Sri P.Ravi Shankar

1

CC.NO.122/2022

FAIR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram. Date of Offence :01-10-2021 Date of Complaint or Report :01-10-2021 Date of Apprehension of accused :---- Date of Release on Bail :By anticipatory bail on 12-10-2021 Date of Commencement of trial:15-11-2022 Date of Close of trial:28-03-2023 Date of Sentence or order:04-04-2023 Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution. Name of the complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti PS. Crime No.:109/2021

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.122/2022 on the file of Judl.

Magistrate of 1 st Class Court, Ichapuram.

Name and Address : Labala Prakasharao, S/o late Suryarao, age 47 of the accusedyears, Occupation: Business, Sondi by caste, Basavakotturu village, Kaviti Mandal. Offence:- : Section 8(B) R/W 7(B), 8(c) of A.P.Proh. Amendment Act, 2020. (Imports, Exports, Transports, Manufactures, Collects or Possesses or Sells any intoxicant shall on conviction be punished) Finding:- : Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Section 8(B) R/W 7(B), 8(c) of A.P.Proh. Amendment Act, 2020.

Sentence or order:- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(B) R/W 7(B), 8(c) of A.P.Proh. Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS

PALASA (FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS

ICHAPURAM

Copy to The Hon'ble 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge's court, Srikakulam. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

2

CC.NO.122/2022

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

ICHAPURAM.

Present:- Sri.P.Ravi Sankar,

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, IPalasa.

(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Tuesday, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

C.C No.122/2022

Between:

The State rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti Police Station. …Complainant. And:

Labala Prakasharao, S/o late Suryarao, age 47 years, Occupation: Business, Sondi by caste, Basavakotturu village, Kaviti Mandal.

… Accused

This case is coming on 28-03-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri Manoj

Kumar Samantho, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.109/2021 for the offence 8(B) R/W 7(B), 8(c) of

A.P.Proh. Amendment Act, 2020 against accused.

3

CC.NO.122/2022

2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

On 01.10.2021 at about 6.00 p.m., on receipt of credible information PW.3/

G.Apparao, Sub-Inspector of Police Kaviti P.S. along with mediators i.e.,

PW.1/Narada Tellodu, VRA, PW.2/Jadu Damodararao, VRO and staff

LW.3/M.Nelakantam, PC.2139, LW.4/B.Kishore, PC were went to the house of accused i.e., Basavakotturu village of Kaviti Mandal and upon noticing the police in uniform the accused left the white package and fled. Then PW.3 along with LWs 3 and 4 chased the accused, but the accused was not traced. Later PW.3 opened the package in the presence of mediators and it contains 100 I.D. Arrack sachets each with 300 ml., After that LW.6 drawn two sample sachets separately for chemical analysis and remaining sachets were seized under cover of mediators report in the presence of PWs 1 and 2. Subsequently PW.3 brought the seized property to Kaviti Police station and registered a case in Cr.No.109/2021 for the offence under section 8(B) r/w 7(B), 8(C) of A.P.P Amendment Act-2020 basing on the mediators report, during the course of investigation PW.3 made efforts to apprehend the accused, but the accused obtained anticipatory bail in

Crl.M.P.No.320 on 07.10.2021 from Hon’ble VI Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Sompeta. Later PW.3 send the 2 sachets of sample to the Chemical

Examiner, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis the chemical examiner R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam send his report on 03.01.2022 opined that the sample sachets containing illicit distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the court. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 8(B) r/w 7(B), 8(C) of A.P.P Amendment Act-2020.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation against him and charges framed for the Section 8(B) r/w 4

CC.NO.122/2022

7(B), 8(C) of A.P.P Amendment Act-2020 read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. During the course of trial, Prosecution cited 06 witnesses and examined

LWs 1, 2, and 6 as PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MOs 1 and 2. The remaining witness that is LW.3, LW.4, LW.5 were given up by the prosecution.

6. After completion of trial, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and incriminating material were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied and reported no defence. No Exhibits were marked in “D” series.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the

accused for the offence under Section 8(B) r/w 7(B), 8(C) of A.P.P

Amendment Act-2020 as framed beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1/Narada Tellodu,

VRA PW.2/Jadu Damodara Rao, VRO, PW.3/G.Appa Rao, Sub-Inspector, Kaviti P.S.

10. PWs 1 and 2 shown as a mediators at the time of seizure of the property and drafting mediators report and PW.3 conducted investigation in this case.

Pws.1 and 2 in their evidence deposed that the Kaviti Police called them to act as mediators in this case on 01.10.2021 at 6.00 p.m., Accordingly, they went to

Basavakotturu village and found one person selling I.D liquor in the varanda of the house of accused. On seeing the police, the accused ran away by leaving the gunny bag, PW.3/ G.Appa Rao, S. I. of Police opened the gunny bag in their presence and found 100 ID arrack sachets each 230 ml., After that PW.3 seized 5

CC.NO.122/2022

100 I.D. arrack sachets in their presence under cover of mediators report. They put their signatures on the mediators report marked as Ex.P1.

11. According to the cross examination of PW.1/Narada Thellodu admitted that The police informed to him in the morning hours to act as mediator, they went to Basava Kotturu village by 6.00 p.m., By the time of calling of police, he was present at MRO Office, Kaviti. PW.1 further admitted that he went to police station in the morning hours and they went to the scene of offence by 6.00 p.m.,

He knows the accused as the accused belongs to his village. He was not identify the accused while he was ran away as by the time, there was a light fail. He further admitted that mediators report was prepared at the police station.

12. PW.2/Jadu Damodhara Rao, VRO in the cross examination by the accused counsel admitted that the police did not serve any written summons to him to act as mediator and they called him orally. He has not obtained any permision from the MRO of Kaviti to act as medaitors. The identification particulars of the accused were not mentioned in the mediators report. Mediators report was prepared at the scene of offence and he was the scribe of mediators report.

13. Hence there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 about the preparation of mediators report at the scene of offence or at police station. Further PW.1 admitted that he knows the accused as he was belongs to his village. This court is opinion that the presence of PWs 1 and 2 as mediators at the scene of offence is a highly doubtful.

14. The only evidence available on record PW.3/G.Apparao the then S. I. of police, Kaviti. He state that on 01.10.2021 at 6.00 p.m., he received credible 6

CC.NO.122/2022

information about selling of ID arack at Basava Kotturu village, immediately he scured mediators i.e., PWs 1 and 2 and his staff went to the house of accused

Labala Prakasa Rao i.e, Basavakotturu village and they found the accusd selling

I.D. arrack sachets by kept in a gunny bag. On seeing them the accused ran aay.

Then they opened the gunny bag in the presence of mediators and found 100 ID arrak sachets of 300 ml ach and darawn two samples sachets for chemicala nalysis and seized remaining sachets under cover of medaitors report. Then he returned to Kaviti P.S. along with seized sachets and registered a case in

Cr.No.109/2021 under sction 8(B) r/w 7(B), 8(c) of A.P.P.Amendment Act, 2020 and sent the two sample sachets to the RFSL Vikhapatnam for analysis. After receipt of chemical analysis report and completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. But the evidence of PW.3 is suffering with lot of infirmities. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with the evidence of any independent witnesses in this case. Hence the confessional statement made before the police is not admissible in the eye of law.

As per section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act,

2020, which reads as follows:

“7-B. Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing, transporting, setting, buying, importing exporting or storing of any alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.” 8-B Penalty for sale, export import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely:- whoever in contravention of section 7-B of this Act indulges in sale export import or transport of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor shall on conviction be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence; 7

CC.NO.122/2022

16. Further, P.W.2 and LW.4 did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. to seize the I.D. liquor from the possession of the accused Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Before making a search under this chapter, the officer or otherperson 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 if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or his willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue in order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

17. This Court relied upon the following decisions.

•In between Pothabathula Abbulu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh in Crl.Revision Case No.1758 of 2005, dated 06.07.2021 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, wherein it is held at para No.6 that:

“Even if local panch witnesses were not called at the time of recovery panchanama, it would not amount to non-compliance with sub-Sec.(4) or (5) of Sec.100 Cr.P.C., in view of presumption under illustration (e) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act”.

•In between Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (Andhra Pradesh), wherein it it is held para No.5 that:

•Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P. Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, Ex.P.5 panchanama is hit by Section 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arise due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P.5 is hit by Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non- examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt. Both the Courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle. The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the Court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the 8

CC.NO.122/2022

prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain. I.D. Liquor and it is not proved. •

18. The above decision aptly applicable to the present case on hand, since the investigating officer has not followed procedure as laid down under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., at the time of seizure of arrack from the possession of accused.

19. Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that, it is not safe to attribute the offence against the accused as alleged by the prosecution basing on the evidence of PW.3 who is

Investigating Officer. Hence, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal under benefit of doubt.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(B) r/w 7(B), 8(C) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. M.O.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS PALASA (FAC) JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

ICHAPURAM

9

CC.NO.122/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW-1Narada Tellodu, VRA.None PW-2Jadu Damodararao, VRO. PW-3G.Apparao, Sub Inspector.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Mediators report dated 01-10-2021. Ex.P2Original First Information Report dated 01-10-2021. Ex.P3Letter of advise dated 01-10-2021. Ex.P4Chemical analysis report dated 03-01-2022.

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

For Prosecution: MOs 1 and 2: Two sample ID arrack sachets.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS PALASA (FAC) JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

ICHAPURAM

1

CC.NO.124/2022

FAIR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram. Date of Offence :06-11-2021 Date of Complaint or Report :06-11-2021 Date of Apprehension of accused :06-11-2021 Date of Release on Bail:12-11-2021 Date of Commencement of trial:30-08-2022 Date of Close of trial:04-04-2023 Date of Sentence or order:11-04-2023 Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution. Name of the complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti PS. Crime No.:129/2021

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.124/2022 on the file of Judl.

Magistrate of 1 st Class Court, Ichapuram.

Name and Address : Govida Ramulu, S/o late Domburu, age 54 of the accusedyears, Occ:Labour, Samantha by caste, Bonnaputtuga village, Jagathi Panchayat, Kaviti Mandal. Offence:- : Section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (C) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 (Imports, Exports, Transports, Manufactures, Collects or Possesses or Sells any intoxicant shall on conviction be punished) Finding:- : Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (C) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020.

Sentence or order:- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (C) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. MOs 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS

PALASA (FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS

ICHAPURAM

Copy to The Hon'ble 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge's court, Srikakulam. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

2

CC.NO.124/2022

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

ICHAPURAM.

Present:- Sri.P.Ravi Sankar,

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, IPalasa.

(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Tuesday, this the 11th day of April, 2023.

C.C No.124/2022

Between:

The State rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti Police Station. …Complainant.

And:

Govida Ramulu, S/o late Domburu, age 54 years, Occ:Labour, Samantha by caste, Bonnaputtuga village, Jagathi Panchayat, Kaviti Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 04.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri

B.Suryanarayana, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.129/2021 for the offence U/Sec.8 (B) r/w 7(B), 8(C) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 against accused.

3

CC.NO.124/2022

2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

On 06.11.2021 at about 6.30 p.m., on receipt of credible information, PW.3/

G.Apparao, Sub-Inspector of Police Kaviti P.S. along with mediator i.e., PW.1/Vajja

Prasanthi, VRO, and staff PW.2/M.Nelakantam PC.2139, LW.2/Jaddedi Kesavarao,

VRA, LW.3/B.D.V.V.Prasad, PC.187 were went to the Yerragovindaputtuga village of

Kaviti Mandal and found the accused having a white plastic package and caught hold the accused, verified the the package and found 100 ID arrack sachets each containing 200 ml., After that PW.3 drawn three sample sachets separately for chemical analysis and remaining sachets were seized under cover of mediators report in the presence of PW.1 and LW.2/Jaddedi Kesavarao, V.R.A. Subsequently

PW.3 arrested the accused, brought the seized property along with accused to

Kaviti Police station and registered a case in Cr.No.129/2021 for the offence under section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (C) of A.P.Proh. Amendment Act-2020. After completion of all formalities, PW.3 sent the accused to the court for Judicial remand. Later

PW.3 send the 3 sachets of sample to the Chemical Examiner, Regional

Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis the chemical examiner R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam send his report on 03.01.2022 opined that the sample sachets containing illicit distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet

before the court. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (C) of A.P.Proh. Amendment Act-2020.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation against him and charges framed for the Section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (C) of A.P.Proh. Amendment Act-2020 read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4

CC.NO.124/2022

5. During the course of trial, Prosecution cited 06 witnesses and examined

LWs 1, 4, and 6 asPWs 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MOs 1 to 3. The remaining witness that is LW.2/Jaddedi Kesavarao, VRA. LW.3/B.D.V.V.Prasad, PC- 187, LW.5/P.Sridevi, Asst. Chemical Examiner, Visakhapatnam were given up by the prosecution.

6. After completion of trial, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and incriminating material were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied and reported no defence. No Exhibits were marked in “D” series.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the

accused for the offence under Section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (C) of

A.P.Proh. Amendment Act-2020 as framed beyond all reasonable

doubt?

9. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1/Vajja Prasanthi,

VRO, PW.2/M.Neelakantam, PC.2139, PW.3/G.Appa Rao, Sub-Inspector, Kaviti P.S.

10. PW. 1 shown as a mediator at the time of seizure of the property and drafting mediators report. PW.2 is the Police constable who accompanied with

PW.3 about the participation of the raids in this case. PW.1 in her evidence deposed that the Kaviti Police called her to act as mediator in this case on 06.11.2021 at 6.30 p.m., Accordingly, she went to Yerragovindaputtuga junction and found one person by holding a gunny bag. One police constable opened the gunny bag in her presence and found 100 arrack sachets each contains 200 ml.

The Police drawn three sachets separately and remaining 97 sachets were seized and arrested the accused under cover of mediators report. She put her signature on the mediators report marked as Ex.P1.

5

CC.NO.124/2022

11. According to the cross examination of PW.1/V.Prasanthi admitted that no written summons were served on her requesting her to act as mediator. PW.1 further admitted that Ex.P1 not mentioned that she is the scribe of Ex.P1.

12. PW.2/ Majji Neelakantam who is constable of Kaviti PS participated raids along with PW.3. PW.2 in his evidence deposed that on 06.11.2020 at 6.30 a.m., he along with PW.3 and other staff went to Yerragovindaputtuga village junction to detect excise offences and they found the accused with a white gunny bag. But

PW.2 in his evidence did not state that the presence of PW.1 mediator at the time of participation of raids.

13. Hence there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 about the participation of raids at Yerragovindaputtuga village. This court is opinion that the presence of PW.1 as mediator at the scene of offence is a highly doubtful.

14. The only evidence available on record PW.3/G.Apparao the then S. I. of

Police, Kaviti. He stated that on 06.11.2021 at 6.30 p.m., he received credible information about selling of ID arrack at Yerragovindaputtuga village immediately he secured mediators i.e., PW.1/Vajja Prasanthi and LW.2/Jaddedi Kesava Rao and his staff went to the scene of offence and they found the accused by holding a gunny bag. On seeing them, the accused ran away. Then they opened the gunny bag in the presence of mediators and found 100 ID arrack sachets of 200 ml each and drawn three samples sachets for chemical analysis and seized remaining sachets under cover of mediators report. Then he returned to Kaviti P.S. along with seized sachets and registered a case in Cr.No.129/2021 under section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (c) of A.P.Proh. Amendment Act, 2020 and sent the three sample sachets to the R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam for analysis. After receipt of chemical analysis report and completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

6

CC.NO.124/2022

15. But the evidence of PW.3 is suffering with lot of infirmities. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with the evidence of any independent witnesses in this case. Hence the confessional statement made before the police is not admissible in the eye of law.

As per section 7 (B) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act,

2020, which reads as follows:

“7-B. Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing, transporting, setting, buying, importing exporting or storing of any alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.” 8-B Penalty for sale, export import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely:- whoever in contravention of section 7-B of this Act indulges in sale export import or transport of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor shall on conviction be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend up to eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence;

16. Further, P.W.2 and LW.4 did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. to seize the I.D. liquor from the possession of the accused Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Before making a search under this chapter, the officer or 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 if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or his willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue in order in writing to them or any of them so to do”.

This Court relied upon the following decisions.

*In between Pothabathula Abbulu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh in

Crl. Revision Case No.1758 of 2005, dated 06.07.2021 of Hon'ble High 7

CC.NO.124/2022

Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, wherein it is held at para No.6 that:

“Even if local panch witnesses were not called at the time of recovery panchanama, it would not amount to non-compliance with sub-Sec.(4) or (5) of Sec.100 Cr.P.C., in view of presumption under illustration (e) of Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act”.

*In between Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2002(1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (Andhra Pradesh), wherein it it is held para No.5 that:

* Adverting to the same, the offence under Section 34 of the A.P.

Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials can never say that they are not the police officials. When once they become police officials, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. Moreover, Ex.P.5 panchanama is hit by Section 25, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. The benefit if any arise due to the invalidity of the investigation only goes to the accused and once the Ex.P.5 is hit by Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt. Both the Courts have not looked into the evidence from proper angle. The conviction and sentence awarded is, therefore, liable to be set aside due to the illegality of the proceedings drafted. Moreover, only one sample of sachet was produced before the Court and not all the sachets seized and it is for the prosecution to establish that all the samples of sachets seized contain. I.D. Liquor and it is not proved.

8

CC.NO.124/2022

17. The above decision aptly applicable to the present case on hand, since the investigating officer has not followed procedure as laid down under Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., at the time of seizure of arrack from the possession of accused.

18. Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that, it is not safe to attribute the offence against the accused as alleged by the prosecution basing on the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 who are excise officials. Hence, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal under benefit of doubt.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8 (B) r/w 7 (B), 8 (C) of A.P. Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. MOs 1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS PALASA (FAC) JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

ICHAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW-1Vajja Prasanthi, VRO.None PW-2M.Neelakantam, PC-2139. PW-3G.Apparao, Sub-Inspector.

9

CC.NO.124/2022

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Mediators Report dated 06.11.2021. Ex.P2Original First Information Report dated 06.11.2021. Ex.P3Letter of advise dated 06.11.2021. Ex.P4Analysis report dated 03.01.2022

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

For Prosecution: MOs 1 to 3: Three sample sachets

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS PALASA (FAC) JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

ICHAPURAM

1

CC.NO.262/2022

FAIR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram. Date of Offence :22-02-2022 Date of Complaint or Report :22-02-2022 Date of Apprehension of accused :22-02-2022 Date of Release on Bail:02-03-2022 Date of Commencement of trial:21-02-2023 Date of Close of trial:04-04-2023 Date of Sentence or order:11-04-2023 Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution. Name of the complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti PS. Crime No.:13/2022

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.262/2022 on the file of Judl.

Magistrate of 1 st Class Court, Ichapuram.

Name and Address : Mailapalli Syam Sundar Rao, S/o late Hanumantharao, of the accusedage 60 years, Vadabalija by caste, Occupation Labour, Ch.Kapasukuddi village, Kaviti Mandal. Offence:- : Section 34(1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020. (Imports, Exports, Transports, Manufactures, Collects or Possesses or Sells any intoxicant shall on conviction be punished) Finding:- : Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Section 34 (1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

Sentence or order:- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS

PALASA (FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS

ICHAPURAM

Copy to The Hon'ble 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge's court, Srikakulam. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

2

CC.NO.262/2022

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

ICHAPURAM.

Present:- Sri.P.Ravi Sankar,

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, IPalasa.

(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Tuesday, this the 11th day of April, 2023.

C.C No.262/2022

Between:

The State rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti Police Station. …Complainant. And:

Mailapalli Syam Sundar Rao, S/o late Hanumantharao, age 60 years, Vadabalija by caste, Occupation Labour, Ch.Kapasukuddi village, Kaviti Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 04.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri N.V.S.

Rangarao, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.13/2022 for the offence U/Sec.34(1) of A.P.Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 against accused.

2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

On 22.02.2022 at about 7.45 a.m., on receipt of credible information PW.2/

G.Apparao, Sub-Inspector of Police Kaviti P.S. along with mediators i.e., 3

CC.NO.262/2022

PW.1/Palakonda Parvathi, VRO, LW.2/Jaddedi Kesavarao, VRA and staff

LW.3/M.Ravikumar PC.2380, LW.4/M.Neelakantam, PC.2139 were went to the

Pragadaputtuga road junction of Kaviti Mandal and found the accused having a hand bag. Later PW.2 caught hold the accused with the help of their staff and opened the bag in the presence of mediators and it contains 1) 15 bottles of

Andhra Gold whisky – 180 ML plastic bottles worth of Rs.1800/- (2) 4 bottles Good

Friends Deluxe whisky – 180 ml., plastic bottles all worth of Rs.2280/- seized the liquor bottles after separate each bottle for sending to R.P.E.L., Visakhapatnam under cover of mediators report. Subsequently PW.2 brought the seized property to Kaviti Police station and registered a case in Cr.No.13/2022 for the offence under section 34 (1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and investigated into the case during the course of investigation, PW.2 sent the accused to the court for

Judicial remand. Later PW.2 send the 2 sample Liquor bottles to the Chemical

Examiner, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam for analysis the chemical examiner R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam send his report on 21.04.2022 opined that the sample liquor containing Indian Liquor. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the court. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 34 (1) of

A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation against him and charges framed for the Section 34 (1) of

A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020 read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. During the course of trial, Prosecution cited 06 witnesses and examined

LWs 1 and 6 as PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MOs 1 and 2. The remaining witness that is LWs 2 to 5 were given up by the prosecution.

4

CC.NO.262/2022

6. After completion of trial, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and incriminating material were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied and reported no defence. No Exhibits were marked in “D” series.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the

accused for the offence under Section 34 (1) of A.P.Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 as framed beyond all reasonable doubt?

To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1/Palakonda Parvathi

VRO, PW.2/G.Appa Rao, Sub-Inspector, Kaviti P.S.

9. PW.1 shown as a mediator at the time of seizure of the property and drafting mediators report and PW.2 conducted investigation in this case.

PW.1//Palakonda Parvathi, VRO in her evidence deposed that on 22.02.2022 at 6.00 a.m., PW.2/G.Apparao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaviti P.S. called her by phone to come to Pragadaputtuga village junction to act as mediator in this case. Accordingly, she along with LW.2/Jaddadi Kesavarao, VRA went to Kaviti

Police Station and from then, they went to Pragadaputtuga village junction and found the accused moving on a road by holding gunny bag and on seeing the police, the accused tried to ran away, then two police constables and PW.2/

G.Appa Rao, S. I. of Police chased and caught hold him and on interrogation, the accused revealed his identity particulars, then one constable opened the gunny bag in their presence and found 19 liquor bottles of two brands, each contains 180 ml., worth of Rs.2000/- and above. After that PW.2 seized 19 liquor bottles in their presence under cover of mediators report. They put their signatures on the mediators report marked as Ex.P1.

5

CC.NO.262/2022

10. According to the cross examination of PW.1/Palakonda Parvathi, VRO admitted that No written summons were served on her and on LW.2/Jaddadi

Kesavarao to act as mediators. They took oral permission from M.R.O to act as mediators. she reached to Pragadaputtuga junction by 7.30 a.m., and it is a busy locality. One Police constable is the scribe of mediators report

11. Hence there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 about the preparation of mediators report at the scene of offence or at police station. Further PW.2 admitted that she has seen the accused for first time before the court. This court is opinion that the presence of PW.1 and 2 as mediators at the scene of offence is a highly doubtful.

12. The only evidence available on record PW.2/G.Apparao the then SI of police Kaviti. He stated that on 22.02.2022 at 7.45 a.m., he received credible information about transporting of liquor bottles. Immediately he secured mediators i.e., PW.1/P.Parvathi and LW.2/Jaddada Kesavarao went to

Pragadaputtuga village junction and found the accused coming by holding a gunny bag and on seeing them he tried to ran away and they detained him with the help of his staff and on interrogation in the presence of mediators, he revealed his identity particulars and stated that the gunny bag in his hand is having liquor bottles. Then he opened the gunny bag in the presence of mediators and found 15 bottles of Andhra Gold whisky of 180 ml., and 4 bottles of Good Friends Deluxe whisky and drawn two bottles as sample from each brand for chemical analysis and seized remaining bottles under cover of mediators report. Then he returned to Kaviti P.S. along with seized bottles and registered a case in Cr.No.13/2022 under section 34 (1) of A.P Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and sent the two samples to the R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam for analysis. After receipt of chemical analysis report and completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

6

CC.NO.262/2022

13. Hence there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 about the time of offence and preparation of mediators report at the scene of offence or at police station. Further PW.2 admitted that they went to the scene of offence at 7.45 a.m., PW.1 stated that she along with LW.2/Jaddada Kesavarao VRA at about 7.30 a.m., This court is opinion that the presence of PW.1 and

LW.2/Jaddada Kesavarao as mediators at the scene of offence is a highly doubtful.

14. The evidence of PW.1 is suffering with lot of infirmities. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 is not corroborating with the evidence of any independent witnesses in this case. Hence the confessional statement made before the police is not admissible in the eye of law.

15. Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that, it is not safe to attribute the offence against the accused as alleged by the prosecution basing on the evidence of PW.2 who is

Investigating Officer. Hence, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal under benefit of doubt.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS PALASA (FAC) JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

ICHAPURAM

7

CC.NO.262/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW-1Palakonda Parvathi, VRO.None PW-3G.Apparao, Sub-Inspector.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Mediators report dated 22.02.2022. Ex.P2 Original First Information Report dated 22.02.2022. Ex.P3Letter of advise dated 22.02.2022. Ex.P4Chemical analysis report dated 21.04.2022. Ex.P5Attested copy of proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam in RC.No.13/2022/SEB/SKL dated 04.08.2022

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

For Prosecution: MOs 1 and 2: Two sample bottles.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS PALASA (FAC) JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

ICHAPURAM

1

CC.NO.125/2022

FAIR

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Cases tried by the Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Ichapuram. Date of Offence :17-10-2021 Date of Complaint or Report :17-10-2021 Date of Apprehension of accused :---- Date of Release on Bail:Anticipatory bail Date of Commencement of trial:15-11-2022 Date of Close of trial:28-03-2023 Date of Sentence or order:04-04-2023 Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution. Name of the complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti PS. Crime No.:119/2021

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.125/2022 on the file of Judl.

Magistrate of 1 st Class Court, Ichapuram.

Name and Address : Kadambala Syamasundararao, S/o late Gurunath, age of the accused68 years, Sondi by caste, Occ:Business, Belijiputtuga village, Kaviti Mandal. Offence:- : Section 34(a)(f)(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020. (Imports, Exports, Transports, Manufactures, Collects or Possesses or Sells any intoxicant shall on conviction be punished) Finding:- : Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Section 34(a)(f)(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

Sentence or order:- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a)(f)(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS

PALASA (FAC) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS

ICHAPURAM

Copy to The Hon'ble 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge's court, Srikakulam. The Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

2

CC.NO.125/2022

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

ICHAPURAM.

Present:- Sri.P.Ravi Sankar,

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, IPalasa.

(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ichapuram.

Tuesday, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

C.C No.125/2022

Between:

The State rep. By the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti Police Station. …Complainant.

And:

Kadambala Syamasundararao, S/o late Gurunath, age 68 years, Sondi by caste, Occ: Business, Belijiputtuga village, Kaviti Mandal.

… Accused

This case is coming on 28-03-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri Manoj

Kumar Samantho, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

3

CC.NO.125/2022

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kaviti Police Station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.119/2021 for the offence U/Sec. 34(a)(f)(1) of A.P.

Excise Amendment Act, 2020 against accused.

2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case are :

On 17.10.2021 at about 5.00 p.m., on receipt of credible information PW.3/

G.Apparao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaviti P.S. along with mediators i.e.,

PW.1/Palakonda Parvathi, VRO, PW.2/Jaddedi Kesavarao, VRA and staff

LW.3/M.Nelakantam PC. 2139, LW.4/R.Durgaraju, HC.999 were went to the Kaviti

Kotturu junction of Kaviti Mandal and found the accused having a hand bag. The accused tossed the bag and fled towards coconut topes. Then PW.1,

LW.3/M.Nelakantam PC.2139, LW.4/R.Durgaraju, HC.999 tried to chased the accused, but the accused was not traced. Later PW.3 opened the bag in the presence of mediators and it contains; 1) 24 plastic bottles of 9 Sea Horses whisky each 180 ml.,MRP Rs.150/- and 2) 6 plastic bottles of Green Choice Superior whisky each 180 m.l., MRP Rs.150/- all worth of Rs.4500/- seized the liquor bottles after separate each bottle for sending to R.P.E.L., Visakhapatnam under cover of mediators report. Subsequently PW.3 brought the seized property to Kaviti Police station and registered a case in Cr.No.119/2021 for the offence under section 34(a)(f)(1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020, during the course of investigation

PW.3 made efforts to apprehend the accused, but the accused obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.387/2021 on 24.11.2021 from Hon’ble VI Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Sompeta. Later PW.3 send the 2 sample Liquor bottles to the Chemical Examiner, Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory,

Visakhapatnam for analysis, the chemical examiner R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam send his report on 03.01.2022 opined that the sample liquor containing illicit distilled liquor and unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet before the court. Hence the charge.

4

CC.NO.125/2022

3. The case was taken on file for the offence Under Section 34(a)(f)(1) of

A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation against him and charges framed for the Section 34(a)(f) (1) of A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020 read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. During the course of trial, Prosecution cited 06 witnesses and examined

LWs 1, 2, and 6 as PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and MOs 1 and 2. The remaining witness that is LW.3, LW.4, LW.5 were given up by the prosecution.

6. After completion of trial, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and incriminating material were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied and reported no defence. No Exhibits were marked in “D” series.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the

accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) (f) (1) of A.P.Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 as framed beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW.1/Jaddedi Kesava

Rao, VRA, PW.2/Palakonda Parvathi, VRO and PW.3/G.Appa Rao, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kaviti P.S.

5

CC.NO.125/2022

10. PWs 1 and 2 shown as a mediators at the time of seizure of the property and drafting mediators report and PW.3 conducted investigation in this case. PW.1/Jaddedi Kesavarao VRA and PW.2/Palakonda Parvathi, VRO in their evidence deposed that on 17.10.2021 at 4.45 p.m., the Kaviti Police called them to act as mediators in this case. Accordingly, they went to Kaviti Kotturu junction and found one person on Kaviti road by walk by holding a plastic bag and on seeing the police, he ran away by leaving the bag on the road. Then PW.3/

G.Appa Rao, SI of Police opened the gunny bag in their presence and found 30 liquor bottles. After that PW.3 seized 30 liquor bottles in their presence under cover of mediators report. They put their signatures on the mediators report marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P1 scribed by PW.2.

11. In cross examination PW.1/Jaddedi Kesavarao admitted that he do not have prior acquaintance with the accused and he has seen the accused today out side in the court hall. PW.1 further admitted that he do not know the dress colour wore by the accused was mentioned or not in mediators report.

12. PW.2/Palakonda Parvathi, VRO in the cross examination by the accused counsel admitted that she reached to Kaviti Kotturu junction by 5.00 p.m., One

Kilometer distance between MRO Office, Kavti and Kaviti Kotturu junction. She has no prior acquaintance with the accused and she has seen the accused for first time before the court. Now she identified the accused as he stands in the dock of accused. But PW.1 did not state about the scribe of mediators report.

13. Hence there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 about the preparation of mediators report at the scene of offence or at police station. Further PW.2 admitted that she has seen the accused for first time before the court. This court is opinion that the presence of PWs 1 and 2 as mediators at the scene of offence is a highly doubtful.

6

CC.NO.125/2022

14. The only evidence available on record PW.3/G.Apparao, the then S. I. of

Police, Kaviti. He stated that on 17.10.2021 at 5.00 p.m., while he was conducting vehicle checking at Kaviti Kotturu junction with his staff and mediators i.e.,

PW.1/Jaddadi Kesavarao and PW.2/P.Parvathi and found the accused coming by holding a gunny bag, on seeing them he ran away by leaving the gunny bag on the road. Then he opened the gunny bag in the presence of mediators and found 24 plastic bottles Sea Horse whisky of 180 ml., and 6 plastic bottles of Green

Choice Superior whisky of 180 ml., and drawn two samples i.e., one bottle for each brand for chemical analysis and seized remaining bottles under cover of mediators report. Then he returned to Kaviti P.S. along with seized sachets and registered a case in Cr.No.119/2021 under section 34(a) (f) (1) of A.P Excise

Amendment Act, 2020 and sent the two samples to the R.F.S.L, Visakhapatnam for analysis. After receipt of chemical analysis report and completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. But the evidence of PW.3 is suffering with lot of infirmities. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with the evidence of any independent witnesses in this case. Hence the confessional statement made before the police is not admissible in the eye of law.

16. Basing on the above foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that, it is not safe to attribute the offence against the accused as alleged by the prosecution basing on the evidence of PW.3 who is

Investigating Officer. Hence, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to acquittal under benefit of doubt.

7

CC.NO.125/2022

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 34(a)

(f)(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties if any shall continue for a period of 6 months and shall stands canceled after 6 months, if no appeal is preferred. M.O.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS PALASA (FAC) JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

ICHAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW-1Jaddedi Kesava Rao, VRA. None PW-2Palakonda Parvathi, VRO. PW-3G.Apparao, Sub Inspector.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Mediators report dated 17-10-2021. Ex.P2Original First Information Report dated 17-10-2021. Ex.P3Letter of advise dated 17-10-2021. Ex.P4Chemical analysis report dated 03-01-2022.

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

For Prosecution: MOs 1 and 2: Two sample bottles.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS PALASA (FAC) JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS

ICHAPURAM

1

OS.04/2014

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ICHAPURAM.

Present:- Sri.P.Ravi Sankar,

Junior Civil Judge, Palasa. (FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Ichapuram.

Tuesday, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No.04 of 2014

Between:

Neelapu Mohanarao, S/o late Nookayya, aged about 60 years, Cultivation, Hindu, Residing at D.No.2-35, Neelapuputtuga Village, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, A.P. Plaintiff

And:

1.Neelapu Desayya (died), S/o late Simhadri, aged about 60 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.2-8, Neelapuputtuga village, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, A.P. (Amended as per the orders in IA.149/2018 dated 03-01-2023) 2.Neelapu Chalapathi, S/o late Desayya, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.2-8, Neelapuputtuga village, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, A.P.

3.Neelapu Janakirao, S/o late Syam Sundar, aged about 28 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.2-8, Neelapuputtuga village, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, A.P.

* 4.Neelapu Avasamma, W/o late Neelapu Desayya, aged about 60 years, Household duties, R/o D.No.2-8, Neelapuputtuga village, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, A.P.

* 5.Neelapu Syam, S/o late Neelapu Desayya, aged about 33 years, Coolie, R/o D.No.2-8, Neelapuputtuga village, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, A.P.

* 6.Neelapu Jogarao, S/o late Neelapu Desayya, aged about 26 years, Coolie, R/o D.No.2-8, Neelapuputtuga village, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, A.P.

* 7.Dalli Biramma, W/o Dalli Bairagi, aged about 30 years, Household duties, R/o Dalli veedhi, Eedupuram village, Ichapuram Mandalam, Srikakulam District, A.P.

(* Amended as per the orders in IA.149/2018 dated 03-01-2023) Defendants 2

OS.04/2014

This suit is coming on 04-04-2023 for final hearing before me in thepresenceofSri.N.Viswanath,K.Govardhanaraoand

N.V.S.Rangarao, Advocates for plaintiff; and pf Sri.A.Satyanarayana

Rao, Advocate for D1 to D3; and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants and prays to court may be pleased to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and henchmen from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule and costs of the suit.

The counsel for plaintiff filed a memo reporting that he is not pressing the suit. The counsel for defendant received notice and endorsed no objection. Hence, suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 04th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PALASA

(FAC) JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ICHAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined / Documents marked

None / Nil

Sd/- P.Ravi Sankar

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PALASA

(FAC) JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ICHAPURAM