closed by the court. After closure of the Prosecution evidence,

Accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.p.c, explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the Prosecution evidence, for which he denied as being false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

3

5.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

6.It is the case of the prosecution that prosecution has examined

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. P.W.1 is the SI of police. He deposed about the conducting of raid and arrest of the accused, registration of case and investigation done by him. The evidence of P.W.1 is reliable and it is sufficient to convict the accused. Hence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for conviction.

7.The learned counsel for accused contended that as there is no independent witness for arrest and seizure of propertyfrom the accused as such the evidence of P.W.1 and his evidence is not believable and not trustworthy.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

8.Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether Accused found in possession of IMFL liquor relating to various companies thereby committed the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act?

ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence U/Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT No.(i):- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and MO1. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 arrested the accused and wherein he was not having any bill and license and selling the beer bottles to eke out his livelihood and prepared Ex.P1 Occurrence reportand a case in Cr.No.86/2024 and P.W.1 issued Ex.P2 FIR. PW.1 sent the sample for Chemical Analysis and received the

Analyst report under Ex.P4. Ex.P3 is Letter of Advice.

10. PW1 is the Investigation Officer. He deposed about registration of case and investigation done by him in the present case. He deposed about 4 conducting of raid, seizure of bottles from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he admitted that he did not mention the name of the scribe in Ex.P1 and that he did not mention the way of transport in Ex.P1. He further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and Konthamuru village is an independent panchayat.

PW1 admitted that he had not prepared rough sketch. P.W.1 denied that he has conducted table investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for statistical purpose. It is the case of the prosecution that accused was allegedly found in possession of selling of illicit distilled arrack. It is admitted case of the prosecution that possessing liquor bottles is not an offence and one can possess minimum of six bottles without any bill or license. However, it is specific case of the prosecution that the accused was selling liquor so as to eke out his livelihood. However, PW1 did not secure any independent mediators though they were available at the scene of offence and that he also did not issue any notice to them to act as mediators. PW1 also did not do any investigation whether the accused was dealing in selling of liquor in the village. Thus, the evidence of PW1 cannot be believable without there being independent witnesses that accused were allegedly dealing in sale of liquor to eke out their livelihood. More so, the scene of offence is a busy locality and further PW1 did not take any pains to issue any notice to the persons who refused to act as mediators at the scene of offence. The evidence of PW1 also disclosed that he did not note down the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators. According to Sec.100(4)

Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of the officer who conducted the search and seizure to secure local inhabitants to prove the seizure when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubt and the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

11.At this juncture, this court has relied on the decision reported by

Honourable High Court of A.P. in a case of

5

Y.Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. State of AP

2002(1) LS 242

where in it was held that “if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case entire search conducted by the Prosecution is vitiated”.

12.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Sri Y.

Srinivasulu Reddy’s case, in the present case, P.W1 ought to have passed written order in this case before conducting search and seizure when no one was willing to act as punch witnesses. However, PW1 did not take any valid reasons for securing any mediator from the scene of offence which is a busy locality and also

PW1 did not take any pains to investigate into the offence by examining any independent witnesses whether the accused is allegedly dealing in sale of liquor as alleged by the PW1 and his party. PW1 did not follow the provisions as contemplated u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C and also above law laid down by the Hon’ble

High Court in Y. Srineevalusu Reddy’s case. In the said circumstances, the entire seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all. Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove that the accused are found in possession and selling of illicit distilled arrack. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

13.POINT No.(ii) : In view of my findings in point No.(i), the evidence of prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances as such, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that accused committed the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

14.In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.p.c.

6

The bail bond of the Accused shall stand cancelled after Six months from today in view of Section 437-A Cr.p.c. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by my Stenographer grad-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of February, 2025.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: PW1:30-01-2025:V.N.V.Pavan Kumar, SI of Police

For Defence: - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1Occurrence Report. Dt.10-02-2024 Ex.P2Original F.I.R. Dt.10-02-2024 Ex.P3Letter of Advice Dt.25.03.2024 Ex.P4Chemical Analysis Report Dt.29-03-2024

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sample bottle

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Prl.Civil Judge( Junior Division)-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Date of Offence : 10.02.2024 Date of report or Complaint : 10.02.2024 Date of apprehension of accused : 10.02.2024(Sec.41-A Cr.p.c notice) Date release on bail, if any: -- Date of commencement of trail : 30.01.2025 Close of trial : 30.01.2025 Date of sentence or other order : 11.02.2025 Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay.

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.785/2024 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge( Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajanagaram Police Station, in Crime No.86/2024, u/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Name of the accused, Father name, Age, calling, Religion, Village and Mandal.

Marisetti Pandu, S/o. Rama babu, A/34 years, R/o.D.No.9-378, Puntha Road, Konthamuru village, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.

Offence : U/s 34(a) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Finding : Not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.p.c. The bail bond of the Accused shall stand cancelled after Six months from today in view of Section 437-A Cr.p.c. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

8 // True Copy//

PJCJ-CUM-JFCM,

RJVM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : Smt N. Sree Lakshmi,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FAC I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

Thursday, this the 16th day of November, 2023

C.C.No.2943/20 23

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram P.S.

...Complainant

And

Meppilli Naga Raju, S/o. Venkatesulu, A/34 years, Bangala peta, Gokavaram village and Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming on 10.11.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri R.Naga Raju, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Gokavaram P.S., filed charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 & AMD Act - 2020 in Crime No.276/2023 with the following allegations.

2.That, on 13.08.2022 at about 11.15 hrs, the G.Srinivasa Rao HC-2845,

Gokavaram P.S(PW.3) along with his staff and mediators PW1, PW.2 visited the outskirts of Gokavaram village Mandal found the accused in possession of Illicit ID Arrack selling the same without having any license from the concerned authorities. The police arrested the accused and they seized 05 litres of ID Arrack, from the possession of accused and taken 300 ml of ID liquor from the plastic tin as a sample under the cover of mediators report and brought the seized contraband to Gokavaram P.S and PW3 registered the case in crime no. 276/2023 U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition Act. 1995. PW.3 arrested the accused on 13.08.2023

Subsequently, during the course of investigation submitted the property 2 confiscation proposals to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone,

Rajamahendravaram U/Sec.13(1) of A.P.P. Act, 1995 and forwarded the sample to the Government Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh., & Excise

Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. The chemical examiner after due analysis opined that the samples at Sl.No.16640 is Illicitly Distilled Liquor,

Unfit for human Consumption and injurious to health. The PW3 further investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence charge sheet.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.

Prohibition Act was taken against the accused. On appearance of Accused, he was supplied with the copies of case documents as required U/Sec.207 of

Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) and he was examined

U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. with reference to the allegations made in the charge sheet.

Then a charge U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act was framed against the accused, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused has examined PWs1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1. The evidence of Lws1, 2 and 6 are closed by the court. After closure of the

Prosecution evidence, Accused is examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the Prosecution evidence, for which he denied as being false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

6.It is the case of the prosecution that prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1. PW.1 and 2 are 3 mediators, they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW3 is the

Investigation officer. He deposed about the conducting of raid and arrest of the accused, registration of case and investigation done by him and filing of charge sheet against the accused. The evidence of PW.3 is reliable and it is sufficient to convict the accused. Hence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for conviction.

7.The learned counsel for accused contended that as there is no independent witness for arrest and seizure of propertyfrom the accused as

Pws1 and 2 turned hostile as such the evidence of PW.3 is not believable and not trustworthy. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

8.Now the points for consideration are:

i) Whether Accused is found in possession of Five (05) liters of I.D liquor thereby committed the offence under Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act?

ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence U/Section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT No.(i):- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P6 and MO1 is sample bottle. The case of the prosecution is that PW3 arrested the accused and wherein he was not having any bill and license and selling the illicit distilled arrack to eke out his livelihood and prepared Ex.P3

Mediators reportand a case in Cr.No.276/2023 and P.W.3 issued Ex.P4 FIR.

PW.3 sent the sample for Chemical Analysis and received the Analyst report under Ex.P6. Ex.P5 is Letter of Advice.

10. PW3 is the Investigation Officer. He deposed about registration of case and investigation done by him in the present case. He deposed about 4 conducting of raid, seizure of bottles from the possession of the accused and arrest of the accused. During the course of cross-examination of PW3, he admitted that he did not mention the name of the scribe in Ex.P3 and that he did not mention the way of transport in Ex.P3. He further admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and Gokavaram village is an independent panchayat. PW3 admitted that he had not prepared rough sketch. P.W.3 denied that he has conducted table investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused for statistical purpose. It is the case of the prosecution that accused was allegedly found in possession of selling of illicit distilled arrack. It is admitted case of the prosecution that possessing liquor bottles is not an offence and one can possess minimum of six bottles without any bill or license. However, it is specific case of the prosecution that the accused was selling liquor so as to eke out his livelihood. PW3 also did not do any investigation whether the accused was dealing in selling of liquor in the village. Thus, the evidence of PW3 cannot be believable without there being independent witnesses that accused was allegedly dealing in sale of liquor to eke out his livelihood. More so, the scene of offence is a busy locality and further PW3 did not take any pains to issue any notice to the persons who refused to act as mediators at the scene of offence. The evidence of PW3 also disclosed that he did not note down the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators. According to Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of the officer who conducted the search and seizure to secure local inhabitants to prove the seizure when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubt and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

11.At this juncture, this court has relied on the decision reported by

Honourable High Court of A.P. in a case of

Y.Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. State of AP 5

2002(1) LS 242

where in it was held that “if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case entire search conducted by the Prosecution is vitiated”.

12.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Sri

Y. Srinivasulu Reddy’s case, in the present case, P.W3 ought to have passed written order in this case before conducting search and seizure when no one was willing to act as punch witnesses. However, PW3 did not take any valid reasons for securing any mediator from the scene of offence which is a busy locality and also PW3 did not take any pains to investigate into the offence by examining any independent witnesses whether the accused is allegedly dealing in sale of liquor as alleged by the PW3 and his party. PW3 did not follow the provisions as contemplated u/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C and also above law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Y. Srineevalusu Reddy’s case.

In the said circumstances, the entire seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all.

Hence, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove that the accused is found in possession and selling of illicit distilled arrack.

Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

13.POINT No.(ii) : In view of my findings in point No.(i), the evidence of prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances as such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition

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

6

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after Six months from today in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O1 and unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by my Stenographer grade-III, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- N. Sree Lakshmi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(FAC) I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: PW1: 03-11-2023 M.Kanna babu. PW2: 03-11-2023 M.Satish Kumar, PW.3: 03-11-2023 G.Srinivasa Rao, HC-2845

For Defence: - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1Signature of PW.1 on Mediator Report. Ex.P2Signature of PW.2 on Mediator Report. Ex.P3Mediators Report. DT.13.08.2023 Ex.P4Original F.I.R. Dt. 13.08.2023 ; Ex.P5Letter of Advice Dt..17-08-2023; Ex.P6Chemical Analysis Report Dt.21-08-2023 ;

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sample Bottle

Sd/- N. Sree Lakshmi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(FAC) I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Date of Offence : 13.08.2023 Date of report or Complaint : 13.08.2023 Date of apprehension of accused : 13.08.2023

Date release on bail, if any : 31.08.2023 Date of commencement of trail : 03.11.2023 Close of trial : 03.11.2023 Date of sentence or other order : 16.11.2023 Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay. Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.2943/2023 on the file of I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station, in Crime No.276/2023, u/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

Name of the accused, Father name, Age, calling, Religion, Village and Mandal. Meppilli Naga Raju, S/o. Venkatesulu, A/34 years, Bangala peta, Gokavaram village and Mandal. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Offence : U/s 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. .

Finding : Not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after Six months from today in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O1 and unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- N. Sree Lakshmi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

(FAC) I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram.