Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo

SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT

Prl District Courts, Chittoor · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo, SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT, is posted at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,619 court orders on record since 2016. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

1,619

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/500200/2014 Acquitted

SI of Police, I Town PS.,Chittoor vs T.M.Durga Prasad

10 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE :: AT CHITTOOR.

Present: Ms.Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor.

Friday, the 10th(Tenth) day of August, 2018.

C.C.No. 200 of 2014

Cr.No.149 of 2011 of Chittoor II Town PS.

Between :

The State represented by The SubInspector of Police, Chittoor I Town PS.

...Complainant.

And :

T.M.Durga Prasad, age 39 years, S/o T.M.Munibasavaiah, D.No.20458, Mittoor, Chittoor, Caste: Jangama, Proprietor of M/s Prasad Automobiles, ASM St. Chittoor.

... Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 07082018 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri R.Chandrasekhar and Sri V.Murugan, Advocates for accused; and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The SubInspector of Police, Chittoor I Town PS, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.71 of 2010 for the offences U/Secs.420 IPC, Sec.63 of Copy Right Act.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that M.S. Auto Motive

Components Manufacturers Association of India, ACMA, registered under the companies Act 1956 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and making of auto motive parts in other products. The company is very well known for the quality of auto motive parts. This being so, it came to the notice of the said company that some people taking advantage of its brand position in the market are making money by selling unbranded auto motive parts by taking the name of ACMA brand of Lucus India Service Ltd./Micu Bosch Ltd., and 2 (FMG) Goetze India Ltd., and NRB bearing Ltd.

LW1 G.M.Chandra Babu, Manager (Operation) of C3i Consultant Pvt.

Ltd., was authorized by the said Consultant Company to file complaint on behalf of ACMA against following nine shops (1) Prasad Auto Mobiles, 20 458, Annaswamy Modali St, MSR Circle, Mittoor (2) M/S Chetan Auto

Services D.No.18103, Prakasam High Road, Chittoor (3) Eswari Traders

Spares Annaswamy Modali st. Chittoor01, (4) Vedha Sree Auto Mobiles &

Lubrigants, Annaswamy Modali St, Chittoor01 (5) Krishna Traders & Spares

Ragivgandhi road, Chittoor01, (6) Sri Dhanalakshmi Diesel spares

Rajivgandhi road, Chittoor01 (7) Benzie Auto Mobiles, Bangalore road,

Chittoor01 (8) Sri Durga Auto Mobiles, Bangalore road, Chittoor01 (9)

Venkateswara Auto Mobiles MGR road, Chittoor01, who were selling the counterfeit products to unsuspecting customers purportedly manufactured by Lucus India Service Ltd./Mico bosch Ltd., and (FMG) Goetze India Ltd., and NRB bearing Ltd.

03.On the basis of complaint of LW1 as to selling of spurious auto motive parts by some shops to investigate into the matter, LW7 S.A.Razak registered a case in Cr.No.71/2010 under sec. 420 of IPC, Sec.63 of Copy Right Act 1957 on 682010 at 5.00 PM and took up for investigation. During the said course of investigation on the same day LW7 secured the panchayatdars

LWs4 N.S.Mohan and LW.5 K.Dileep and conducted raids on the shops mentioned in the complaint of LW1.

On 682013 at 5.30 PM, LW7 seized 16 spurious piston rings belongs to GOETZE TP company at the shop of the accused T.M.Durga Prasad under a cover of Mahazar duly attested by LW.4 and LW.5 and drafted rough sketch of the scene. On 682013 at 6.30 PM, LW7 seized 5 spurious piston ring set belongs to GOETZE TP company at the shop of M.Aravind Kumar under a cover of Mahazar duly attested by LWs4 and 5. LW8 A.Sadia Ali, SI of Police, took up further investigation in this case, verified the investigation of LW7 and seized original piston ring set belongs to GOETZE TP company on production of LW1, preferred letter of advise and forwarded the sample material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for comparison.

LW6 G.Srinivasa Murthy, Asst.Director FSL analyzed the spare parts 3 and opined that the spare parts seized at the shop of T.M.Durga Prasad is spurious one, and the spare parts seized from the shop of M.Aravinda Kumar and original spare part produced by LW1 are one and the same. LW 9/S.K.Basha, ASI received analysis report of LW6, on credible information on 2352013 at 11.30 AM, arrested the accused and remanded to judicial custody, subsequently he was released on bail.

04. The case was taken on file for the offences U/Secs.420 of IPC and

Sec.63 Copy Right Act, 1957 against accused and the same was numbered as

C.C.No.197/2013 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Chittoor. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents was furnished to him U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

05. The accused was examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C, Charges U/Secs.420 of

IPC and Sec.63 of Copy right Act, 1957 were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later the case was transferred to this court vide proceedings of Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge and subsequently numbered as C.C.No.200/2014 on the file of this court.

06. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P10. The evidence of LW.5/K.Dileep, LW.6/G.Srinivasa

Murthy, AD,FSL and LW8/A.Sadia Ali,SI was closed.

07. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same once again and pleaded not guilty.

However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on their behalf.

08. Heard the APP for the State and the counsels for the accused.

It is the contention of the prosecution that the evidence of PWs.1,2 5 & 6 coupled with documentary evidence are sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. she contended that the prosecution has established the case against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.420 IPC and Sec.63 of 4

Copy Right Act beyond all reasonable doubt and hence she prayed to convict accused accordingly.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that PW.1 and PW.2 are planted witnesses on behalf of the companies and that the accused never involved in any such offence and that PW.1 with the assistance of police got foisted this false case against him.

09. Now the point which stood for determination is :

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of

the accused for the offence under Secs.420 of IPC and

Sec.63 of Copy Right Act, 1957, beyond reasonable

doubt?

10. It is the case of Prosecution that prior to 682010 accused was found selling duplicate spare parts in the name of ACMA and thus cheated the customers and the company and caused loss to the company.

11. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW.1.G.M.Chandra Babu,

Manager, Operations C3i Consultants Pvt. Ltd., PW2 M.S.Naidu, C3i

Consultants Branch Manager, PW3 Rajesh, & PW4 N.S.Mohan, the

Panchayatdars, PW5 S.K.Basha ASI and PW6 S.Abdul Razak ASI, the investigation officers.

12. PW.1 G.M.Chandra Babu, who was authorized to represent on behalf of the company deposed that he is the Manager of Operations C3i

Consultants Pvt. Ltd., for detecting production, sale of Automotive Parts and that as per the authorization, vide Ex.P3 given by Ramani managing Director of C3i Consultancy he preferred complaint in II Town Police Station on 68 2010 at 5.00 PM. He further deposed that the BOSCH company has sent one team to enquire with regard to the matter as they have noticed fall of their sales and suspecting that some spurious automotive parts are being marketed and upon reasonable information has directed PW2 M.S.Naidu, the Manager of C3i Consultancy to probe into the matter.

He further deposed that on the information given by PW.2 that around 9 automobile shops were indulged in manufacturing spurious parts and marketing the same, he lodged Ex.P1 complaint before I Town Police Station 5 for taking necessary action against the offenders and Ex.P2 is the list of the said companies.

During cross examination it was elicited that he did not accompany the police to the shops and that as Manager Operations he is the bestowed with the duty of lodging complaint against the persons involved in manufacturing spurious spare parts and that they do not have any fixed targets.

13. PW2 M.S.Naidu, who worked at C31 Consultancy as Branch

Manager, incharge of Chennai TN and AP, deposed that the MICO company approached Ramani, MD of C3I consultants reporting that there is a fall of sales in the spare parts pertaining to their companies and that their MD directed him to verify the said details. He further deposed that he deputed his staff who purchased the spare parts in 9 shops at Chittoor and on verification they suspected that some of them were spurious and that they forwarded the same to the concerned companies who also reported the same. He further deposed that on the directions of their MD they approached PW1 who lodged complaint against the 9 shops for manufacturing spurious parts and that after lodging FIR, he also accompanied the police who seized some spare parts which were sent to FSL for analysis wherein a report was received that only some of the spare parts were spurious.

14. PW.3 Rajesh, who was alleged to have assisted PW.1 in preferring complaint and PW.4 N.S.Mohan, the alleged mahazar in whose presence the shops were raided turned hostile. They did not choose to support the case of prosecution and they were declared by the prosecution as hostile and no useful material could be elicited during the course of cross examination by learned A.P.P.

15. PW.5/S.K.Basha, one of the investigation officer deposed about receiving of FSL report, vide Ex.P7, and sending the same to the court, arresting the accused and filing the charge sheet.

He admitted that he did not seize any records to show that the arrested person ie., the accused is the owner of the auto mobile shop. It was elicited that he did not prepare any arrest Mahazar.

16.PW6/S.Abdul Razak, the then Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, Chittoor I

Town Police Station deposed that on 6082010, PW1 to PW3 came to the station and lodged complaint with regard to selling of spurious auto mobile spare parts at Chittoor by nine shops and that on the basis of complaint, he registered a case,vide Ex.P8, in Cr.No.71/2010 under sec. 420 of IPC Sec.63 of Copy Right Act 1957. He further deposed that on the same day at about 5.00 PM he secured panchayatdars PW4 and LW5/K.Dilip and went to the shop of Prasad Auto Mobiles situated at Mittoor, wherein the accused was the owner. He further deposed that he searched the shop and found 16 spurious piston rings belongings to GOETZE TP Company and he seized the same from the shop of the accused under cover of mahazar, vide Ex.P8, duly attested by the mediators and prepared the rough sketch.

He further deposed that then he went to the shop by name

Venkateswara Auto Mobile whose owner is Aravind Kumar and that when he searched the shop, he found 05 spurious piston rings belongings to GOETZE

TP Company and he seized the same from the shop of the said Aravind

Kumar under cover of mahazar, vide Ex.P9, duly attested by the mediators

PW4 and LW5.

He further deposed that then he searched the remaining shops that were mentioned in the complaint of PW1, but he did not find any spurious spare parts and later he asked PW1 to produce the original spare parts and handed over the CD file and the seized property to LW8/Sadiq Ali.

It was elicited that PWs 1 to 3 accompanied him to the shops and they informed him that the rings that were seized are spurious ones. It was elicited that he did not seal the seized rings as per procedure, no ID slips were affixed and he did not obtain the signature of the mahazars or the owners of the shop on the slips. He admitted that for any shop, the owner must obtain registration certificate from the Shops and Establishments Act from the authorities concerned and that he did not file any document to show that the accused is the owner of the Prasad Auto Mobiles.

17. On scrutinizing the material on record and the evidence of PW.s 1 to 6, the evidence in favour of prosecution is that of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6 as the other witnesses PW.3 and the mahazar PW.4 turned hostile. Further the 7 evidence of PW.5 is of no avail as he did not conduct any investigation. As there are no independent witnesses, the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6 is to be scrutinized properly.

18. PW.1 testified that on information given by PW.2 as to 9 auto mobile shops indulging in manufacturing spurious spare parts, he lodged the complaint. PW.2 testified that on verification of the spare parts that were purchased from the nine shops, some of them found to be spurious. PW.6 conducted raids in the said 9 shops seized the spurious piston rings, in the presence of mediators from the shops of accused and one Aravind Kumar under the cover of Mahazar and sent them for FSL. As per FSL report the piston rings that were seized from the shop of accused were found to be spurious.

19.The counsel for accused contended that PW.6 did not follow the procedure while seizing of alleged piston rings. He brought to the notice of the court that PW.6 during cross stated that he did not seal the seized rings as per procedure, no ID slips were affixed and he did not obtain the signature of the mahazars or the owners of the shop on the slips. He argued that as

PW.6 did not follow the procedure and hence the identity of the incriminating articles is not established and hence accused is entitled for acquittal. He placed his reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex court between Jasbir Singh and State of Punjab, 1998 SAR (cri) 473. Wherein it was held that identity of incriminating articles recovered on apprehending and search of accused the mouser and catrage not sealed at the time of recovery and seizure and the recovered articles having no marked and no number on them and no explanation for not trapping them and applying the seal over them. Identity of the incriminating articles could not be said to have been established before the court. The other two decisions relied by the accused ie., 1994 (2) ALT Crl.69 AP and 1998 SAR Crl.820 are not applicable to the present case.

20. Though the FSL report establishes that the piston rings that were seized from the shop of accused and spurious, but as it is evident that PW.6 did not follow the procedure with regard to seizure of the articles and he did 8 not even seal the seized articles. There is every possibility of replacing the seized articles. Thus the identity of the sealed articles is not established.

Moreover he did not file any record to show that accused was the owner of the shop from where the alleged spurious parts were seized. The independent witnesses turned hostile and it is highly unsafe to rely upon the interested testimonies of Pws.1, 2 and 6, while sustaining conviction. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution totally failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec.420 of IPC and Sec. 63 of Copy Right Act and he is acquitted under sec.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand canclled after lapse of six months.

Unmarked case property ie., piston ring sets etc., shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the PersonalAssistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2018.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: G.M.Chandra Babu. NIL PW2: M.S.Naidu. PW3: Rajesh. PW4: N.S.Mohan PW5: S.K.Basha, ASI PW6: S.Abdul Razak, ASI

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Complaint before I Town P.S. for taking necessary action against the offenders.

Ex.P2: List appended to Ex.P1 complaint.

Ex.P3: Authorization issued in his name by the Managing Director C3i consultancy to lodge complaint on their behalf.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P5: Signature of PW4 in Sl.No.1 in seizure mahazar dt. 6.8.2010 at 5.30 PM 9

Ex.P6: Signature of PW4 in Sl.No.1 in seizure mahazar dt. 6.8.2010 at 6.30 PM

Ex.P7: FSL report.

Ex.P8: Mahazarnama prepared at the shop of Prasad Auto Mobiles.

Ex.P9: Mahazarnama prepared at the shop of Venkateswara Auto Mobile.

Ex.P10: Rough sketch.

DEFENCE : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

I Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor. //True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 200 of 2014

Date of offence:06082010

Date of complaint:06082010

Date of taken on file:31032013

Date of apprehension of accused:23052013

Date of commencement of trial:15072014

Date of close of trial:26072018

Date of sentence of order:10082018

Reasons for delay:Police failed to produce witnesses on time.

Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittoor I Town PS. in Cr.No.71/2010.

Particulars of the accused:

T.M.Durga Prasad, age 39 years, S/o T.M.Munibasavaiah, D.No.20458, Mittoor, Chittoor, Caste: Jangama, Proprietor of M/s Prasad Automobiles, ASM St. Chittoor.

Nature of offenceUnder Sec. 420 of IPC and Sec. 63 of Copy Right Act

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec.420 of

IPC and Sec. 63 of Copy Right Act and he is acquitted under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand canclled after lapse of six months. Unmarked case property ie., piston ring sets etc., shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/Ms.Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh., and Excise, Chittoor.

// True copy //

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh., and Excise, Chittoor.

CC No.149 of 2013

04032014 :

Accused

Judgmentpronounced(Vide separate Judgment) in open court,

In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences

U/Sec.292 IPC and U/Sec.51 r/w 63 of Copy Right Act and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255(1)

Cr P C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

MO1 to MO48 as entered in CPR

No.60 of 2013 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

IV AJMFC.

CC/500015/2018 Acquitted

Proh. and Excise, S.I. of Police , Chittoor Rural P.S vs Nagappa Goundar Vinayagam

10 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE :: AT CHITTOOR.

Present: Ms.Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor.

Friday, the 10th(Tenth) day of August, 2018.

C.C.No.15 of 2018

Between:

State, represented by the SubInspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Chittoor Rural.

...Complainant

And:

Nagappa Gounder Vinayagam, Age 48 years, S/o Nagappa Gounder, Caste: Gounder, R/o B.P.Palyam (V), Paradarami (P), Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore (Dist.)

... Accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 0882018 in the presence of learned A.P.P for the State and of Sri V.Venkatachalam, counsel

for the accused and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on

record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Chittoor Rural filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act in Cr.No.134/2017.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 1392017 at about 8.15 PM as per the instructions of Proh. & Excise Superintendent,

Chittoor LW2/G.Ashok Kumar, P&E SI, ESTF, Chittoor with their staff conducted raids at Thanjavuru cross situated on 155 Kammapalli

Thellarallapalli bus road of Yadamari Mandal, found one person coming on a motor bike keeping a white bag in between seat and handle. On seeing the raid party in uniform in jeep at some distance he left the moter bike and tried to escape from the scene of offence. On suspicion P&E SI along with staff detained the person along with his moter bike and on enquiry he revealed that the white bag contains IML liquor bottles. Then LW2 deputed LW 2 1/C.S.Sathish Kumar, P&E HC, Chittoor to secure mediators. After 20 minutes he came and revealed that VRO, Sarpanch are not available in that village and village elders are not willing to act as a mediators. LW2 verified the white bag in the moter bike of accused and found it is white bag containing 38 nips of MC Dowell’s No.1 Celebration Luxury XXX rum each 180 ml sale in A.P. only no HEALS on the bottles. On interrogation, the accused revealed his name and address shown above and then LW2 verified the moter bike and it is a green colour TVS XL Super HEAVY DUTY vehicle without any registration number and engine number and chassis number are not visible clearly. Then on enquiry about the bike the accused revealed that it belongs to him and on further interrogation about the IML bottles the accused revealed that he purchased IML bottles at Chittoor Wine shops and taking it to sell at his native place for higher cost. Then LW2 took one nip from property for chemical analysis purpose. Sealed and labelled the sample bottles, contraband, arrested the accused after informing the grounds of his arrest, seized the entire case property and vehicle under cover of a special report drafted on the spot. Then LW2 handed over the CD file and accused to the SHO, Chittoor Rural.

3. Based on the special report, LW3/P.Govindaswamy, P&E SI registered a case in Cr.No.134/2017 under sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Then he produced the sample to Chemical Examiner for analysis and sent the accused for judicial custody on 14092017. After receipt of CE report, he handed over the CD file to LW4/P.Govindaswamy,P&E SI. He after finding that the investigation done by LW2 was on proper lines, he filed the charge sheet against accused.

4. The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act against the accused.

5. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.239

Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise

Act against the accused, read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The evidence of LW4/P.Govindaswamy,P&ESI was given up by the learned APP.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same once again and pleaded not guilty.

However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the APP for the State and the counsel for the accused.

9. Now the point which stood for determination is :

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. Point:

It is the case of prosecution that on 1392017 at about 8.15pm PW1

G.Ashok Kumar, P&ESI, ESTF, Chittoor with his staff conducted raids at

Thanjavuru cross situated on 155 KammapalliThellarallapalli bus road of

Yadamari Mandal, found accused in possession of bag containing liquor bottles. The police seized the alleged contraband under the cover of special report after duly drawing the samples as per procedure.

11.PW1/G.Ashok Kumar, SI of Police, Proh. & Excise, ESTF, Chittoor deposed that on 1392017 at about 8.15 PM as per the instructions of P&E

Suptd. Chittoor, he along with ESTF staff and P&E SI and their staff conducted raids at Thanjavuru cross situated at 155 Kammapalle,

Thellarallapalle metal road there they found one person coming in TVS Excel heavy duty bike by keeping a white bag in between seat and handle and that on seeing them, he tried to escape by leaving the moter bike and that on suspicion he along with P&E SI and other staff apprehended the person. He further deposed that on enquiry the said person confessed that the bag contains liquor bottles. Then he deputed PW2/Sathish Kumar to 155

Kammapalle village to secure mediators but in vain and that later when he 4 verified the bag he found 38 nips of MC dowells No.1 celebration Luxury XXX rum each 180 ml. He further deposed that on interrogation the accused revealed his name and address and when he verified the bike it was found to be in green colour and did not have any reg. Number and that the accused did not reveal anything about the source of supply. He further deposed that as transportation, possession and sale of liquor without valid license is an offence, he arrested the accused, seized the contraband and drawn one bottle as sample as per procedure for forwarding the same to the chemical laboratory for analysis and report under the cover of special report,vide

Ex.P1, scribed by PW2 on his instructions and that they all affixed their signatures and that later the accused was shifted to Police station for further investigation.

12.PW2 C.S.Satheesh, Head Constable, who accompanied PW1 for the alleged raids, corroborated the version of PW1 in all aspects with regard to detection of offence, he scribing the special report on the dictation of PW1, confession of accused, seizure of contraband, drawing samples and Ex.P2 is his signature in special report.

During cross examination, PW1 and PW2 stated that they went to the scene of offence in a hired jeep. They admitted that the said jeep was driven by a private person and that LW1 did not state the name of the Sarpanch or

VRO and the same was not mentioned in the special report. It was elicited that he did not investigate with the wine shops of Chittoor from where the accused purchased the liquor bottles.

13.PW3/G.Sreedhara Babu, SI of Police, Chittoor Rural Police Station deposed that on 1392017 at about 11.00 PM the station scentry received accused and case property from ESTF and that on the basis of special report, he registered a case in Cr.No.134/2017 under sec. 34a of AP Excise Act against the accused and that on the next day he sent the accused for judicial custody. He further deposed that later he sent the samples for chemical analysis and later on receiving of CE report, vide Ex.P6, he handed over CD file to SI, Govindaswamy and that after verifying the investigation was done in proper lines he filed the charge sheet accordingly.

14. A perusal of material on record and the evidence of PW.s 1 to 3, though the testimony of PW.1 was corroborated by PW.2 as to detection of offence, efforts made to secure mediators, seizure of contraband, confession, drawing of samples, arrest of accused and reduction of proceedings into writing but it is evident that there are many discrepancies in the investigation. PW.1 did not follow the provision of Sec 100 Cr.P.C which mandates that whenever any closed premises or residence of any person or any person is supposed to be searched then it must be done in the presence of at least one or more respectable inhabitants of that locality. Though PW.1 deposed that LW1 was deputed to secure mediators from 155 Kamapalle , but he returned in vain. But it is pertinent to note that they did not make further efforts to secure mediators at the scene of offence though there is vehicular movement at the scene of offence and that there are agriculture lands on either side of the scene of offence and that there are residential houses at a distance of 500 mtrs from the scene of offence. In view of above observations, it is evident that the police did not make any further efforts to secure mediators at the scene of offence, creates suspicion as to the detection of offence.

15. Perusal of Ex.P1, reflects that it is in the nature of confessional statement of accused. The confession of accused under Ex.P1 cannot be based to uphold the prosecution case as it was recorded in the immediate presence of Police and thus such confession is hit U/Sec 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence

Act. Moreover bare confessional statement alone is not enough to inculpate the accused of the present offence. The prosecution has to establish the nexus between the accused and the contraband seized from his possession beyond reasonable doubt.

16.It will not be out of place to mention that as per Excise Act, the

Investigating Officer must see that the sample bottle is corked tightly and is wrapped with thick paper whose ends are affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. A slip bearing the signature and seal of the inspecting officer shall be pasted on the wrapper and also the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample was taken must be obtained in such a manner 6 that the slip and the wrapper both carry a part of the signature or the thumb impression. The paper cover shall be further secured by a twine or thread for tying the sample in horizontal and vertical position which is also duly sealed with the seal of the officer who actually conducted the proceedings. There must be atleast four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender.

Further care must be taken that the seal must be imprinted on the letter of advise forwarded to the Chemical Analyst which seal must be checked and found to correlate with the seal imprinted on the twine on the sample bottle to ensure that the sample is not tampered. All such procedures followed by the investigating officer must be reduced into writing and must reflect in the proceedings conducted by him. A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that there is no such averment in the proceeding, hence it can be presumed that no such procedure was actually followed by them. More over neither PW.1 nor PW.2 testified about the same.

17.PW.1 also did not follow the procedure contemplated U/Sec.46 of the

A.P.Excise Act as to confiscation of the seized property before the Dy.

Commissioner of P&E. None of the witnesses stated about submitting proposals for the confiscation and destruction of case property before the DC,

P&E nor any document is filed regarding the said matter. Thus it can be said that the case property was not properly accounted as per Sec.46 of the Act.

Not sending proposals of confiscation of the seized property itself creates doubts whether any contraband was actually seized from the possession of accused or not. Thus strengthening the contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession.

18.Ex.P6 Chemical Examiner Report undoubtedly establishes that the samples correspond to liquor, which fact is not disputed. But it is the specific contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession. This being so it is imperative upon the prosecution to substantiate the guilt of the accused in light of cogent and reliable evidence. Though

PW.s.1 and 2 reiterated the contents as in Ex.P1 special report but their testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. Further the evidence of PW.3 is of no avail as he did not conduct independent 7 investigation. As discussed above the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused remained not cogently established. Thus the identity of the accused cannot be said to have been cogently established.

19. Therefore, in view of the above material procedural irregularities and lacunae in the investigation and moreover the alleged seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused not being cogently established, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of PW.s.1 to 3, while sustaining conviction. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after lapse of 6 months under sec. 437A Cr.P.C.. Unmarked case property (samples, if any) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced in open court, this the 10th day of August, 2018.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 : G.Ashok Kumar P&ESI None PW2 : C.S.Satheesh Kumar, P&EHC PW3 : G.Sreddhara Babu, SI.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Special report. Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on special report. Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: List of property Ex.P5: Letter of advice. Ex.P6: CE report

For defence : Nil 8

M.Os Marked

NIL

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor. //True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 15 of 2018

Date of offence:13092017

Date of complaint:13092017

Date of taken on file:08032018

Date of apprehension of accused:13092017

Date of commencement of trial:26072018

Date of close of trial:07082018

Date of sentence of order:10082018

Complainant:State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Chittoor Rural. Cr.No.134/2017.

Particulars of the accused:

Nagappa Gounder Vinayagam, Age 48 years, S/o Nagappa Gounder, Caste: Gounder, R/o B.P.Palyam (V), Paradarami (P), Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore (Dist.)

Nature of offenceU/Secs. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after lapse of 6 months under sec. 437A Cr.P.C.

Unmarked case property (samples, if any) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor. //True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor.

CC/84/2020 Acquitted

The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs M. Gunasekhar

11 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE:: AT CHITTOOR.

Present: Ms.Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Spl.JFCM For Prohibition and Excise cum VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the 11th (Eleventh) Day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 84 of 2020

Between:

The Prohibition and Excise SI, Chittoor Rural. (Cr.No.14/2019). … COMPLAINANT And:

M.Gunasekhar Naidu, age 48 years, S/o. Chinnabba Naidu, R/o. Thellagudlapalli Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District. … ACCUSED.

This case is coming on 10.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri C.Damodaraiah, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Chittoor Rural filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act in Cr.No.14/2019.

02.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 15.03.2019 at about 08.30 AM as per the instructions of the P&E Inspector, Chittoor Rural, during the raid conducted by the P&E SI, Chittoor Rural along with staff at the cross of Muttarapalli situated on Chittoor to Kanipakam bus road of

Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District, found accused in possession of one black plastic cover in his right hand who seeing the raid party tried to run away. On suspicious the P&E SI along with staff surrounded and detained him and on enquiry, he revealed that the bag contains liquor bottles. Then 2 the SI deputed LW2 B.Ramdasu to Muttarapalli village for securing mediators but in vain. Then P&E SI verified the black plastic cover and found 8 nips of D.K.Double Kick fine Whisky & 04 Nips of 999 Power Star

Fine Whisky each 180 ml without valid permits and bills and no heals on the corks. Later he drawn samples as per procedure and arrested the accused under a cover of Special Report drafted on the spot.

03.On the basis of Special Report, LW3 P.Govinda Swamy registered a case in Cr.No.14/2019 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act against accused and arrested the accused and sent for Judicial

Custody. Later the samples were forwarded for analysis and report. After receipt of CE report and on completion of investigation and on satisfaction that it revealed the guilt of the accused, LW4 D.K.Surya Prakash filed charge sheet against accused for the aforesaid offence.

04. The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act against the accused.

05.After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and a charge was framed for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against him, read over and explained to him for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked.The evidence of

LW2 Ramadasu and LW4 D.K.SuryaPrakash is closed as the prosecution failed to produce them even after ample time and opportunity was given.

07. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating circumstances appearing against him for which he denied the same once again and pleaded not guilty.

However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard the APP for the State and the counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point which stood for determination is :

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond

reasonable doubt or not ?

10.Point:

It is the case of prosecution, that on 15.03.2019 at about 08.30 AM at the cross road of Muttarapalli situated on Chittoor to Kanipakam bus road of

Thavanampalli Mandal, during the raids conducted by PW2 P.Govinda

Swamy along with staff found accused in possession of liquor bottles without any license and thereby he committed an offence. The police seized the contraband under the cover of special report after duly drawing the samples as per procedure.

11. The evidence of PW1 Mohana shows that on 15.03.2019 at about 8.30 am as per instructions of the P&E Inspector Chittoor Rural when she along with PW2 and staff conducted raids, when they reached the cross of Muttarapalli situated on Chittoor to Kanipakam bus road of Thavanampalli mandal found one person standing and keeping the black plastic cover who tried to escape on seeing them. She further testified that on suspicion they surrounded and detained him and that on enquiry he confessed about his identity and that he is having liquor bottles. She further testified that then

PW2 P.Govinda Swamy deputed LW2 Ramdasu to Muttarapalli village for securing mediators but in vain and that when PW2 verified the bag, he found 12 liquor bottles and that the accused did not have bills or permits.

She further testified that as selling and transportation of liquor is an offence

PW2 arrested the accused drawn samples as per procedure for forwarding the same for chemical analysis and seized the contraband under the cover of

Special report, vide Ex.P1 drafted by her as per instructions of PW2 and that

Ex.P2 is her signature.

12.PW2 P.Govinda Swamy, the investigation officer, corroborated the version of PW1 in all material aspects with regard to detection of offence, deputing LW2 D.Ramadasu to Muttarapalli village but he returning 4 in vain, confession of accused, seizure of the contraband and arrest of the accused under the cover of special report drafted by PW1 as per his instructions. He further testified that on the basis of the special report he registered a case in Cr.No.14/2019 for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act vide Ex.P3 FIR and sent the accused to judicial custody and later sent the samples for CE report and that after receiving of CE report vide Ex.P6, LW4

D.K.Surya Prakash filed the charge sheet against accused accordingly.

13.The counsel for accused contended that PW1 and PW2 are deposing false and that they never proceeded to the scene of offence and never seized any contraband from the possession of the accused and that a false case is foisted against accused by conducting table investigation. He contended that the police never made any attempt to secure mediators and that the entire investigation is a table investigation done for statistical purpose. To prove his contention he brought the attention of the court wherein PW1 admitted that Chittoor to Kanipakam bus road is a busy road.

It was elicited from PW1 that there are houses at Muttarapalli cross and that she cannot say the names of the residents whom she asked to act as mediators. It was elicited from PW1 that she do not know whether there is

Petty shop of Paramdama Reddy and another petty shop of Prabhakar Naidu at the scene of offence. It was elicited from PW1 and PW2 that they do not know whether the first house in the said village belongs to the advocate of the accused. It was elicited from PW2 that there are no houses or petty shops at the cross and that he do not know the name of the sarpanch of

Mutharapalli and that he did not enquire with regard to the name of the

Sarpanch or the name of the Gram panchayath. The counsel for accused contended that the special report and the copy of the special report were prepared at the PS and the police forcefully got the signature of the accused and that due to political influence the police filed the false case against accused. To prove the same the counsel brought the attention of the court wherein It was elicited from PW1 that she has scribed the special report and that she do not know who wrote the copy of special report on the back of the

FIR. PW1 admitted that in the said copy of special report it is mentioned that it is scribed by her. The counsel for accused contended that the police did not follow the procedure while collecting samples for sending to chemical 5 analysis. To prove the same the counsel brought the attention of the court wherein PW2 admitted that they did not file the procedure followed by collecting samples.

14.A Perusal of Ex.P1 special report shows that it is in the nature of confessional statement of accused. The confession of accused under Ex.P1 cannot be based to uphold the prosecution case as it was recorded in the immediate presence of Police and thus such confession is hit U/Sec 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. Moreover bare confessional statement alone is not enough to inculpate the accused of the present offence. The prosecution has to establish the nexus between the accused and the contraband seized from his possession beyond reasonable doubt.

15.A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that PW2 did not follow the provision of Sec 100 Cr.P.C which mandates that whenever any closed premises or residence of any person or any person is supposed to be searched then it must be done in the presence of at least one or more respectable inhabitants of that locality. It is clear from the depositions of PW1 and PW2 that when they could not secure mediators from Muttarapalli village they did not make further efforts to secure mediators at the scene of offence which is a busy road where number of vehicles ply from Chittoor to Kanipakam and they also did not make efforts to secure mediators from the petty shops and the houses which are situated near the scene of offence. In view of above observations, it is evident that the police did not make further efforts to secure mediators, creates suspicion as to the detection of offence.

16. It will not be out of place to mention that as per the A.P.Excise rules, the Investigating Officer must see that the sample bottle is corked tightly and is wrapped with thick paper whose ends are affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. A slip bearing the signature and seal of the inspecting officer shall be pasted on the wrapper and also the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample was taken must be obtained in such a manner that the slip and the wrapper both carry a part of the signature or the thumb impression. The paper cover shall be further secured by a twine or thread for tying the sample in horizontal and vertical position 6 which is also duly sealed with the seal of the officer who actually conducted the proceedings. There must be atleast four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender. Further care must be taken that the seal must be imprinted on the letter of advise forwarded to the Chemical Analyst which seal must be checked and found to correlate with the seal imprinted on the twine on the sample bottle to ensure that the sample is not tampered. All such procedures followed by the investigating officer must be reduced into writing and must reflect in the proceedings conducted by him. A perusal of

Ex.P1 shows that there is no such averment in the proceeding, hence it can be presumed that no such procedure was actually followed by them.

