MS.P.Swathi Bhavani

APVS050057172025 1 CC.No.1055 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.1055/2025

1.Date of offence17.08.2025 at 10.00 hrs.,

2.Date of Report or complaint17-08-2025

3.Date of taken on file22-12-2025 Date of apprehension of

4.17.08.2025 accused

5.Date of release on bail21.08.2025

6.Date of commencement of trial04.02.2026

7.Date of close of trial01-04-2026

8.Date of Sentence or Order17-04-2026 State represented by the Sub Inspector

9.Complainant of Police, Anandapuram Police Station A.1 Palakollu Ramana @ Kamal, S/o late Thavudu, Age: 60 years, R/o Near Mutyalamma Temple, Vellanki village, Anandapurammandal, Visakhapatnam city. 10Description of accused

A.2 Chokka Gowrlu, S/o Laxman, Age: 39 years, R/o D.No.5-49, BC Colony, AnandapuramMandal, Visakhapatnam city. 11Section of LawUnder Section 34(a) AP Excise Act.

12Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13Finding of CourtFound not Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offence under section 271(1) BNSS.. The bail bonds of Accused 1 and 2 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 481-A of BNSS. M.Os. 1 to 24 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : -No delay-

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bheemunipatnam

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APVS050057172025 2 CC.No.1055 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bheemunipatnam.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.1055 OF 2025

Between: The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. …Complainant And: A.1 Palakollu Ramana @ Kamal, S/o late Thavudu, Age: 60 years, R/o Near Mutyalamma Temple, Vellanki village, Anandapuram mandal, Visakhapatnam city.

A.2 Chokka Gowrlu, S/o Laxman, Age: 39 years, R/o D.No.5-49, BC Colony, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam city. … Accused 1 & 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10.04.2026 in the presence of Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.V. Parvateesam, Ld. Counsel for the Accused 1 and 2 . Having heard both sides, perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:- : : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station filed

Chargesheet against the Accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.196/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and Act No.4 (Amendment Act- 2023) with the following allegations:

2.On 17.08.2025 at about 10.00 hrs., on receiving reliable information,

LW1-A. Venkata Rao, Head Constable, Anandapuram P.S., along with L.Ws.2-V.

Srinu and L.W.3/P.W.1- M. Venkata Rao, Constables and mediators i.e., LW5/PW2

Yenugula Venkata Pushpa and L.W4/P.W.3- Polipalli Varaha Srinivasa Rao rushed

APVS050057172025 3 CC.No.1055 of 2025 opposite to Lorry Yard, Vemulavalasa village, Anandpauram mandal,

Visakhapatnam and caught hold of accused 1 and 2 who are in possession of 1)

Magic Movement vodka each 750ml - 1 bottle 2.Ky Ra Premium Red Wine,each 750ml – 11 Bottles 3. AC Black Classic Whisky.each 750 ml – 1 bottle 4. SI DUS

Wine, each 750ml – 07 bottles 5. Mansion House, each 750ml- 1 bottle 6. Mansion

House, each 375ml – 1 bottle 7. Royal Stag Classic Whisky, each 750ml – 4 bottle

8. Imperial Blue Whisky, each 750ml – 1 bottle 9. Imperial Blue Whisky, each 375ml – 1 bottle, 10. MC Dowell’s whisky each 750ml – 1 bottle 11. MC Dowell’s Whisky each 375ml -1 bottle 12. Sterling reserve Whisky each 750ml- 1 botlle 13. sterling

Reserve Whisky,each 375- 1bottle 14. Officers Choice Whisky each 750ml – 1 bottle 15. Kyron French Brandy 750ml – 1 bottle 16. Morpheus XO Brandy 750ml- 2 bottles 17.Morpheus XO Brandy each 375ml – 5 bottle 18. 8PM Whisky each 750ml- 1 bottle 19. 8 PM Whisky each 375ml – 1 bottle 20. Black and amp,Wite scotch whisky 180ml- 6 bottle 21. After Dark Blue Whisky 375ml- 2 bottle 22. Royal

Challenge Whisky 375ml 1 bottle 23. Courrier Napoleon Brandy 375ml – 3 bottle

24. Manjeera Whisky 180ml – 48 bottles (total 110 botlles) without having any license and LW1 seized the said liquor bottles under the cover of mediators report and brought the accused and seized property to Police station and L.W7-Ch.Vasu

Naidu, Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.196/2025 under Section 34 (a) of A,.P. Excise Act and endorsed the same to LW8/P.W.4- G. Santosh, SI for investigation.

During the course of investigation, P.W.4 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, arrested A.1 and A.2 and sent them for judicial custody and sent the material objects to LW6-

Asst. Chemical Examiner for examination and after receipt of Chemical Analysis

Report that the samples are Alcohol and it is a wine and after completion of investigation, P.W.4 filed charge sheet agianst the accused for the offence under

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

APVS050057172025 4 CC.No.1055 of 2025 3.This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused 1 and 2 copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 230 BNSS.

5.When the Accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 262 BNSS in vernacular language, by explaining to them in Telugu, the Charge leveled against them for the offence punishable under Section 34-A of A.P Excise Act, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P3 and M.Os.1 to 24. The evidence of LW1- A. Venkata Rao,

Head Constable and L.W2- V. Srinu, Constable, L.W6-A. Muneeswari, Asst.

Chemical Examiner and LW7- Ch. Vasu Naidu, Inspector of Police,

Bheemunipatnam were given up by the Ld. APP who reported no further evidence.

Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

7.When the accused 1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.274 BNSS by explaining to them in vernacular language the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. Point: In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and M.Os.1 to 24. PW1 is the Constable and P.W.4 is

APVS050057172025 5 CC.No.1055 of 2025 the Sub Inspector, Anandapuram Police Station. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the mediators.

Ex.P.1 is the mediators Report. Ex.P2 is First Information Report and Ex.P3 is

Chemical Analysis report. M.Os.1 to 24 are the samples bottle of seized contraband.

11.P.W.1 is the then Constable and P.W.4 is the Sub Inspector. According to them on 17.08.2025 at 10.00 hrs., they along with other staff proceeded near

Lorry Yard, Vemulavalasa village, Anandapuram mandal and found the accused 1 and 2 with two plastic bags and they are in possession of 1) Magic Movement vodka each 750ml - 1 bottle 2.Ky Ra Premium Red Wine,each 750ml – 11 Bottles

3. AC Black Classic Whisky.each 750 ml – 1 bottle 4. SI DUS Wine, each 750ml – 07 bottles 5. Mansion House, each 750ml- 1 bottle 6. Mansion House, each 375ml – 1 bottle 7. Royal Stag Classic Whisky, each 750ml – 4 bottle 8. Imperial Blue

Whisky, each 750ml – 1 bottle 9. Imperial Blue Whisky, each 375ml – 1 bottle, 10.

MC Dowell’s whisky each 750ml – 1 bottle 11. MC Dowell’s Whisky each 375ml -1 bottle 12. Sterling reserve Whisky each 750ml- 1 botlle 13. sterling Reserve

Whisky,each 375- 1bottle 14. Officers Choice Whisky each 750ml – 1 bottle 15.

Kyron French Brandy 750ml – 1 bottle 16. Morpheus XO Brandy 750ml- 2 bottles 17.Morpheus XO Brandy each 375ml – 5 bottle 18. 8PM Whisky each 750ml- 1 bottle 19. 8 PM Whisky each 375ml – 1 bottle 20. Black and amp,Wite scotch whisky 180ml- 6 bottle 21. After Dark Blue Whisky 375ml- 2 bottle 22. Royal

Challenge Whisky 375ml -1 bottle 23. Courrier Napoleon Brandy 375ml – 3 bottle

24. Manjeera Whisky 180ml – 48 bottles (total 110 botlles) without having any license. On enquiry the accused confessed their guilt in their presence and on further enquiry about their identity particulars they disclosed their names as

Palakollu Ramana and Chokka Gowrilu and they stated that they are the employees in Amrutha Restaurant and later they prepared an occurrence report and seized the contraband and sent the samples for chemical analysis. M.Os.1 to 24 are the sample bottles. P.W.4 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and through him Ex.P.2 FIR and Ex.P.3 chemical analysis report are marked.

APVS050057172025 6 CC.No.1055 of 2025

12.It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused 1 and 2 confessed to the commission of the offence and the contraband was seized from their possession. To prove the alleged offence against the accused 1 and 2, the prosecution has to establish, the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 110 bottles of wine from the possession of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

13.In the present case, to establish the same, the prosecution examined

P.Ws.2 and 3 mediators. P.W.2 the V.R.O., Vemulavalasa village deposed that on 17.08.2025 at about 10.00 a.m., near Amrutha Restaurant Bar they found Accused 1 and 2 with bottles who are employees of that Restaurant and a total 110 bottles were seized and they stated that they have brought the said bottles from the above restaurant for sale at higher price and 24 samples were drawn from those seized bottles and he along with LW4 signed on mediartors and he identgified A.1 and A.2.

Ex.P.1 is the mediators report. During her cross examination P.W.2 stated that he cannot say that out of 110 bottles how many bottles are whisky and how many bottles are brandy.

14.P.W.3 is Polipalli Varaha Srinivasa Rao, V.R.O., Mutcherla, who acted as mediator. In his chief-examination he stated that he does not remember the date of offence or who called him to act as mediator and does not remember anything about the case. He identified his signature on Ex.P1 mediators report. The learned

APP reported that the witness is resiling from his earlier statement and sought permission to cross-examine, which was accorded. In cross-examination by the

APP, he admitted that he was asked to act as mediator on 17.08.2025 and that the report was prepared in their presence, but admitted that he does not remember going to Vemulavalasa Lorry yard. In cross-examination by the defence counsel, he admitted that he cannot state the brands or quantity of the seized bottles, that he signed Ex.P1 at the police station and at the instance of the police, and that he does not know anything about this case. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 is wholly unreliable and cannot be relied upon to connect the accused with the alleged offence. No independent witness from the locality was examined. Except the

APVS050057172025 7 CC.No.1055 of 2025 contents of Ex.P1 mediators report, the prosecution has not placed any positive material on record to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

15.PW3 turned hostile and admitted that he signed Ex.P1 at the police station at the instance of the police and that he does not know anything about this case, thereby completely destroying the evidentiary value of Ex.P1. PW2, though supporting the prosecution case, admitted that the mediators report was prepared at the police station and not at the scene of offence and could not state the details of the seized bottles. PW4 himself admitted that the scene is a busy residential locality, yet no independent witnesses were examined, no photographs were taken and no summons were issued to any witness present at the scene. Further, PW4 admitted that another crime was registered on the same day in respect of the same bar, which lends credence to the suggestion of the defence that the case was filed for statistical purposes. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused by reliable and independent evidence.

16.Further, it was clearly held in the case of Waltair Club Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh 2022(3) ALT 343 (AP), that as per Section 100(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, or in case of their non-availability, any other locality, must be secured by the concerned Officer. Also, it was held the case of Karolla Chinnaiah & Another v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 ALD (Crl) 641that when the witness is himself the complainant as well as the Investigation Officer, he is naturally interested in getting a conviction and hence, he cannot be treated as an independent witness. It was further held that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that matters. But, when a solitary testimony must be made the basis for conviction, it must be free from all doubts, highly trustworthy and convincing. In the instant case, the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court in neither of the above cases are followed. Therefore, the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

APVS050057172025 8 CC.No.1055 of 2025

17.In the light of above discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec.34(A) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

18.In the result, the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offence under section 271(1) BNSS.. The bail bonds of Accused 1 and 2 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 481-A of BNSS. M.Os. 1 to 24 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1: Sri. M. Venkata Rao, Constable - PW-2: Smt. Yenugula Venkata Pushpa Latha, VRO, Vemulavalasa PW-3: Sri. Polipalli Varaha Srinivasa Rao, VRO, Mutcherla (Partly Hostile) PW-4: Sri. G. Santhosh, Sub Inspector of Police, Anandapuram P.S. FOR THE DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is the Occurrence Report --Nil-- Ex.P2: is the First Information Report Ex.P3: is the Chemical Analyst Report

M.Os. marked.

MOs.1 to 24 are the sample bottles of seized contraband (110 bottles)

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

APVS050042572025

1 CC.No.849 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.849/2025

1. Date of offence24-08-2021 2. Date of Report or complaint24-08-2021 3. Date of taken on file14-10-2025 Date of apprehension of 4. 25.08.2021 accused 5. Date of release on bail27.08.2021 6. Date of commencement of trial13-02-2026 7. Date of close of trial06-04-2026 8. Date of Sentence or Order17-04-2026 State represented by the Proh. & Excise

9.Complainant Inspector,P&EStation, Bheemunpatnam P.S., Burada Srinivasa Rao, S/o Satyam late, Age: 31 years, R/o Main Veedhi, Geddavalasa, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam 10Description of accused District. Present Address: D.No.1-49- 79/1, Banglametta, Tagarapuvalasa, Bheemunipatnammandal, Visakhapatnam District. 11 Section of Lawunder Section 34(a) AP Excise Act.

12 Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13 Finding of CourtNot Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : -No delay-

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bheemunipatnam

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APVS050042572025

2 CC.No.849 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bheemunipatnam.

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.849 OF 2025

Between: The State, represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Bheemunipatnam …Complainant And: Burada Srinivasa Rao, S/o Satyam late, Age: 31 years, R/o Main Veedhi, Geddavalasa, Rajam Mandal, Srikakulam District. Present Address: D.No.1-49- 79/1, Banglametta, Tagarapuvalasa, Bheemunipatnam mandal, Visakhapatnam District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10.04.2026 in the presence of Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.R.R.Rao, Ld. Counselfor the Accused. Having heard both sides, perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station,

Bheemunipatnam Police Station has filed Chargesheet against the Accused/

Burada Srinivasarao, in Crime No.150/2021 for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and Act No.4 (Amendment Act-2023) with the following allegations:

2.On 24.08.2021, at about 19.00 hrs., LW3/PW2-D. Padmavathi,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector along with her staff LW1-N. Demuduraju, Constable and LW2/P.W.2- K.S.Veerabhadra Rao, Constable while conducting patrolling reached near Ramulamma theatre, Tagarapuvalasa, Bheemunpatnam mandal and

APVS050042572025

3 CC.No.849 of 2025

found the accused in possession of 20 Nip bottles of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP

Brandy each 180 ml., without valid permit or license. She made efforts to secure independent mediators, but in vain. Then, they seized the said liquor bottles, drew one bottle as sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of Occurrence Report. Basing on the said Occurrence report, she registered a case in crime No.150 of 2021 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, and produced him before this Court for judicial remand and sent the samples for

Chemical Analysis. After receiving the Chemical Analysis Report opining that samples are Indian Liquor and on completion of investigation, L.W.4/P.

Srinivasarao, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Bheemunipatnam filed the Chargesheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When the Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code in vernacular language, by explaining to him in Telugu, the

Charge leveled against him for the offence punishable under Section 34-A of A.P

Excise Act, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P4 and M.O.1. The evidence of LW1-N. Demudu Raju,

Constable and LW4/P.Srinivasarao, Proh. & Excise Inspector were given up by the

Ld. APP. who reported no further evidence. Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

7.When the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him in vernacular language the incriminating circumstances appearing against him

APVS050042572025

4 CC.No.849 of 2025

in the evidence of the prosecution, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused

for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. PW1 & PW2 are Constable and Sub

Inspector respectively. Ex.P.1 is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is First Information

Report, Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis report and Ex.P.4 is the destruction proceedings, M.O.1 is samples of seized contraband.

11.P.W.1 is the Constable, PW2 is the Sub-Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Bheemunipatnam. According to PW1, on 24.08.2021 at 10.00 hrs., he along with other staff proceeded near to Ramulamma Theatre,

Tagarapuvalasa, Bheemunipatnam mandal and found the accused in possession of (1) 20 Nip bottles of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP Brandy each 180 ml., without having any license. They enquired about his name and other particulars. He disclosed his name as Burada Srinivasa Rao and they seized contraband under the cover of occurrence report. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report.

12.P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to arrest and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused and she further stated that basing on Ex.P.1 occurrence report, she registered a case in Cr.No.150/2021 and sent the accused for remand and sent samples to the FSL and received the report and after completion of investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet and he identified his signature.

APVS050042572025

5 CC.No.849 of 2025

13.It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused confessed to the commission of the offence and the contraband was seized from his possession. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., (1) 20 Nip bottles of Old Admiral Deluxe VSOP

Brandy each 180 ml., from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 could not secure the presence of independent mediators at the time of arrest of the Accused and seizure of the case property. Further, no independent witness is also shown. Except the contents of

Ex.P1 Occurrence Report, the prosecution has not placed any positive material on record to connect the Accused with the alleged offence.

14.Further, it was clearly held in the case of Waltair Club Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh 2022(3) ALT 343 (AP), that as per Section 100(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, or in case of their non-availability, any other locality, must be secured by the concerned Officer. Also, it was held the case of Karolla Chinnaiah & Another v/s

The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 ALD (Crl) 641 that when the witness is himself the complainant as well as the Investigation Officer, he is naturally interested in getting a conviction and hence, he cannot be treated as an independent witness. It was further held that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that matters. But, when a solitary testimony must be made the basis for conviction, it must be free from all doubts, highly trustworthy and convincing. In the instant case, the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court in neither of the above cases are followed. Therefore, the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

APVS050042572025

6 CC.No.849 of 2025

15.In the light of above discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec.34(A) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of

Accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O 1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026.

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1: Sri. K.S. Veerabhadra Rao --- None— PW-2: Smt. D. Padmavathi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is the Occurrence Report --Nil-- Ex.P2: is the First Information Report Ex.P3: is the Chemical Analyst Report Ex.P4: is the destruction proceedings.

M.Os. marked.

MO.1 is the sample bottle

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

APVS050040402025

1 CC.No.798 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.798/2025

1.Date of offence22-01-2022

2.Date of Report or complaint22-01-2022

3.Date of taken on file19-09-2025

Date of apprehension of

4.22.01.2025 accused

5.Date of release on bail27.01.2025

6.Date of commencement of trial27-02-2026

7.Date of close of trial06-04-2026

8.Date of Sentence or Order15-04-2026

State represented by the Proh. & Excise

9.Complainant Inspector,P&EStation, Bheemunpatnam P.S., Gundu Uma Maheswara Rao , s/o late Sanjeeva Rao, Age: 45 years, R/o 10Description of accused Peddipalemvillage, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 11Section of Lawunder Section 34(a) AP Excise Act.

12Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13Finding of CourtNot Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : -No delay-

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bheemunipatnam

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APVS050040402025

2 CC.No.798 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bheemunipatnam.

Wednesday, this the 15th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.798 OF 2025

Between: The State, represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Bheemunipatnam …Complainant And: Gundu Uma Maheswara Rao , s/o late Sanjeeva Rao, Age: 45 years, R/o Peddipalem village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 09.04.2026 in the presence of Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S Suresh Reddy. Sridevi, Ld. Counselfor the Accused. Having heard both sides, perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station,

Bheemunipatnam Police Station has filed Chargesheet against the Accused/ Gundu

Uma Maheswara Rao in Crime No.6/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and Act No.4 (Amendment Act-2023) with the following allegations:

2.On 22.01.2022, at about 09.45 hrs., LW3/PW2-D. Padmavathi,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector along with her staff LW1-N. Madhu and LW2/P.W.2- M.

Devi, Constables while conducting patrolling near Ramalayam, Peddipalem village of Anandapuram mandal found the Accused in possession of (1) 12 Nip bottles of

Brilliant Blend Superior Grain Whisky each 180 ml., without valid permit or license.

APVS050040402025

3 CC.No.798 of 2025

She made efforts to secure independent mediators, but in vain. Then, they seized the said liquor bottles, drew one bottle as sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of Occurrence Report. Basing on the said

Occurrence report, she registered a case in crime No.6 of 2022 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, and produced him before this Court for judicial remand and sent the samples for Chemical Analysis. After receiving the Chemical Analysis

Report opining that samples are Indian Liquor and on completion of investigation,

L.W.4/P. Srinivasarao, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Bheemunipatnam filed the

Chargesheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When the Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code in vernacular language, by explaining to him in Telugu, the

Charge leveled against him for the offence punishable under Section 34-A of A.P

Excise Act, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P4 and M.O.1. The evidence of LW1-M. Vaheeda, Constable and LW4/P.Srinivasarao, Proh. & Excise Inspector were given up by the Ld. APP.

who reported no further evidence. Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

7.When the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him in vernacular language the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

APVS050040402025

4 CC.No.798 of 2025

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused

for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. PW1 & PW2 are Constable and Sub

Inspector respectively. Ex.P.1 is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is First Information

Report, Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis report and Ex.P.4 is the destruction proceedings, M.O.1 is samples of seized contraband.

11.P.W.1 is the Constable, PW2 is the Sub-Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Bheemunipatnam. According to PW1, on 22.1.2022 at 09.45 hrs., she along with other staff proceeded to Ramalayam temple at

Peddipalem village of Anandapuram mandal and found the accused in possession of (1) Nip bottles of Brilliant Ble4nd Superior Grain Whisky each 180 ml., 12 bottles without having any license. They enquired about his name and other particulars. He disclosed his name and they seized contraband under the cover of occurrence report. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report.

12.P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to arrest and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused and he further stated that basing on Ex.P.1 occurrence report, she registered a case in Cr.No.06/2022 and sent the accused for remand and sent samples to the FSL and received the report and after completion of investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet and he identified his signature.

13.It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused confessed to the commission of the offence and the contraband was seized from his possession. To

APVS050040402025

5 CC.No.798 of 2025

prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., (1) 12 Nip bottles of Brilliant Blend Superior

Grain Whisky each 180 m.l., from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 could not secure the presence of independent mediators at the time of arrest of the Accused and seizure of the case property. Further, no independent witness is also shown. Except the contents of Ex.P1 Occurrence Report, the prosecution has not placed any positive material on record to connect the Accused with the alleged offence.

14.Further, it was clearly held in the case of Waltair Club Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh 2022(3) ALT 343 (AP), that as per Section 100(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, or in case of their non-availability, any other locality, must be secured by the concerned Officer. Also, it was held the case of Karolla Chinnaiah & Another v/s

The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 ALD (Crl) 641 that when the witness is himself the complainant as well as the Investigation Officer, he is naturally interested in getting a conviction and hence, he cannot be treated as an independent witness. It was further held that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that matters. But, when a solitary testimony must be made the basis for conviction, it must be free from all doubts, highly trustworthy and convincing. In the instant case, the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court in neither of the above cases are followed. Therefore, the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

15.In the light of above discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec.34(A) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

APVS050040402025

6 CC.No.798 of 2025

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of

Accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O 1is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 h day of April, 2026.

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1: Sri. M. Devi --- None— PW-2: Smt. D. Padmavathi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is the Occurrence Report --Nil-- Ex.P2: is the First Information Report Ex.P3: is the Chemical Analyst Report Ex.P4: is the destruction proceedings.

M.Os. marked.

MO.1 is the sample bottle

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

APVS050040392025 1 CC.No.797 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.797/2025

1.Date of offence17-01-2022

2.Date of Report or complaint17-01-2022

3.Date of taken on file19-09-2025

Date of apprehension of

4.17.01.2025 accused

5.Date of release on bail20.01.2025

6.Date of commencement of trial27-02-2026

7.Date of close of trial06-04-2026

8.Date of Sentence or Order16-04-2026

State represented by the Proh. & Excise

9.Complainant Inspector,P&EStation, Bheemunpatnam P.S., Mandala Bangaramma, W/o late Appala Swamy, Age: 50 years, R/o Pandrangi 10Description of accused village,PadmanabhamMandal, Visakhapatnam District. 11Section of Lawunder Section 34(a) AP Excise Act.

12Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13Finding of CourtNot Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and she is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused as well as her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O 1is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : -No delay-

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bheemunipatnam

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APVS050040392025 2 CC.No.797 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bheemunipatnam.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.797 OF 2025

Between: The State, represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Bheemunipatnam …Complainant And: Mandala Bangaramma, W/o late Appala Swamy, Age: 50 years, R/o Pandrangi village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 13.04.2026 in the presence of Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.R.R. Rao, Ld. Counselfor the Accused. Having heard both sides, perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station,

Bheemunipatnam Police Station has filed Chargesheet against the Accused/

Mandala Bangaramma in Crime No.5/2022 for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and Act No.4 (Amendment Act-2023) with the following allegations:

2.On 17.01.2022, at about 11.00 hrs., LW3/PW2-D. Padmavathi,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector along with her staff LW1/P.W.1- M. Devi and LW2-Smt.

M. Vaheedha, Constables while conducting patrolling near Sri Venugopala Swamy temple, Pandraki village of Padmanabham mandal found the Accused in possession of (1) 8 Nip bottles of Silver Stripes Whisky each 180 ml., without valid

APVS050040392025 3 CC.No.797 of 2025 permit or license. She made efforts to secure independent mediators, but in vain.

Then, they seized the said liquor bottles, drew one bottle as sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of Occurrence Report. Basing on the said Occurrence report, she registered a case in crime No.5 of 2022 under

Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, and produced her before this Court for judicial remand and sent the samples for Chemical Analysis. After receiving the Chemical

Analysis Report opining that samples are Indian Liquor and on completion of investigation, L.W.4/P. Srinivasarao, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Bheemunipatnam filed the Chargesheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When the Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code in vernacular language, by explaining to her in Telugu, the Charge leveled against her for the offence punishable under Section 34-A of A.P Excise Act, she denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P4 and M.O.1. The evidence of LW2-M. Vaheeda, Constable and LW4/P.Srinivasarao, Proh. & Excise Inspector were given up by the Ld. APP.

who reported no further evidence. Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

7.When the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to her in vernacular language the incriminating circumstances appearing against her in the evidence of the prosecution, she denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

APVS050040392025 4 CC.No.797 of 2025

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused

for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. PW1 & PW2 are Constable and Sub

Inspector respectively. Ex.P.1 is the Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is First Information

Report, Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis report and Ex.P.4 is the destruction proceedings, M.O.1 is samples of seized contraband.

11.P.W.1 is the Constable, PW2 is the Sub-Inspector, Special

Enforcement Bureau Station, Bheemunipatnam. According to PW1, on 17.1.2022 at 11.00 hrs., she along with other staff proceeded to Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple at Pandranki village of Padmanabham mandal and found the accused in possession of (1) 08 Nip bottles of Silver Stripes Whisky each 180 ml., without having any license. They enquired about her name and other particulars. She disclosed her name and they seized contraband under the cover of occurrence report. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report.

12.P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to arrest and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused and he further stated that basing on Ex.P.1 occurrence report, she registered a case in Cr.No.05/2022 and sent the accused for remand and sent samples to the FSL and received the report and after completion of investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet.

13.It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused confessed to the commission of the offence and the contraband was seized from his possession. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the

APVS050040392025 5 CC.No.797 of 2025 alleged seizure of case property i.e., (1) 8 Nip bottles of Silver Stripes Whisky each 180 ml., from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 could not secure the presence of independent mediators at the time of arrest of the Accused and seizure of the case property. Further, no independent witness is also shown. Except the contents of Ex.P1 Occurrence

Report, the prosecution has not placed any positive material on record to connect the Accused with the alleged offence.

14.Further, it was clearly held in the case of Waltair Club Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh 2022(3) ALT 343 (AP), that as per Section 100(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, or in case of their non-availability, any other locality, must be secured by the concerned Officer. Also, it was held the case of Karolla Chinnaiah & Another v/s

The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 ALD (Crl) 641 that when the witness is himself the complainant as well as the Investigation Officer, he is naturally interested in getting a conviction and hence, he cannot be treated as an independent witness. It was further held that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that matters. But, when a solitary testimony must be made the basis for conviction, it must be free from all doubts, highly trustworthy and convincing. In the instant case, the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court in neither of the above cases are followed. Therefore, the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

15.In the light of above discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec.34(A) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

APVS050040392025 6 CC.No.797 of 2025

16. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and she is set at liberty. The bail bonds of

Accused as well as her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O 1is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 h day of April, 2026.

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1: Sri. M. Devi --- None— PW-2: Smt. D. Padmavathi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is the Occurrence Report --Nil-- Ex.P2: is the First Information Report Ex.P3: is the Chemical Analyst Report Ex.P4: is the destruction proceedings.

M.Os. marked.

MO.1 is the sample bottle

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

APVS050040332025

1 CC.No.791 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.791/2025

1.Date of offence05-07-2021

2.Date of Report or complaint05-07-2021

3.Date of taken on file19-09-2025

Date of apprehension of

4.05.07.2021 accused

5.Date of release on bail13.07.2021

6.Date of commencement of trial02-02-2026

7.Date of close of trial02-02-2026

8.Date of Sentence or Order16-04-2026

State represented by the Proh. & Excise

9.Complainant Inspector,P&EStation, Bheemunpatnam P.S., Yerrai Lakshmana Rao, S/o Krishna, Age: 45 years, R/o T.V. Agraharam, Tunivalasa 10Description of accused village of Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 11Section of Lawunder Section 34(a) AP Excise Act.

12Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13Finding of CourtNot Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : -No delay-

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bheemunipatnam

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

APVS050040332025

2 CC.No.791 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Present: Smt. Swathi Bhavani Potla XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bheemunipatnam.

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO.791 OF 2025

Between: The State, represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Bheemunipatnam …Complainant And: Yerrai Lakshmana Rao, S/o Krishna, Age: 45 years, R/o T.V. Agraharam, Tunivalasa village of Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10.04.2026 in the presence of Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.R.R. Rao Ld. Counselfor the Accused. Having heard both sides, perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

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

The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station,

Bheemunipatnam Police Station has filed Chargesheet against the Accused/ Yerrai

Lakshmana Rao in Crime No.105/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of AP Excise Act and Act No.4 (Amendment Act-2023) with the following allegations:

2.On 05.07.2021, at about 18.30 hrs., LW3/PW1-D. Padmavathi,

Enforcement Sub Inspector along with her staff LW1-K. Ramakrishna Rao and of

L.W2-Sri K. Trinadha Rao, Constables while conducting patrolling reached

Tunivalasa village limits near Tar road leading to padmanabham village and found the Accused in possession of (1) 10 Nip bottles of royal Palace VSOP Brandy each 180 ml., without valid permit or license. She made efforts to secure independent

APVS050040332025

3 CC.No.791 of 2025

mediators, but in vain. Then, she seized the said liquor bottles, drew one bottle as sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of

Occurrence Report. Basing on the said Occurrence report, she registered a case in crime No.105 of 2021 under Section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act, and produced him

before this Court for judicial remand and sent the samples for Chemical Analysis.

After receiving the Chemical Analysis Report opining that samples are Indian made liquor and on completion of investigation, L.W.4/P. Srinivasarao, Proh. & Excise

Inspector, Bheemunipatnam filed the Chargesheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.When the Accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code in vernacular language, by explaining to him in Telugu, the

Charge leveled against him for the offence punishable under Section 34-A of A.P

Excise Act, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. Thus, the case was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P4 and M.O.1. The evidence of rest of witnesses were given up by the

Ld. APP who reported no further evidence. Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

7.When the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him in vernacular language the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence is closed.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record

APVS050040332025

4 CC.No.791 of 2025

9.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(A) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. PW1 is the Sub Inspector. Ex.P.1 is the

Occurrence Report. Ex.P2 is First Information Report, Ex.P3 is Chemical Analysis report and Ex.P.4 is the destruction proceedings, M.O.1 is the samples bottle of seized contraband.

11.P.W.1 is the then Sub-Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station,

Bheemunipatnam. According to PW1, on 05.7.2021 at 18.30 hrs., she along with other staff proceeded to Tunivalasa village limits towards north direction near a tar road leading to padmanabham mandal and found the accused in possession of (1) 10 Nip bottles of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy each 180 ml., without having any license. They enquired about his name and other particulars and he confessed the offence and disclosed his name as Yerri Lakshmana Rao and they seized contraband under the cover of occurrence report. Ex.P.1 is the occurrence report.

P.W.1 further deposed that basing on Ex.P.1 occurrence report, she registered a case in Cr.No.105/2021 and sent the accused for remand and sent samples to the

FSL and received the report and after completion of investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet and he identified his signature.

13.It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused confessed to the commission of the offence and the contraband was seized from his possession. To prove the alleged offence against the accused, the prosecution has to establish the alleged seizure of case property i.e., 10 Nip bottles of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy each 180 ml., from the possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by any independent

APVS050040332025

5 CC.No.791 of 2025

witnesses. P.W.1 could not secure the presence of independent mediators at the time of arrest of the Accused and seizure of the case property. Further, no independent witness is also shown. Except the contents of Ex.P1 Occurrence

Report, the prosecution has not placed any positive material on record to connect the Accused with the alleged offence.

14.Further, it was clearly held in the case of Waltair Club Vs State of

Andhra Pradesh 2022(3) ALT 343 (AP), that as per Section 100(4) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, or in case of their non-availability, any other locality, must be secured by the concerned Officer. Also, it was held the case of Karolla Chinnaiah & Another v/s The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 ALD (Crl) 641 that when the witness is himself the complainant as well as the Investigation Officer, she is naturally interested in getting a conviction and hence, she cannot be treated as an independent witness. It was further held that it is not the quantity, but the quality of evidence that matters. But, when a solitary testimony must be made the basis for conviction, it must be free from all doubts, highly trustworthy and convincing. In the instant case, the guidelines of the Hon’ble High Court in neither of the above cases are followed. Therefore, the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

15.In the light of above discussions, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Sec.34(A) of A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(A) of A.P. Excise Act. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months

APVS050040332025

6 CC.No.791 of 2025

as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer Grade-II of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bheemunipatnam

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1: Smt. D. Padmavathi --- None—

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is the Occurrence Report --Nil-- Ex.P2: is the First Information Report Ex.P3: is the Chemical Analyst Report Ex.P4: is the destruction proceedings.

M.Os. marked.

MO.1 is the the sample bottles

XV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bheemunipatnam