Sri P.Mukesh Kumar

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 1 C.C.No.1126/2024

APKD150014502024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Sri. Mukesh Kumar.P

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

This the Tuesday, this the Tweleveeth (12 th ) day of May, Two

Thousand and Twenty Six

C.C.NO.1126/2024

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Porumamilla P.S ...Complainant.

And

Malepati Veeraiah, Age 32 years,S/o Veeraiah, Occ:Cultivation, R/o Thuvapalli village, Munelli Panchayathi, B.Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

...Accused .

This case came before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri. E.C.Obula Reddy, Learned Counsels on behalf of the accused, upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector, Porumamilla P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.78/2024 for the offence under section 34

(a) of AP Excise Amendment Act.

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

On 28.3.2024 asper the orders of S.Chiranjeevi, Circle

Inspector of Police, Porumailla on credible information LWs1 to LW4 and 8/D.Ameer Basha, PC 1982, V.Gangadhar PC 1553, G.Durga Moha HC 175,

P.Rajasekhar Reddy ASI 1209 and V.Mallikarjunareddy, SI of police while conducting vehicle checking at Mallakathuva Check post, Porumamilla

Mandal at 5 PM LW1 to 4 & 8 notice accused proceeding towards LW1 to 4

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel C.C.No.1126/2024 & 8 with one white plastic bag in his hand and on seeing them accused tried to run away along with plastic bag. On that LW1 to 4 & 8 chased him for some distance and apprehended and bring back to him where he was primarily standing. Then LW8 secured LW 6 and LW7/N.Mahammad Ismail and N.Shahid and took their willing to act as mediators during the enquiry on that LW8 interrogated accused about his name and address and why he tried to skulk away on look police in presence of mediators. On that accused voluntarily confessed his name and address as noted in the charge sheet and lives by cultivation. Further he stated that due to insufficient work and cultivation is heavy hard, he decided ear money in easy ways and there is demand liquor in his village, then he decided to earn huge amount in a short period and started doing liquor business and he used to purchase liquor from various government rate. On 28.3.2024 he purchased liquor bottles and while he was transporting same to his house he observed police party and on fear while he was tried to escape mean time LW1 to 4 & 8 caught hold him. Then LW8 checked the accused and bag in presence of

LW6 and LW7 and found 30 number of Ocean Blue Premium whisky 180ml liquor bottles worth of Rs.4500/-. On that LW8 asked the accused whether he had a valid license. On that LW8 seized the said liquor bottles and affixed himself, LW6 and LW7 and accused signed slips on liquor bottles after separate one liquor bottle for the purpose of sending chemical analysis. Then LW8 arrested said accused at 5.50 Pm after informing the grounds of his arrest under cover of panchanama drafted on spot at 5PM to 6 PM in presence of lW6 andLW7. Basing on police proceedings on23.3.2024 at 6.15 PM LW8 registered a case in Cr.No.78/2024

U/Sec.34(A) APExcise (Amendment) Act-2020 of Porumamilla PS and investigated the case. During the course of investigation on 23.3.2024

LW8 served polcie U/S 41(A) Cr.P.C to accused with instructions to apper

before Hon’ble court AJCJ, Badvel after receipt of summons to face trial

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 3 C.C.No.1126/2024 proceedings. On 6.4.2024, LW8 sent sample bottles to LW5/C.Haritha,

Chemical Examiner for chemical analysis. On 25.4.2024, LW8 received

RFSL report from LW5 who analyzed samples and issued her report stating that sample ofSl.No.7424 Indian liquor vide report inC.E.No.785/2024,

dt:6.4.2024. On 28.6.2024 LW9 assumed charge as SHO, Porumamilla PS

and received CD file from LW8. On 29.7.2024 LW9/L.Thimothi, SI of Police submitted confiscation proposals to Superintendent of Police, Kadapa to confiscate the seized property. On 12.8.2024 , LW10/R.V.Kondareddy, SI of police assumed charge as SHO, Porumamilla PS and received CD file from

LW9 and on 15.8.2024 received confiscation proceedings from SP, Kadapa vide RC.NO.173/Confis & Des/DCRB/SEB-KDP/2024 DT:10.8.2024 with instruction to confiscate the seized property the case to the state of Andhra

Pradesh. In this case investigation disclosed by LW10 that accused caught hold by the police as the accused illegally possessed the liquor bottles for wrongful gratification and selling the liquor illegally and getting unlawful gain. Thus, accused are rendered himself liable to punished under section

Sec.34(A) AP Excise (Amendment) Act-2020. Hence charge.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against accused.

4.After appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On consideration of entire material on record, the accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, after hearing both the sides, a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against him, explained the substance of accusation to the accused in

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

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited seven witnesses, among them examined four witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 and got

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel C.C.No.1126/2024 exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.6 and marked M.O.1. The evidence of

Lw.2/V.Gangadhar,PC1553,LW3/G.DurgaMohan,HC175,

LW4/P.Rajasekhar Reddy, ASI 1209, LW5/C.Haritha, Chemical Examiner and LW6/Nayab Mohammad Ismail Rtd. Employee, LW9/L.Thimothi, SI of police nd R.V.Kondareddy, SI of police were given up by the Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence the accused examined

Under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the available incriminating material on record, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of the complainant as well as learned counsel for the accused.

9. Now the Point of determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

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

Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for offence 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.

i) The accused was found in the possession of liquor bottles for sale or transportation and ii) The said possession or transportation of liquor bottles is

Prohibited under the Act i.e., without valid permit or license.

11. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 coupled with EXs. P1 to P6 and M.O.1 is sample bottle establishes that the accused was arrested, while he was in illegal possession of 30 bottles of “Ocean Blue Premium Whisky bottles worth Rs.4500/- of 180 ml quantity liquor bottles which are prohibited under A.P. Excise Act. Hence

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 5 C.C.No.1126/2024 the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is liable for conviction.

12. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and failed to secure independent witnesses and that itself shows that the excise officials foisted a false case against the accused for their statistical purpose and as there is no independent evidence, benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused and he may be acquitted.

13. P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that, on 28.3.2024 at about 5.00

PM., conducting raids at Mallaakathuva check post,Porumamilla Mandal .

They noticed accused having in possession of one plastic bag. On seeing the Excise Police, accused tried to escape from that place. PW1 caught hold the accused with help of staff and searched the plastic bag and found 30 bottles of “Ocean Blue Premium Whisky bottles worth Rs.4500/- of 180 ml quantity liquor bottles, during the course of evidence Ex.P.1 Panchanama

dt:28.3.2024, Ex.P2 ie. FIR in Cr.No.78/2024, Ex.P.3 is the letter of

advice, Ex.P.4 ie. Analysis report, Ex.P5 is attested copy of confiscation proceedings and Ex.P6 is Signaature in panchanam dt:28.3.2024 are marked as Mo.1 through PW.1.

Basing on Police proceedings/Ex.P.1, P.W.1 registered a case in

Cr.No.78/2024 for the offence u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Later, PW.1 arrested the accused and produced the accused before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand and forwarded M.O.1 to Chemical Examiner, Kurnool for analysis, who opined that, the sample is “Indian Liquor”. After completion of investigation PW.1 filed charge sheet.

14. P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted in their cross examination deposed that, the scene of offence is a busy locality. They further denied the suggestions posed by the defence counsel that, the accused was falsely

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel C.C.No.1126/2024 implicated accused in this case for statistical purpose, by planting the liquor bottles available with them.

15.PW.3 N.Shahid, deposed that in the year 2024, he went to police station for his personal work, where police obtained his signatgure on the written paper. But he do not know the contents there n except that he donot know anything about this case. Ex.P6 is the signature in panchanama dt:28.3.2024. During the cross examination by the learned

A.P.P he declared as hostile and he denied suggestion that he was present at the time of seizure of contraband and accused was arrested in his presence and he deposing false for the reasons better known to him.

16. On careful perusal of the entire evidence on record and the contentions of the learned defence counsel, the court is in view that there is no dispute from other side with regard to the nature of the property. Their only contention is that the accused is innocent person and falsely implicated in this case and nothing was seized from her possession.

So the court has to see whether the prosecution is able to establish the first ingredient of the said offence i.e. whether the accused was found in illegal possession of liquor bottles which are prohibited under A.P. Excise Act.

17.To prove the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws. 1 & 2 coupled with Exs. P1 to P6, M.O.1. As already stated, the evidence of Pws.1 & 2 who are police officials, goes to show that on 28.3.2024 at about 5.00 PM, accused was found in possession of a plastic bag containing found 30 bottles of “Ocean Blue Premium Whisky bottles worth Rs.4500/- of 180 ml quantity liquor bottles, at Mallaakathuva check post,Porumamilla Mandal and then PW1 drawn samples, sealed and seized case property and also arrested the accused under the cover of Ex.P1.

18. It is the main contention of the learned defence counsel that as both witnesses are official witnesses, who conducted the raid and registered the case, their evidence shall be discarded. But, it is settled law

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 7 C.C.No.1126/2024 that when only the police person has been examined, their evidence is not liable to be discarded, but it should be weighed with utmost care and caution. In such situation, it is also the duty of court to see whether there is a possible opportunity for the excise officer to secure the mediators and whether the arresting excise officials made any effort to secure mediators.

However, when there is possible opportunity for the excise officer to secure the mediators and if he fails to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency.

19.In order to prove that the Police officials made efforts to secure independent mediators, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that on tracing out the accused at the scene of offence. The evidence of PW1 also shows the same.

20.Admittedly, the scene of offence is a residential locality.

PW1 categorically stated in his cross examination that he did not ask the residents of those houses to act as mediators. According to him, the people gathered near the scene, refused to act as mediators. If such is the case, he ought to issue summons or notices to those persons. But no such step was taken by him. So it is evident that he did not try to secure mediators from the persons available near the scene of offence. No such steps were taken by the excise officials. They even failed to give the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators. So it is doubtful as to whether the Excise officials really made any efforts to secure independent persons as mediators.

21. The counsel for the accused argued that, the prosecution did not examined any independent witnesses except, the police officials and also even though the place of offence is busy locality the investigation agency did not tried to secure any mediators and also they did not issued any written summons with a demand to any of the surrounding peoples to

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel C.C.No.1126/2024 act as a mediators. During the course of cross examination P.Ws.1 and PW.2 are categorically admitted as “The alleged scene of offence is a busy

locality. The Proceedings are silent about any efforts of securing any

person to act as mediators. The reasons for not securing any public

servant as the mediator is not mentioned in the Police Proceedings.

No amount were seized from Accused. Generally all the participant

staff put their signatures in police proceedings ”.

22. No doubt, when the search and seizure is in open place, there is no mandatory requirement to secure the independent mediators of the locality but to prove their case beyond any iota of doubt, it is expected that the police officials should have seriously and sincerely tried for independent mediators to show their impartial investigation. No doubt, the acts of police officials in discharge of their official duties are presumed to be correct unless the contrary is proved. But, when there was opportunity to secure the mediators, no convincing attempts being made by P.W.2. At this juncture, it is relevant to note a decision made in:

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu v. State of A.P., 2010 (1) A.L.T.

(Crl.) 32 A.P. the Hon’ble High court wherein it was held ‘no efforts being made to secure the mediators is doubtful. The necessity was emphasized by the Hon’ble High Court when there is seizure of contraband’.

Also in, Gajamker Narayana Vs. State of A.P., 2005 (3)

A.L.T. (Crl.) 1, the Hon’ble High court held “.... Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. lays down that before making a search, the officer of other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality...”, the seizure of contraband was held to be illegal when the provision of Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure are not

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 9 C.C.No.1126/2024 complied. Also, it was held that the evidence of Excise officials is interested, artificial and routine. In this case on hand also, P.W.2 did not depose the convincing reasons for non-securing of the independent mediators from the locality.

In Botcha Raju vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) 69 (A.P.), the

Hon’ble High court held “...the Courts below fell in error by accepting the

version of the Police Officers without the corroboration of the disinterested witnesses...”.

23.Generally in villages, there will be all village level officers and the officials of all Departments of the Government. Section 28 of A.P.

Prohibition Act provides that all local bodies are legally bounded to assist the excise officers in Prohibition cases, in carrying out the provisions of the

A.P. Excise Act. So, the Police officials may approach any official of any

Department of Government or local body other than VRO or Surpanch, to act as mediator. In the present case, there is no whisper in the evidence of excise officials that they tried to secure any of those officials as mediators.

So, it is evident that they did not make effort to secure any independent official or person to act as mediator and the same shows the lapses of

Excise officials.

24. In such facts and circumstances where the court is unable to find any convincing proof with regard to efforts made by police officials for securing mediators, the court is of the view that the excise officials failed to secure independent persons as mediators, though they have a possible opportunity, which is lapse on their part casting doubt on their version. Moreover, the learned defence counsel elicited certain inconsistencies in the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, with regard to starting time of the raid and the number of persons, who participated in the raid. Such inconsistencies also creates doubt in their version. Whenever a doubt crept

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel C.C.No.1126/2024 in the version of prosecution, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2, who are the Police officials who conducted raid and registered the case, in absence of any independent evidence.

25. For the foregoing reasons, as there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused was found in possession of liquor bottles as alleged, Ex.P1 could not be relied upon. Though Ex.P5 discloses that the contents of M.O.1 as ‘’ Indian Liquor”, as there is no convincing evidence to prove that the contents of M.O.1 were drawn from the possession of accused, Ex.P5 could not be relied upon. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

26. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- and he shall remain in force for six months as required under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed my dictation to the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 12 th day of May, 2026)

Sd/-Sri Mukesh Kumar.P.,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : V.Mallikarjuna Reddy, SI of Police -None- P.W.2 : D.ameer Basha, Police constable

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 11 C.C.No.1126/2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1:Confession cum seizure panchama dt:28.3.2024. Ex.P.2:Original First Information Report in Cr.No.78/2024 Ex.P.3:Letter of advise Ex.P.4:Analysis reported Ex.P.5: Attested copy of confiscation proceedings Ex.P.6:Signature in panchanama dt:28.3.2024.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 : The sample bottle.

Sd/-M.K.P.,

AJCJ, BDL

// TRUE COPY //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel C.C.No.1126/2024

APKD150014502024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN

C.C.NO.1126/2024

Dates of CommenSentence Report of Apprehension Released on Close of Offencecement of or Complaintof accusedbailtrial trialOrder 41-A Cr.P.C. 28.3.2428.3.24--3.12.243.12.259.5.26 Notice

Calander and Judgment in C.C.1126/2024 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector, Porumamilla PS. Cr.No.78/2024 Name of the Father’s S.NoAge CallingReligionResidence accusedName Malepati Veeraiah, Age 32 years,S/o Veeraiah, Occ:Cultivation, R/o Thuvapalli village, Munelli Panchayathi, B.Kodur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

...Accused

Offence : under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- and he shall remain in force for six months as required under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-Sri Mukesh Kumar.P.,

Addl. Junaior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

DIS NO. DATED:

// TRUE COPY //

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 1 C.C.No.1411/2022

APKD150021422022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Sri. Mukesh Kumar.P

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

This the Tuesday, this the Twelveeth (12 th ) day of May, Two

Thousand and Twenty Six

C.C.NO.1411/2022

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel. ....Complainant.

And

Lakkineni Chennaiah, Age 41 yrs, S/o L.Thirupathaiah, Caste SC Madiga, R/o Mekavaripalli village,

B.Kodur (M) YSR Kadapa District....Accused .

This case came before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri. V.Suryanarayana Reddy, Learned Counsels on behalf of the accused, upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector,Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.50/2022 for the offence under section 34 (a) of AP Excise Amendment Act.

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

On 13.6.2022 at 11.30 PM the Sub Inspector, SEB, Badvel along with staff, while conducting raids and reached scene of offence, I.e, Kotha

Prabhalaveedu cross on Badvel to B.Koduru bus road of B.Koduru Mandal, found one male person was standing position in possession of one white and Blue color bag carrying in his right hand. On eeeing the SEB officials in uniform, he was trembled and slowly run away from the scene of

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 8 C.C.No.1411/2024 offence. On suspicion the Sub Inspector, SEB , Badvel questioned about the escape, the accused stated that with a fear of arrest tried to escape as the white plastic bag in the possession containing 19 liquor bottles i.e., 1)12 Nip bottles of Ocean Blue Premium whisky (180 ml) and 2)07 Nip bottles of Golden King Deluxe Old Fine whisky (180 ml) (total 19 bottles).

Further the Sub Inspector, SEB, Badvel deputed sri K.Hussain Ahemmad

Enforcement constable, Badvel (LW1) to the nearby village Kotha

Prabhalaveedu to get mediators from the village. After some time LW1 he returned to the scene of offence and reported that non available of Village

Revenue officials and also none are coming forward to act as mediators.

Further the Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Badvel enquired about the accused name and address revealed and ascertained his name and address as Lakkineni Chennaiah , Age 41 yrs,S/o

L.Thirupathiaah, Castge SC Madiga, R/o Mekavaripalli village, B.Koduru

Mandal. Then the Sub Inspector drew two 180 ml of liquor bottles from the above property bottles as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis and kept remaining property in the same bag, the sample bottle and contraband duly sealed and labeled. Then the SEB, Sub Inspector, Badvel seized the sample bottle and contraband under cover of special report drafted on the spot. Then returned to Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Badvel at 1 PM along with accused, seized property, sample bottle and case records. Then LW2 registered the case in Cr.No.50/2022 u/Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise (Amendment) Act2020 of Special Enforcement Bureau Station,

Badvel and arrest the accused to the judicial custody along with sample bottles and case records through the proper escort.

During the course of investigation, LW2 was sent the sample to the chemical Examiner, Kurnool for analysis purpose. The chemical Examiner who analyzing the sample opined that the sample Sl.NO.6450a & 6451 is

Indian Made liquor vide C.E report No.996/2022 dt: 17.8.2022. The seized

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 3 C.C.No.1411/2022 property was confiscated by Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement

Bureau, Ananthapuram vide Rc.No.02/2022/B1, dt:11.10.2022 and accordingly the property was destroyed on 24.11.2022 and conducted destruction panchanama in the presence of mediators. The investigation by the statement of circumstances has established that the accused has committed an offence of possession of Duty paid liquor bottles without having a valid permit. Hence, he is liable for punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise (Amendment) Act-2020. Hence charge.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against accused.

4.After appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of all documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On consideration of entire material on record, the accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, after hearing both the sides, a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against him, explained the substance of accusation to the accused in

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

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited seven witnesses, among them examined four witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 & 2 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.6 and marked M.Os.1&2. The evidence of

Lw.3/B.Murali Mohan, Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau was given up by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence the accused examined

Under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the available incriminating material on record, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 8 C.C.No.1411/2024

8. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of the complainant as well as learned counsel for the accused.

9. Now the Point of determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

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

Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for offence 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.

i) The accused was found in the possession of liquor bottles for sale or transportation and ii) The said possession or transportation of liquor bottles is

Prohibited under the Act i.e., without valid permit or license.

11. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 coupled with EXs. P1 to P6 and M.Os.1& 2 are sample bottles establishes that the accused was arrested, while he was in illegal possession of 12 Nip bottles of Ocean Blue Premium whisky 180 ml and 07

Nip bottles of Golden King Deluxe Old Fine Whisky 180 ml each. (Total 19 bottles) liquor bottles which are prohibited under A.P. Excise Act. Hence the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is liable for conviction.

12. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and failed to secure independent witnesses and that itself shows that the excise officials foisted a false case against the accused for their statistical purpose and as there is no independent evidence, benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused and he may be acquitted.

13. P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that, on 13.6.2022 at about 11.30

PM., conducting raids at Kotha Prabhalaveedu cross on Bdvel to B.Koduru

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 5 C.C.No.1411/2022

Mandal . They noticed accused having in possession of one white and blue colour bag. On seeing the Excise Police, accused tried to escape from that place. PW1 caught hold the accused with help of staff and searched the plastic bag and found 12 Nip bottles of Ocean Blue Premium whisky 180 ml and 07 Nip bottles of Golden King Deluxe Old Fine Whisky 180 ml each.

(Total 19 bottles) quantity liquor bottles, during the course of evidence

Ex.P.1 Special report, Ex.P2 i.e., FIR in Cr.No.50/2022, Ex.P.3 is the letter of advice, Ex.P.4 ie. Analysis report, Ex.P5 is attested copy of proceedings vide R.C.No.02/2022/B1, dt:11.10.2022 and Ex.P6 is attested copy of panchanama dt:11.10.2022 are marked as MOs.1&2 through PW.2.

Basing on Police proceedings/Ex.P.1, P.W.1 registered a case in

Cr.No.50/2024 for the offence u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act. Later, PW.1 arrested the accused and produced the accused before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand and forwarded M.Os.1&2 to Chemical Examiner,

Kurnool for analysis, who opined that, the sample is “Indian Liquor”. After completion of investigation PW.2 filed charge sheet.

14. P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted in their cross examination deposed that, the scene of offence is a busy locality. They further denied the suggestions posed by the defence counsel that, the accused was falsely implicated accused in this case for statistical purpose, by planting the liquor bottles available with them.

15. On careful perusal of the entire evidence on record and the contentions of the learned defence counsel, the court is in view that there is no dispute from other side with regard to the nature of the property. Their only contention is that the accused is innocent person and falsely implicated in this case and nothing was seized from her possession.

So the court has to see whether the prosecution is able to establish the first ingredient of the said offence i.e. whether the accused was found in illegal possession of liquor bottles which are prohibited under A.P. Excise Act.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 8 C.C.No.1411/2024

16.To prove the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws. 1 & 2 coupled with Exs. P1 to P6, M.Os.1&2. As already stated, the evidence of Pws.1 & 2 who are police officials, goes to show that on 13.6.2022 at about 11.30 PM, accused was found in possession of one white and blue colour bag containing found 12 Nip bottles of Ocean Blue

Premium whisky 180 ml and 07 Nip bottles of Golden King Deluxe Old Fine

Whisky 180 ml each. (Total 19 bottles) quantity liquor bottles, at Kotha

Prabahalaveedu cross on Badvel to B.Koduru Mandal and then PW2 drawn samples, sealed and seized case property and also arrested the accused under the cover of Ex.P1.

17. It is the main contention of the learned defence counsel that as both witnesses are official witnesses, who conducted the raid and registered the case, their evidence shall be discarded. But, it is settled law that when only the police person has been examined, their evidence is not liable to be discarded, but it should be weighed with utmost care and caution. In such situation, it is also the duty of court to see whether there is a possible opportunity for the excise officer to secure the mediators and whether the arresting excise officials made any effort to secure mediators.

However, when there is possible opportunity for the excise officer to secure the mediators and if he fails to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency.

18.In order to prove that the Police officials made efforts to secure independent mediators, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW2 goes to show that on tracing out the accused at the scene of offence. The evidence of PW1 also shows the same.

19.Admittedly, the scene of offence is a residential locality.

PW1 categorically stated in his cross examination that he did not ask the residents of those houses to act as mediators. According to him, the people

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 7 C.C.No.1411/2022 gathered near the scene, refused to act as mediators. If such is the case, he ought to issue summons or notices to those persons. But no such step was taken by him. So it is evident that he did not try to secure mediators from the persons available near the scene of offence. No such steps were taken by the excise officials. They even failed to give the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators. So it is doubtful as to whether the Excise officials really made any efforts to secure independent persons as mediators.

20. The counsel for the accused argued that, the prosecution did not examined any independent witnesses except, the police officials and also even though the place of offence is busy locality the investigation agency did not tried to secure any mediators and also they did not issued any written summons with a demand to any of the surrounding peoples to act as a mediators. During the course of cross examination P.Ws.1 and PW.2 are categorically admitted as “The alleged scene of offence is a busy

locality. The Proceedings are silent about any efforts of securing any

person to act as mediators. The reasons for not securing any public

servant as the mediator is not mentioned in the Police Proceedings.

No amount were seized from Accused. Generally all the participant

staff put their signatures in police proceedings ”.

21. No doubt, when the search and seizure is in open place, there is no mandatory requirement to secure the independent mediators of the locality but to prove their case beyond any iota of doubt, it is expected that the police officials should have seriously and sincerely tried for independent mediators to show their impartial investigation. No doubt, the acts of police officials in discharge of their official duties are presumed to be correct unless the contrary is proved. But, when there was opportunity to secure the mediators, no convincing attempts being made by P.W.2. At this juncture, it is relevant to note a decision made in:

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 8 C.C.No.1411/2024

S.Babu Saheb @ Babu v. State of A.P., 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) 32

A.P. the Hon’ble High court wherein it was held ‘no efforts being made to secure the mediators is doubtful. The necessity was emphasized by the

Hon’ble High Court when there is seizure of contraband’.

Also in, Gajamker Narayana Vs. State of A.P., 2005 (3)

A.L.T. (Crl.) 1, the Hon’ble High court held “.... Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. lays down that before making a search, the officer of other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality...”, the seizure of contraband was held to be illegal when the provision of Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure are not complied. Also, it was held that the evidence of Excise officials is interested, artificial and routine. In this case on hand also, P.W.2 did not depose the convincing reasons for non-securing of the independent mediators from the locality.

In Botcha Raju vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) 69 (A.P.), the

Hon’ble High court held “...the Courts below fell in error by accepting the

version of the Police Officers without the corroboration of the disinterested witnesses...”.

22.Generally in villages, there will be all village level officers and the officials of all Departments of the Government. Section 28 of A.P.

Prohibition Act provides that all local bodies are legally bounded to assist the excise officers in Prohibition cases, in carrying out the provisions of the

A.P. Excise Act. So, the Police officials may approach any official of any

Department of Government or local body other than VRO or Surpanch, to act as mediator. In the present case, there is no whisper in the evidence of excise officials that they tried to secure any of those officials as mediators.

So, it is evident that they did not make effort to secure any independent

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 9 C.C.No.1411/2022 official or person to act as mediator and the same shows the lapses of

Excise officials.

23. In such facts and circumstances where the court is unable to find any convincing proof with regard to efforts made by police officials for securing mediators, the court is of the view that the excise officials failed to secure independent persons as mediators, though they have a possible opportunity, which is lapse on their part casting doubt on their version. Moreover, the learned defence counsel elicited certain inconsistencies in the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, with regard to starting time of the raid and the number of persons, who participated in the raid. Such inconsistencies also creates doubt in their version. Whenever a doubt crept in the version of prosecution, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2, who are the Police officials who conducted raid and registered the case, in absence of any independent evidence.

24. For the foregoing reasons, as there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused was found in possession of liquor bottles as alleged, Ex.P1 could not be relied upon. Though Ex.P5 discloses that the contents of M.Os. 1& 2 as ‘’ Indian Liquor”, as there is no convincing evidence to prove that the contents of M.Os.1& 2 were drawn from the possession of accused, Ex.P5 could not be relied upon. Thus, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

25. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- and he shall remain in force for six

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 8 C.C.No.1411/2024 months as required under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MOs.1&2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed my dictation to the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 12 th day of May, 2026).

Sd/-Sri Mukesh Kumar.P.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : K.Hussain Ahemmad, Constable,SEB, -None- P.W.2 : S.Roopa, Inspector,SI, SEB

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1:Special Report Ex.P.2:Original First Information Report in Cr.NO.50/2022 Ex.P.3:Letter of advise Ex.P.4:Analysis reported Ex.P.5: Attested copy of proceedings vide R.C.No.02/2022/B1,

dt:11.10.2022

Ex.P.6:Attested copy of panchanama dt:11.10.2022.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MOs.1&2 : Sample bottles.

Sd/-M.K.P.

AJCJ, BDL

// TRUE COPY //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 11 C.C.No.1411/2022 Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 8 C.C.No.1411/2024

APKD150021422022

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN

C.C.NO.1411/2022

Dates of CommenSentence Report of Apprehension Released on Close of Offencecement of or Complaintof accusedbailtrial trialOrder 41-A Cr.P.C. 13.6.2213.6.22--27.10.258.5.2512.5.25 Notice

Calander and Judgment in C.C.1411/2022 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel.

Complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,Badvel. Cr.No.50/2022 Name of the Father’s S.NoAge CallingReligionResidence accusedName Lakkineni Chennaiah, Age 41 yrs, S/o L.Thirupathaiah, Caste SC Madiga, R/o Mekavaripalli village, B.Kodur (M) YSR Kadapa District.

...Accused

Offence : under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The accused shall execute personal bond for Rs.10,000/- and he shall remain in force for six months as required under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Mos.1&2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-Sri Mukesh Kumar.P.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

DIS NO. DATED:

// TRUE COPY //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 13 C.C.No.1411/2022

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 1 C.C.No.970/2024

APKD150012772024 // TRUE CO

Add IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BADVEL

Present: Sri.Mukesh Kumar.P.,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Thursday, the 14th day of May, 2026

C.C.No.970/2024

Between: State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel

...Complainant.

And

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Abburi Adilakshumma,Age 53 yrs, W/o A.Narasimhulu, Caste:Kummara,R/o Lakshmipalem (V), Badvel (M), Kadapa District.

...Accused .

This case came before me on 13.05.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri.E.C.Obula Reddy Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused, upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Enforcement-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.169/2024 for the offence under section 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act.

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

On 8.3.2024 at 5.30 AM, PW1 along with his staff conducting raids and reached scene of offence i.e., at Agraharam village cross towards Badvel to

Porumamilla bus road of Badvel Mandal, they noticed one female person was standing in possession of carrying one white bag, on seeing the Excise police, accused tried to escape from that place PW1 detained the said person

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 2 C.C.No.970/2024

with the help of staff and deputed LW1/K.KondalaRao, Enforcement constable to secure mediators from Agraharam village but invain. After 20 minutes LW1 returned to scene of offence and informed the same to him.

On inquiry accused revealed that, accused is having liquor bottles in white color plastic bag. On that PW1 interrogated accused, then accused revealed her identity particulars, PW1 verified the bag and found 50 Nip bottles of Old

Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy 180 ml each. PW1 questioned accused about the contraband , on that accused did not stated anything. Accused confessed that accused selling liquor bottles on higher prices for her liverlihood.

Accused did not produced any valid license and permission with regard to the possession of the liquor bottles. PW1 lifted 01 sample bottle for sending chemical analysis. M.O.1 is sample bottle and also PW1 seized remaining contraband and arrested accused under cover of Special report, It contains his signature and accused was arrested and brought to station. Basing on

Special Report, PW1 registered the case in Cr.No.169/2024, U/S 7 R/W 8(B) (I) of AP Prohibition Act in SEB Badvel PS, then PW1 issued Sec.41A Cr.P.C notice accused. PW1 forwarded one sample bottle to the chemical analysis through court with letter of advice. PW1 received analysis report in which it is opined that sample is Indian liquor. The remaining bottles are kept aside for confiscation basing on the proceeding of Deputy Commissioner,

Ananthapur. The attested copy of proceedings vide RC.No.02/2022/B1,

dt:12.4.2024 and destroyed the remaining property under the cover of

panchanama. The attested copy of panchanama. After completion of investigation LW3/S.Satish Kumar, SI laid charge sheet against accused

U/Sec.7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act..

3.The case was taken on file under section 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P

Prohibition Act against accused.

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 3 C.C.No.970/2024

4.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and a charge

U/Sec. 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which, the accused denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined LW.1 &

LW2 as PWs 1 & 2 respectively and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 sample bottle was also marked. The prosecution had given up the evidence of LW.3.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form in Telugu for which, the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilty of accused in the charge U/sec. 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P6 and M.O.1. PW2 who is Sub Inspector of police,

Prohibition and Excise Badvel P.S. She was examined to speak about the detention of contraband, seizure, drawing of sample, arrest of accused, preparation of Special Report ie. Ex.P.1, registration of FIR and the investigation. Ex.P2 – FIR, Ex.P3 is the letter of advice, Ex.P4 is the RFSL

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 4 C.C.No.970/2024

report, Ex.P.5 is the copy of Confiscation Proceedings, Ex.P.6 is the copy of

Destroyed the property Panchanama and M.O.1 is the 180 ML sample bottle.

PW1 is Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector. PW1 through PW2 tried to secure mediators but same went in vain, who is said to have made attempts to secure mediators. Ex.P1 – Special Report.

11.The learned APP submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 coupled with Exs. P1 to P6 and M.O.1 sample bottle marked on its behalf establishes that the accused was arrested while he was in possession of white colour bag it contains 50 Nip bottles of Old Admiral Fine VSOP

Brandy 180ml of I.D. liquor which is prohibited under AP. Prohibition Act.

Hence the prosecution proved the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are liable for conviction.

12.The learned defence counsel contended that all the witnesses are police officials. He also contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and failed to secure independent witnesses and that itself shows that the Police officials foisted a false case against the accused for their statistical purpose and therefore as there is no independent witnesses, benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused and she may be acquitted.

13. In order to prove the offence U/S 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P

Prohibition Act, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.

i) The accused were found in the possession of I.D. liquor for sale or transportation and ii) The said possession or transportation of I.D. arrack was without valid permit or license.

14. On careful perusal of the entire evidence on record and the contentions of the learned defence counsel, the court is of view that there is no dispute from other side with regard to the nature of the property. Their

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 5 C.C.No.970/2024

only contention is that the accused is innocent who is falsely implicated in this case and nothing was seized from her possession. So the court has to see whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused was found in possession of said I.D. liquor which is prohibited under A.P. Prohibition

Act.

15. To prove the same the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 coupled with Exs. P1 to P6 and M.O.1. The evidence of PWs. 1 & 2 goes to show that on 08.3.2024 at 5.30AM am they are conducting raids, while proceeded at Agrahram village cross towards badvel to Proumamilla bus road ofBadvel Mandal, there they found accused was standing with one white colour bag and its containing 50 Nip bottles of

Old Admiral Fine VSOP Brandy 180ml ID Arrack. Then PW1 verified the plastic bag, drawn samples into M.O.1 – 180 Ml. sample bottle, sealed and seized M.O.1 and can by affixing the identity slips duly signed by him and arrested both the accused under the cover of Ex.P1-Special Report. The evidence of PW1 also shows that he drafted Ex.P1 as Special Report, Ex.P.2 - FIR and that during the course of investigation, he received Ex.P3 letter of advice in which it was opined that the sample sent is illicit distilled liquor not fit for human consumption, Ex.P.4 Analysis report, Ex.P.5 is the copy of

Confiscation Proceedings, Ex.P.6 is the copy of Destroyed the property

Panchanama and filing of charge sheet by LW.3.

16.The contention of the learned defence counsel is that as PW1 & 2 are the witnesses are official witnesses, who conducted the raid and registered the case by themselves, their evidence shall be discarded in the absence of independent witnesses. But it is settled proposition of law that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be brushed aside but it should be weighed with utmost care and caution. In such situation, the court also has to see whether there is possible opportunity for the excise official to secure

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 6 C.C.No.970/2024

the presence of mediators and whether they have made any effort to secure mediators. However, where there is possible opportunity for the excise officials to secure the mediators and if they failed to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of investigating agency.

17.In order to establish that the Police officials made sincere efforts to secure mediators, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs. 1 & 2.

According to PW1, as the persons available at scene of offence did not come forward to act as mediators, he deputed PW1 to secure mediators from the nearby village. So it is not the case of the prosecution, that no one was present at the scene of offence at the time of alleged seizure. If such is the case, PW1 ought to have served summons to him and secured them as mediators. But there is no whisper as to the steps taken by PW1 to secure those persons who were readily available at scene of offence as independent mediators. Even if it is assumed that those persons refused to act as mediators and then PW1 was deputed, the prosecution has to establish that

PW2 made sincere efforts to secure mediators. Further PW.2 deposed that he did not issue summons to any of the villagers or Government officials in order to secure them as mediators. As such the court finds no reliable evidence to disclose the efforts said to be made by PW1 & PW2.

18. Even if it is assumed that they were not available, he may approach any officials of any Department of Government or local body to act as mediator. But PWs. 1 & 2 failed to do so. They even failed to give the names of persons who refused to act as mediators. So, in absence of any credible evidence, it is not believable that the excise officials made efforts to secure mediators and no one came forward to act as mediator in excise offences.

19.In such facts and circumstances, where there is no convincing evidence to show that the Excise officials made efforts to secure mediators,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 7 C.C.No.970/2024

a doubt arises in the mind of court as to whether PW2 really deputed PW1 to secure mediators and whether PWs.1 and 2 really made any efforts to secure mediators. Moreover, the time of the alleged seizure is 05.30 A.M., which is not odd hours. Therefore, the court is of the view that though there is possible opportunity for the police to secure the mediators, they did not make any attempts to get independent witnesses as mediators and it is a lapse on the part of the investigating agency and so the version of excise officials is found doubtful.

20.In view of the above discussion, when the Excise officials failed to secure independent mediators, though they have ample opportunity to secure them and when the version of prosecution is found doubtful, the court is of the view that it is not safe to rely only on the evidence of PWs.

1 & 2 who are Excise officials, who prepared special report and investigated into the case, in the absence of independent witnesses to hold that the accused was found in possession of illicit distilled liquor.

21. In the above facts and circumstances, in view of the aforesaid discussion as there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused were found in possession of 50 Nip bottles of Old Admiral Fine

VSOP brandy 180 ml of I.D. liquor, Ex.P1 Special Report cannot be relied upon. Though Ex.P4 discloses that the contents of M.O.1 is illicit distilled liquor, in the absence of clinching evidence to prove that the contents of

M.O.1 was drawn from the can alleged to be found from the possession of the accused, Ex.P4 would not help the prosecution case. Thus the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for offence punishable U/Sec. 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.

22.In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act. Therefore, accused is

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 8 C.C.No.970/2024

acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Accused shall execute personal bond for

Rs.10,000/- and he shall remain in force for six months as required Under

Section437 (A) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed my dictation to the Typist corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 14 h day of may, 2026).

Sd/- Sri Mukesh Kumar.P. Mukesh K

umar.P., ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: :DEFENCE:

P.W.1 :G.Mohan Babu, SI of police-None- PW.2 : K.Kondal Rao, Constable

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1:Special Report Ex.P.2: FIR in Cr.No.169/2024 Ex.P.3:Letter of Advice Ex.P.4:RFSL Analysis Report Ex.P.5:Copy of confiscation Proceedings Ex.P.6: Copy of Destruction Panchanama

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1 : The sample bottle of 180 ml ID arrack.

Sd/-M.K.P. Sd/- M

AJCJ, BDL

// TRUE COPY //

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL//

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel 9 C.C.No.970/2024

APKD150012772024 /

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN

C.C.NO.970/2024 Dates of CommenSentence Report of Apprehension Released on Close of Offencecement of or Complaintof accusedbailtrial trialOrder 08.03.2408.03.24--41-A Cr.P.C12.5.2612.05.2614.05.26

Calander and Judgment in C.C.970/2024 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel. Complainant: State represented by the Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel Cr.No.169/2024 Name of Father’s S.Nothe Age CallingReligionResidence Name accused

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Abburi Adilakshumma,Age 53 yrs, W/o A.Narasimhulu, Caste:Kummara,R/o Lakshmipalem (V), Badvel (M), Kadapa District.

...Accused .

Offence : U/Sec 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence : In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 7 R/W 8 (b)(i) of A.P Prohibition Act. Therefore, accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Accused shall execute personal bond for

Rs.10,000/- and he shall remain in force for six months as required Under

Section437 (A) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/Sd/-SriMu

Sd/- Sri Mukesh Kumar.P.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

DIS NO. DATED:

// TRUE COPY //

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BADVEL// TRUE COPY//

AdditionalJuniorCivilJudge,Badvel 10

C.C.No.970/2024 // TRUE

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

CC.No.506/2021 1 Dt.11-03-2026

APKD150011402021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Smt. Y.Saritha,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Badvel,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

This the Wednesday, this the Eleveenth (11 th day of March, Two

Thousand and Twenty Six

Calendar Case No.: 506 of 2021

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Sub Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station. ….Complainant

Versus

A1: Oruganti Venkateswarlu, age 50 years, S/o lakshmaiah, Caste by Kamma,

A2: Magadapuram Prasad, age 33 years, S/o Chinnaiah, caste by Madiga,

A3: Jala Pullaiah, age 32 years, S/o Maddaiah, Caste by Madiga,

A4: Thangella Eswaraiah, age 33 years, S/o Ankaiah, Caste by Madiga, All are the residents of Itukulapadu village of SAKN Mandal,YSR District. ….Accused Nos.1 to 4.

This case is coming on 06.03.2026 before this court in the presence of

Prosecution and Sri K.G.Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the Accused Nos.1 to 4 and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.98/2020 for the offence punishable u/Sec.7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 with the following allegations:

CC.No.506/2021 2 Dt.11-03-2026

On 14.7.2020, at about 7.00 AM., while PW5 was present in the police station he received credible information, then he along with his staff PW2 and others conducted raid at Itukulapadu village of SAKN Mandal where they found

A1 to A4 with one can in their possession. On seeing them, A1 to A4 tried to escape from the scene. Then he caught hold them with the help of his staff. He sent PW2 K.Kishore, police constable, B.Kodur Police Station to secure mediators, but in vain. Further PW5 verified the said can and found 10 liters of

ID Arrack without valid permit or license, for selling purpose. PW5 the Sub-

Inspector of Police, B.Kodur P.S seized the said contraband, drawn one sample bottle for Chemical Analysis under the cover of police proceedings. Then PW5 took A1 to A4 in to their custody, arrested them and produced before this Hon’ble court for judicial remand. Basing on the police proceedings, he registered the case in Cr.No.98/2020, for the offences punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

During the course of investigation, PW5 sent the sample bottles for chemical analysis. After receiving the chemical analysis report opining that the samples are Indian made liquor and on completion of investigation laid charge sheet.

2.This court took Cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against A.1 to A.4.

3. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

4.A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Charge u/Sec. 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 were framed against them. The prosecution case was read over and explained to the them in Telugu.

They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5, beside M.O.1. Ex.P1 is the proceedings vide

RC.No.126/Destruction/DCRB/SEB-KDP/2021, dt:3.8.2021, Ex.P2 is the police

CC.No.506/2021 3 Dt.11-03-2026

proceedings, Ex.P3 is First Information Report, Ex.P4 is the Letter of Advise,

Ex.P5 is the Analaysis report and M.O.1 is the sample bottle of 180 ml of ID

Arrack. The evidences of LW1 M.Siva Prasad, Police constable 2129, LW3

M.Gurivi Reddy, Police constable 1625, LW4 TNV Prasad Police Constable 623,

LW5 Sudheer, Home Guard 782 and LW.6 the Government Chemical Examiner has been given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, for which, they denied the same and also reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

Pws.1 to 5 clinchingly establishes that the accused was found in possession of 10 liter of ID Arrack for selling purpose without having valid license and therefore, then A1 to A4 shall be convicted for committing an offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

10.On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that in absence of the independent evidence, the evidence of police officials shall not be relied upon and further contended that the accused were falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose and therefore the accused were entitled for benefit of doubt.

11.In view of the rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused. Here in the case there is no dispute with regard to the nature of property alleged to be seized. In other words, it is not in dispute that the sample bottle sent to the chemical examiner is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human

CC.No.506/2021 4 Dt.11-03-2026

consumption as in Analysis report (Ex.P-5). The main contention of accused is that nothing was seized from their possession and a false case was implicated against them for statistical purpose.

12.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to establish that the

A1 to A4 were found in possession of ID Arrack without valid license at the scene. To prove the same, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of

Pws.1 to 5 who are the police officials. The evidence of Pws.2 and 5 shows that during the raids at the scene where they found A1 to A4 in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack without valid license for higher prices. Then PW5 the Sub-

Inspector of Police, B.Kodur PS drawn one sample bottle i.e., M.O.1 and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of Ex.P2, police proceedings.

13. It is the main contention of the learned defence counsel that as all the witnesses are official witnesses, who conducted the raids and registered the case as they failed to follow the procedure laid for seizure under section 100

Code of Criminal Procedure. PW2 who went to secure mediators from

Itukulapadu village failed to state that with whom he enquired to act as mediators.

14.The evidence of PW.5 goes to show that he seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P2 at the scene while A1 to A4 in possession of the same. In his cross examination, he admitted that PW2 did not secure any independent mediators from the scene of offence. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a busy area and the raids were conducted that to not in odd hours. As per the evidence of Pw2, he went to Itukulapadu village, but no revenue officials were available.

He did not issue any notice under Section 100 Cr.P.C to the persons who refused to act as mediators. Even PW5 failed to secure independent mediators from the scene of offence in order to prove their alleged raid. At this juncture, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pws.2 & 5 to believe that A1 to A4 are ID arrack without valid permit or license. In the absence of independent mediators the arrest of the accused at the scene and seizure of contraband from their possession is also creating doubt in the case of prosecution.

CC.No.506/2021 5 Dt.11-03-2026

15.It is settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in the case of 'S.Babu

saheb @babu Vs The State of A.P' reported in '2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P'

held that:“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted” As held in the above authority the Investigating officers, Pws.2&5, failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non securing of independent mediators by the Police personnel is creating doubt on the entire prosecution case.

16.All the above mentioned lacunae and infirmities shows the defective investigation, which casts doubt in the prosecution version. In view of the above mentioned lacunae and in absence of independent evidence for seizure of contraband and arrest of A1 to A4, this court holds that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PWs.2&5 who are the police officials to hold that A1 to A4 were found in possession of ID arrack as alleged.

17. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborating evidence to implicate the complicity of A1 to A4 in commission of the offence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 to A4 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of A1 to A4 and against the prosecution.

CC.No.506/2021 6 Dt.11-03-2026

18.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of 6 (six) months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 the sample bottle of 180 ml of ID Arrack shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 thday March, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.Y.Saritha,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Badvel,

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Badvel.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined

Complainant:Accused:

P.W1:S.Nasreen

P.W2:K.Kishore

P.W3:T.VenkataSubbaiah -Nil- P.W4:S.Anjaneyulu

P.W5:K.Venkata Ramana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Proceedings vide RC.No.126/Destruction/DCRB/SEB-KDP/2021

Dt:3.8.2021.

Ex.P2Police proceedings. Ex.P3First Information Report Ex.P4Letter of Advise Ex.P5Analysis report

For Defence:

-Nil-

CC.No.506/2021 7 Dt.11-03-2026

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1Sample bottle of 180 ml of ID arrack

Sd/-Smt.Y.Saritha,

PJCJ, BDVL,

FAC AJCJ, BDVL.

// TRUE COPY //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Badvel,

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Badvel.

CC.No.506/2021 8 Dt.11-03-2026

APKD150011402021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN

C.C.NO.506/2021 Dates of Report of CommenSentence Apprehension Released Close of OffenceComplaincement of or of accusedon bailtrial ttrialOrder 14.7.2014.7.2041.A Cr.P.C1.12.2520.02.2611.03.26 --

Calander and Judgment in C.C.506/2021 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel. Complainant: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station.

Cr.No.98/2020 Name of the Father’s S.NoAge CallingReligionResidence accusedName 1: Oruganti Venkateswarlu, age 50 years, S/o lakshmaiah, Caste by Kamma,

A2: Magadapuram Prasad, age 33 years, S/o Chinnaiah, caste by Madiga,

A3: Jala Pullaiah, age 32 years, S/o Maddaiah, Caste by Madiga,

A4: Thangella Eswaraiah, age 33 years, S/o Ankaiah, Caste by Madiga, All are the residents of Itukulapadu village of SAKN Mandal,YSR District. ….Accused Nos.1 to 4.

Offence : under section 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Plea of accused: Plead not guilty. Finding : Found not guilty. Sentence : In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of 6 (six) months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 the sample bottle of 180 ml of ID Arrack shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.Y.Saritha,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Badvel,

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Badvel.

CC.No.506/2021 9 Dt.11-03-2026

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis No: , Dated: .

// TRUE COPY //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Badvel,

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Badvel.

CC.No.506/2021 10 Dt.11-03-2026

CC.No.506/2021 1 Dt.11-03-2026

APKD150011402021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Smt. Y.Saritha,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Badvel,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

This the Wednesday, this the Eleveenth (11 th day of March, Two

Thousand and Twenty Six

Calendar Case No.: 506 of 2021

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Sub Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station. ….Complainant

Versus

A1: Oruganti Venkateswarlu, age 50 years, S/o lakshmaiah, Caste by Kamma,

A2: Magadapuram Prasad, age 33 years, S/o Chinnaiah, caste by Madiga,

A3: Jala Pullaiah, age 32 years, S/o Maddaiah, Caste by Madiga,

A4: Thangella Eswaraiah, age 33 years, S/o Ankaiah, Caste by Madiga, All are the residents of Itukulapadu village of SAKN Mandal,YSR District. ….Accused Nos.1 to 4.

This case is coming on 06.03.2026 before this court in the presence of

Prosecution and Sri K.G.Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the Accused Nos.1 to 4 and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.98/2020 for the offence punishable u/Sec.7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 with the following allegations:

CC.No.506/2021 2 Dt.11-03-2026

On 14.7.2020, at about 7.00 AM., while PW5 was present in the police station he received credible information, then he along with his staff PW2 and others conducted raid at Itukulapadu village of SAKN Mandal where they found

A1 to A4 with one can in their possession. On seeing them, A1 to A4 tried to escape from the scene. Then he caught hold them with the help of his staff. He sent PW2 K.Kishore, police constable, B.Kodur Police Station to secure mediators, but in vain. Further PW5 verified the said can and found 10 liters of

ID Arrack without valid permit or license, for selling purpose. PW5 the Sub-

Inspector of Police, B.Kodur P.S seized the said contraband, drawn one sample bottle for Chemical Analysis under the cover of police proceedings. Then PW5 took A1 to A4 in to their custody, arrested them and produced before this Hon’ble court for judicial remand. Basing on the police proceedings, he registered the case in Cr.No.98/2020, for the offences punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

During the course of investigation, PW5 sent the sample bottles for chemical analysis. After receiving the chemical analysis report opining that the samples are Indian made liquor and on completion of investigation laid charge sheet.

2.This court took Cognizance for the offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 against A.1 to A.4.

3. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

4.A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Charge u/Sec. 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 were framed against them. The prosecution case was read over and explained to the them in Telugu.

They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.5, beside M.O.1. Ex.P1 is the proceedings vide

RC.No.126/Destruction/DCRB/SEB-KDP/2021, dt:3.8.2021, Ex.P2 is the police

CC.No.506/2021 3 Dt.11-03-2026

proceedings, Ex.P3 is First Information Report, Ex.P4 is the Letter of Advise,

Ex.P5 is the Analaysis report and M.O.1 is the sample bottle of 180 ml of ID

Arrack. The evidences of LW1 M.Siva Prasad, Police constable 2129, LW3

M.Gurivi Reddy, Police constable 1625, LW4 TNV Prasad Police Constable 623,

LW5 Sudheer, Home Guard 782 and LW.6 the Government Chemical Examiner has been given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, for which, they denied the same and also reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

Pws.1 to 5 clinchingly establishes that the accused was found in possession of 10 liter of ID Arrack for selling purpose without having valid license and therefore, then A1 to A4 shall be convicted for committing an offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

10.On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that in absence of the independent evidence, the evidence of police officials shall not be relied upon and further contended that the accused were falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose and therefore the accused were entitled for benefit of doubt.

11.In view of the rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused. Here in the case there is no dispute with regard to the nature of property alleged to be seized. In other words, it is not in dispute that the sample bottle sent to the chemical examiner is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human

CC.No.506/2021 4 Dt.11-03-2026

consumption as in Analysis report (Ex.P-5). The main contention of accused is that nothing was seized from their possession and a false case was implicated against them for statistical purpose.

12.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to establish that the

A1 to A4 were found in possession of ID Arrack without valid license at the scene. To prove the same, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of

Pws.1 to 5 who are the police officials. The evidence of Pws.2 and 5 shows that during the raids at the scene where they found A1 to A4 in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack without valid license for higher prices. Then PW5 the Sub-

Inspector of Police, B.Kodur PS drawn one sample bottle i.e., M.O.1 and seized the remaining contraband under the cover of Ex.P2, police proceedings.

13. It is the main contention of the learned defence counsel that as all the witnesses are official witnesses, who conducted the raids and registered the case as they failed to follow the procedure laid for seizure under section 100

Code of Criminal Procedure. PW2 who went to secure mediators from

Itukulapadu village failed to state that with whom he enquired to act as mediators.

14.The evidence of PW.5 goes to show that he seized the contraband under the cover of Ex.P2 at the scene while A1 to A4 in possession of the same. In his cross examination, he admitted that PW2 did not secure any independent mediators from the scene of offence. Admittedly, the scene of offence is a busy area and the raids were conducted that to not in odd hours. As per the evidence of Pw2, he went to Itukulapadu village, but no revenue officials were available.

He did not issue any notice under Section 100 Cr.P.C to the persons who refused to act as mediators. Even PW5 failed to secure independent mediators from the scene of offence in order to prove their alleged raid. At this juncture, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pws.2 & 5 to believe that A1 to A4 are ID arrack without valid permit or license. In the absence of independent mediators the arrest of the accused at the scene and seizure of contraband from their possession is also creating doubt in the case of prosecution.

CC.No.506/2021 5 Dt.11-03-2026

15.It is settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in the case of 'S.Babu

saheb @babu Vs The State of A.P' reported in '2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P'

held that:“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted” As held in the above authority the Investigating officers, Pws.2&5, failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non securing of independent mediators by the Police personnel is creating doubt on the entire prosecution case.

16.All the above mentioned lacunae and infirmities shows the defective investigation, which casts doubt in the prosecution version. In view of the above mentioned lacunae and in absence of independent evidence for seizure of contraband and arrest of A1 to A4, this court holds that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PWs.2&5 who are the police officials to hold that A1 to A4 were found in possession of ID arrack as alleged.

17. Therefore, there is no cogent and corroborating evidence to implicate the complicity of A1 to A4 in commission of the offence. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 to A4 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of A1 to A4 and against the prosecution.

CC.No.506/2021 6 Dt.11-03-2026

18.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of 6 (six) months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 the sample bottle of 180 ml of ID Arrack shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 thday March, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.Y.Saritha,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Badvel,

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Badvel.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined

Complainant:Accused:

P.W1:S.Nasreen

P.W2:K.Kishore

P.W3:T.VenkataSubbaiah -Nil- P.W4:S.Anjaneyulu

P.W5:K.Venkata Ramana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Proceedings vide RC.No.126/Destruction/DCRB/SEB-KDP/2021

Dt:3.8.2021.

Ex.P2Police proceedings. Ex.P3First Information Report Ex.P4Letter of Advise Ex.P5Analysis report

For Defence:

-Nil-

CC.No.506/2021 7 Dt.11-03-2026

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1Sample bottle of 180 ml of ID arrack

Sd/-Smt.Y.Saritha,

PJCJ, BDVL,

FAC AJCJ, BDVL.

// TRUE COPY //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Badvel,

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Badvel.

CC.No.506/2021 8 Dt.11-03-2026

APKD150011402021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN

C.C.NO.506/2021 Dates of Report of CommenSentence Apprehension Released Close of OffenceComplaincement of or of accusedon bailtrial ttrialOrder 14.7.2014.7.2041.A Cr.P.C1.12.2520.02.2611.03.26 --

Calander and Judgment in C.C.506/2021 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel. Complainant: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station.

Cr.No.98/2020 Name of the Father’s S.NoAge CallingReligionResidence accusedName 1: Oruganti Venkateswarlu, age 50 years, S/o lakshmaiah, Caste by Kamma,

A2: Magadapuram Prasad, age 33 years, S/o Chinnaiah, caste by Madiga,

A3: Jala Pullaiah, age 32 years, S/o Maddaiah, Caste by Madiga,

A4: Thangella Eswaraiah, age 33 years, S/o Ankaiah, Caste by Madiga, All are the residents of Itukulapadu village of SAKN Mandal,YSR District. ….Accused Nos.1 to 4.

Offence : under section 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act. Plea of accused: Plead not guilty. Finding : Found not guilty. Sentence : In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 7 (a) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of 6 (six) months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 the sample bottle of 180 ml of ID Arrack shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.Y.Saritha,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Badvel,

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Badvel.

CC.No.506/2021 9 Dt.11-03-2026

Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis No: , Dated: .

// TRUE COPY //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Badvel,

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Badvel.

CC.No.506/2021 10 Dt.11-03-2026