Smt.P.Aruna Kumari

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAKREKAL

Dated this the 29th day of January, 2016

Present: Smt. P. Aruna Kumari,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT.

C. C. No. 307 of 2015

Between:

The State through rep.by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kethepally Police Station.

…Prosecution

AND

Madasu Nagamma, W/o. Ramaswamy, age: 55 years, Occ:Coolie,

R/o Bheemaram (V), Kethepally (M).

...Accused

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of APP on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. D. Somaiah learned counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The allegations against the accused, as per the charge sheet, in brief are: On 09.04.2015 at about 1900 hours on reliable information the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kethepally, V. Balagopal (Pw.5) along with his staff (P.Ws.1 and 2), raided the house of the accused at Bheemaram village and during search one plastic can containing 04 liters of I.D.

liquor was found, which also contained sediment and which appeared to be injurious to human health and unfit for human consumption and banned by State Government. By that time accused managed to escape.

P.W.5 secured the presence of two mediators, i.e., Pws.3 and 4 and seized the case property under cover of panchanama and brought case property to Police Station and registered a case in FIR. No.36/2015 under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act, 1995 and later P.W.5 issued notice to accused U/Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C, subsequently accused appeared

before this Court. During the course of investigation one sample bottle of

the seized I.D liquor was sent by P.W.5 to Govt. Chemical Examiner,

Proh. and Excise Lab, Warangal for chemical analysis and the examiner opined after examination that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor and containing sediment, it is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. After completion of entire investigation, P.W.5 laid Charge

Sheet for the offences U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

2.After verification, this case was taken on file U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused and on appearance of accused before the Court, accused was served with copies of documents as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C and accused was examined U/sec. 239

Cr.P.C, on the accusation leveled against her and charges U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 has been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.In support of the case of prosecution, Pws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P1 to P5 and M.O.1 were got marked. The evidence of Lw.5

Chemical Examiner given-up by the A.P.P.O. Pws.1 and 2 are eye- witnesses (Police Personnel), Pws.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses for

Seizure panchanama and Pw.5 is the Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet. Exs.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pws.3 and 4 respectively on Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P3 is Seizure panchanama,

Ex.P4 is First information report, Ex.P5 is Chemical Analysis Report marked and M.O.1 is Sample bottle of contraband marked.

4.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence, for which accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

6.The Point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt.”?

COMING TO THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.

Pws.3 and 4 are panch witnesses for Seizure Panchanama:

7.Pws.3 and 4, who are said to be mediators for the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they both in voice admitted that they do not know anything regarding the facts of this case and police obtained their signatures on some blank papers and they further admitted no Seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence by police and no person confessed the guilt in their presence. Exs.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pw.3 and

Pw.4 on Seizure panchanama respectively marked.

Basing on the evidence of Pws.3 and 4, the learned A.P.P.O., declared them hostile and during their cross-examination nothing was elicited incriminating against the accused and their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused as they denied Seizure panchanama.

Pw.1, Pw.2 are eye-witnesses and Pw.5 is the Investigation

Officer:

8.Pw.1 and Pw.2 who are testified as eye-witnesses and police constables who deposed that they accompanied Pw.5 S.I. of police

Investigating Officer and further deposed that they rushed to house of accused where Pw.5 raided house, where they found 04 liters of I.D.

liquor in one plastic can and Pw.5 seized the same before Pws.3 and 4 under cover of Seizure panchanama in their presence.

During the cross-examination,Pws.1 and 2 admitted prior to this case they do not know the accused. Pws.1 and 2 also admitted that they did not state to Pw.5 that they can identify the accused if shown to them and they both admitted no women police constable accompanied them.

They both did not disclose regarding boundaries as well as house number for which they gone for raiding which proved fatal to the prosecution case and their evidence ridden with contradiction and inconsistent to that of prosecution case and further learned counsel for the accused suggested that they did not raided the house of accused and no contraband was seized and accused is no way concerned with the offence for which they denied the suggestions of defence counsel.