Moreover PW1 and PW2 did not testify about the same. Thereby strengthening the contention of accused.

17. It cannot be ignored that as per Sec.46 of the Act, which clearly enunciates that the seized property has to be produced before the Deputy

Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise having jurisdiction over the said area for passing appropriate orders without undue delay. None of the witnesses whispered a word about the same, nor any document was filed to that effect.

Thus it can be said that the case property was not properly accounted as per

Sec.46 of the Act. In view of above observation a doubt of suspicion arises as to whether any contraband was actually seized from the possession of accused or not. Thereby strengthening the contention of the accused that nothing was seized from his possession and that he was falsely implicated for statistical purposes.

18.Ex.P6 Chemical Examiner Report undoubtedly establishes that the samples correspond to IML, which fact is not disputed. But it is the specific contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession. This being so it is imperative upon the prosecution to substantiate the guilt of the accused in light of cogent and reliable evidence. Though the testimony of PW1 was corroborated by PW2 and they both reiterated the contents as in Ex.P1 special report but it is evident that there are many discrepancies in the investigation as discussed above and moreover their testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. As discussed 7 above the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused and the identity of the accused remained not cogently established.

PW2 while sustaining conviction. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/S.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. He is acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed u/sec.437A Cr.P.C will remain in force for 6 months from the date of the judgment. The unmarked case property (samples, if any) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of March, 2020.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

Spl. JFCM for Prohibition and Excise – cum – VI Addl .Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 : P.Mohana NIL

PW2 : P.Govinda Swamy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Special Report.

Ex.P2 : Signature of PW1 on the Special Report.

Ex.P3 : FIR.

Ex.P4 : List of Property.

Ex.P5 : Letter of Advice.

Ex.P6 : C.E. Report.

For defence : Nil M.Os Marked Nil

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

Spl. JFCM for Proh. and Excise cum VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE:: AT CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 84 of 2020

Date of offence:15.03.2019

Date of complaint:15.03.2019

Date of taken on file:23.01.2020

Date of apprehension of accused:15.03.2019

Date of commencement of trial:04.03.2020

Date of close of trial:10.03.2020

Date of sentence of order:11.03.2020

Complainant:The Prohibition and Excise SI, Chittoor Rural. (Cr.No.14/2019).

Particulars of the accused:

M.Gunasekhar Naidu, age 48 years, S/o. Chinnabba Naidu, R/o. Thellagudlapalli Village, Thavanampalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

Nature of offenceU/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act. She is acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed u/sec.437A Cr.P.C will remain in force for 6 months from the date of the judgment. The unmarked case property (samples, if any) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Spl. JFCM for Proh. and Excise cum VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

CC/500055/2018 Acquitted

S.I of Polcie Proh. and Excise Chittoor Rural P.S vs A. Suresh

10 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE :: AT CHITTOOR.

Present: Ms.Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor.

Friday, the 10th(Tenth) day of August, 2018.

C.C.No.55 of 2018

Between:

State, represented by the SubInspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Chittoor Rural.

...Complainant

And:

A.Suresh, Age 30 years, S/o Krishna Reddy, Caste: Palli Reddy, R/o Ammepalle (V),

Puthalapattu ... Accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 0882018 in the presence of learned A.P.P for the State and of Sri J.Devaraja Naidu, counsel

for the accused and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on

record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The SubInspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Chittoor Rural filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act in Cr.No.163/2017.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 28122017 at about 2.10 PM as per the instructions of Asst. Commissioner P&E

Enforcement, Chittoor LW4/G.Sandeep, P&E SI, Enforcement, Chittoor with their staff and mediators conducted raids under Railway bridge about ½ km west to Ammepalle (V), Puthalapattu Mandal, found one person in possession of one white polythene bag in his right hand. On seeing the raid party at 15 yards distance he left the bag and tried to escape from the scene of offence. On suspicion P&E SI along with staff detained the person along with his bag and on enquiry he revealed that his bag contains IML liquor bottles. Then LW4 verified the property of accused in the presence of

Mediators and found it is white plastic bag containing total 09 nips of Honey bee genuine brandy and on label it was printed as MRP Rs.90/ for sale in 2

A.P. only. No HEALS on the bottles. On interrogation, the accused revealed his name and address shown above and on further interrogation about the

IML bottles the accused did not give correct information and did not produce any bills or permits of the IML bottles. He took one Nip from property for chemical analysis purpose, sealed and labelled the sample bottle, contraband, arrested the accused after informing the grounds of his arrest, seized the entire case property under cover of a panchayatnama drafted on the spot.

Then he handed over the CD file and accused to LW5/ P.Govindaswamy,

P&ESI.

3. Based on the panchayatnama, LW5 registered a case in Cr.No.163/2017 under sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. Then he produced the sample to

Chemical Examiner for analysis and sent the accused for judicial custody.

After receipt of CE report, and after finding that the investigation done by

LW4 was on proper lines, he filed the charge sheet against accused.

4. The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act against the accused.

5. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.239

Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence under Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise

Act against the accused, read over and explained to him, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The evidence of LW2/S.V.Dinesh is closed by the court.

However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the APP for the State and the counsel for the accused.

9. Now the point which stood for determination is :

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

10. Point:

It is the case of prosecution that on 28122017 at about 2.10 PM as per the instructions of Asst. Commissioner P&E Enforcement, Chittoor PW1

G.Sandeep, P&E SI, Enforcement, Chittoor with their staff and mediators conducted raids under Railway bridge about ½ km west to Ammepalle (V),

Puthalapattu Mandal, found accused in possession of bag containing liquor bottles. The police seized the alleged contraband under the cover of special report after duly drawing the samples as per procedure.

11.PW1/G.Sandeep, SI of Police, Proh. & Excise, Enforcement, Chittoor deposed that on 28.12.2017 at about 2.10 PM as per the instructions of

Assistant Commissioner of P &E Enforcement, Chittoor he along with his staff and Enforcement, Chittoor conducted raids along with the mediators LW2

Dinesh and PW4 Chengaiah under the railway bridge about half kilometer at

Ammapalli village of Puthalapattu Mandal found one person in possession of white polythene bag and that on seeing them, he tried to escaped and that immediately they apprehended him. He further deposed that on enquiry the person disclosed his identity to be accused herein and further confessed that the bag contains liquor bottles and that when he verified the bag, he found 9 liquor bottles of Honey bee genuine brandy of 180 ml of duty paid liquor and that accused did not confess about source of supply. He further deposed that as possession, transportation and sale of liquor without any license or permit is an offence they seized the contraband, arrested the accused and drawn samples as per procedure for the purpose of forwarding the same to chemical laboratory for analysis and report under the cover of panchanama, vide Ex.P1 scribed by K. Venugopal on his instructions and that after that they all affixed their signatures on it and that later the accused along with the case property was shifted to the Station. During cross examination, it was elicited that he secured the mediators from Puthalapattu and that they started from

Chittoor and that first they went to Bandapalli and Murakambattu and then he went to the scene of offence and that this was the only one case that he 4 had detected that day.

12.PW2/P.Govindaswamy, SI of Police, Chittoor Rural Police Station deposed that on 28122017 he received accused and case property from scentry and that on the basis of panchanama, he registered a case, vide Ex.P2 in Cr.No.163/2017 under sec. 34a of AP Excise Act against the accused and that he sent the accused for judicial custody and that on receiving of CE report, vide Ex.P5 and after verifying the investigation was done in proper lines he filed the charge sheet accordingly.

13. PW3/Venugopal, Constable, who accompanied PW1 for the alleged raids, corroborated the version of PW1 in all aspects with regard to detection of offence, he scribing the panchanama on the dictation of PW1, confession, seizure of contraband, drawing samples and Ex.P6 is his signature in panchanama. During cross examination, he admitted that on the day when they visited the village of Bandapalle and Muthirevulu, the mode of conveyance is hire jeep driven by private person.

14. PW4 Chengalraya Chetty, the alleged mediator in whose presence offence was detected, accused confessed about his guilt, contraband was seized and proceedings were reduced into writing turned hostile and did not support the version of prosecution.

15. A perusal of material on record and the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, it is evident that though the testimony of PW.1 was corroborated by PW.3 as to detection of offence, seizure of contraband and arrest of accused in the presence of mediators LW2 Dinesh and PW.4, but the said mediator PW.4 denied to be present at the scene of offence and nothing could be brought on record during cross to suggest that he is deposing false. Though PW.1 and

PW.3 corroborated each other testimony, the court cannot jump to the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the accused merely because they happened to be police official witnesses bestowed with the duty of maintaining law and order. It is to be appreciated if their testimony is sufficient to establish the nexus between the accused and contraband. It is 5 evident that there are many discrepancies in the investigation. PW.3 did not follow the provision of Sec 100 Cr.P.C which mandates that whenever any closed premises or residence of any person or any person is supposed to be searched then it must be done in the presence of at least one or more respectable inhabitants of that locality. It is pertinent to note that the said mediators are not from the locality where the offence was detected. LW1 and PW4 are residents of Puthalapattu. PW3 securing mediators from

Puthalappattu but not from the Ammapalli village, which is ½ km from the scene of offence, creates doubt as to the detection of the offence.

16. Perusal of Ex.P1, reflects that it is in the nature of confessional statement of accused. The confession of accused under Ex.P1 cannot be based to uphold the prosecution case as it was recorded in the immediate presence of Police and thus such confession is hit U/Sec 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence

17. It will not be out of place to mention that as per Excise Act, the

Investigating Officer must see that the sample bottle is corked tightly and is wrapped with thick paper whose ends are affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. A slip bearing the signature and seal of the inspecting officer shall be pasted on the wrapper and also the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample was taken must be obtained in such a manner that the slip and the wrapper both carry a part of the signature or the thumb impression. The paper cover shall be further secured by a twine or thread for tying the sample in horizontal and vertical position which is also duly sealed with the seal of the officer who actually conducted the proceedings. There must be atleast four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender.

Further care must be taken that the seal must be imprinted on the letter of advise forwarded to the Chemical Analyst which seal must be checked and found to correlate with the seal imprinted on the twine on the sample bottle to ensure that the sample is not tampered. All such procedures followed by 6 the investigating officer must be reduced into writing and must reflect in the proceedings conducted by him. A perusal of Ex.P3 shows that there is no such averment in the proceeding, hence it can be presumed that no such procedure was actually followed by them. More over neither PW.1 nor PW.3 testified about the same.

18. PW.1 also did not follow the procedure contemplated U/Sec.46 of the

A.P.Excise Act as to confiscation of the seized property before the Dy.

Commissioner of P&E. None of the witnesses stated about submitting proposals for the confiscation and destruction of case property before the DC,

P&E nor any document is filed regarding the said matter. Thus it can be said that the case property was not properly accounted as per Sec.46 of the Act.

19.Ex.P5 Chemical Examiner Report undoubtedly establishes that the samples correspond to liquor, which fact is not disputed. But it is the specific contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession and that the seized contraband is within the permissible limits and hence no offence is made out. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court

between K.Prabhu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2014 (2) ALD

(Crl) 624. Wherein it was observed that offence under sec.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act is not made out if the liquor found in possession of an individual less than 6 bottles of Indian liquor of 750 ml each without any permit. Ten bottles of 180ml each found in possession of petitioner. Hence it can be said that the same is within permitted quantity. Registering the case for an offence under sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against petitioner is un warranted.

It is to be appreciated here that the police seized 9 liquor bottles of 180 ml which is in total amounts to 1620 ml. Where as an individual is permitted to possess less than 6 bottles of Indian liquor of 750 ml. which amounts to 4500 ml. Whereas in the present case accused was found in possession of 7 1620 ml. Hence in view of supra decision no offence is made out against the accused.

20. Therefore, in view of the above material procedural irregularities and lacunae in the investigation and moreover the alleged seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused not being cogently established and also the seized contraband is within the permissible limits and hence no offence is made out against accused.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S.34(a) of

Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced in open court, this the 10th day of August, 2018.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 : G.Sandeep, P&ESI None PW2 : P.Govindaswamy, SI PW3 : Venugopal, Constable PW4 : Chengalraya Chetty.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Panchanama. Ex.P2: FIR Ex.P3: List of property Ex.P4: Letter of advice Ex.P5: CE report Ex.P6: Signature of PW3 on the panchanama Ex.P7: Signature of PW4 on some blank papers.

For defence : Nil 8

M.Os Marked

NIL

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor. //True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 55 of 2018

Date of offence:28122017

Date of complaint:28122017

Date of taken on file:19042018

Date of apprehension of accused:29122017

Date of commencement of trial:02082018

Date of close of trial:08082018

Date of sentence of order:10082018

Complainant:State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Chittoor Rural. Cr.No.163/2017.

Particulars of the accused:

A.Suresh, Age 30 years, S/o Krishna Reddy, Caste: Palli Reddy, R/o Ammepalle (V), Puthalapattu

Nature of offenceU/Secs. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled after lapse of 6 months under sec. 437A Cr.P.C.

Unmarked case property (samples, if any) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor. //True copy//

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Proh. and Excise, Chittoor.

CC/63/2020 Acquitted

The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Rural vs M. Saminadhan

18 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE:: AT CHITTOOR.

Present: Ms.Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Spl.JFCM For Prohibition and Excise cum VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Wednesday, this the 18th (Eighteenth) Day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 63 of 2020

Between:

The Prohibition and Excise SI, Chittoor Rural. (Cr.No.09/2019). … COMPLAINANT And:

M.Saminadhan, age 47 years, S/o. Mahalingam, R/o. Motturu, Kallapadi(P), Gudiyatham Thaluk, Vellore District. … ACCUSED.

This case is coming on 16.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri V.Murugan, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Proh. & Excise, Chittoor Rural filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act in Cr.No.09/2019.

02.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 05.02.2019 at about 04.30 PM as per the instructions of the Asst. Commissioner of P&E,

Chittoor, the P&E Inspector, Enforcement, Chittoor, the P&E SI, Chittoor

Rural along with their staff and mediators raided at the cross road of

Kammapalli situated on Kannikapuram to Thellarallapalli bus road of

Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District and found accused coming on a two wheeler with Reg.No.AP 03 G 9832 in possession of one white plastic bag kept on the petrol tank of the vehicle and coming towards raid party jeep, 2 who on seeing the raid party tried to run away. On suspicious the P&E SI

LW4 P.Govinda Swamy along with staff surrounded and detained him and on enquiry, he revealed that the bag contains liquor bottles. Then the SI verified the property in the presence of mediators and found that the white plastic bag containing 48 nips of MC No.1 Celebration genuine XXX Rum each 180 ml without valid permits, bills and no heals on the corks. Later he drawn samples as per procedure and arrested the accused under a cover of

Panchanama drafted on the spot.

03.On the basis of Panchanama, LW4 P.Govinda Swamy registered a case in Cr.No.09/2019 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act against accused and arrested the accused and sent for Judicial Custody.

Later the samples were forwarded for analysis and report. After receipt of CE report and on completion of investigation and on satisfaction that it revealed the guilt of the accused, LW5 D.K.Surya Prakash filed charge sheet against accused for the aforesaid offence.

04. The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act against the accused.

06. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked.The evidence of

LW1 Y.Kishore Kumar, LW3 K.M.Kasinadhan and LW5 D.K.Surya Prakash was givenup by the APP.

However, the accused did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard the APP for the State and the counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point which stood for determination is :

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond

reasonable doubt or not ?

10.Point:

It is the case of prosecution, that on 05.02.2019 at about 04.30 PM at the cross road of Kammapalli situated on Kannikapuram to Thellarallapalli bus road of Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, during the raids conducted by PW2 P.Govinda Swamy along with staff found accused in possession of liquor bottles without any license and thereby he committed an offence. The police seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama after duly drawing the samples as per procedure.

11. PW1 T.Ashokan, one of the mediators, in whose presence the offene was detected turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution though he admitted his signature. He testified that he do not know anything about the case and that at the instance of police he affixed his signature vide Ex.P1 on some papers.

12. PW2 P.Govinda Swamy, the Investigating Officer, testified that on 05.02.2019 at about 04.30 PM as per instructions of Asst. Commissioner of

Proh.& Excise, Chittoor, the Proh. & Excise Inspector, Enforcement, Chittoor, the Proh & Excise SubInspector, Chittoor Rural along with their staff and mediators when raided at the cross road of Kammapalli situated on

Kannikapuram to Thellarallapalli bus road of Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor

District, found accused coming on a two wheeler with Rg.No. AP03 G 9832 in possession of one white plastic bag kept on the petrol tank of the vehicle and coming towards raid party jeep. He further testified that on seeing the raid party, he tried to runaway and that on suspicious they detained the accused along with white colour bag and that on enquiry the person revealed that the 4 bag contains liquor bottles. He further testified that when he verified the white plastic bag in the presence of mediators, he found the bag containing 48 nips of MC No.1 celebration genuine XXX Rum each 180 ml without valid permits, bills and no heals on the corks and that on further interrogation, the accused revealed his identity and did not reveal the source of supply. He further testified that then he drawn samples as per procedure for forwarding the same for chemical analysis and arrested accused under the cover of panchanama, vide Ex.P2 drafted by LW1 Kishore Kumar.

PW2 further testified that on the basis of the panchanama he registered a case in Cr.No.09/2019 for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act vide Ex.P3 FIR and sent the accused to judicial custody and later sent the samples for CE report and that after receiving of CE report vide Ex.P6, LW5

D.K.Surya Prakash filed the charge sheet against accused accordingly.

13.The counsel for accused contended that PW2 is deposing false and that he along with staff never proceeded to the scene of offence and never seized any contraband from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators and that a false case is foisted against accused by conducting table investigation. He contended that the police falsely arrested accused for statistical purposes and that no contraband was seized from the possession of the accused. He contended that the property in this case is a planted one and that the accused has nothing to do with it. To prove the same the counsel brought the attention of the court wherein it was elicited from PW1 that he cannot say the registration number of the hired jeep in which they went for the raids. PW2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy area. It was elicited from PW2 that there is a cheque post at a distance of 2 kms and that he did not cite the driver of the jeep as witness. To which he stated that as there are mediators he did not make efforts to secure mediators.

14. On Perusal of material on record and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is evident that the only testimony with regard to detection of offence is that of PW2 as the mediators PW1 denied to be present at the scene of offence and nothing could be brought on record during cross to suggest that he is deposing false. Though PW2 reiterated the contents of Ex.P1

Panchayatinama, the court cannot jump to the conclusion with regard to the 5 guilt of the accused merely because he happened to be police official witness bestowed with the duty of maintaining law and order. It is to be appreciated here that if his testimony is sufficient to establish the nexus between the accused and contraband and that it was seized from the possession of accused only.

15. A Perusal of Ex.P1 Panchayatinama, which was drafted on the spot as deposed by PW2 reflects that it is in the nature of confessional statement of accused. The confession of accused under Ex.P1 cannot be based to uphold the prosecution case as it was recorded in the immediate presence of Police and thus such confession is hit U/Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

Moreover bare confessional statement alone is not enough to inculpate the accused of the present offence. The prosecution has to establish the nexus between accused and the seized contraband beyond reasonable doubt.

16.It is pertinent to note that PW2 verified the bag in the presence of

PW1 and LW3 Dayalasankar, who are residents of who are residents of

Konapalli and Mottur. PW1 did not whisper a word about efforts made by him to secure mediators at the scene of offence which is the busy area or from the cheque post which is at a distance of 2 kms or from Kamapalli village which is situated near the scene of offence. Thus it is evident that

PW2 did not follow the provision of Sec 100 Cr.P.C which mandates that whenever any closed premises or residence of any person or any person is supposed to be searched then it must be done in the presence of at least one or more respectable inhabitants of that locality. In view of above observations, it is evident that the police did not follow the provision

U/sec.100 Cr.P.C.

17.It will not be out of place to mention that as per the rules, the

Investigating Officer must see that the sample bottle is corked tightly and is wrapped with thick paper whose ends are affixed by means of gum or other adhesive. A slip bearing the signature and seal of the inspecting officer shall be pasted on the wrapper and also the signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample was taken must be obtained in such a manner that the slip and the wrapper both carry a part of the signature or the thumb 6 impression. The paper cover shall be further secured by a twine or thread for tying the sample in horizontal and vertical position which is also duly sealed with the seal of the officer who actually conducted the proceedings. There must be atleast four distinct and clear impressions of the seal of the sender.

Further care must be taken that the seal must be imprinted on the letter of advise forwarded to the Chemical Analyst which seal must be checked and found to correlate with the seal imprinted on the twine on the sample bottle to ensure that the sample is not tampered. All such procedures followed must be reduced into writing and must reflect in the proceedings conducted by the investigation officer. A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that there is no such averment in the proceeding, hence it can be presumed that no such procedure was actually followed by them. More over PW2 did not whisper a word about the same, thereby strengthening the contention of accused.

18.Further PW2 also did not follow the procedure contemplated U/Sec.46 of the A.P.Excise Act as to confiscation of the seized property before the

Dy.Commissioner of P&E. PW2 did not state about submitting proposals for the confiscation and destruction of case property before the DC, P&E nor any document is filed regarding the said matter. Thus it can be said that the case property was not properly accounted as per Sec.46 of the Act. Not sending proposals of confiscation of the seized property itself creates doubts whether any contraband was actually seized from the possession of accused or not.

Thus strengthening the contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession.

19.Ex.P6 Chemical Examiner Report undoubtedly establishes that the samples correspond to ID arrack, which fact is not disputed. But it is the specific contention of the accused that no contraband was seized from his possession. This being so it is imperative upon the prosecution to substantiate the guilt of the accused in light of cogent and reliable evidence. Though PW2 reiterated the contents as in Ex.P1 Panchayatinama but his testimony was not corroborated by the independent witnesses PW1, who denied of conducting 7 any proceedings in his presence. As discussed above the seizure of contraband from the possession of accused remained not cogently established. Thus the identity of the accused cannot be said to have been cogently established.

20. Therefore, in view of the above material procedural irregularities and lacunae in the investigation and moreover the alleged seizure of the contraband from the possession of accused not being cogently established. It is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW2, while sustaining conviction. Thus in all it can be said that prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act. He is acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed u/sec.437A Cr.P.C shall be in force until 6 months from the date of the

judgement. Unmarked case property (samples, if any) shall be destroyed

after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of March, 2020.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

Spl. JFCM for Prohibition and Excise – cum – VI Addl .Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 : T.Ashokan NIL

PW2 : P.Govinda Swamy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on the Panchanama.

Ex.P2 : Panchanama.

Ex.P3 : FIR.

Ex.P4 : Property produced before the court.

Ex.P5 : Letter of Advice.

Ex.P6 : C.E. Report.

For defence : Nil M.Os Marked Nil

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Spl. JFCM for Proh. and Excise cum VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE:: AT CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 63 of 2020

Date of offence:06.02.2019

Date of complaint:06.02.2019

Date of taken on file:25.01.2020

Date of apprehension of accused:06.02.2019

Date of commencement of trial:02.03.2020

Date of close of trial:16.03.2020

Date of sentence of order:18.03.2020

Complainant:The Prohibition and Excise SI, Chittoor Rural. (Cr.No.09/2019).

Particulars of the accused:

M.Saminadhan, age 47 years, S/o. Mahalingam, R/o. Motturu, Kallapadi(P), Gudiyatham Thaluk, Vellore District.

Nature of offenceU/S.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Finding of the courtFound not guilty

Sentence of Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/S.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act. He is acquitted U/S.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed u/sec.437A Cr.P.C shall be in force until 6 months from the date of the

judgement. Unmarked case property (samples, if any) shall be destroyed after

lapse of appeal time.

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo, Spl. JFCM for Proh. and Excise cum VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Order Record 1,598 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/63/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Rural vs M. Saminadhan	18 Mar 2020	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/500189/2018	MS.ShiramTransport FinaLtd,repby B.Prakash vs T.Thyagarajulu Niadu	17 Mar 2020	Order	Acquitted
CC/102/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Rural,Andhra Pradesh vs G. Kokila	13 Mar 2020	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/101/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Rural vs G. Chittemma	12 Mar 2020	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/84/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs M. Gunasekhar	11 Mar 2020	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/500085/2017	R.Shanmugavel vs A.Venugopal Reddy	10 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500142/2018	G.Purushotham vs M.Bala Murali Krishna	10 Mar 2020	Order	—
CC/500224/2018	N.Devandran vs S.Bhargava Rao	04 Mar 2020	Order	—
CC/500143/2018	Smt. V.Manjula vs D.Prasoona	02 Mar 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1813/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban vs N Vijayalakshmi	28 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500278/2016	The Sub Inspector of Police, Puthalapattu P.S. vs P.Payani	26 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1700/2019	Dr.B.Gopalakrishna Moorthy vs T.Jayachandra Reddy	25 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/1547/2019	The Sub Inspector Of Police, Bangarupalem PS vs Vempalli Jagannadham	24 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1701/2019	V.Babu Rao vs K.Chamundeswari	20 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/1904/2019	Proh and Excise Sub inspector, Chittoor Urban P.S. vs G. Jeeva	19 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/675/2019	The Proh and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban. vs M. Sivaji	18 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500141/2017	V.Govindhaswamy vs N.Sadasivaiah	17 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/1704/2019	V.B.Somasekhar vs A.Muralikrishna	13 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/500328/2016	The Sub Inspector of Police, Chittoor Mahila P.S. vs Sreenivasulu Kalanidhi	11 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/67/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs S. Manjula	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/68/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs N. Lakshmama	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/69/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs S. Manjula	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/70/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs G. Chandrakala	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/71/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs M. Ahmadh Basha	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/73/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs D. Hemachandra @ Pani	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/76/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs S. Vanaja	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/78/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs M. Chinnabba	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/80/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs B. Lakshmi	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/81/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs J Setu	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/82/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs K. Srimathi	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/83/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs K. Kalpana	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/87/2020	SI of police G.D.Nellore PS vs M. Seethapathi	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/88/2020	SI of police G.D.Nellore PS vs Subramanyam Reddy	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/114/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs K. Kuppa	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/116/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs R. Sivaji	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/117/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban, Andhra Pradesh vs K. Muneppa	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/145/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Andhra Pradesh vs D Sudha	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/146/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs Siva Parvathi	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/149/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs P. Sekhar	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/150/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs Venkatachalam	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/151/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs S. Geetha	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/152/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs G. Narasimhulu	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/153/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs Kalai Selvi	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/154/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs V. Padhmanabam	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/155/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, karvetinagaram, Chittoor, Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs K. Arjun	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/156/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban,Andhra Pradesh vs S. Gopi	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/157/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban,Andhra Pradesh. vs S. Kartheek	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/158/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban,Andhra Pradesh vs A.Mariya	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/159/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban,Andhra Pradesh vs Kuppa Goud	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/160/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban, Andhra PradeshAndAndhra Pradesh vs B. Lakshmi	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/164/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagaram vs R. Jayakodi	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/165/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Rural,Andhra Pradesh vs D.Chinnamma	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/166/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Rural,Andhra Pradesh vs Vanavasi Yellamma	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/167/2020	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Rural, Andhra Pradesh vs V. Vallemma	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/393/2019	Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Karvetinagaram. vs MUNASWAMY	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/433/2019	Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. Rep. by P. Rajesh vs C. Uma Sankar	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/729/2019	Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagaram vs T. Suresh	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/1106/2019	Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban vs Chandrasekhar	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/1344/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban. vs S. Kumar	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/1560/2019	The SHO., Chittoor II Town P.S., Chittoor vs A.1 D.Kanda	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/1564/2019	The SHO., Karvetinagar P.S., Karvetinagaram vs A.1 Govindarajulu	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/1923/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagaram vs E. Ramesh	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/500006/2017	Proh and Excise Sub Inspector vs S.Mansoor Alikhan	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/500182/2018	T.M.Prasad vs K.Nagendra pillai	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/500327/2018	Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Chittoor Urban. vs J. Buthar	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/500335/2017	S.I. of Polcie Proh., and Excise Chittoor Urban P.S vs M. Appu	08 Feb 2020	Order	—
OS/194/2017	P.S. Arifunnisa Begum vs O.Ramakrishnaiah	05 Feb 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1623/2019	N.Rajesh vs V.Thomas	05 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/500241/2018	B.Bujji @ Radhika vs V.Vijaya	03 Feb 2020	Order	—
CC/935/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Rural vs P Ramachandraiah	31 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1676/2019	B.Manjunath vs M.Subramanyam Reddy	31 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1828/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban vs A. Raghu	31 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500092/2015	Sub Inspector of Police, Thavanampalli P.S. vs MD. Khader Basha	31 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500190/2018	D.Kasthuri vs M.B.Sunil	31 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1256/2019	The Sub Inspector of Police NR Pet PS vs M. Nataraj	30 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1643/2019	D.Annaiah vs Gopal Ranganatham @ R.Gopal	30 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1708/2019	G. Madhusudhan vs K.M. Umadevi	30 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1640/2019	P.Vijaya Jyothi vs V.Manigandan	29 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1671/2019	The Sub Inspector of police, Chittoor Taluqa PS. vs K. Muneppa	29 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1742/2019	The Sub Inspector of Police, Chittoor Taluk PS vs T. MOhan	29 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500142/2017	P.Prasad Reddy vs B.Suresh @ Raja	29 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/126/2019	A.Ramachandra Reddy vs A.Elezabath	28 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1839/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban vs V. Siva Kumar	28 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/836/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban vs S. Gunaseelan	27 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1633/2019	S.Kannaiah Reddy vs P.Magendran	27 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1712/2019	K.B.Velmurugan vs G.Manikandan	27 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1897/2019	Proh and Excise Sub inspector, Chittoor Urban vs S. Prabhu	27 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500148/2017	M. Tharapathi Naidu vs M. Murali	27 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1639/2019	V.gopi vs A.Bushan	21 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/500191/2018	B.R.Sindhu vs P.Kishore	10 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1578/2019	The Sub Inspector of Police, Bangaraupalem PS vs A. Jayachandra	09 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500530/2016	S.Damodaram vs G.Jayaram Reddy	08 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/1253/2019	The Sub Inspector of Police, N. R. Pet PS vs C. Sivan	07 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/500233/2018	Cholamandalam Investment and Firnance Co., Ltd, Chittoor Rep. by its Sr. Executive C.Prem Kumar vs R. Babu	07 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/8/2019	S.P.Suresh Babu vs Paramjothaiah Keesaram	06 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/500089/2017	T.Rani vs S.Hemadri Reddy	06 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/500513/2015	P.Ganesh Kumar vs G.P.Jyothish	06 Jan 2020	Order	—
CC/1818/2019	The SHO., Chittoor II Town P.S, Chittoor vs M.Gopinath	03 Jan 2020	Judgement	—
CC/672/2019	The Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Karvetinagaram vs Ramesh	31 Dec 2019	Judgement	—
CC/1336/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Chittoor Urban vs K. Rupesh Kumar	31 Dec 2019	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 1,598 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2020		9
Feb 2020		60
Jan 2020		29
Dec 2019		72
Nov 2019		38
Oct 2019		27
Sep 2019		58
Aug 2019		31
Jul 2019		57
Jun 2019		36
May 2019		29
Apr 2019		42

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo handled?

Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo has handled 1619 court orders since 2016 at Prl District Courts, Chittoor. The average disposal rate is 36 orders per month.

What types of cases does Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo hear?

Based on available records, Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Where is Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo currently posted?

Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo is posted as SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT at Prl District Courts, Chittoor, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo dispose cases?

Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo disposes approximately 36 cases per month, based on 1619 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Courts, Chittoor.

Since when is Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo serving?

Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo has been serving at Prl District Courts, Chittoor since 2016.

Case Types

CC 89%

STC 10%

OS 0%

LPC 0%

Posting History

Dec 2018 — Jul 2020

SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT · 639 orders
Dec 2017 — Apr 2018

JFCM, SPL. MOBILE COURT · 48 orders
Oct 2016 — Aug 2018

SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT · 932 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 12

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. Aruna Sarika

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

373 orders

Sri K.Srinivasa Rao

I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Sri N.Sreenivasa Rao

VIII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

2 orders

Smt T. Haritha

VI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

0 orders

Smt M.V.N. Padmaja

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

883 orders

K Ravi

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

75 orders

Ms. D. Uma Devi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,381 orders

Smt M. Madhavi

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,387 orders

Boora Sirisha

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

22 orders

Sri Shaik Babajan

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

1,433 orders

Smt V Silpa

SPL. JFCM, EXCISE COURT

467 orders

P. Vennela

JFCM, SPL. MOBILE COURT

552 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Courts, Chittoor

Kum Nirupa Bhanj Deo

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE :: AT CHITTOOR.

C.C.No. 200 of 2014

Cr.No.149 of 2011 of Chittoor II Town PS.

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of

the accused for the offence under Secs.420 of IPC and

Sec.63 of Copy Right Act, 1957, beyond reasonable

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 200 of 2014

IV AJMFC.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE :: AT CHITTOOR.

C.C.No.15 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 15 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ­CUM­ VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

C.C.No. 84 of 2020

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond

Sd/­ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

Sd/­ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ­CUM­ VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

CALENDER CASE NO. 84 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE :: AT CHITTOOR.

C.C.No.55 of 2018

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt

of the accused for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.

between K.Prabhu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2014 (2) ALD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, CHITTOOR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 55 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ­CUM­ VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

C.C.No. 63 of 2020

J U D G M E N T

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond

Sd/­ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ­CUM­ VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

CALENDER CASE NO. 63 of 2020

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL

Sd/ Nirupa Bhanj Deo,

CLASS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CUM VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL