Sri. P. Ravi

Prl. Junior Civi Judge, Asifabad

Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex · Kumuram Bheem Asifabad · Telangana

Sri. P. Ravi, Prl. Junior Civi Judge, Asifabad, is posted at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad, Telangana, India. 6,133 court orders on record since 2021. 16 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

6,133

Total Orders

Judgments

251

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/213/2023 Acquitted

State of Telangana The Proh. EXcise Station, Kaghaznagar vs Vagadi Nanaji

26 Oct 2023

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SIRPURT

PRESENT: Parvatapu Ravi, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, SirpurT.

Thursday, 26th day of October, 2023

C.C.No. 213 OF 2023

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise station, Kaghaznagar. …PROSECUTION AND

Vagadi Nanaji, S/o. Paiku, Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Loanvelli village of SirpurT Mandal, KB Asifabad District. …ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri V. Kishore Kumar,learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Station House Officer, Proh.Excise Station, Kaghaznagar filed charge sheet in C.O.R. No.338/2022 for the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against sole accused.

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 27.07.2022 on reliable information regarding illegal possession and sale of Desidaru bottles pertains to Maharastra state by the accused, the LW3/ R. Kishan, Proh.Excise

Sub Inspector, Kaghaznagar along with staff proceeded to Lonavelli village of

SipurT Mandal by securing the LW1/Boddu Ravi and LW2/Puljale Bhagavan as panchas and conducted raid. During the raid the raid party found the accused in a suspicious manner with a bag, on observing the raid party the accused tried to escape from the spot, but they apprehended the accused. On checking the bag

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023 the raid party found (40) Racket Santra Deshidaru bottles of 90 ml pertains to

Maharastra state. On enquiry the accused revealed his details. As the Illegal possession and sale of Deshidaru bottles pertains to Maharastra state is an offence, the LW3 seized the property under cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and drawn sample of (02) Racket Santra bottles of 90 ml for chemical analysis. They brought the accused and case property to the police station.

2(i).Basing on the seizure panchanama, LW3 registered a case in

COR.No.338/2022, dated 27.07.2022 and issued Crime and Occurrence Report against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 and issued notice under sec. 41A Cr.P.C with instructions to attend before the Hon’ble court whenever he receives summons. Subsequently the samples was sent to Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for examination and report, produced the remaining liquor before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

Adilabad division for confiscation. The Dy.Commissioner of prohibition and excise

Adilabad issued the confiscation and destruction order vide

Proc.Cr.No.B2/154/DCA/2022, dated 27.10.2022 and the property has been destroyed on 11.11.2022. The chemical examiner, Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No. 3546 and issued report vide C.E.No.600/2022.08, dated 06.08.2022 by opining that the sample contains strength of alcohol is 26.0 under proof and it is RS based liquor and injurious to health. After completion of investigation LW3 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offence

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023 punishable U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as required under

Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined under sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and denied the accusation. A charge U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During trial, prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and Exs.

P1 to P4 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of accused is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for my determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.POINT:

9(i).As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PW1 and PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. PW1 is panch witness, PW2 is

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023 investigating officer. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on spot panchanama, Ex.P2 is spot panchanama, Ex.P3 is Crime Occurrence Report, Ex.P4 is Laboratory analysis report.

9(ii).PW1/Puljale Bhagavan deposed that about one year ago on one day the Excise police officials came on one jeep and parked the same infront of the house of the accused at Lonavelli village. As such he went to the house of the accused and came to know that the accused was running along with one bag in his hands, as such the Excise officials caught hold and found (40) Deshidaru bottles in the said bag. Then the Excise officials obtained his signature and the signature of LW1 on one paper by stating that they were obtaining their signatures with regarding to the proof whether the accused belongs to their village or not. He identified the accused and identified his signature on spot panchanama.

9(iii).PW2/R. Kishan Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise police station at Kaghaznagar deposed that on 27.07.2022 at 1:30 P.M., on reliable information he along with his staff namely Mallesh, Kumar, Naveen proceeded to Lonavelli village of SirpurT Mandal and conducted raid. During the raid he found that the accused was selling Deshidaru bottles infront of his house. Then he called two panch witnesses and prepared panchanama and seized (40) Racket Santra Deshidaru bottles of 90 ml each. He registered a case against the accused. Later he issued COR against accused vide No.338/2022 dated 27.07.2022. He issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to accused with a direction to attend

before the court whenever he receive summons. Later he sent the samples to the

chemical examiner, Nizamabad for examination and report and I produced the

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023 remaining case property to Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Department, Adilabad for confiscation. The Dy.Commissioner of Proh.& Excise,

Adilabadissuedconfiscationanddestructionordersvide

Proc.No.RC.B2/154/DCA/2022, dated 27.10.2022 and property has been destroyed on 11.11.2022. The chemical examiner Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No.3546 and issued report vide C.E.No.600/2022.08, dated 06.08.2022 by opining that the sample is contains strength of alcohol is 26.0 under proof and it is RS based liquor and injurious to health. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968.

10.It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused is presumed as innocent until his guilt is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Now we will carefully scrutinize the evidence of prosecution witnesses so as to determine whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubts.

11. PW1 who is the panch witness for the spot panchanama even though in his chief examination supported the case of the prosecution but during the cross examination categorically stated that he do not know the contents of spot panchanama, he signed on the same only at the request of Excise officials, he did not witness anything but he came to know about the entire facts of the case only through the Excise officials. In this case, the law is set into motion basing on the spot panchanama. Hence, the spot panchanama plays a vital role in proving the guilt of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that (40)

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023

Racket Santra deshidaru bottle of 90 ml each pertaining to Maharastra state are seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of PW1 and LW1, but

PW1 who is panch witness for spot panchanama not supported the case of prosecution and stated that no panchanama is conducted in his presence. The entire case is depended on the spot panchanama but the spot panchanama itself is not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses i.e., PW1 and LW1 as such it cannot be said that the accused was in possession of contraband.

11(i). The investigating officer i.e., PW2 has stated about the facts of the case but when the independent witnesses did not support the case, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the version of PW2, who is the Excise official interested in proving the guilt of the accused. Further in this case PW2 failed to mention the names of the staff who accompanied him during raid and also failed to examine and cite them as witnesses. Further in the spot panchanama it is mentioned that the same is prepared in front of the house of the accused but in the entire case record nowhere mentioned the house number of the accused and neither the ownership nor possession of the accused over the alleged house is established in order to connect the accused with the alleged scene of offence. Further no search memo was issued by PW2, while conducting raid on the house of the accused thus the provisions of Sec.55 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 which are mandatory are not followed by PW2. Further in this case none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused as the person from whose possession the contraband was seized. Further in this case the sample was lifted on 27.07.2022 but the same was sent for chemical examiner on 03.08.2022 as such there is delay in sending the same for chemical examination, but no explanation is offered by PW2 for the said delay.

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023 11(ii).Further in the spot panchanama it is mentioned that the same is scribed by PW2 but the PW2 during the cross examination stated that the spot panchanama is scribed by his station constable. Further in the spot Panchanama it is mentioned that while the raid party searching the suspicious people and suspicious places then by seeing the Excise officials the accused tried to fled away from the scene by holding one bag in his hand as such the raid party chased and apprehend the accused, whereas during the deposition PW2 stated that during the raid he found that the accused was selling Deshidaru bottles infront of his house. Further in the spot Panchanama and charge sheet it is mentioned that the Excise officials took PW1 and LW1 with them for conducting the raid whereas PW2 deposed that he secured the presence of PW1 and LW1 only after apprehending the accused at the spot.

11(iii). The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Criminal 805 (A.P) between T.Subbanna V/s. State of Andhra

Pradesh held that where the ownership or possession of the accused is not established over the place of offence and where independent mediator is turned hostile, no conviction can be recorded in an excise offence on the version of official witnesses. The Judgment of Hon’ble High Court is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. In the present case the prosecution failed to establish the ownership or possession of the accused over the alleged place of offence and also the alleged panch witnesses for the preparation of spot panchanama turned hostile. In view of the above discussion and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused.

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023

12.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Sec.437A of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide C.P No. 116 of 2023, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by P. Suchitra, Stenographer, GrIII, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of October, 2023.

Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW1Puljale Bhagavan :: NONE :: PW2R. Kishan (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on spot panchanama Ex.P2Spot panchanama Ex.P3Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P4Laboratory analysis report.

FOR ACCUSED

: NIL :

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 213 of 2023

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL :: Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT.

CC/400/2023 Acquitted

State of Telangana The Proh and Excise of kaghaznagar vs Pullaboinea Srinivas

26 Oct 2023

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SIRPURT

PRESENT: Parvatapu Ravi, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, SirpurT.

Thursday, 26th day of October, 2023

C.C.No. 400 OF 2023

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise station, Kaghaznagar. …PROSECUTION AND

Pullaboina Srinivas, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gannaram village of Kaghaznagar Mandal, KB Asifabad district. …ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri T. Dayaraj Singh, learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Station House Officer, Proh.Excise Station, Kaghaznagar filed charge sheet in C.O.R. No.14/2023 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as “APP Act, 1995” for brevity) against sole accused.

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 20.01.2023 on reliable information regarding possession and sale of illicit distilled liquor by the accused, LW3/ R. Kishan, Proh.& Excise Sub Inspector, Kaghaznagar and LW 4/B. Gajender, Proh.&Excise Sub Inspector, Asst.Comm.Enforcement, Adilabad along with staff proceeded to Gannaram village of Kaghaznagar Mandal by securing the LW1/Dothula Srinivas and LW2/Pullaboina Banaiah as panchas and conducted raid. During the raid the raid party found the accused in

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023 suspicious manner with a bag. On observing the raid party the accused try to escape from the spot, but the raid party apprehend the accused. On checking the bag the raid party found (10) liters of Illicit distilled liquor in two polythene covers each containing (05) liters. On enquiry the accused disclosed his details. As the possession and sale of illicit distilled liquor is an offence, LWs3 & 4 seized the property under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and drawn sample in 180 ml bottle for chemical analysis. They brought the accused along with case property to the police station.

2(i).Basing on the spot panchanama, LW3 registered a case in

COR.No.14/2023 and issued Crime and Occurrence Report against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. He issued notice to accused under sec. 41A Cr.P.C to attend before the court whenever he receives summons. Subsequently the sample was sent to Chemical

Examiner, Nizamabad for examination and report, produced the remaining case property before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Adilabad division for confiscation. The Dy.Commissioner of prohibition and excise Adilabad issued the confiscation and destruction order vide Proc.Rc.No.

B2/119/DCA/2023, dated 05.05.2023 and the property has been destroyed on 19.05.2023. The chemical examiner, Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No.460 and issued report vide C.E.No.78/2023.10, dated 08.02.2023 by opining that sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation LW3 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offence

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023 punishable U/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995 against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as required under

Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and he was examined under sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the accusation. A charge U/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995 has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to PW3 and Exs. P1 to P5 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

6.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for my determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.POINT:

9(i).As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. PWs1 and 2 are panch witnesses, PW3

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023 is investigating officer. Exs.P1 and P2 are signatures of PWs1 & 2 on spot panchanama, Ex. P3 is spot panchanama, Ex.P4 is Crime Occurrence Report,

Ex.P5 is Laboratory analysis report.

9(ii).PW1/Dothula Srinivas and PW2/Pullaboina Banaiah deposed that about six months ago on one day the Excise police came to their

Grampanchayath and requested to sign on some papers, accordingly they signed on the same. Except that they do not know anything about the facts of the case.

They identified their signatures on spot panchanama.

9(iii).PW3/R. Kishan, Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise police station at Kaghaznagar deposed that on 20.01.2023 at 11:30 A.M on reliable information LW4 along with his staff namely Kumar, Mallesh, Sathish and Manjula proceeded to Gannaram village of Kaghaznagar Mandal and conducted raid. During the raid he found that the accused selling the ID liquor in front his house. On checking they found (10) liters of Illicit Distilled liquor in two polythene covers containing 5 liters in each cover. As such LW4 seized the same under cover of panchanama and drawn one sample for chemical analysis.

Later LW4 brought the seized property along with accused to the police station and issued COR vide No.14 of 2023 for the offence punishable under sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. Later LW4 issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to accused with a direction to attend before the court whenever he receives summons. Later LW4 sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Nizamabad for examination and report and produced the remaining case property to Dy.Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise Department, Adilabad for confiscation. The

Dy.Commissioner of Proh.& Excise, Adilabad issued confiscation and destruction

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023 orders vide Proc.No.RC.B2/119/DCA/2023, dated 05.05.2023 and property has been destroyed on 19.05.2023. The chemical examiner Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No.460 and issued report vide C.E.No.78/2023.10, dated 08.02.2023 by opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sec.7A r/w 8(e) of

AP Prohibition Act.

10.It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused is presumed as innocent until his guilt is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Now we will carefully scrutinize the evidence of prosecution witnesses so as to determine whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section. 7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act beyond all reasonable doubts.

11. PWs1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the spot panchanama deposed that no panchanama is conducted in their presence and they both turned hostile. Though they were cross examined by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, nothing worth material could be elicited in support of the case of prosecution except putting some suggestions. In this case, the law is set into motion basing on the spot panchanama. Hence, the spot panchanama plays a vital role in proving the guilt of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that (10) liters of Illicit Distilled liquor is seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of PWs1 and 2, but both the panch witnesses have turned hostile by stating that no panchanama is conducted in their presence. The entire case is

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023 depended on the spot panchanama but the spot panchanama itself is not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses i.e., PWs1 and 2 as such it cannot be said that the accused is in possession of ID liquor.

LWs 3 & 4 along with their staff went to the scene of offence but PW3 during the deposition before the court categorically stated that LW4 only went to the scene along with his staff but he did not went to the scene for conducting raid. Further in this case PW3 failed to mention the names of the staff who accompanied LW4 during raid and also failed to examine and cite them as witnesses. Further in the spot panchanama it is mentioned that the same is prepared in front of the house of the accused but in the entire case record nowhere mentioned the house number of the accused and neither the ownership nor possession of the accused over the alleged house is established in order to connect the accused with the alleged scene of offence. Further no search memo was issued by PW3, while conducting raid on the house of the accused thus the provisions of Sec.55 of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 which are mandatory are not followed by PW3. Further in this case none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused as the person from whose possession the ID liquor was seized. Further in this case the sample was lifted on 20.01.2023 but the same was sent for chemical examiner on 04.02.2023 as such there is a delay of about 15 days in sending the sample for chemical analysis, but no explanation is offered by PW3 for the said delay.

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023 11(ii).Further in the spot Panchanama it is mentioned that while the raid party searching the suspicious people and suspicious places then by seeing the

Excise officials the accused tried to fled away from the scene by holding one bag in his hand as such the raid party chased and apprehend the accused, whereas during the deposition PW3 stated that during the raid he found that the accused selling ID liquor infront of his house. Further in the spot Panchanama and charge sheet it is mentioned that the Excise officials took PWs1 and 2 with them for conducting the raid whereas PW3 deposed that he secured the presence of

PWs1 and 2 only after apprehending the accused at the spot.

11(iii). The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Criminal 805 (A.P) between T.Subbanna V/s. State of Andhra

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused.

12.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023 punishable U/Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act 1995. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under

Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide C.P No. 186 of 2023, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by P. Suchitra, Stenographer, GrIII, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of October, 2023.

Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW1Dothula Srinivas :: NONE :: PW2Pullaboina Banaiah

PW3R. Kishan (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on spot panchanama Ex.P2Signature of PW2 on spot panchanama Ex.P3Spot panchanama Ex.P4Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P5Laboratory analysis report.

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 400 of 2023

FOR ACCUSED

: NIL :

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT.

CC/397/2023 Acquitted

State of Telangana The Proh Excise of kaeghaznagar vs Durgam Sunitha

26 Oct 2023

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 397 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SIRPURT

PRESENT: Parvatapu Ravi, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, SirpurT.

Thursday, 26th day of October, 2023

C.C.No. 397 OF 2023

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise station, Kaghaznagar. …PROSECUTION AND

Durgam Sunitha, W/o. Shyam Prasad, Age: 36 years, Occ: Kirana shop, R/o. Beebra village and Dahegaon Mandal, KB Asifabad district. …ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri G. Kalyan,learned counsel

for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for

consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Station House Officer, Proh.Excise Station, Kaghaznagar filed charge sheet in C.O.R. No.24/2023 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as “APP Act, 1995” for brevity) against sole accused.

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 03.02.2023 on reliable information regarding possession and sale of illicit distilled liquor by the accused, LW3/ R. Kishan, Proh.& Excise Sub Inspector, Kaghaznagar along with staff proceeded to Beebra village by securing the LW1/Ratnam Pochaiah and

LW2/Nitturi Rajaiah as panchas and conducted raid. During the raid the raid party found the accused in suspicious manner with one bag. On observing the

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 397 of 2023 raid party the accused tried to escape from the spot, but the raid party apprehend the accused. On checking the bag the raid party found (10) liters of Illicit distilled liquor in two polythene covers each containing (05) liters. On enquiry the accused disclosed her details. As the possession and sale of illicit distilled liquor is an offence, LW3 seized the property under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and drawn sample in 180 ml bottle for chemical analysis. They brought the accused along with case property to the police station.

2(i).Basing on the spot panchanama, LW3 registered a case in

COR.No.24/2023 and issued Crime and Occurrence Report against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. He issued notice to accused under sec. 41A Cr.P.C to attend before the court whenever she receives summons. Subsequently the sample was sent to Chemical

B2/119/DCA/2023, dated 05.05.2023 and the property has been destroyed on 19.05.2023. The chemical examiner, Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No. 834 and issued report vide C.E.No.133/2023.02, dated 04.03.2023 by opining that sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation LW3 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995 against accused. On appearance

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 397 of 2023 of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to her as required under

Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and she was examined under sec. 239 Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the accusation. A charge U/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995 has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to her in vernacular, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to PW3 and Exs. P1 to P4 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of accused is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for my determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.POINT:

9(i).As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. PWs1 and 2 are panch witnesses, PW3 is investigating officer. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on spot panchanama, Ex. P2

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 397 of 2023 is spot panchanama, Ex.P3 is Crime Occurrence Report, Ex.P4 is Laboratory analysis report.

9(ii).PW1/Ratnam Pochaiah deposed that about six months ago the

Excise police obtained his signature at Kaghaznagar road, but he do not know the purpose for which they obtained his signature. He identified his signature on spot panchanama. PW2/Nitturi Rajaiah deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. On one day he was sweeping the road infront of the school at Bibra village, then the Excise officials called him and requested to sign on some papers. Accordingly he put thumb impression on the same.

9(iii).PW3/R. Kishan Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise police station at Kaghaznagar deposed that on 03.02.2023 at 3:30 P.M on reliable information he along with his staff namely Kumar, Mallesh, Sathish and Manjula proceeded to Beebra village of Dahegaon Mandal and conducted raid. During the raid he found that the accused kept the ID liquor in front her house in order to sell the same. On checking they found (10) liters of Illicit Distilled liquor in two polythene covers of 5 liters capacity each. As such he seized the same under cover of panchanama and drawn one sample for chemical analysis. Later he brought the seized property along with accused to the police station and issued

COR vide No.24 of 2023 for the offence punishable under sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP

Prohibition Act. Later he issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to accused with a direction to attend before the court whenever she receives summons. Later he sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Nizamabad for examination and report and he produced the remaining case property to Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise Department, Adilabad for confiscation. The Dy.Commissioner of Proh.&

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 397 of 2023

Excise, Adilabad issued confiscation and destruction orders vide

Proc.No.RC.B2/119/DCA/2023, dated 05.05.2023 and property has been destroyed on 19.05.2023. The chemical examiner Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No.834 and issued report vide C.E.No.133/2023.02, dated 04.03.2023 by opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sec.7A r/w 8(e) of

AP Prohibition Act.

10.It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused is presumed as innocent until his guilt is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Now we will carefully scrutinize the evidence of prosecution witnesses so as to determine whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section. 7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act beyond all reasonable doubts.

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 397 of 2023 depended on the spot panchanama but the spot panchanama itself is not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses i.e., PWs1 and 2 as such it cannot be said that the accused is in possession of ID liquor.

11(i). The investigating officer i.e., PW3 has stated about the facts of the case but when the independent witnesses did not support the case, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the version of PW3, who is the Excise official interested in proving the guilt of the accused. Further in this case PW3 failed to mention the names of the staff who accompanied him during raid and also failed to examine and cite them as witnesses. Further in the spot panchanama it is mentioned that the same is prepared in front of the house of the accused but in the entire case record nowhere mentioned the house number of the accused and neither the ownership nor possession of the accused over the alleged house is established in order to connect the accused with the alleged scene of offence. Further no search memo was issued by PW3, while conducting raid on the house of the accused thus the provisions of Sec.55 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 which are mandatory are not followed by PW3. Further in this case none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused as the person from whose possession the ID liquor was seized. Further in this case the sample was lifted on 03.02.2023 but the same was sent for chemical examiner on 02.03.2023 as such there is a delay of about 10 days in sending the sample for chemical analysis, but no explanation is offered by PW3 for the said delay.

11(ii).Further in the spot Panchanama it is mentioned that while the raid party searching the suspicious people and suspicious places then by seeing the

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 397 of 2023

Excise officials the accused tried to fled away from the scene by holding one bag in her hand as such the raid party chased and apprehend the accused, whereas during the deposition PW3 stated that during the raid he found that the accused was selling ID liquor infront of her house. Further in the spot Panchanama and charge sheet it is mentioned that the Excise officials took PWs1 and 2 with them for conducting the raid whereas PW3 deposed that he secured the presence of

PWs1 and 2 only after apprehending the accused at the spot.

11(iii). The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Criminal 805 (A.P) between T.Subbanna V/s. State of Andhra

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused.

12.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable U/Sec.7A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 397 of 2023

13.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act 1995. Accordingly, she is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under

Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide C.P No. 189 of 2023, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by P. Suchitra, Stenographer, GrIII, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of October, 2023.

Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW1Ratnam Pochaiah :: NONE :: PW2Nitturi Rajaiah

PW3R. Kishan (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on spot panchanama Ex.P2Spot panchanama Ex.P3Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P4Laboratory analysis report.

FOR ACCUSED

: NIL :

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL :: Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT.

CC/398/2023 Acquitted

State of Telangana The Proh and excise of kaghaznagar vs Vakade Bhgyvathi

26 Oct 2023

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 398 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SIRPURT

PRESENT: Parvatapu Ravi, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, SirpurT.

Thursday, 26th day of October, 2023

C.C.No. 398 OF 2023

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise station, Kaghaznagar. …PROSECUTION AND

Vagade Bhagyavathi, W/o. Nanaji, Age: 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Lonavelli village of SirpurT Mandal, KB Asifabad district. …ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri V. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Station House Officer, Proh.Excise Station, Kaghaznagar filed charge sheet in C.O.R. No.08/2023 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as “APP Act, 1995” for brevity) against sole accused.

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 13.01.2023 on reliable information regarding possession and sale of illicit distilled liquor by the accused, LW3/ R. Kishan, Proh.& Excise Sub Inspector, Kaghaznagar along with staff proceeded to Lonavelli village of SirpurT Mandal by securing the LW 1/Boher Pathru and LW2/Ade Posham as panchas and conducted raid. During the raid the raid party found the accused in suspicious manner with a bag. On

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 398 of 2023 observing the raid party the accused tried to escape from the spot, but the raid party apprehend the accused. On checking the bag the raid party found (05) liters of Illicit distilled liquor in one polythene cover. On enquiry the accused disclosed her details. As the possession and sale of illicit distilled liquor is an offence, LW3 seized the property under cover of panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and drawn sample in 180 ml bottle for chemical analysis. They brought the accused along with case property to the police station.

2(i).Basing on the spot panchanama, LW3 registered a case in

COR.No.08/2023 and issued Crime and Occurrence Report against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act. He issued notice to accused under sec. 41A Cr.P.C to attend before the court whenever she receives summons. Subsequently the sample was sent to Chemical

B2/119/DCA/2023, dated 05.05.2023 and the property has been destroyed on 19.05.2023. The chemical examiner, Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No. 455 and issued report vide C.E.No.78/2023.05, dated 08.02.2023 by opining that sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation LW3 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/sec.7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995 against accused. On appearance

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 398 of 2023 of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to her as required under

4.During trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to PW3 and Exs. P1 to P4 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of accused is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for my determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.POINT:

9(i).As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. PWs1 and 2 are panch witnesses, PW3 is investigating officer. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on spot panchanama, Ex. P2

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 398 of 2023 is spot panchanama, Ex.P3 is Crime Occurrence Report, Ex.P4 is Laboratory analysis report.

9(ii).PW1/Boher Pathru and PW2/Ade Posham deposed that about two or three months ago on one day they went to the shop of accused at Loanvelli village. Then the Excise police came to the said shop and requested to sign on some papers, accordingly they signed on the same. Except that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. PW1 identified his signature on spot panchanama.

9(iii).PW3/R. Kishan Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise police station at Kaghaznagar deposed that on 13.01.2023 at 10:40 A.M on reliable information he along with his staff proceeded to Lonavelli village of

SirpurT Mandal and conducted raid. During the raid he found that the accused kept the ID liquor in front her house in order to sell the same. On checking they found (05) liters of Illicit Distilled liquor in one polythene cover. As such he seized the same under cover of panchanama and drawn one sample for chemical analysis. Later he brought the seized property along with accused to the police station and issued COR vide No.8 of 2023 for the offence punishable under sec.7

A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. Later he issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to accused with a direction to attend before the court whenever she receives summons. Later he sent the samples to the chemical examiner, Nizamabad for examination and report and he produced the remaining case property to Dy.Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise Department, Adilabad for confiscation. The

Dy.Commissioner of Proh.& Excise, Adilabad issued confiscation and destruction orders vide Proc.No.RC.B2/119/DCA/2023, dated 05.05.2023 and property has

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 398 of 2023 been destroyed on 19.05.2023. The chemical examiner Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No.455 and issued report vide C.E.No.78/2023.05, dated 08.02.2023 by opining that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sec.7A r/w 8(e) of

AP Prohibition Act.

10.It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused is presumed as innocent until his guilt is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Now we will carefully scrutinize the evidence of prosecution witnesses so as to determine whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section. 7A r/w 8(e) of APP Act beyond all reasonable doubts.

Prosecutor, nothing worth material could be elicited in support of the case of prosecution except putting some suggestions. In this case, the law is set into motion basing on the spot panchanama. Hence, the spot panchanama plays a vital role in proving the guilt of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that (05) liters of Illicit Distilled liquor is seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of PWs1 and 2, but both the panch witnesses have turned hostile by stating that no panchanama is conducted in their presence. The entire case is depended on the spot panchanama but the spot panchanama itself is not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses i.e., PWs1 and 2 as such it cannot be

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 398 of 2023 said that the accused is in possession of ID liquor.

11(i). The investigating officer i.e., PW3 has stated about the facts of the case but when the independent witnesses did not support the case, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the version of PW3, who is the Excise official interested in proving the guilt of the accused. Further in this case PW3 failed to mention the names of the staff who accompanied him during raid and also failed to examine and cite them as witnesses. Further in the spot panchanama it is mentioned that the same is prepared in front of the house of the accused but in the entire case record nowhere mentioned the house number of the accused and neither the ownership nor possession of the accused over the alleged house is established in order to connect the accused with the alleged scene of offence. Further no search memo was issued by PW3, while conducting raid on the house of the accused thus the provisions of Sec.55 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 which are mandatory are not followed by PW3. Further in this case none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused as the person from whose possession the ID liquor was seized. Further in this case the sample was lifted on 13.01.2023 but the same was sent for chemical examiner on 04.02.2023 as such there is a delay of about 20 days in sending the sample for chemical analysis, but no explanation is offered by PW3 for the said delay.

11(ii).Further in the spot Panchanama it is mentioned that while the raid party searching the suspicious people and suspicious places then by seeing the

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 398 of 2023 kept ID liquor infront of her house in order to sell the same. Further in the spot

Panchanama and charge sheet it is mentioned that the Excise officials took PWs 1 and 2 with them for conducting the raid whereas PW3 deposed that he secured the presence of PWs1 and 2 only after apprehending the accused at the spot.

11(iii). The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Criminal 805 (A.P) between T.Subbanna V/s. State of Andhra

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused.

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 398 of 2023 accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under

Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide C.P No. 184 of 2023, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by P. Suchitra, Stenographer, GrIII, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of October, 2023.

Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW1Boher Pathru :: NONE :: PW2Ade Posham

PW3R. Kishan (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on spot panchanama Ex.P2Spot panchanama Ex.P3Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P4Laboratory analysis report.

FOR ACCUSED

: NIL :

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT.

CC/309/2023 Acquitted

State of Telangana The Proh. Excise station Kaghaznagar vs Kunjala AnilKumar

26 Oct 2023

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 309 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUMJUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SIRPURT

PRESENT: Parvatapu Ravi, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, SirpurT.

Thursday, 26th day of October, 2023

C.C.No. 309 OF 2023

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Station House Officer, Proh. & Excise station, Kaghaznagar. …PROSECUTION AND

Phuljala Anil Kumar, S/o. Bhagawan, Age: 27 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Lonavelli village of SirpurT Mandal, KB Asifabad district. …ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri B. Srinivas,learned counsel

for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for

consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Station House Officer, Proh.Excise Station, Kaghaznagar filed charge sheet in C.O.R. No.09/2023 for the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 against sole accused.

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 13.01.2023 on reliable information regarding illegal possession and sale of Desidaru bottles pertains to Maharastra state by the accused, the LW3/ R. Kishan, Proh.Excise

Sub Inspector, Kaghaznagar along with staff proceeded to Lonavelli village of

SipurT Mandal by securing the LW1/Alluri Sathish and LW2/Boyeri Sandeep as panchas and conducted raid. During the raid the raid party found the accused in a suspicious manner with a bag, on observing the raid party the accused tried to escape from the spot, but they apprehended the accused. On

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 309 of 2023 checking the bag the raid party found (35) Racket Santra Deshidaru bottles of 90 ml pertains to Maharastra state. On enquiry the accused revealed his details. As the possession and sale of illegal Deshidaru bottles pertains to Maharastra state in an offence, the LW3 seized the property under cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and drawn sample of (02) Racket Santra deshidaru bottles of 90 ml for chemical analysis. They brought the accused and case property to the police station.

2(i).Basing on the seizure panchanama, LW3 registered a case in

COR.No.09/2023, dated 13.01.2023 and issued Crime and Occurrence Report against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act 1968 and issued notice under sec. 41A Cr.P.C with instructions to attend before the Hon’ble court whenever he receives summons. Subsequently the samples was sent to Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for examination and report, produced the remaining liquor before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

Adilabad division for confiscation. The Dy.Commissioner of prohibition and excise

Adilabad issued the confiscation and destruction order vide

Proc.Cr.No.B2/118/DCA/2023, dated 05.05.2023 and the property has been destroyed on 19.05.2023. The chemical examiner, Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No. 468 and issued report vide C.E.No.79/2023.03, dated 08.02.2023 by opining that the sample contains strength of alcohol is 26.0 under proof and it is RS based liquor and injurious to health. After completion of investigation LW 3 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of AP

Excise Act 1968.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offence

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 309 of 2023 punishable U/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as required under

4.During trial, prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and Exs.

P1 to P4 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

6.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for my determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.POINT:

9(i).As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. PW1 is panch witness, PW2 is

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 309 of 2023 investigating officer. Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on spot panchanama, Ex.P2 is spot panchanama, Ex.P3 is Crime Occurrence Report, Ex.P4 is Laboratory analysis report.

9(ii).PW1/Boyeri Sandeep deposed that about 10 months ago on one day the Excise officials called him and requested to sign on some white papers.

Accordingly he put signature on the same. He identified his signature on spot panchanama.

9(iii).PW2/R. Kishan Sub Inspector of police, Prohibition and Excise police station at Kaghaznagar deposed that on 13.01.2023 at 11:45 A.M., on reliable information he along with his staff namely Mallesh, Kumar, Ajay proceeded to Lonavelli village of SirpurT Mandal. During the raid he found that the accused was selling Deshidaru bottles infront of his house. Then he called two panch witnesses and prepared apnchanama and seized (35) Racket Santra

Deshidaru bottles of 90 ml each. He registered a case against the accused. Later he issued COR against accused vide No.9/2023 dated 13.01.2023. He issued 41

A Cr.P.C notice to accused with a direction to attend before the court whenever he receive summons. Later he sent the samples to the chemical examiner,

Nizamabad for examination and report and I produced the remaining case property to Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Department, Adilabad for confiscation. The Dy.Commissioner of Proh.& Excise, Adilabad issued confiscation and destruction orders vide Proc.No.RC.B2/118/DCA/2023, dated 05.05.2023 and property has been destroyed on 19.05.2023. The chemical examiner Nizamabad analyzed the sample Sl.No.468 and issued report vide

C.E.No.79/2023.03, dated 08.02.2023 by opining that the sample is contains

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 309 of 2023 strength of alcohol is 26.0 under proof and it is RS based liquor and injurious to health. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act 1968.

11. PW1 who is the panch witness for the spot panchanama deposed that no panchanama is conducted in his presence and turned hostile. Though he was cross examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing worth material could be elicited in support of the case of prosecution except putting some suggestions. In this case, the law is set into motion basing on the spot panchanama. Hence, the spot panchanama plays a vital role in proving the guilt of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that (35) Racket Santra deshidaru bottle of 90 ml each pertaining to Maharastra state are seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of PW1 and LW1, but PW1 turned hostile by stating that no panchanama is conducted in his presence. The entire case is depended on the spot panchanama but the spot panchanama itself is not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses i.e., PW1 and LW1 as such it cannot be said that the accused was in possession of contraband.

11(i). The investigating officer i.e., PW2 has stated about the facts of the

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 309 of 2023 case but when the independent witnesses did not support the case, it is highly unsafe to rely upon the version of PW2, who is the Excise official interested in proving the guilt of the accused. Further in this case PW2 failed to mention the names of the staff who accompanied him during raid and also failed to examine and cite them as witnesses. Further in the spot panchanama it is mentioned that the same is prepared in front of the house of the accused but in the entire case record nowhere mentioned the house number of the accused and neither the ownership nor possession of the accused over the alleged house is established in order to connect the accused with the alleged scene of offence. Further no search memo was issued by PW2, while conducting raid on the house of the accused thus the provisions of Sec.55 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 which are mandatory are not followed by PW2. Further in this case none of the prosecution witnesses identified the accused as the person from whose possession the contraband was seized. Further in this case the sample was lifted on 13.01.2023 but the same was sent for chemical examiner on 04.02.2023 as such there is inordinate delay in sending the same for chemical examination, but no explanation is offered by

PW2 for the said delay.

11(ii).Further in the spot Panchanama it is mentioned that while the raid party searching the suspicious people and suspicious places then by seeing the

Panchanama and charge sheet it is mentioned that the Excise officials took PW1 and LW1 with them for conducting the raid whereas PW2 deposed that he

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 309 of 2023 secured the presence of PW1 and LW1 only after apprehending the accused at the spot.

11(iii). The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the decision reported in 2003(1) ALD Criminal 805 (A.P) between T.Subbanna V/s. State of Andhra

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused.

13.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) of AP Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Sec.437A of

Page No.1 of 8CC No. 309 of 2023

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide C.P No. 154 of 2023, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by P. Suchitra, Stenographer, GrIII, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of October, 2023.

Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW1Boyeri Sandeep :: NONE :: PW2R. Kishan (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on spot panchanama Ex.P2Spot panchanama Ex.P3Crime Occurrence Report Ex.P4Laboratory analysis report.

FOR ACCUSED

: NIL :

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Sd/

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SIRPURT.

Order Record 6,131 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/213/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. EXcise Station, Kaghaznagar vs Vagadi Nanaji	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/309/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. Excise station Kaghaznagar vs Kunjala AnilKumar	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/397/2023	State of Telangana The Proh Excise of kaeghaznagar vs Durgam Sunitha	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/398/2023	State of Telangana The Proh and excise of kaghaznagar vs Vakade Bhgyvathi	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/400/2023	State of Telangana The Proh and Excise of kaghaznagar vs Pullaboinea Srinivas	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/438/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Elkaturi Suvarana	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/443/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Chakinala Ammakka	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/447/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Dahagam Rukma	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/454/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Swarswathi Sana	26 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/159/2016	SI of Police, Dahegaon vs Appaji Buchanna	25 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/311/2023	State of Telangana The Proh Excise Station kaghaznagar vs Sripathi Ravi	25 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/315/2023	State of Telangana The Proh excise kaghaznagar vs Danuri Mallesh	25 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/449/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Pooljala Vilas	25 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/455/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Karla Kondaiah	25 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/279/2017	SHO Bejjur vs Gomassa Shiva Ram	20 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
CC/418/2016	SI of police,Bejjur vs Darawath Ravi Alias Ravinder	20 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/36/2018	Abdul Dasthagir vs Saleema Begum	18 Oct 2023	Other	—
OS/88/2019	Ganta Bheema @ Bheemaiah vs Injari Amrutha	18 Oct 2023	Other	—
CC/266/2023	State of Telangana PS Kaghaznagar Town vs Mandal jyothi	18 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
MC/2/2019	Jhade Raj Kumar vs Jhade Swamy	18 Oct 2023	Other	—
CC/255/2017	SHO Sirpur - T vs Mohd Gouse	17 Oct 2023	Other	—
CC/252/2016	SI of Police, Kowtala vs Dileep Paul	16 Oct 2023	Other	—
OS/21/2019	Perka Srininvas vs Riyasath Ali Khan	13 Oct 2023	Other	—
CC/544/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Thiryani vs Rajesh Attem	12 Oct 2023	Order	Admission Of Claim Disposal Date: 12-10-2023 Addl
CC/538/2023	State of Telangana PS Kaghaznagar Town vs Irshad Pasha	11 Oct 2023	Other	—
PRC/12/2023	State of Telangana PS Bejjur vs Dileep Dupam	11 Oct 2023	Order	—
CC/183/2018	Bende laxmiknath vs Dr. K. shiva Darshanam	10 Oct 2023	Other	—
CC/419/2017	SHO Kowtala vs Kotrangi Shantha bai	10 Oct 2023	Other	—
CC/88/2016	SI of police, Kaghaznagar town. vs Samanthula Badrinath	09 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
OS/118/2018	Segyam Ankulu vs Athram Gangubaba	06 Oct 2023	Other	—
OS/130/2018	Kondagurla Maruthi vs Tiwade Haridas	06 Oct 2023	Other	—
CC/36/2017	SI of police, Bejjur vs Mohd Ahmed-ul-Haq	05 Oct 2023	Other	—
OS/91/2023	Gajula Avanidhar vs Induri Bapuji	04 Oct 2023	Other	—
OS/43/2018	Barla Chinna Venkaiah vs Talla Ramaiah	03 Oct 2023	Other	—
CC/159/2019	Forest Section Officer, Muthyampet vs Durgam Vilas	03 Oct 2023	Judgement	—
EP/10/2019	Barla Sathakka vs M. Hanmanthu	29 Sep 2023	Other	—
EP/16/2021	M/s Kapil Chits (Kakatiaya) Pvt. Ltd., vs Kolla Srihari	29 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/188/2023	State of Telangana Prob. and excise Station Kaghazngar vs Amal Mandal	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/192/2023	State of Telangana Prob. and excise Station Kaghazngar vs Jadala Shankar	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/310/2023	State of Telangana The Proh Excise Station Kaghaznagr vs Moulkar Mallaiah	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/314/2023	State of Telangana The Proh Excise Station Kaghaznagar vs Durgam Sheela	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/317/2023	State of Telangana the proh excise station kaghaznagar vs Ramtenki prameela	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/395/2023	State of Telangana The Proh and Excise of kaghaznagar vs Doke Gourvu	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/396/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise of kaghaznagar vs Thakkala Ashalu	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/402/2023	State of Telangana The Proh and Excise kaghaznagar vs Ramilla Rajamani	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/440/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Ajmeera Ramulu	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/444/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Vsmedi Rajitha	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/450/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Agolapur Srinivas	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/451/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Choodari Shankar	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/456/2023	State of Telangana The Proh. and Excise Station of kaghaznagar vs Sundela Devakka	29 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
CC/514/2023	State of Telangana PS Sirpur-T. vs Vssayyad Riyaz and 13 others	29 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/521/2023	State of Telangana PS Bejjur vs Sudhakar Athram	29 Sep 2023	Other	—
PRC/17/2023	State of Telangana PS kaghaznagar Town vs Rakesh Kumar	29 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/195/2020	SI of Police of PS Sirpur-T vs MD Sarwar	27 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/505/2023	State of Telangana PS Sirur-T vs Anjaneyalu Palle and2 others	27 Sep 2023	Other	—
OS/66/2018	Athram Hanmanthu vs Routh chinna Lachaiah	25 Sep 2023	Other	—
OS/108/2018	Routh Chinna Lachaiah Alias Lachaiah vs Athram Hanumanthu,	25 Sep 2023	Other	—
OS/32/2018	Mohd Nazeer vs Mohd. Shareef	22 Sep 2023	Other	—
OS/139/2017	Bhujadi Chandraiah vs Bhujadi Bayakka	22 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/186/2021	State of Telangana,SI of Police, Kaghaznagar Town vs Thandra Srinivas	22 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
PRC/18/2023	State of Telangana PS Sirpur-T. vs Gomase Venkatamma	22 Sep 2023	Order	—
EP/3/2022	Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Pvt. Ltd. Branch Kaghaznagar being rep. by its Legal Officer, A. Thirupathi vs Novile Hajara Roohy	21 Sep 2023	Other	—
EP/3/2023	Kapil Chits(Kakatiya) Pvt.Ltd., Br.Kagaznagar vs Shaik Hymath Pasha	21 Sep 2023	Other	—
PRC/3/2022	sho ps of police kaghaznagar town vs Gurle Narasimhulu	21 Sep 2023	Order	—
PRC/23/2022	State of Telangana,SHO, Sirpur Town vs Bhude Vilas	21 Sep 2023	Other	—
OS/61/2022	Pedam Bapu vs Porsetti Banakka	20 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/95/2015	Chappedi Ankanna vs Chappedi muthaiah	20 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/246/2016	SI of Police, Sirpur Town vs Shende Ravi	20 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/567/2018	Station House Officer, PS Kaghaznagar-Rural vs Atram Natwar	20 Sep 2023	Other	—
OS/36/2019	Jyothi Chadda vs Keerthi Santosh	19 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/416/2016	SI of police,Bejjur vs Kursing Sathaiah	19 Sep 2023	Judgement	—
OS/86/2018	Samera Nanaiah vs Arigela Padma	12 Sep 2023	Other	—
OS/72/2017	Madgi Nakka Mallaiah alias Nakka Mallaiah vs Nakka Ravi	11 Sep 2023	Other	—
STC/1431/2023	State of Telangana PS Dahegaon vs Gaddam Siddesh	11 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/39/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Jainoor vs Shaik Aslam	09 Sep 2023	Other	Convicted
CC/40/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Jainoor vs MD Abbas Khan	09 Sep 2023	Other	Convicted
CC/41/2020	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Padala Sampath	09 Sep 2023	Order	—
CC/44/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Lingapur vs Chawan Srinu	09 Sep 2023	Other	Acquitted
CC/53/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Thakre Ramchander	09 Sep 2023	Other	Acquitted
CC/60/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Lingapur vs Kendre Nathurao	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/61/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Jainoor vs Shaik Nadheem	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/65/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Jainoor vs Gedam Laxmikanth	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/70/2021	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Annamdas Ramesh	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/100/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Lingapur vs Dadhav Jaivanthrao	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/106/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Lingpur vs Padmavath Gammi bai	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/109/2021	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Manem Vijay	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/127/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Mengre Pandu	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/129/2020	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Patel Manoj Kumar	09 Sep 2023	Order	—
CC/140/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Chilari Prasanth	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/140/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Jainoor vs Guptha Balaji @ Balu	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/141/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Kota Vinod	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/142/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Shaik Faran @ Faran Biram Sheik	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/143/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Loyapalli Rajeshwara Rao	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/145/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Jainoor vs Chathurwad Santosh	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/151/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Lingapur vs Rathod Patthika bai	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/152/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Jainoor vs Chawan @ Chouhan Premlal	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/161/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Riyaz Bashir shaik	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/162/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Chennuri Nagesh	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/167/2023	State of Telangana, SHO PS Lingapur vs Dure Ramesh	09 Sep 2023	Other	—
CC/196/2022	Station House Officer, PS Asifabad vs Shaik Sohel	09 Sep 2023	Other	—

Showing 100 of 6,131 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2023		35
Sep 2023		1,501
Aug 2023		34
Jul 2023		27
Jun 2023		525
May 2023		24
Apr 2023		35
Mar 2023		52
Feb 2023		393
Jan 2023		29
Dec 2022		25
Nov 2022		494

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri. P. Ravi handled?

Sri. P. Ravi has handled 6133 court orders since 2021 at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 251 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri. P. Ravi hear?

Based on available records, Sri. P. Ravi primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri. P. Ravi currently posted?

Sri. P. Ravi is posted as Prl. Junior Civi Judge, Asifabad at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex, Kumuram Bheem Asifabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri. P. Ravi available online?

Yes. 16 judgments by Sri. P. Ravi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri. P. Ravi dispose cases?

Sri. P. Ravi disposes approximately 251 cases per month, based on 6133 orders handled over their tenure at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri. P. Ravi serving?

Sri. P. Ravi has been serving at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2021.

Case Types

STC 73%

CC 21%

OS 4%

DVC 1%

PRC 1%

EP 0%

MC 0%

Posting History

Oct 2023 — Oct 2023

Prl. Junior Civi Judge, Asifabad
Oct 2023 — Oct 2023

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad · 1 orders
Sep 2023 — Oct 2023

Prl. Junior Civi Judge, Asifabad · 262 orders
Sep 2023 — Oct 2023

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad · 259 orders
Oct 2021 — Oct 2023

Junior Civil Judge · 5,611 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 7

Otherwise Disposed Disposal Date: 09-09-2023 Addl 3

Convicted 2

Compromised Disposal Date: 09-09-2023 Addl 2

Admission Of Claim Disposal Date: 12-10-2023 Addl 1

Other Judges at this Court

A.Veeraiah

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, KB Asifabad

54 orders

Sri V. Sanketh Mithra

Senior Civil Judge

0 orders

Jakkula Ananthalaxmi

Prl. Junior Civi Judge, Asifabad

20 orders

← View all judges at Asifabad, PDJ Court Complex