The learned defence counsel strongly urged that Pws.1 and 2 are police officials and they are interested witnesses and their evidence is not corroborated with any other independent witnesses or with the evidence Pws.3 and 4 and therefore with their un-corroborative evidence this Court cannot convict the accused.

Coming to the evidence side of Pw.5 who is S.I. of police

Kethepally who issued First information report and who issued notice to accused and allegedly seized contraband, who conducted entire investigation, with the evidence of P.w.5 which clearly shows that the record does not show any search memo, Seizure list and house number,

Ownership certificate of accused. Ex.P3 is the Seizure Panchanama,

Ex.P4 is First information report, Ex.P5 is Chemical Analysis Report and

M.O.1 is the sample bottle marked .

9. After scrutinizing the evidence of Pws.1 to 5, Pws.3 and 4 who are panch witnesses and material witnesses for Seizure turned hostile, only incriminating evidence that remained on the record is that of Pws.1, 2 and 5 who are the police personnel, who raided the house of accused and allegedly seized contraband from the house of accused. Their evidence is not directly connect to the accused. However, the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2, 5 shaken during their cross-examination as they failed to disclose the house number of accused in which the said contraband was allegedly seized and Pw.5 also admitted no search memo was issued or

Affixed to house door before searching the house which is great jolt to the prosecution case as they did not followed the search procedure as incorporated in Sec.100 of Cr.P.C., which made prosecution case doubtful and untrustworthy and further Pws.1 and 2 admitted that they did not state before Pw.5 that they saw the accused and they can identify the accused and Pws.1 and 2,5 evidence is inconsistent, un-corroborative and far from reality. Though Pws.1,2 and Pw.5 supported the prosecution case but their evidence is not supported by any one of panch witnesses in whose presence the contraband is said to have been allegedly seized. Therefore, seizure is not proved by way of any independent witnesses or through the evidence of Pws.3 and 4. Except marking of Exs.P3 to P5 and M.O.1 sample bottle through Pw.5 but nothing elicited incriminating against the accused.

10. As seen from the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 5 is not supported by Pws.3 and 4 in whose presence the case property is said to be allegedly seized from the possession and in the house of the accused as per the prosecution.

Relying solely on the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.5 who are none other than the police constable and Investigating Officer who are interested persons in this case. Moreover, it is significant to note that

Pws.1 and 2 are examined by Pw.5 which is also irregular procedure which made prosecution case weak and doubtful. So, with the solitary evidence of Pws.1 and 2, 5 the conviction cannot be recorded against the accused, I opine that it is not safe to convict the accused when there is no independent and reliable evidence against the accused to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the accused and the case property M.O.1 and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the Result: Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section: 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

CASE PROPERTY:. The case property i.e., Sample Bottle of contraband (M.O.1) deposited before this Court vide C.P.No.163/2015 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 29th day of January, 2016.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Pw.1 -Y. RameshEye-witness,

Pw.2 -Y. DanelEye-witness,

Pw.3 -G. NagarajuPanch witness for Seizure panchanama,

Pw.4 -M. LingaiahPanch witness for Seizure panchanama,

Pw.5V. Bala Gopal.Investigating Officer,

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw.3 on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P2:Signature of Pw.4 on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P3:Seizure panchanama, Ex.P4:First information report,

Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P5:

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 is sample bottle of contraband marked.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED

-NIL-.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAKREKAL

Dated this the 30th day of November, 2015

Present: Smt. P. Aruna Kumari,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT.

C. C. No. 429 of 2015

Between:

The State through rep.by the Proh. and Excise Inspector, S.H.O, Excise Station,Nakrekal.

…Prosecution

AND

Tekula Yadaiah, S/o. Butchaiah, age: 51years, occ:Agril.,

R/o Moosi Road, Nakrekal.

...Accused

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of APP on behalf of prosecution and of Sri N. Vijay Kumar learned counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The allegations against the accused, as per the charge sheet, in brief are: On 09.4.2014 at about 4.10 p.m., on reliable information the

Prohibition and Excise Inspector, B. Kiran (Pw.3) and Lw.5 Sub-

Inspector, Excise Station, Nakrekal along with his staff, raided the house of the accused at Moosi Road, Nakrekal and during search Carton boxes and one plastic bag containing 19 Kingfisher beer bottles each containing 650ml, 10 bottles of Royal Challenge beer bottles each containing 650ml, 8 bottles of Haywards 5000beer bottles each containing650ml, 2 6 bottles of Royal Stag whisky each containing 375ml and 13 bottles of

O.C. Whisky each containing 180ml are found. P.W.3 secured the presence of two mediators, i.e., Pw.1 and Pw.2 and seized the case property under cover of panchanama, by that time accused escaped from the scene and Pw.3 brought the case property to Excise Station,

L.W.5 registered a case in COR. No.27/2014-15 under section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act. 1968 and L.W.5 visted the house of accused as accused was absconding for a long period, L.W.5 issued Notice U/sec.41-A of

Cr.P.C and subsequently accused appeared before this Court. During the course of investigation sample bottles of the seized case property was sent by Pw.3 to Govt. Chemical Examiner, Proh. and Excise Lab,

Warangal for chemical analysis and the examiner opined after examination that the sample was Inidan liquor, beer and issued report.

After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet for the offences U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. 1968 against the accused.

2.After verification, this case was taken on file U/sec. 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act. 1968 against the accused and on appearance of accused

before the Court, he was served with copies of documents as required

U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C and accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C, on the accusation leveled against him and charges U/sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act. 1968 has been framed, read over and explained to accused in

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

3.In support of the case of prosecution, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. The evidence of Lw.3

Chemical Examiner and also evidence of L.W.5 is given-up by the 3

A.P.P.O. Pws.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for Seizure panchanama and Pw.3 is the Investigating Officer. Exs.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pws.1 and 2 on Seizure panchanama respectively, Ex.P3 is Search

Memo , Ex.P4 is Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is Crime and Occurrence

Report, Ex.P6 is Chemical Analysis Report (Attested Copy) and M.O.1 to 4 are the sample bottles of contraband marked. The contraband i.e., 8

Haywards 5000 beer bottles was not mentioned by S.H.O., Excise in property form due to which the same was not marked in the interest of justice, but as per evidence and also as per panchanama the name of said contraband was mentioned by S.H.O.

4.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence, for which accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

6.The Point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt.”?

COMING TO THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

Pws.1 and 2 are panch witnesses for Seizure Panchanama:

7.Pws.1 and 2, who are said to be mediators for the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they both in voice admitted that they do not know anything 4 regarding the facts of this case and Excise police obtained their signatures on blank papers and they admitted no Seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence by police and no person confessed the guilt in their presence. Exs.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pw.1 and

Pw.2 on Seizure panchanama respectively marked.

Basing on the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the learned A.P.P.O., declared them hostile and during their cross-examination nothing was elicited incriminating against the accused and their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused as they denied Seizure panchanama.

Pw.3 who is the Investigation Officer:

8.Pw.3 who is the Investigating Officer deposed about the

Investigation taken-up by him, he raided the house of accused and secured mediators Pws.1 and 2, conducted Seizure panchanama and seized contraband from the house of accused, Lw.5 registered the case, issued Crime and occurrence report and he sent said sample bottles to

Chemical Examiner for Analysis, subsequently L.W.5 issued notice to accused and accused appeared before this Court. Ex.P3 is the Search

Memo, Ex.P4 is the Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is Crime and Occurrence

Report, Ex.P6 is Chemical Analysis Report (AttestedCopy), M.Os.1 to 4 was marked through him.

During his cross-examination, the learned counsel for the accused suggested that he did not raided the house of accused and no contraband was seized and accused is no way concerned with the offence for which he denied the suggestions of defence counsel.

5

9. After scrutinizing the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, Pws.1 and 2 who are material witnesses turned hostile, only incriminating evidence that remained on the record is that of evidence of Pw.3 who is the

Investigating Officer, who raided the house of accused and allegedly seized contraband from the house of accused. Though he supported the prosecution case, his evidence is not supported by any one of panch witnesses in whose presence the contraband is said to have been seized.

Therefore, seizure is not proved by way of any independent witnesses or through the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. Except marking of Exs.P3 to P6,

M.Os.1 to 4 through Pw.3 but nothing elicited incriminating against the accused.

10. As seen from the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the evidence of Pw.3 is not supported by Pws.1 and 2 in whose presence the case property i.e., Carton boxes containing 19 Kingfisher Beer bottles each containing 650ml, 10 bottles of Royal Challenge Beer bottles each containing 650ml, 8 bottles of Haywards 5000 Beer bottles each containing 650ml, 6 bottles of Royal Stag whisky each containing 375ml and 13 bottles of O.C. Whisky each containing 180ml is said to be allegedly seized from the possession and in the house of the accused as per the prosecution. Relying solely on the evidence of Pw.3, who is none other than the Investigating Officer and interested person in this case, I opine that it is not safe to convict the accused when there is no independent and reliable evidence against the accused to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the accused and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

6

In the Result: Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. 1968. Accordingly, accused is acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

CASE PROPERTY:. The case property i.e., Sample Bottles of

Contraband (M.Os.1 to 4) and Un-marked case property i.e.,

Eight Haywards 5000 beer bottles deposited before this Court

vide C.P.No.240/2015 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal

time.

Typed to my dictation by Field Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 30th November,2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Pw.1M.Shankar:Panch witness for Seizure panchanama,

Pw.2A. Saidulu:Panch witness for Seizure panchanama,

Pw.3B. Kiran : Investigating Officer 7

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw.1 on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P2:Signature of Pw.2 on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P3:Search Memo, Ex.P4:Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5: Crime and Occurrence report Ex.P6:Chemical Analysis report (Attested Copy).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.Os.1 to 4 Contraband marked.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED

-NIL-.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAKREKAL

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2015

Present: Smt. P. Aruna Kumari,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT.

C. C. No. 423 of 2015

Between:

The State through rep.by the Proh. and Excise Inspector, S.H.O, Excise Station, Nakrekal.

…Prosecution

AND

Putta Venkanna, S/o.Somaiah age: 32 years, Occ:Agril.,

R/o Maroor Village, Nakrekal Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of APP on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. N. Venkata Naryana learned counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The allegations against the accused, as per the charge sheet, in brief are: On 22.03.2014 at about 08:00am on reliable information the

Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nakrekal, B.Kiran (Pw.3) along with his staff, raided the Agriculture land of the accused at Maroor village and during search one plastic can its containing 10 liters of I.D. liquor and total 800 ltrs of FJ wash in 4 Mud pots, each pot containing 200 ltrswas found, which also contained sediment and which appeared to be injurious to human health and unfit for human consumption and turbid liquid having fermented odour, moreover accused failed to produce any valid license or permit to possess the same. By that time accused 2 managed to escape from scene. P.W.3 secured the presence of two mediators, i.e., Pws.1 and 2 and seized the case property under cover of panchanama and brought case property to Excise Station and handed over entire case record to MD. Nazzer Hussian, Proh.& Excise S.I, then

S.I registered a case in COR. No.931/2013-14 under section 7-A r/w 8

(e) of A.P.Proh. Act, 1995 and S.I issued notice to accused U/Sec.41-A of

Cr.P.C, subsequently accused appeared before this Court. During the course of investigation one sample bottle of the seized I.D liquor and F.J.

Wash was sent by S.I to Govt. Chemical Examiner, Proh. and Excise Lab,

Warangal for chemical analysis and the examiner opined after examination that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor and containing sediment, it is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption and turbid liquid having fermented odour. After completion of entire investigation, Pw.3 laid Charge Sheet for the offences U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8

(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

2.After verification, this case was taken on file U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused and on appearance of accused before the Court, accused was served with copies of documents as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C and accused was examined U/sec. 239

Cr.P.C, on the accusation leveled against him and charges U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 has been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.In support of the case of prosecution, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 and 2 were got marked. The evidence of

Lw.3 Chemical Examiner is given-up by the A.P.P.O. Pws.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for Seizure panchanama and Pw.3 is the 3

Investigating Officer. Exs.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pws.1 and 2 respectively on Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P3 is Search Memo, Ex.P4 is

Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is Crime and Occurrence Report, Ex.P6 is

Chemical Analysis Report and M.Os.1 and 2 are Sample bottles of I.D.

liquor and F.J Wash marked.

4.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence, for which accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

6.The Point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt.”?

COMING TO THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.

Pws.1 and 2 are panch witnesses for Seizure Panchanama:

7.Pws.1 and 2, who are said to be mediators for the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they both in voice admitted that they do not know anything regarding the facts of this case and Excise police obtained their signatures on blank papers and they admitted no Seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence by police and no person confessed the guilt in their presence. Exs.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pw.1 and

Pw.2 on Seizure panchanama respectively marked.

Basing on the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the learned A.P.P.O., declared them hostile and during their cross-examination nothing was 4 elicited incriminating against the accused and their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused as they denied Seizure panchanama.

Pw.3 who is the Investigation Officer:

8.Pw.3 who is the Investigating Officer deposed about the

Investigation taken-up by him, he raided the agricultural land of accused and secured mediators Pws.1 and 2, conducted Seizure panchanama and seized contraband from the agricultural land of accused, S.I registered the case, issued Crime and occurrence report Pw.3 sent said sample bottles to Chemical Examiner for Analysis, subsequently S.I issued notice to accused U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 is the Search Memo,

Ex.P4 is the Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is Crime and Occurrence

Report, Ex.P6 is Chemical Analysis Report( Attested Copy) and M.Os.1 and 2 are samples of contraband was marked through him.

During his cross-examination, the learned counsel for the accused suggested that he did not raided the agriculture lands of accused and no contraband was seized and accused is no way concerned with the offence for which he denied the suggestions of defence counsel.

9. After scrutinizing the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, Pws.1 and 2 who is material witnesses turned hostile, only incriminating evidence that remained on the record is that of Pw.3 who is the Investigating Officer, who raided the agriculture lands of accused and allegedly seized contraband from the land of accused. Though he supported the prosecution case, his evidence is not supported by any one of panch witnesses in whose presence the contraband is said to have been seized.

Therefore, seizure is not proved by way of any independent witnesses or through the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. Except marking of Exs.P3 to P6 5 and M.Os.1 and 2 through him but nothing elicited incriminating against the accused.

10. As seen from the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the evidence of Pw.3 is not supported by Pws.1 and 2 in whose presence the case property i.e., 10 liters of I.D. liquor and total 800 ltrs of FJ wash in 4 Mud pots, each pot containing 200 ltrs is said to be allegedly seized from the agricultural land of accused as per the prosecution. Relying solely on the evidence of Pw.3, who is none other than the Investigating

Officer and interested person in this case, I opine that it is not safe to convict the accused when there is no independent and reliable evidence against the accused to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the accused and the case property M.Os.1 and 2 and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result: Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

CASE PROPERTY:. The case property i.e., M.Os.1 and 2 deposited before this Court vide C.P.No.234/2015 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Field Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th day of , December,2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Pw.1K. Venkanna :Panch witness for Seizure panchanama, Pw.2M. Nagaraju :Panch witness for Seizure panchanama, Pw.3B. Kiran : Investigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw.1 on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P2:Signature of Pw.2 on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P3:Search Memo, Ex.P4:Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5: Crime and Occurrence report, Ex.P6:Chemical Analysis report (Attested Copy).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.Os.1 and 2 Contraband samples Marked

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED

-NIL-.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAKREKAL

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2015

Present: Smt. P. Aruna Kumari,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT.

C. C. No. 439 of 2015

Between:

The State through rep.by the Proh. and Excise Inspector, S.H.O, Excise Station, Nakrekal.

…Prosecution

AND

Ananthula Lingaiah, S/o. Devaiah, age: 30 years, Occ:Coolie,

R/oBopparam Village, Kethepally Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of APP on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. V. Narsi Reddylearned counsel for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The allegations against the accused, as per the charge sheet, in brief are: On 14.05.2014 at about 08:35 am on reliable information the

Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Nakrekal, MD. Nazeer Hussain (Pw.3) along with his staff, raided the house of the accused at

Bopparam village and during search one plastic can its containing 5 liters of I.D. liquor and 10kgs of Black Jaggery, 2kgs of Alum in a Plastic cover and 100ltrs of F.J. Wash in a mud potwas found, which also contained sediment and which appeared to be injurious to human health and unfit for human consumption and turbid liquid having fermented odour, moreover accused failed to produce any valid license or permit to 2 possess the same. By that time accused's wife was present. P.W.3 secured the presence of two mediators, i.e., Pws.1 and 2 and seized the case property under cover of panchanama and brought case property to

Excise Station and registered a case in COR. No.77/2014-15 under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act, 1995 and he issued notice

U/Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C to accused, subsequently accused appeared before this Court. During the course of investigation samples of contraband was sent by him to Govt. Chemical Examiner, Proh. and Excise Lab,

Warangal for chemical analysis and the examiner opined after examination that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor and containing sediment, it is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption and turbid liquid having fermented odour, Potassium Aluminum Sulphate.

After completion of entire investigation, Pw.3 laid Charge Sheet for the offences U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

2.After verification, this case was taken on file U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused and on appearance of accused before the Court, accused was served with copies of documents as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C and accused was examined U/sec. 239

Cr.P.C, on the accusation leveled against him and charges U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 has been framed, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.In support of the case of prosecution, Pws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 were got marked. The evidence of Lw.3

Chemical Examiner is given-up by the A.P.P.O. Pws.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for Seizure panchanama and Pw.3 is the Investigating 3

Officer. Exs.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pws.1 and 2 respectively on

Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P3 is Search Memo, Ex.P4 is Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is Crime and Occurrence Report, Ex.P6 is Chemical

Analysis Report (Attested Copy) and M.O.1 is Sample bottle of I.D. liquor marked.

4.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence, for which accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

6.The Point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt.”?

COMING TO THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.

Pws.1 and 2 are panch witnesses for Seizure Panchanama:

7.Pws.1 and 2, who are said to be mediators for the seizure panchanama who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and they both in voice admitted that they do not know anything regarding the facts of this case and Excise police obtained their signatures on blank papers and they admitted no Seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence by police and no person confessed the guilt in their presence. Exs.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pw.1 and

Pw.2 on Seizure panchanama respectively marked.

Basing on the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the learned A.P.P.O., declared them hostile and during their cross-examination nothing was 4 elicited incriminating against the accused and their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused as they denied Seizure panchanama.

Pw.3 who is the Investigation Officer:

8.Pw.3 who is the Investigating Officer deposed about the

Investigation taken-up by him, he raided the house of accused and secured mediators Pws.1 and 2, conducted Seizure panchanama and seized contraband from the house of accused, registered the case, issued Crime and occurrence report and he sent said samples of contraband to Chemical Examiner for Analysis, subsequently he issued notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to accused. Ex.P3 is the Search Memo, Ex.P4 is the Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is Crime and Occurrence Report,

Ex.P6 is Chemical Analysis Report( Attested Copy) and M.O.1 is sample of contraband was marked through him.

During his cross-examination, the learned counsel for the accused suggested that he did not raided the house of accused and no contraband was seized and accused is no way concerned with the offence for which he denied the suggestions of defence counsel.

9. After scrutinizing the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, Pws.1 and 2 who are material witnesses turned hostile, only incriminating evidence that remained on the record is that of Pw.3 who is the Investigating Officer, who raided the house of accused and allegedly seized contraband from the house of accused. Though he supported the prosecution case, his evidence is not supported by any one of panch witnesses in whose presence the contraband is said to have been seized. Therefore, seizure is not proved by way of any independent witnesses or through the evidence of Pws.1 and 2. Except marking of Exs.P3 to P6 and M.O.1 through him but nothing elicited incriminating against the accused.

5

10. As seen from the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the evidence of Pw.3 is not supported by Pws.1 and 2 in whose presence the case property i.e., 05 liters of I.D. liquor and 10kgs of Black Jaggery, 2kgs of Alum in a Plastic cover and 100ltrs of F.J. Wash in a mud pot is said to be allegedly seized from the house of accused as per the prosecution. Relying solely on the evidence of Pw.3, who is none other than the Investigating Officer and interested person in this case, I opine that it is not safe to convict the accused when there is no independent and reliable evidence against the accused to prove the guilt of accused.

Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the accused and the case property M.O.1 and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result: Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted u/Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

CASE PROPERTY:. The case property i.e., M.O.1 case property is deposited before this Court vide C.P.No.253/2015 and Un-marked case property if any, pertaining to this case shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Field Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th day of , December,2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Pw.1D. Narasimha:Panch witness for Seizure panchanama, Pw.2D. Yadagiri:Panch witness for Seizure panchanama, Pw.3MD. Nazeer Hussain: Investigating Officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw.1 on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P2:Signature of Pw.2 on Seizure panchanama, Ex.P3:Search Memo, Ex.P4:Seizure panchanama, Ex.P5: Crime and Occurrence report, Ex.P6:Chemical Analysis report (Attested Copy).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

M.O.1 Contraband sample Marked

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED

-NIL-

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NAKREKAL

Dated this the 27th day of November, 2015

PRESENT: Smt.P.Aruna Kumari,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL, NALGONDA DIST.

C.C. NO. 33 of 2014

Between:

The State rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nakrekal Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Kadamanchi Veeramallu, S/o Lingaiah, age: 25 years, occ: Coolie, R/o Vallabapuram (V), Nakrekal (M) … Accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for State and of Sri V. Narsi Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, having heard, stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Nakrekal filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.225/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 326 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:

On 12.09.2012 at 1500 hours the defacto-complainant

Kadamanchi Gangamma W/o Veeramallu came to Police Station and lodged complaint alleging that the marriage of her solemnized about 15 years back with accused and they lead happily for same period.

During their wedlock they blessed with two children. Since few days 2 accused addicted to alcohol and abusing, ill-treating defacto- complanaint physically and mentally. On 12.09.2013 at 0900 hours accused picked-up quarrel with her and beat her with hands and with pestle on her hand, caused bleeding injury on her right hand and he necked her out from the house. She, requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint, Lw.6 Inspector of Police, Police Station

Nakrekal registered a case in Cr.No.225/2013 for the offence

U/Sec.498-A, 326 of IPC and issued First Information Report and entrusted the investigation to L.W.7, during the investigation, he examined L.W.1 and recorded her statement and sent her to

Government Hospital, Nakrekal for treatment, visited scene of offence, examined witnesses and secured Lws.3 and 4and in their presence conducted Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch and seized One Pestle from the scene which was used by accused in the commission of offence. Later L.W.8 S.I of Police took-up further investigation. On 03-12-2013,the Lw.8 arrested the accused and sent him to Court for judicial custody and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under Section 498-A, 326 of I.P.C.

4. After verification, this Court has taken cognizance of the matter

U/Sec. 498-A, 326 Indian Penal Code against accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was 3 examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., and charges under Section 498-A, 326 of I.P.C are framed and charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 only. Pw.1 is the defacto-complainant and victim and prosecution got marked Exs.P1 and 2. Ex.P1 is the Signature of Pw.1 on Complaint, Ex.P2 is Sec.161Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.1 respectively marked. A.P.P.O given-up the evidence of Lws.2 to 5 as Pw.1 turned hostile. This Court in the interest of justice closed the evidence of Lws.6 to 8 who are official witnesses and keeping in the mind that Pw.1 compromised with accused, leading happy life with the accused and turned hostile.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence led by the prosecution by examining

Pw.1 the defacto-complainant and victim, as she turned hostile and as there is no incriminating evidence available on record against the accused and as material witness turned hostile, as such examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C of accused is dispensed with.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9. The point that arises for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 326 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts”.?

4

POINTS:

COMING TO THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:

10.Pw.1 who is the defacto-complainant and injured (victim) in this case deposed that now herself and accused are living under one roof happily and now there are no disputes between them and matter settled amicably at the intervention of elders. She categorically admitted that accused never harassed her physically and mentally and never beat her and never injured her at any point of time and she also denied lodging of complaint to the police against accused except identifying her signature on complaint marked as Ex.P1, nothing elicited incriminating against accused. She further admitted that police never examined her.

Basing on her evidence, the learned A.P.P.O declared her hostile as she did not support the case of prosecution. She was cross-examined by

A.P.P.O. but nothing was elicited incriminating against the accused and

Ex.P2 her sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement marked. Her evidence clearly reveals that she compromised with the accused and leading happy life with accused now, as such she denied the entire contents of complaint and also her sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement. During the cross-examination of P.w.1, she denied having stated to the police as in Ex.P.2.

11.On perusal of entire evidence of Pw.1, there is no iota of evidence and no incriminating material evidence against accused as alleged by prosecution. Coming to evidence of Pw.1, she categorically admitted that she compromised with the accused and leading happy life with him now, as matter settled between them at the intervention of family elders.

5

12.Pw.1 did not support the prosecution case as a result of compromise effected between the parties. Pw.1 further deposed accused never harassed her physically and mentally and he never beat her indiscriminately. So, there is no convincing and reliable evidence on record. So, I have no hesitation to state that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and failed to produce the evidence to fit the ingredients U/Sec. 498-A, 326 I.P.C as

Pw.1 deviated from her own complaint as well as her sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement. Therefore, unless there is positive evidence in respect of the alleged willful conduct on the part of husband, which is of such nature so as to drive the woman to commit suicide, it cannot be said that the prosecution succeeded to prove that (a) of the explanation given U/Sec.

498-A I.P.C, attracts. Therefore, in view of above discussion and taking into account that totality of the circumstances and the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court of view that the prosecution has failed to prove the said offences against the accused.

However, P.W.1 turned hostile the purpose would not serve even after examine other prosecution witnesses and P.W.1 failed to rely on complaint, the prosecution given-up the evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e, L.Ws.2 to 5 and this Court closed the evidence of Lws.6 to 8.

13.Taking ocular and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution and defence, this court finds that there is no oral testimony or material documents to establish the ingredients U/sec. 498-A, 326 of

I.P.C. against accused. Prosecution failed to made out the case against the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubts. So, accused is entitled for acquittal.

6

IN THE RESULT : Accused is found not guilty for the

offences punishable U/sec. 498-A, 326 of Indian Penal

Code and accordingly, accused is acquitted under the

provisions of sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled

after expiry of appeal period.

Case Property: The Un-marked case property i.e.,

Pestle which was deposited vide CP.No.266/2013 shall

be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Field Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of

November, 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Pw.1K. Gangamma Defacto-complainant and injured,

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

None 7

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION.

Ex.P1 : Signature of Pw.1 on Complaint,

Ex.P2 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.1,

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

--Nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION AND ACCUSED

--Nil--

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAKREKAL.