Kum Neelapu Gayathri

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Kum Neelapu Gayathri, Principal Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 966 court orders on record since 2022. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, STC cases.

966

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/234/2023 Acquitted

SEB Station, Piler. vs B. Santhamma

09 Aug 2024

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PILER.

Present: Ms. N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

Friday, the Nineth (09th ) day of August, 2024

C.C.No.234/ 2023

Between :

The State rep. by Enforcement Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Piler.

....Complainant

And :

Bukke Santhamma, age 38 years, W/o Bullodu Naik, R/at Jandla Thanda, Piler Mandal. …. Accused

This case is coming on 08-08-2024 for final hearing before me for consideration after hearing both sides on today in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.Siva, Advocate for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, S.E.B. Piler Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows:

(a)On 20-12-2019 at about 5.30 PM, LW.3/Sub-Inspector of

Police, Piler S.E.B. P.S. received credible information about the illegal sales of I.D.Arrack at Jandla Thanda cross, situated on Piler to

Talapula bus road of Piler Mandal and found one female person was sitting, keeping in possession of two plastic bottles containing ID

Arrack. On seeing the police officials in uniform, she try to ran away from the spot, but on suspicion the excise police staff caught hold her

AJMCJ Court, Piler C.C.No. 234 of 2023 -2- and brought before LW.3/ SI of Police, on enquiry about her perturbing and about the containing of the plastic bottles in her Possession, then she confessed that she was in Possession of I.D.Arrack. Then LW.3 deputed LW.2/ Excise constable to Jandla village to secure mediators.

But no VRO & VRA are present in the village and the villagers are not come forward to act as mediators. Then LW.3 verified the two plastic bottles, containing 2.2 liters of I.D.Arrack. Then, LW.3 drawn 180 ml

I.D. arrack sample bottle for analysis purpose duly sealed and labelled.

Then, LW.3 served a notice to the accused under section 41 (A)

Cr.P.C. After informing the ground of arrest, after completion of formalities, LW.3/ SI of Police arrested the accused and seized the remaining contraband under cover of special report drafted on the spot.

(b) Based on the Special report LW.3/ SI of Police registered a case in crime No.186/2019 U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued F.I.R Copies to all concerned officials and sent the Original F.I.R

before this Court and sent the sample bottle to chemical analysis, after

receipt of analysis report she filed charge sheet and investigated into this case.

3.This case was taken on file on 03.07.2023 against the accused for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995.

4. On appearance of accused served the copies of case documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of

Cr.P.C. A charge U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act is framed against the accused, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1 180 ml sample. PWs.1 to 3 are the police officials and Investigating Officers. Ex.P1 is the special report dt:

AJMCJ Court, Piler C.C.No. 234 of 2023 -3- 20.12.2019. Ex.P.2 is the FIR, dt: 20.12.2019. Ex.P.3 is the Chemical analysis report. MO.1 is one 180 ml sample bottle of ID Arrack.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining her the incriminating evidence appearing against her from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu.

The accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

7.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused reported that their arguments may be treated as heard. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8.To prove the guilt of the Accused for the said charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the

guilt of the accused for the offence charged

U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT:

The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 20-12-2019, at about 05.30 AM at Jandla thanda Cross situated on Piler to Talapula bus road at Piler Mandal, the accused was found selling I.D arrack unauthorizedly, and on interrogation, the accused confessed the commission of the offence, P.W.2 arrested the Accused, seized the 02.2 liters of ID arrack under the cover of Special report under Ex.P1, P.W.2 lifted 180 ml sample bottle for the purpose of analysis and brought the Accused to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No.186/2019 for the offence U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P. Prohibition Act -1995 and issued Ex.P2/FIR, and forwarded the sample to the chemical examiner.

12.One of the Police Constables, who assisted the P.W.2 for conducting raid was examined as P.W.1, she deposed the similar lines to the evidence of P.W.2. In her cross-examination, it is elicited that her statement was not recorded by the P.W.2, the scene of offence is busy locality.

AJMCJ Court, Piler C.C.No. 234 of 2023 -4-

13.PW.2 / P.Bhagya Lakshmi SI of Police S.E.B. Station who is the investigating officer in this case is only relevant to the extent of her registering the case as Cr.No.186/2019 U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.

Prohibition Act-1995 after receiving the case property and issuing Ex.P2 First

Information Report and sending MO.1 for chemical analysis and receiving

Ex.P3 analysis report and arrested the accused and sent for judicial remand.

14. PW-3/ P.Nagaraju- Enforcement Inspector in this case he stated that on 20.12.2019, as per the instructions of Excise Superintendent,

Chittoor, he along with his staff conducted raids at Jandla Thanda cross,

Piler-Talapula bus road, and he noticed the accused was found in possession of ID Arrack. Then he tried to secure the presence of mediators, but none were came forward to act as mediators in the village. Then PW.3 verified the two bottles containing 02.2 liters of ID Arrack. Then he draw 180 ml sample of ID Arrack for chemical analysis purpose and sent the purpose and after receipt of analysis report he laid charge sheet against against the accused and arrested the accused and sent her to juridical remand, submitted FIR to the concerned officers.

PW.3 in his cross-examination, the fact that he could not find anyone at the scene of offence to act as mediator appears unbelievable.

13.Admittedly, the accused was charge-sheeted for an alleged offence punishable under Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act. A careful perusal of Ex.P1 Special report so also the evidence of P.W.2 the investigating officer, it is clear that before making search and seizure, P.W.2 did not make any efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators at Jandla Thanda of Piler Mandal where seizure was made. P.W.2 categorically admitted in the cross- examination that Jandla Thanda is busy locality consisting of residential locality and he further admitted that around 60 houses are situated at the scene of offence. From the above admission, it is clear that though the scene of offence is a residential locality, PW.2 did not take minimum steps to secure the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality for search and seizure as envisaged in Code of Criminal Procedure.

AJMCJ Court, Piler C.C.No. 234 of 2023 -5-

15.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused confessed about the commission of offence in their presence. It is settled law that any confessions made by the accused in the presence of police is inadmissible in evidence. Even in the present case on hand, the confession of the accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused no independent witnesses are examined in this case. In the absence of such an evidence, it is not ideal to rely on the evidence of official witnesses to base conviction against the accused.

16. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence for the offence U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995 and hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

17.The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

18. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence charged U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995. Accordingly she is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A

Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.81/ 2023 shall be destroyed after six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 09th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI,

Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class,

Piler.

AJMCJ Court, Piler C.C.No. 234 of 2023

6 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

PW.1: B.Swathi – Excise ConstableNone PW.2: P.Bhagya Lakshmi - SI S.E.B. Piler Station PW.3: P. Nagaraju – SEB Inspector

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

Ex.P.1: Is the Special report Dt: 20-12-2019. Ex.P.2: Is the FIR dt: 20-12-2019. Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: 180 ml Sample bottle

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI,

AJMFC, Piler.

AJMCJ Court, Piler C.C.No. 234 of 2023

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

PILER

CALENDAR in C.C.No.234 /2023

1. Offence : 20-12-2019

2. Filling : 20-12-2019

3. Appearance of accused : 29-11-2023

4. Commencement of Trial : 22-07-2024

5. Close of Trial : 29-07-2024

6. Judgment : 09-08-2024

Complainant :

The State rep. by the Enforcement Sub-Inspector of Police, S.E.B. Piler Station

Offence: U/Secs.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for u/s.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act, 1995 Name of the Accused :

Bukke Santhamma, age 38 years, W/o Bullodu Naik, R/at Jandla Thanda, Piler Mandal. ….Accused

SENTENCE OR ORDER : IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence charged U/Sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (E) of A.P. Prohibition Act-1995. Accordingly she is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.81/ 2023 shall be destroyed after six months.

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: On 03-07-2023 this case was taken on file against the Accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 and the case was posted from day to day for the appearance of the accused. After appearance of the accused copies of the documents was furnished to her U/s.207 of Cr.P.C and the Accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation alleged for the offences U/Secs.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 against the accused was read over and explained to her in Telugu language, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution commenced trial on 22.07.2024 and examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and closed trial. On 08.08.2024 the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. The accused was acquitted for the offenses U/Secs.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition and Excise Act, 1995 The Judgment was pronounced on 09.08.2024. Hence, no delay.

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI,

Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class, PLR

AJMCJ Court, Piler C.C.No. 234 of 2023

CC/150/2022 Acquitted

The SHO S.E.B. Police Station vs Upputholla Munaiah

09 Aug 2024

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PILER.

Present: Ms. N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

Friday, the Nineth (09th ) of August, 2024

C.C.No.150/ 2022

Between :

The State rep by Enforcement Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Piler.

....Complainant

And :

A.1. Upputholla Munaiah, age 40 years, S/o Jayaramaiah, R/at Papinenicheruvu Vaddipalli Vilalge, H/o Nuthanakaluva, K.V.Palli Mandal.

A.2. Deva Thathi Reddy, age 45 years, S/o D. Yerrama Reddy, R/at Bojjavandlapalli vilalge, H/o Nuthanakaluva, K.V.Palli Mandal.

…. A.1 and A.2 .

This case is coming on 08-08-2024 for final hearing before me for consideration after hearing both sides on today in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri G. Siva kumar Reddy, Advocate for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, S.E.B. Piler Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences U/Sec.34

(e) of Excise Act, 1968.

AJCJ Court, Piler 2 C.C.No.150 of 2022

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 05-05-2018 as per the instructions of Director of Enforcement

Prohibition & Excise, A.P. under supervision of AES Enforcement, Chittoor during the raids conducted by Prohibition & Excise inspectors, Piler,

Enforcement, Chittoor, ESTF, Chittoor along with staff police LWs.1 and 2 and revenue officials during raids conducted at about 12.40 PM went to agricultural land of D. Thathireddy (A.2) situated at Papinenicheruvu

Voddipalli and found 100 liters of FJ wash in a plastic drum at the scene of offence. After the interrogation they found that the said FJ wash belongs to

Accused No.1 and the land belongs to A.2. Then, LW.6 drawn 400 ml FJ wash as sample in a 650 bottle capacity for chemical analysis purpose duly sealed and labeled and destroyed the remaining contraband of FJ wash in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama.

(b) Based on the panchanama LW.6. registered a case in crime

No.84/2018 U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and issued F.I.R Copies to all concerned and sent the Original F.I.R before this Court, served a notice under section 41 (A) Cr.P.C., but the accused refused to take it, hence, he sent to this Court for judicial custody, destroyed the remaining

I.D.Arrack and sent the sample bottle to chemical analysis, after receipt of analysis report under Ex-P6, he filed charge sheet. Thereafter, during the course of investigation on 18.05.2018 PW.5 along with his staff and revenue officials raided in front of house of A.1 and after informing the ground he arrested the accused. On 10.05.2018 he sent the sample for chemical analysis purpose and on 18.05.2018 he received analysis report opined that the sample si fermented wash fit for distillation. Ex.P.5 is the

AJCJ Court, Piler 3 C.C.No.150 of 2022 letter of advice. Ex.P.6 is the Chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is the 400 ml of sample. After completion of investigation LW.7 filed charge sheet against you /A.1 and A.2 and investigated into this case.

3.This case was taken on file on 16.04.2022 against the accused A.1 andA.2 U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act-1968.

4.On appearance of the accused A.1 and A.2 supplied the copies of case documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The A.1 and A.2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the contents of the charge sheet in Telugu. A charge U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1 PW.1 is the VRA,

K.V.Palli Mandal. Pws.2, 3, 5 and 6 are the Investigating Officers. P.W.4 is

VRO. Ex.P1 is the Panchanama. Ex.P2 is the Arrest Mahazarnama. Ex.P3

FIR. Ex.P.4 is the Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.5 is the letter of advice. Ex.P6 is the chemical analysis report. MO.1 is one 400 ml sameple bottle of FJ Wash.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused

A.1 and A.2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining him the

AJCJ Court, Piler 4 C.C.No.150 of 2022 incriminating evidence appearing against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. The accused A.1 and A.2 denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.To prove the guilt of the Accused A.1 and A.2 for the said charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and placed reliance on

Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence charged U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.POINT:

The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 05.5.2018 at about 12.40 PM the S.E.B. police on receiving credible information about Excise offence and conducted raids the lands of Thathi

Reddy situated at Papineni cheruvu Voddipalli village, H/o Nuthanakaluva of K.V.Palli Mandal and found one plastic drum containing 100 liters of FJ

AJCJ Court, Piler 5 C.C.No.150 of 2022 wash fit for preparation of ID Arrack, Lw.6 enquired the owenr of the was and LWs. 1 and 2 are stated that the wash belongs tu one U. Munaiah (A.1) and the lands belongs to A.2 D. Thathi Reddy lifted 400 ml sample bottle for the Chemical analysis purpose and destroyed the remaining FJ wash on the spot under cover of Ex.P.1 panchanama, registered a case in

Cr.No.84 of 2018 U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act and issued Ex.P3/FIR, and forwarded the sample to the chemical examiner.

11.PW1. VRA he did not depose anything his evidence and turned hostile. In his cross examination nothing was elicited.

12.PWs.2 to P.4 also deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1 with respect to the events that took place at the scene of offence. Then basing on Ex.P1, LW.6 registered a case in Cr.No.84/2018 U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P.

Excise Act and submitted Ex.P3 First Information Report to this Court and copies to concerned and sent the accused A.1 and A.2 for remand. In view of the admissions of PWs.2 to 4 in their cross-examination, the fact that they could not find anyone at the scene of offence to act as mediator appears unbelievable.

13.PW.5 who is the investigating officer in this case is only relevant to the extent of his re-registering the case as Cr.No.84/2018

U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act after receiving the case property and

AJCJ Court, Piler 6 C.C.No.150 of 2022 issuing Ex.P3 First Information Report and sending MO.1 for chemical analysis and receiving Ex.P6 analysis report and handing over CD file to

LW.7 Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector and no incriminating material found in the cross-examination of PW.5. In view of the admissions of PW.5 in his cross-examination, the fact that he could not find anyone at the scene of offence to act as mediator appears unbelievable.

14.PW-6/ Y. Guru Prasad- Enforcement Inspector in this case he he sated that on 17.12.2020, he arrested the A.2/ D. Thathi Reddy at his house. On 16.04.2022 he filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act. In view of the admissions of

PW.6 in his cross-examination, the fact that he could not find anyone at the scene of offence to as appears unbelievable.

15.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused confessed about the commission of offence in their presence. It is settled law that any confessions made by the accused in the presence of police is inadmissible in evidence. Even in the present case on hand, the confession of the accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused A.1 and A.2, no independent witnesses are examined in this case.

AJCJ Court, Piler 7 C.C.No.150 of 2022

In the absence of such an evidence, it is not ideal to rely on the evidence of official witnesses to base conviction against the accused A.1 and A.2.

16.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused

A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence for the offence U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and hence, the accused A.1 and A.2 is entitled to benefit of doubt.

16.The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused A.1 and A.2 and against the prosecution.

17.In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence charged U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-

A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.48 /2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 09th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

AJCJ Court, Piler 8 C.C.No.150 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

PW.1: G. Nageswara - VRANone PW.2: C.S. Sathish Kumar - Head Constble. PW.3 : R. Prasanna Kumar – Constable PW.4 : K.Chalapathi- VRO PW.5 : B. Jayashankar - Enforcement Sub-Inspector, PW.6 : Y. Guru Prasad- Enforcement Inspector

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

Ex.P1: Is the Panchanama NIL Ex.P2 Is the Arrest Mahazarnama on the dictation of LW.6. Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P5: Letter of advise Ex.P6: Chemical analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: 400 ml Sample bottle of FJ wash

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI

AJMFC, Piler.

AJCJ Court, Piler 9 C.C.No.150 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: PILER

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No.72 /2023

1. Offence : 19-04-2022

2. Filling : 20-02-2023

3. Appearance of accused : 11-10-2023

4. Commencement of Trial : 06-11-2023

5. Close of Trial : 10-07-2024

6. Judgment : 15-07-2024

7. Complainant : The State: Rep.by Si of Police,

Piler Urban Police Station,

8. Name of the Accused : Bukke Srinivasulu Naik

9. Offence : Sec.7(B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P Prohibition

Act.

10. Plea of accused : NOT GUILTY.

11. Finding : FOUND NOT GUILTY

12. Result :

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P. Prohibition Act and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and M.O.2 in CPR.No.20/2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

AJCJ Court, Piler 10 C.C.No.150 of 2022

CC/148/2022 Acquitted

The SHO S.E.B. Police Station vs Pujari Srinivasulu

09 Aug 2024

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PILER.

Present: Ms. N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

Friday, the Nineth (09th ) of August, 2024

C.C.No.148/ 2022

Between :

The State rep by the Enforcement Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Piler.

....Complainant

And :

Pujari Srinivasulu, age 41 years, S/o P.Chandra,R/atPapinenicheruvu Vaddipalli Village, H/o Nuthanakaluva, K.V.palli Mandal. …. Accused.

This case is coming on 08-08-2024 for final hearing before this court for consideration after hearing both sides on today in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri C. Nagaraja, Advocate

for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the

following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, S.E.B. Piler Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.34 (e) of Excise

Act, 1968.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 05-05-2018 at about 10.45 AM as per the the instructions of

Director of Enforcement Prohibition & Excise, A.P.Vijayawada and in the supervision of Asst. prohibition & Excise Inspectors Piler, received credible

AJCJ Court, Piler2C.C.No.148 of 2022 information about the illegal preparation of ID Arrack, and conducted raid by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, K.V.Palli P.S. along with their staff

LW.1 and 2 reached and conducted raids in Papinenicheruvu vaddipalli village, H/o Nuthanakaluva, K.V.Palli Mandal and found two plastic druma each drum containing 50 liters of FJ wash total 100 liters of FJ wash fit for preparation of ID Arrack. Then, after the interrogation, LW.6 found that the said FJ wash belongs to Accused. Then, LW.6 drawn 400 ml FJ wash as sample for chemical analysis purpose duly sealed and labeled and destroyed the remaining contraband of FJ wash in the presence of mediators and LWs.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama.

3.Basing on the panchanama LW.6 registered a case against the accessed in Cr.No.83/2018 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P.

Excise Act-1968. Ex.P.4 is the FIR. Thereafter, during the course of investigation on 18.05.2018, LW.6 along with his staff and revenue officials raided the house of accused P.Srinivsulu and after informing the ground he arrested the accused. During the course of investigation on 10.05.2018 he sent the sample of chemical laboratory for analysis purpose and on 18.05.2018 LW.6 received analysis report opined that the sample si fermented wash fit for distillation. Ex.P.5 then he drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.6 is the Chemical analysis report. M.O.1 is the 400 ml of sample. After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused and took up investigation.

4.This case was taken on file on 16.04.2022 against the accused

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

AJCJ Court, Piler3C.C.No.148 of 2022

5.On appearance of the accused served the copies of case documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the contents read over and explained to him in Telugu language. A charge U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise

Act is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in

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

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

PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1 PW.1 is the VRA,

K.V.Palli Mandal. PWs.2, 3, 5 and 6 are the Investigating Officers. P.W.4 is

VRO.Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the Panchanama. Ex.P2 is the other panchanama. Ex.P3 Panchanama prepared of the scene. Ex.P.4 is the FIR.

Ex.P.5 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P6 is the chemical analysis report. MO.1 is one 400 ml sample bottle of FJ Wash.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining him the incriminating evidence appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. The accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

AJCJ Court, Piler4C.C.No.148 of 2022

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused reported that their arguments treated as heard.

Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

9.To prove the guilt of the Accused for the said charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P6 and MO.1.

10. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove

the guilt of the accused for the offence

charged U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.POINT:

The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that on 05.5.2018 at about 10.45 AM the S.E.B.Prohibition & Excise Inspectors

Piler, received credible information about the illegal preparation of ID

Arrack, and conducted raid along with their staff LW.1 and 2 reached and conducted raids in Papinenicheruvu vaddipalli village, H/o Nuthanakaluva,

K.V.Palli Mandal and found two plastic drums each drum containing 50 liters of FJ wash total 100 liters of FJ wash fit for preparation of ID Arrack.

Then, after the interrogation, LW.6 found that the said FJ wash belongs to

Accused. Then, LW.6 drawn 400 ml FJ wash as sample for chemical analysis purpose duly sealed and labeled and destroyed the remaining contraband of FJ wash in the presence of mediators and LWs.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama and registered a case in Cr.No.83 of 2018

AJCJ Court, Piler5C.C.No.148 of 2022

U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act and issued Ex.P4/FIR, and forwarded the sample to the chemical examiner.

12. PW1. VRA he did not depose anything his evidence and turned hostile. In his cross examination nothing was elicited.

13.PW-2/P.Shiva Sankara Vara Prasad Police constable deposes that on 05.05.2018 at about 10.45 AM during the raids conducted by LW.6 / SI of

Police on the instructions of Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise

Department, Prohibition & Excise Superintendent Enforcement, Chittoor and he along with Prohibition& Excise SI and also VRA, VRO, PW.1, LW.2 reached the scene of offence and found found two drum of 100 liters, the accused confessed that the contraband belongs to him. Then, LW.6 drawn 500 ml as sample for chemical analysis purpose and destroyed the remaining contraband on the spot iand arrested the accused and drafted special report and brought the accused to Piler police station. Ex.P.3 is the panchanama,dt: 05.05.2018. MO.1 is the 400 ml sample bottle.

Other than general nothing was elicited in his cross examination.

14.PWs.3 to 4 are the polcie constable and VRO they also deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1 with respect to the events that took place at the scene of offence. Then basing on Ex.P1, LW.6 registered

AJCJ Court, Piler6C.C.No.148 of 2022 a case in Cr.No.83/2018 U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act and submitted

Ex.P4 First Information Report to this Court and copies to concerned and sent the accused for remand. In view of the admissions of Pws.2 and 3 in their cross-examination, the fact that they could not find anyone at the scene of offence to act as mediator appears unbelievable.

15.PW.5 who is the investigating officer in this case is only relevant to the extent of his registering the case as Cr.No.83/2018

U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Ac. Through him Exs.P.4 to P.6 and MO.1 is marked. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report, Ex.P.5 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.P.6 is the Chemical analysis report and MO.1 400 ml sample of FJ wash. On 10.05.2018 sent the sample for chemical laboratory. On 18.05.2018 he received analysis report and opined that the sample is fermented wash fit of distillation. After completion of investigation he handed over the CD file to LW.7 Prohibition and Excise

Sub Inspector and no incriminating material found in the cross- examination of PW.5. In view of the admissions of PW.5 in his cross- examination, the fact that he could not find anything at the scene of offence .

16. PW-6/ Y. Guru Prasad- Enforcement Inspector in this case he stated that on 16-04-2022 he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the

AJCJ Court, Piler7C.C.No.148 of 2022 offences U/Sec. 34 (e) of A.P.Excise Act. In his cross examination nothing was elicited.

17.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused confessed about the commission of offence in their presence. It is settled law that any confessions made by the accused in the presence of police is inadmissible in evidence. Even in the present case on hand, the confession of the accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused, no independent witnesses are examined in this case. In the absence of such an evidence, it is not ideal to rely on the evidence of official witnesses to base conviction against the accused.

18.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence for the offence U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence charged U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted

U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the

AJCJ Court, Piler8C.C.No.148 of 2022 accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-A

Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.47 /2022 shall be destroyed after six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 09th day of August, 2024.

Sd/-N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

PW.1: G. Nageswara - VRANone PW.2: P.Shiva Shankara Varaprasad- SEB PC. PW.3 : R. Prasanna Kumar – Excise Constable PW.4 : K.Chalapathi- VRO PW.5 : B. Jayashankar - Enforcement Sub-Inspector, PW.6 : Y. Guru Prasad- Enforcement Inspector

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

Ex.P1: Is the signature on Panchanama NIL Ex.P2 Is the signature on other panchanama Ex.P3: Is the panchanama preapred at the scene of offence Ex.P4: Is the FIR Ex.P5: Is the rough sketch Ex.P6: Chemical analysis report.

AJCJ Court, Piler9C.C.No.148 of 2022

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: 400 ml Sample bottle of FJ wash

Sd/-N. GAYATHRI

AJMFC, Piler.

CC/183/2019 Acquitted

SHO, Piler PS vs Patan Moula

09 Aug 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: PILER.

Present: Ms. N. GAYATHRI,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

Friday, the Ninth (09 th ) day of August, 2024.

CALENDER CASE No.183 of 2019

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Piler Urban Police Station. … Complainant

Vs.

A.1- Patan Moula @ Patan Moulana, age 30 years, S/o P. Razak Khan, Muslim, R/o D.No.2-1659, Old Post office, Mallela Street, Piler Town and Mandal, Annamayya District.

A.2 – Syed Afrid, age 24 years, S/o Late S. Abdul, Muslim, R/o Muttarashi street, near Sai Baba Temple, Piler Town and Mandal, Annamayya District.

A.3 – Patan Mohammad Ummar, age 24 years, S/o Patan Sayad Khan, Muslim, Student, R/o D.No.9-180, Kattukaluva street, Piler Town and Mandal, Annamayya District. … Accused 1 to 3

This case is came on 07.08.2024 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state rep. by complainant and of Sri A. Narasimha Reddy Advocate for accused Nos.A.1 to A.3 and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Piler Urban Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable

U/Secs.365, 324 and 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.84/2019 of Piler Urban

Police Station.

2

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the Charge

Sheet stated as follows::-

On 28.4.2019 at 9.00 PM near Saadhana School, Padmavathi

Nagar, Piler Town and Mandal, where in the accused A.1 and A.2 were went in their Bajaj Pulsar 220 CC motorcycle bearing Regn.No. KA05JC0674 and abused the LW.1/Shaik Asif in vulgar language, attacked and abducted him forcibly from the spot and A.1 and A.2 took the LW.1 into a desolate place, situated behind Bhaskar ITI college, Chittoor road, Piler Town and Mandal on their motorcycle, then the Accused No.3 who was waiting for arrival of

A.1 and A.2 was joined with them and later A.1 to A.3 were wrongfully confined the LW.1 with common intention and assault him with sticks indiscriminately and caused bleeding injuries on the right side of the head and dumb injuries to all over his body and also A.1 to A.3 threatened the

LW.1 with dire consequences that they kill him, if he reveal anything about the incident 2 (a). On 30.04.2019 at about 2.00 PM, LW.1- Shaik Asif gave a report to LW.8/ B.N. Suresh, the Sub Inspector of Police, Piler Urban Police

Station who registered it as a case in Cr.No.84/2019 U/Secs.365, 324, 506

IPC r/w 34 IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and investigated into this case. During the course of investigation, on 01.5.2019, the accused were served with Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice and on 01.05.2019 at 11.45 PM.,

LW.8/Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused A.1 to A.3 at Kondareddy

Cross, Madanapalli Road, Piler Town and Mandal and sent them for remand.

3

After completion of investigation, LW.8/SI of Police, Piler Police Station filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.After perusing the charge sheet filed U/Sec.173 of Cr.P.C. and connected documents thereon, one of my learned predecessors took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable U/Secs.365, 324, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC against the accused A.1 to A.3 and issued summons to them.

4.On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3, they were served copies of case documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. A.1 to A.3 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and a charge U/Secs.365, 324, 506 IPC r/w 34

IPC is framed against the A.1 to A.3 and it is read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Ex.P.1 is the signature of PW.1 on the report. Ex.P.2 is the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 is the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4 is the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5. is the 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6 is the signature of PW.5 on the arrest confession mahazar dt:5.5.2019. Ex.P.7 is the signature of PW.5 on seizure Mahazar dt: 1.5.2019. Ex.P.8 is thesignature of PW.6 on arrest confession mahazar dt: 5.5.2019. Ex.P.9 is the signature of PW.6 on seizure mahazar dt: 1.5.2019. Ex.P.10 is the wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P.11 is the written report given by PW.1.

4

Ex.P.12 is the FIR. Ex.P.13 is the rough sketch. Ex.P.14 is the rough sketch

dt:30.04.2019. Ex.P.15 is the confession and arrest Mahazarnaama

dt:01.05.2019. Ex.P.16 is the seizure Mahazarnama dt: 01.05.2019.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused A.1 to

A.3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining them the incriminating evidence appearing against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. Accused A.1 to A.3 denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for accused A.1 to A.3 submitted that their arguments may be treated as heard. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable U/Secs.365, 324, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.To prove the guilt of accused 1 to 3 for the said charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P16.

10.POINT:

PWs.1 and 6 are the eye witnesses to the case of prosecution.

On perusal of their evidence, they consistently deposed that they do not know LWs.1 to 6 and the accused A.1 to A.3 and they does not know

5

anything about this case and they were not examined by the police. In view of their evidence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State declared them as hostile and cross-examined them by putting forth the contents in their Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements which they denied and nothing worthwhile was elicited from the said cross-examination.

11.PW.7 is the Dr.M. Nagaveni who treated PW.1 Shaik Asif and issued Ex.P10 Wound Certificate.

12.After excluding the evidence of PWs.1 to 7, we are left with the evidence of PW.8, the Investigating Officer who did entire investigation in this case. On perusal of his evidence, he deposed in a routine manner about registering the case on the basis of Ex.P.11, issuing Ex.P.12 First

Information Report, preparing Ex.P13 rough sketch and examining and recording the statements of witnesses based on Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses and receiving Ex.P10 wound certificate of LW.1 Shaik Asif and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW.8, he clearly deposed that LW.1 Shaik Asif did not state the name of the person who threatened to kill him in Ex.P11 report. On perusal of the entire evidence of PW.8, no incriminating material is available against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 to connect them with the alleged offences.

As stated earlier, all the independent witnesses in this case totally turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

13.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused

A.1 to A.3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Secs.365, 324 and 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC by placing cogent and convincing evidence.

14.In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for offences U/Secs.365, 324, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 09th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW-1: Shaik Asif PW-2: Shaik Gani PW-3: Shaik Asif PW-4: Shiak Babjhan PW-5: M. Srinadha Reddy PW-6: G. Ramanaiah PW-7: Dr. M. Nagaveni PW-8: B.N. Suresh – SubInspector of Police

DEFENCE:

-None- 7

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Is the Signature of PW.1 on the report, dt: 30.04.2019. Ex.P-2: Is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P-3: Is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P-4: Is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P-5: Is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P-6: Is the signature of PW.5 on arrest confession Mahazar dt:5-5-2019 Ex.P-7: Is the Signature of Pw.5 on seizure Mahazar dt:1.5.2019 Ex.P-8: Is the Signature of Pw.6 on Arrest, confession Mahazar,

dt:05.05.2019

Ex.P-9: Is the Signature of PW.6 on seizure Mahazar dt: 01.05.2019 Ex.P-10: Is the wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P-11: Is the written report given by Pw.1 Ex.P-12: Is the FIR Ex.P-13: Is the Rough Sketch Ex.P-14: Is the Rough Sketch dt: 30.04.2019 Ex.P-15: Is the Confession and arrest Mahazarnama dt: 01.05.2019. Ex.P-16: Is the seizure Mahazarnama dt: 01.05.2019

DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/- N. Gayathri,

AJMFC, PILER.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PILER.

CALENDER IN C.C.No. 183 of 2019

Date of occurrence::28.04.2019 Date of complaint::30.04.2019 Date of taken on file:: 27.05.2019 Date of commencement of ::08.01.2020 trial Date of closure of trial::06.08.2024

Date of sentence or order::09.08.2024 Name of the Complainant::The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Piler Urban Police Station.(Cr.No.84/2019 of Piler Urban P.S.)

A.1- Patan Moula @ Patan Moulana, age 30 years, S/o P. Razak Khan, Muslim, R/o D.No.2-1659, Old Post office, Mallela Street, Piler Town and Mandal, Annamayya District.

A.2 – Syed Afrid, age 24 years, S/o Late S. Abdul, Muslim, R/o Muttarashi street, near Sai Baba Temple, Piler Town and Mandal, Annamayya District.

A.3 – Patan Mohammad Ummar, age 24 years, S/o Patan Sayad Khan, Muslim, Student, R/o D.No.9-180, Kattukaluva street, Piler Town and Mandal, Annamayya District. Nature of offenceU/Secs.365, 324, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC Finding of the CourtAccused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for offences U/Secs.365, 324, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months.

Sd/- N.. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piler.

CC/160/2022 Acquitted

The SHO Special Enforcement Bureau P.S. Piler. vs Upputholla Manohar

09 Aug 2024

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

PILER.

Present: Ms. N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

Friday, the Nineth (09th ) of August, 2024

C.C.No.160/ 2022

Between :

The State rep by Enforcement Sub-Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Piler.

....Complainant

And :

Upputholla Mahonar, age 30 years, S/o U. Prasad R/at Papinenicheruvu Vaddipalli Village, H/o Nuthanakaluva, K.V.Palli Mandal. …. Accused

for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the

following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, S.E.B. Piler Police Station has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Sec.34 (e) of

Excise Act, 1968.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows:

AJCJ Court, Piler2C.C.No.160 of 2022

(a) On 05-05-2018 at about 9.30 AM as per the the instructions of Director of Enforcement Prohibition & Excise, A.P. Vijayawada and in the supervision of Asst. prohibition & Excise Inspectors Piler received credible information about illegal preparation of FJ wash LW.6 along with staff and LWs.1 and 2 raided the house of accused and found the doors are open no person is found and on suspension Lw.6 in the presence of mediators issued search memo and affixed to door and verified the house in the presence of LWs.1 and 2 and found one plastic drum in the house of accused . After verifying the drum they found 200 liters of FJ wash which is fit for preparation of ID Arrack. After the interrogation Lw.6 found that the said FJ wash belongs to Accused. Then, LW.6 drawn 650 ml FJ wash as sample for chemical analysis purpose duly sealed and labeled and destroyed the remaining contraband of FJ wash in the presence of mediators and LWs.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama.

(b) Based on the panchanama LW.6. registered a case in crime

No.82/2018 U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and issued F.I.R Copies to all concerned and sent the Original F.I.R before this Court, served a notice under section 41 (A) Cr.P.C., and destroyed the remaining FJ wash and sent the sample bottle to chemical analysis, after receipt of analysis report he filed charge sheet and investigated into this case.

3.This case was taken on file on 16.04.2022 against the accused accused U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act-1968.

4.On appearance of the accused served the copies of case documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the contents of the charge

AJCJ Court, Piler3C.C.No.160 of 2022 sheet in Telugu. A charge U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1 500 ml sample. PW.1 is the VRA, K.V.Palli Mandal. PWs.2, 3, 4 and 6 are the police officials and

Investigating Officers. P.W.5 is VRO. Ex.P1 is the signature in

Panchanama. Ex.P2 is the other panchanama on panchanama. Ex.P3 is the signature on rough sketch. Ex.P.4 is the FJ wash panchanama of the scene of offence. Ex.P.5 is the arrest panchanama. Ex.P6 is the rough sketch. Ex.P.7 is the FIR. Ex.P.8 is the Attested copy of search proceedings U/Sec. 165 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.9 is the Signature of PW.5 in panchanama. MO.1 is one 500 ml sample bottle of FJ Wash.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining him the incriminating evidence appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu. The accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.To prove the guilt of the Accused for the said charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and placed reliance on Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1.

AJCJ Court, Piler4C.C.No.160 of 2022

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove

the guilt of the accused for the offence

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

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT:

On 05-05-2018 at about 9.30 AM as per the the instructions of

Director of Enforcement Prohibition & Excise, A.P. Vijayawada and in the supervision of Asst. prohibition & Excise Inspectors Piler received credible information about illegal preparation of FJ wash LW.6 along with staff and

LWs.1 and 2 raided the house of accused and found the doors are open no person is found and on suspension LW.6 in the presence of mediators issued search memo and affixed to door and verified the house in the presence of LWs.1 and 2 and found one plastic drum in the house of accused . After veifying the drum they found 200 liters of FJ wash which is fit for preparation of ID Arrack. After the interrogation Lw.6 found that the said FJ wash belongs to Accused. Then, LW.6 drawn 500 ml FJ wash as sample for chemical analysis purpose duly sealed and labeled and destroyed the remaining contraband of FJ wash in the presence of mediators and Lws.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama and registered a case in Cr.No.84 of 2018 U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act and issued Ex.P /FIR, and forwarded the sample to the chemical examiner.

11. PW1. VRO he did not depose anything his evidence and turned hostile. In his cross examination nothing was elicited he turned hostile.

AJCJ Court, Piler5C.C.No.160 of 2022

13.PW.5 who is the investigating officer in this case is only relevant to the extent of his re-registering the case as Cr.No.84/2018

U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act after receiving the case property and issuing Ex.P3 First Information Report and sending MO.1 for chemical analysis and receiving Ex.P6 analysis report and handing over CD file to

PW.6 in his cross-examination, the fact that he could not find anyone at the scene of offence to act as mediator appears unbelievable.

15.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused confessed about the commission of offence in their presence. It is settled law that

AJCJ Court, Piler6C.C.No.160 of 2022 any confessions made by the accused in the presence of police is inadmissible in evidence. Even in the present case on hand, the confession of the accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for accused A.1 and A.2, no independent witnesses are examined in this case.

In the absence of such an evidence, it is not ideal to rely on the evidence of official witnesses to base conviction against the accused A.1 and A.2.

16.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused

17.The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused A.1 and A.2 and against the prosecution.

18.In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence charged U/Sec.34 (e) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months U/Sec 437-

A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 in CPR.No.46/ 2023 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23rd day of January, 2020.

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Piler.

AJCJ Court, Piler7C.C.No.160 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

PW.1: G. Nageswara - VRANone PW.2: K.Chandra Mohan - Head Constble. PW.3: P.Shiva Shankara Prasad– Constable PW.4: B. Jayashankar - Enforcement Sub-Inspector, PW.5: K.Chalapathi- VRO PW.6: Y. Guru Prasad- Enforce Inspector.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

Prosecution Side:Accused side:

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: 400 ml Sample bottle of FJ wash

Sd/- N. GAYATHRI

AJMFC,Piler.

AJCJ Court, Piler8C.C.No.160 of 2022

Order Record 941 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/148/2022	The SHO S.E.B. Police Station vs Pujari Srinivasulu	09 Aug 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/150/2022	The SHO S.E.B. Police Station vs Upputholla Munaiah	09 Aug 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/160/2022	The SHO Special Enforcement Bureau P.S. Piler. vs Upputholla Manohar	09 Aug 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/183/2019	SHO, Piler PS vs Patan Moula	09 Aug 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/234/2023	SEB Station, Piler. vs B. Santhamma	09 Aug 2024	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/239/2023	SEB Station, Piler. vs Bukke Hari Naik	09 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
CC/232/2020	SHO, Piler Urban PS vs Kotigari Dinesh Babu	08 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
CC/201/2016	SHO, K.V. Palli P.S. vs R. Yerrama Reddy	07 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
OS/58/2019	M.Surendra vs J.Chandrakala	06 Aug 2024	Other	—
OS/2/2023	Y.Siddaiah vs P. Venkataramana	05 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
OS/128/2017	M Sekhar Reddy vs C Yerraiah	05 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
OS/344/2023	N. Mohith Reddy vs N.Yadhodhamma	05 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
CC/374/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs Nelapalli Krishnamma	05 Aug 2024	Other	—
STC/33/2023	S. Raveendranatha Reddy vs P. Theja Tirunath	05 Aug 2024	Other	—
OS/128/2023	C. Gurunadha Reddy vs Thanmaya Sree Hari Om Mission, Haripuram Nagapatla K.Harinadha Reddy	02 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
OS/198/2015	Baddi Gurumurthy vs Boyalla Venkata Subbaiah	02 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
CC/68/2016	SHO, Piler P.S. vs Muga Reddeppa Reddy	02 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1827/2021	P.Reddeppa Reddy vs R. Vijaya Mahesh	01 Aug 2024	Other	—
OS/12/2016	G.Pandabba vs R. Niranjan	31 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
OS/68/2023	Shaik Mohammad Subhan vs D. Kareemulla	30 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
OS/242/2023	Cheekatipalle Rangamma vs Cheekatipalle Gangaiah	30 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/104/2016	SHO, Bhakarapet, P.S. vs B. Chandrababu	30 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/176/2022	The SHO K.V.Palli Police Station vs Pujari Venkataramana	30 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/516/2017	SHO PILER P.S vs Kanderi Dilendra naidu	30 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/731/2019	SHO, Piler Urban PS vs K. Venkatramana	30 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/1849/2021	The K.V. Palli P.S. vs P. Venkatramana	30 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
OS/196/2020	Chinnakkagari Ranemma vs Chinthala Venugopal Reddy	29 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/180/2022	The SHO K.V.Palli Police Station vs T. Pullaiah	29 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/198/2021	SHO, Piler Urban Police Station vs G. Chandra Sekhar	29 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/491/2019	N. Karunada vs Somu Babu	25 Jul 2024	Other	—
STC/19/2024	K. Mahesh Babu @ Maheshwar vs K. Jagadeesh	24 Jul 2024	Other	—
OS/56/2023	T. Sujatha vs M.Vijay kumar	22 Jul 2024	Other	—
CC/58/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs E. Ashok Kumar	22 Jul 2024	Other	—
OS/94/2021	M.Subba Reddy vs Smt.B.Lakshmamma	19 Jul 2024	Other	—
CC/352/2022	SHO.Piler Urban PS vs B.Siva Naik	19 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
OS/200/2023	B. Ramakrishna vs Shaik Mohammad Thamim	15 Jul 2024	Other	—
CC/72/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs B. Srinivasulu Naik	15 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/109/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs Mude Babu Naik	15 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/119/2023	The SHO Piler Urban Police Station vs Mude Dharma Naik	15 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/239/2022	The SHO Bhakrapeta Police Station vs G. Siddarami Reddy	15 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/848/2013	Mulinti Nagendra Reddy vs Avula Obul Reddy	11 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/334/2019	SHO, Piler PS vs Kadiri Neella Thilak Kumar	09 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
CC/559/2019	V. Shajahan vs A.E. Leelavathi	04 Jul 2024	Judgement	—
EP/14/2024	K. Dwarakanadha Reddy vs K. Sreenivasulu	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
OS/20/2024	M. Venkatamma vs M.Krishnaiah	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
OS/120/2023	Smt B.C. Sailaja vs Sri High C5ourt Narayana Reddy	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/7/2018	D. Venkata Nagi Reddy vs S. Khadar Basha	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/9/2024	The SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs Nelavanka Venkata Nikhil	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/37/2018	SHO PILER P.S vs Shaik shakeela	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/111/2024	The SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs Kuncha Venkataramana	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/116/2024	The SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs Shaik Shameer	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/117/2024	The SHO, Bhakarapet P.S. vs V. Karthik	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/179/2015	SHO, Piler P.S. vs Kappera Kumar	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/216/2015	SHO, Piler P.S. vs Kappu Raghavaiah	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/266/2019	Rayavaram Maheswara Reddy vs P. Veera Narayanamma	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/267/2019	K. Venkatramana vs Smt P. Veera Narayanamma	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/281/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs O. Ramanjaneyulu @ Ramanjulu	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/318/2020	SHO, Bhakarapeta PS vs R. Nagendran	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/376/2020	SHO, K.V. Palli PS vs D. Lakshmidhar	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/404/2023	SHO Piler Urban PS vs Shaik Nawaz Basha	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/407/2023	SHO Piler Urban PS vs Konduru Yarraiah	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/411/2023	Sub Inspector of Police, Bhakarapet PS vs M Ramakrishna	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/480/2023	The SHO Piler Urban Police Station vs Vasa Reddeppa	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/508/2023	The Piler Urban P.S. vs P. Veeranarayanamma	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/510/2023	The Piler Urban P.S. vs M. Ramesh Babu	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/516/2022	The SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs S. Mukthiyaz @ Mukthiyar,	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
DVC/3/2021	M. Varalakshmi vs B. Sandeep Kumar Naik	29 Jun 2024	Other	—
MC/10/2021	M. Varalakshmi vs B. Sandeep Kumar Naik	29 Jun 2024	Order	—
CC/188/2022	The SHO Piler Urban P.S. vs Shaik Anwar Basha	28 Jun 2024	Judgement	—
DVC/5/2015	payeejohn vs S. Rarashmi	26 Jun 2024	Judgement	—
MC/12/2013	S. Venkatalakshmamma vs S. Lakshmaiah	21 Jun 2024	Other	—
MC/16/2022	R. Naga Jyothi vs R. Anjineyulu	21 Jun 2024	Other	—
PRC/11/2023	The Sub-Divional Police Officer, Rayachoty, Annamayya Dt. vs M. Gurunadha @ M. Gurnatha	19 Jun 2024	Order	—
PRC/1/2024	The SHO, Bhakarapet P.S. vs Sakiri Nagaraju	30 May 2024	Order	—
PRC/13/2023	Inspector of Police, Bhakarapeta P.S. vs Patan Ubedulla	30 May 2024	Order	—
OS/172/2023	A. Chandrakala vs A. Venkatramana	23 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/413/2022	The SHO K.V.Palli Police Station vs Durga Lingaiah Naidu	23 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/340/2018	SHO, Piler PS vs Digumurthy Ramachandra Naidu	22 Apr 2024	Order	—
OS/318/2023	K. Dwarakanatha Reddy vs K.Sreenivasulu	18 Apr 2024	Order	—
MC/3/2022	Smt K. Hemavathi vs K.Gurunatha Reddy	18 Apr 2024	Other	—
CC/17/2021	SHO, Bhakarapeta PS vs R. Lokeswara Reddy	15 Apr 2024	Judgement	—
CC/24/2021	Shaik Shadulla Basha vs Pathan Reddy Basha	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/53/2021	SHO, K.V. Palli Police Station vs G. Siva Prasad	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/84/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs C. Mallikarjuna Reddy	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/208/2023	The SHO Piler Urban Police Station vs Shaik Irfan	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/213/2020	SHO, Piler Urban PS vs Aguvinti Ruzwith Rahiman	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/220/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs A. Lokesh	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/228/2021	Andhra Pradesh State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pileru Urban P.S. vs T.Ayyappa	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/243/2020	SHO, Piler Urban PS. vs Salava Venugopal	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/245/2021	SHO, K.V. Palli Police Station vs Janam Ravindra	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/286/2020	SHO, Piler Urban PS vs Boggu Bhanuprakash	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/291/2018	SHO, Bhakarapeta PS vs Dasari Subramanyam	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/319/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs Sonu Kumar	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/323/2022	SHO.Bhakarapeta PS. vs G.Gnanedrachari	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/324/2023	SHO, K.V. Palle P.S. vs A. Adinarayana	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/340/2023	SHO, Piler Urban P.S. vs Kannan. Alagaraswamy	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/392/2022	SHO.Piler Urben PS vs V.Babu	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/410/2018	Shriram City Union Finance Limited vs M. Kaamudu	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/435/2020	SHO, K.V. Palli PS vs K. Raja	15 Apr 2024	Order	—
CC/445/2018	O. Narasimha Reddy vs Vaddikuppam Krishnappa	15 Apr 2024	Order	—

Showing 100 of 941 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2024		18
Jul 2024		27
Jun 2024		30
May 2024		2
Apr 2024		331
Mar 2024		14
Feb 2024		2
Jan 2024		5
Dec 2023		53
Nov 2023		24
Oct 2023		28
Sep 2023		73

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Kum Neelapu Gayathri handled?

Kum Neelapu Gayathri has handled 966 court orders since 2022 at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler. The average disposal rate is 60 orders per month.

What types of cases does Kum Neelapu Gayathri hear?

Based on available records, Kum Neelapu Gayathri primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler.

Where is Kum Neelapu Gayathri currently posted?

Kum Neelapu Gayathri is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Kum Neelapu Gayathri available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Kum Neelapu Gayathri are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Kum Neelapu Gayathri dispose cases?

Kum Neelapu Gayathri disposes approximately 60 cases per month, based on 966 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler.

Since when is Kum Neelapu Gayathri serving?

Kum Neelapu Gayathri has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler since 2022.

Case Types

CC 74%

OS 9%

STC 8%

MC 5%

PRC 2%

DVC 1%

EP 1%

RC 0%

Posting History

May 2023 — Dec 2023

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 57 orders
Aug 2022 — Aug 2024

Additional junior Civil judge piler · 909 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 6

Settled Before Lok Adalat 2

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Karamsetty Ravi

Senior Civil Judge

9 orders

Sri Ziauddin Shaik

Principal Junior Civil Judge

505 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler