Sri P Raja Sekhar

1

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

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: PALLAGANI RAJASEKHAR,

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

FAC/ I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

C.C.No.4643/2021

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station. … Complainant

and

Achanta Ramakrishna, S/o Gangadhar, Aged 25 years, C/Kapu, Krishnunipalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal. … Accused This calendar case coming on this day before me for final hearing on 25.07.2022 in the presence of Sri O.Mahalakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri B.V.Raghavulu, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.120/2020 for the offence punishable under

Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

2)The prosecution case as narrated in the charge sheet, in brief, as follows:

a) On receipt of credible information about ID arrack sellers,

P.W.1/SI of police, Gokavaram P.S., conducted raid at Krishnunipalem Village along with his staff LWs 1 and 2 viz., PCs. 1369 and 1040, found the accused with liquor bottles viz., AC Block 180 ml – 3 bottles, Royal Street Whisky 180 ml – 6 bottles, arrested the accused and seized 9 liquor bottles from his possession under cover of occurrence report.

b) On the strength of occurrence report, P.W.1/SI of police,

Gokavaram P.S., registered the same as FIR in crime No.120/2020 under Sec.

34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.1/SI of police, Gokavaram P.S., released the accused on station bail after obtaining sufficient sureties.

c) During the course of investigation, on 23.06.2020 PW1/SI of police,

Gokavaram P.S., sent the sample to Chemical Examiner through DSP, North 2

Zone, Urban Police Dist. Rajahmundry under letter of advice. On 25.06.2020,

P.W.2/SI of police, Gokavaram P.S., received chemical analysis report wherein chemical examiner opined that the sample is “illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation,

PW2/SI of police, Gokavaram P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused.

Hence, the CHARGE.

3) Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against the accused.

4) On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to accused are contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation made against him. A charge under Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act has been framed against the accused and the contents of the said charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused has examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MOs.1 and 2.

7) On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence by explaining to him the same in Telugu, for which he denied the same and further he stated that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.

8) Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for accused. Perused the material on record.

9)Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 and the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.4 and MOs.1 and 2 proved the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per law.

10)Learned counsel appearing for accused would contend that PWs.1 and 2 are the Sub-Inspectors of police, Gokavaram P.S., and their evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness, as such it is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for accused would contend that P.W.1 should have made an attempt to secure the panchayatdars from the immediate vicinity of the scene of offence, but he did not do so and it throws a doubt about the version of P.W.1. Learned counsel appearing for accused would contend that except the self serving testimony of

P.W.1, absolutely there is no evidence on record to prove the recovery of the property from the possession of accused and its disposal. He would further 3 contend that in the absence of any corroborative evidence from independent source as to the recovery of illicitly distilled liquor from the possession of accused, or that the very same property was tested by the chemical analyst and the property was destroyed, it is unsafe to conclude that the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

11)Point for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12)POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.03.2020 at about 08:00

PM during the raids conducted by P.W.1/SI of police, Gokavaram P.S., at

Krishnunipalem Village, found the accused selling liquor bottles. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case has examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1

13)P.W.1/SI of Police, Gokavaram P.S in his chief-examination deposed about conducting of raid at Krishnunipalem Village, found the accused with liquor bottles viz., AC Block 180 ml – 3 bottles, Royal Street Whisky 180 ml – 6 bottles, arrest of accused, seizure of 09 liquor bottles worth of Rs.1140/-, drawing of MOs.1 and 2 bottles from the seized contraband as sample for the purpose of chemical analysis under Ex.P.1/occurrence report, registration of

Ex.P.2/FIR in crime No.120/2020 under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, served

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused, sending of M.O.1 sample through DSP,

North Zone, Rajamahendravaram Urban to the chemical examiner under

Ex.P.3/letter of advice and handing over the further investigation to PW.2/SI of

Police, Gokavaram PS. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he is the investigating officer as well as complainant. He admitted that scene of offence is situated in Krishnunipalem Village. He did not issue any summons or notices to VRA, VRO and Village Volunteers of Krishnunipalem Village. He admitted that he did not try to secure mediators at the vicinity of scene of offence. He admitted that there are public offices in Krishnunipalem Village. He also admitted thathe did not obtain the signatures of the staff who accompanied him during the raid in Ex.P1/Occurrence report. He admitted that seized contraband is available in openmarket

14)PW2/SI of Police, Gokavaram PS in his chief evidence deposed about receipt of Chemical Analysis report from the Chemical Examiner who opined that the sample is ‘ Indian Made Liquor’ and the confiscation of remaining 4 contraband and filing of charge sheet against the accused. During his cross- examination, he admitted that PW2 did not conduct further investigation in this case except receiving of Chemical Analysis report.

15)In this case, except the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 2, no other independent evidence is available on record. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he is the investigating officer as well as complainant. He admitted that scene of offence is situated in

Krishnunipalem Village. He admitted that VRA, VRO and Village volunteers available in Krishnunipalem Village. He did not issue any summons or notices to VRA, VRO and Village volunteers of Krishnunipalem Village. He admitted that he did not try for securing mediators at the vicinity of scene of offence. He admitted that public offices there in Krishnunipalem Village. When such is the evidence of P.W.1, what prevented him to secure the independent mediators at the vicinity of the scene of offence. P.W.1 in Ex.P.1/occurrence report simply mentioned that he tried for securing mediators, but none were available. The said recital in Ex.P.1/occurrence report is not believable in view of specific evidence of P.W.1 that scene of offence is situated in Krishnunipalem Village, that too VRO, VRA, Village Volunteers and public offices were available in

Krishnunipalem Village. It shows that P.W.1 did not make sincere efforts for securing mediators at the vicinity of the scene of offence. If really, P.W.1 made serious attempts for securing mediators, definitely he would have secure the mediators at the scene of offence. In the absence of independent testimony, the sole evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon. On scrutiny of evidence of

P.W.1, it shows that P.W.1 did not follow the provisions under Sec.100 (4)

Cr.P.C., while seizing contraband from the possession of the accused.

Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.1.

16)The evidence of PW2 is only with regard to receiving of chemical analysis report and filing of charge sheet. Hence, his evidence is no way useful to the case of the prosecution.

17)In this case, PW1 himself is the complainant, who detected the offence, seized the I.D. Arrack and is the investigating officer and the same was admitted by him in his cross-examination. Non-examination of independent mediators is always fatal to the case of prosecution, which takes away the credibility of the seizure conducted by PW1 under cover of Ex.P1/occurrence

Report. Further, according to the prosecution L.Ws.1 and 2 viz.,

M.Veerababu/PC.1369, J.Arjunaraju/PC 1040 accompanied P.W.1/SI of police during raid. Admittedly, P.W.1/SI of police did not obtain the signatures of 5

L.Ws.1 and 2 in Ex.P.1/occurrence report. If really, L.Ws.1 and 2 accompanied

P.W.1 during raid, P.W.1 ought to have obtained the signatures of L.Ws.1 and 2 in Ex.P.1/occurrence report. Therefore, presence of L.Ws.1 and 2 along with

P.W.1 during raid is doubtful.

18)In view of the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

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

19)In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under

Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C., M.Os.1 and 2 sample bottles under

CPR.No.68/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of July, 2022.

VI ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

FAC/I ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1: Dt.19.07.2022/Sk.Feroz Sha/SI of police -NONE- P.W.2: Dt.22.07.2022/P.Chennarao/SI of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1 : Occurrence Report, dt.12.03.2020 - NIL -

Ex.P.2 : Original FIR in Cr.No.120/2020

Ex.P3 : Letter of advise

Ex.P4 : Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MOs.1 & 2: Sample bottles.

VI ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

FAC/I ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGIS TRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

C.C.NO.4643/2021

01. Date of offence: 12.03.2020

02. Date of Complaint : 12.03.2020

03. Date of Apprehension of accused: Notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C issued

04. Release on bail: --

05. Commencement of trial: 19.07.2022

06. Closure of trial: 22.07.2022

07. Date of Judgment : 28.07.2022

08. Name of the complainant:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station.

09. Name of the accused : Achanta Ramakrishna, S/o Gangadhar, Aged 25 years, C/Kapu, Krishnunipalem Village, Gokavaram Mandal.

10. Offence: U/sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Sentence : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of

A.P.Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.,

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C., M.Os.1 to 3 sample bottles under

CPR.No.68/2022 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14.Remarks: Due to non production of witnesses & Lock-down due to covid-19 pandemic situation.

VI ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

FAC/I ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM- II ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri M.S. Karimulla, II Additional Junior Civil Judge:: Rajamahendravaram Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 833/2019

Between

Immidisetti Venkateswara Rao, s/o Veera Venkata Rao, Hindu, 40 years, D.No.35-14-4, Mangalavarapupeta, Main Road,

Rajamahendravaram. ... Plaintiff.

And

Kora Raja Chowdary, s/o Surya Prakasa Rao, Hindu, 35 years,

Paddy business, D.No.13-6-30, Veerrajunagar, Mandapeta. ... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on this day for I.A. in the presence of Sri K. Bharani Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri E. Murali Sreedhara Babu, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,42,000/- with subsequent interest @24 % p.a., and for costs of the suit.

The learned counsel for plaintiff filed a not press memo by stating the above suit is settled before elders outside the court and prayed to dismiss the suit. Hence, the suit is dismissed as not pressed without costs.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :For Defendant: None

P.W.1: Immidisetti Venkateswara Rao

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: NIL

Ex.A.1 : Suit promissory note, dated 09.10.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 16.09.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant; and

Ex.A3 : Returned RP cover.

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

2

Date of presentation:30.09.2019 Date of filing:30.09.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM- II ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Sri M.S. Karimulla, II Additional Junior Civil Judge:: Rajamahendravaram Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 833/2019

Between

Immidisetti Venkateswara Rao, s/o Veera Venkata Rao, Hindu, 40 years, D.No.35-14-4, Mangalavarapupeta, Main Road,

Rajamahendravaram. ... Plaintiff.

And

Kora Raja Chowdary, s/o Surya Prakasa Rao, Hindu, 35 years,

Paddy business, D.No.13-6-30, Veerrajunagar, Mandapeta. ... Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,42,000/- with subsequent interest @24 % p.a., and for costs of the suit.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 09.10.2016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.9 lakhs from the defendant by agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., and executed a demand promissory note in faovur of the plaintiff but in spite of repeated demands the defendant did not pay the same and hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 16.09.2019 and the same was returned and the suit transaction took place at Rajamahendravaram which comes within the jurisdiction of this court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount, dt.09.10.2016…Rs.9,00,000/-

ADD: Interest @24% p.a., from 09.10.2016 to 29.09.2019…Rs. 6,42,000/- Total….Rs. 15,42,000/- ---------------------------

A C.F. of Rs.17,920/- is paid U/Sec.20 Sch.I Art.1 (b&c) of A.P. Court Fee Act.

This suit is coming before me on this day for I.A. in the presence of Sri K. Bharani Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri E. Murali Sreedhara Babu, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1)That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs as the suit is settled out side the court before elders; and

2)that there shall be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 27th day of April, 2023.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

No costs memo is filed on either side

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-II ADDL.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Sri M.S. Karimulla, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2023

E.P.No. 99/2022 in O.S.No. 938/2021

Between:

Garapati Subrahmanyam, s/o Veerraju, 71 years, Hindu, business, D.No.3-105, Sivalayam street, Jegurupadu

of Kadiyam mandal. ... Petitioner/D.Hr

And

Sampati Giribabu, s/o Nageswara Rao, 53 years, business, beside of Sivaji House (Ex. MPTC) Suryaraopeta, Jegurupadu village, Kadiyam Mandal. … Respondent/J.Dr

This petition coming before me on this day in the presence of Sri Tadicherla Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioner/DHr and of respondent appeared in person and on perusal of material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr against the J.Dr praying this court to order for notice U/Or.21 R.37 and brought the JDR and send him to Civil

Prison or else the decree debt will not be realized.

The counsel for D.Hr filed full satisfaction memo for Rs.25,000/- and the same is recorded. Hence, E.P. is terminated.

Pronounced in the open court, this the 27th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- M.S. KARIMULLA

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM- I ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge:: Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday , the 29th day of July, 2022.

C.C.No. 1261/2020

Between

Kothapalli Ramakrishna Chowdary, S/o. Late Suryarao, Hindu, aGed 48 years, Business,D.NO. 81-28-10, SBI Colony 2, Kanchana Nagar, 5th street, JN Road, Rajamahendravaram.

....Complainant

And

Erigela Muralidhar Reddy, S/o. Mohana Reddy, Aged 35 years, Business, D.N0.14-131/7, Sri Rangapuram, Kodada Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.

… Accused

This case coming up before me on 29.07.2023, for adjournment in the presence of learned APP for the complainant and none appeared on behalf of the accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following;

J U D G E M E N T

Complainant present. Accused absent. Petition filed and allowed.

Crl.MP.NO.533/2022 dt 29.7.22 is allowed permitting the complainant towithdrawa this

case against the accused. Hence this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn and the accsued acquitted under section 257 Cr.P.C.

Pronounced in the open court, this the 29th day of July, 2022.

I ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

I A.J.F.C.M.

Dt:01.08.2022

The SHO, Gokavaram PS

returned the NBW issued against the

accused along with memo stating that

accused died and produced the

receipt issued by Rotary Kailasa

Bhoomi, Kotilingalu, Rajahmundry. In

view of the memo filed by the SHO,

Gokavaram PS and the receipt issued

by Rotary Kailasas Bhoomi about the

death of the accused, the case against

Accused is abated.

VI AJFCM/RJY

FAC I AJFCM/RJY