Sri P.Vasanth

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :SRI. P. VASANTH,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2015.

C.C. No. 668/2013

Between :

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1) R. Sai Kiran S/o R. Sridhar, Aged: 22 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o Plot No. 68, Venkata Giri colony, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

A2) P. Om Prakash S/o P. Narasimha, Aged: 23 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o H.No. 6-1-521/D, BJR Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and M/s. K.J. Sheela, Counsel for the accused No.1, M/s C. Vijaya Laxmi, Counsel for the accused No.2 and after perusing the case records, hearing upon the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offences committed by him under

Sections 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.In brief, it is the case of the prosecution, that on 16.04.2013 at 09:00 hours the complainant/Lw.1 Sri K. Balakrishna, PC-3017 of P.S. S.R. Nagar lodged a complaint with the police stating that on 15.04.2013 as per the 2 instructions of S.H.O., S.R. Nagar, he along with Lw.2 Sri K. Appa Rao, SPO- 2635 of S.R. Nagar P.S. were performing patrolling duty in Madhura Nagar area, meanwhile at about 01:30 hours at Katta Maisamma temple, Madhura

Nagar, S.R. Nagar they noticed two persons standing with Yamaha FZ bearing

No. AP-09CF-6463 found in suspicious manner and when he asked them about their standing at that place in the intervening night, they recklessly told them that “no need to say you, do your work and get last” and again they warned them to leave from there but, they did not heed their words and rashly came and caught hold Lw.2 Balakrishna’s collar and pushed them by abusing in most filthy language and attacked them while performing their duties and the said persons revealed their names as Sai Kumar and Om Prakash, and said whatever you want you can do, and they fled away from the spot. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the said persons who obstructed their duties of a government servant.

Basing on the complaint of LW1 Sri K. Balarkishna, a case in

Cr.No.293/2013 under Sections 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC was registered and it was investigated, that after collecting sufficient material to prosecute the accused and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. The charge sheet was taken on file against the accused under Sections 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. They 3 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under sections 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. They denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.P1 to

Ex.P3 are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of the defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating material available on record. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record.

8. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offences under

Sections 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.This is a case for the offence under section 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC wherein Pws.1 and 2 are the public servants being the police constables and

SPO respectively and admittedly they are the colleagues. It is their similar and consistent testimony that on 15.04.2013 while they were performing patrolling in Madhura Nagar area around 01:30 A.M. at Katta Maisamma temple, they spotted two men with Yamaha FZ bearing No. AP-09-CF-6463 under suspicious circumstances. When they questioned those men about their presence there at such odd time they abused them in filthy language, caught hold their collars and pushed them. Then they fled on that bike and while going away, they disclosed 4 their names as Sai Kumar and Om Prakash (A1 and A2) and challenged them (Pws.1 and 2) to do whatever they could. Pw.1 lodged complaint.

10.Pw.3 has figured as an eyewitness but he turned hostile to the prosecution case. While Pw.4 is the I.O. whose evidence is formal one and which needs no discussion.

11.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it may be noted that in order to attract offence under section 353 of IPC, it must be proved that the public servants are assaulted. So far as the profession of Pws.1 and 2 is concerned, it is indispensable that they are police men. Both of them admitted, in the cross examination, that they were in mufti at the time of incident. Pws.1 and 2 unequivocally and in one voice stated that when they questioned the presence of accused on the road in the middle of the night, accused manhandled them by holding their collars and showing them. The evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 is corroborating with each other in all material aspects so much so that they gave the same timing, same date and same registration number of the bike. The plea of the accused is of total denial and it is suggested to Pws.1 and 2 that no incident took place and this case is foisted for the statistical purpose. This defence case faded away in the light of solid and concrete evidence adduced by Pws.1 and 2 with his natural, reliable, trustworthy and consistent one. It is significant to note that their statement that both the accused had declared their names and challenged Pws.1 and 2 to do whatever they liked. This piece of evidence proved to be truthful because the same 5 names reflected in the complaint. Point to be noted is that it is not the case wherein the accused were picked up basing on the registration number of the bike. Nothing infirm is elicited in the cross examination of Pws.1 and 2 so as to cast shadow of doubt over the veracity of their evidence. Similarly the evidence of I.O. has not been shaken in the cross examination.

15.The sum and substance of the above discussion is that the prosecution has adduced best available evidence to prove that both the accused assaulted the public servants thereby deterring them from discharging their duty.

16.However, no case is made out against the accused for the offence under section 506 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 506 of IPC.

17.Accused are found guilty for the offence under section 353 of IPC and are convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

18.When questioned about the sentence, both the accused pleaded mercy and prayed to take lenient view in awarding the sentence. Having regard to the age of the accused, I am of the opinion that only the imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice.

19.In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence under section 353 of IPC and are convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and are sentenced 6 to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each, total fine amount is Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for three months each.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2015.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 – Sri K. Balakrishna, Complainant/PC- Nil PW2 – Sri K. Appa Rao, PW3 – Sri Y. Appa Rao, PW4 – Sri K. Krishna Prasad, S.I. of Police/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Complaint given by PW1. Nil Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3 Ex.P3 – F.I.R.

M.O’s MARKED

Nil

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SRI P. VASANTH,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 15th day of May, 2015

C.C. No. 1470 OF 2001

Between :

The State represented by The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Station, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

E. Yadagiri S/o Udaya, Aged about: 22 years, R/o Near Yateemkhana Hospital, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad

....... Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri Narender, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, hearing upon the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Station, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offence committed by him under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.The Prosecution case is that on 05-08-2000, LW.4 Sri M.A. Hameed,

Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector under the supervision of Lw.3 Sri C. Satya

Reddy, C.I. of Police (STF), along with staff and panchas, on information, proceeded to the road, Yaseem Hotel, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and after waiting there for some time, at about 12:00 noon they found one scooter was coming from Masab Tank side and on signaling to stop the vehicle, 2 the said person (accused) tried to escape but he was apprehended and on search, they found one gunny bag at the foot rest and on enquiry, the accused revealed his descriptive particulars and on search of the scooter, they found three black rubber tubes containing 60 liters of ID liquor and on interrogation, the accused confessed that he purchased the said ID liquor from Dhoolpet and transporting the same to sell at Banjara Hills for his livelihood. Two samples are drawn from the contraband each sample containing 3 sachets of ID liquor and the remaining contraband and samples were seized and signed chits were affixed on the sample sachets under cover of panchanama.

It is also the prosecution case that LW.5 Sri S.V. Lakshman Reddy,

P&ESI, basing on panchanama, registered a case in Cr.No. 107/2000-01 U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act 1995, as amended in 1997. The accused was produced before the Court for judicial remand. The case property was deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad for confiscation. Further, out of the seized samples, one sample was sent for chemical analysis and the same was opined as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for potable purpose.

3.The charge sheet was taken on file against the accused under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

4.On production of the accused before this Court, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 8(b) of A.P.

Prohibition Act was framed against him, read over and explained to him. He denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5.On behalf of the prosecution, only one witness has been examined as

PW1 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available on record. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In this case only one witness has been examined and who is the

Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector. His evidence is to the effect that on 06-08-2000 having received reliable information about the possession and transportation of ID liquor on a scooter on the Road No.12, Banjara Hills, he under the supervision of Lw.3 Sri C. Satya Reddy, C.I. of Police (STF), secured the presence of panchas and on reaching there at about 12:00 noon they found one scooter was coming from Masab Tank side and on signaling, the scooterist tried to escape but they apprehended him and on search, they found a gunny bag at the footrest of the scooter and the accused revealed his particulars; that he served search memo on him and found three black rubber tubes containing 60 liters of ID liquor and the accused confessed to have purchased the same from Dhoolpet and transporting to sell the same at Banjara Hills for his livelihood; that he drawn two samples from the contraband each about 4 350 ML., seized the contraband and the scooter (without number) under the cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas; he brought the accused and contraband to P.S. and handed over to Lw.5 Sri S.V. Lakshman Reddy, P&ESI who registered this case in Crime No. 107/2000-01 and issued Ex.P1 COR.

10. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the most significant factor is that in this case LWs 1 and 2 are the prime and material witnesses being the panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure of contraband but, they could not be examined as the excise police filed report stating that their whereabouts are not known. The alleged seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has even failed to mention the names of the subordinate staff who said to have accompanied PW1 at the time of detecting the offence. At any rate, the sole testimony of the official witness like PW1 cannot be believed in the absence of its independent corroboration. Unless the contents of the alleged panchanama are proved by the prosecution, basing on the sole testimony of PW1 it is not possible to attribute the guilt of the accused under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

11.In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act and is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months. No order for the disposal of seized contraband is made, since the same was said to be deposited before the Deputy 5

Commissioner of Excise at Hyderabad, for confiscation and who is the competent authority for passing confiscation orders.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2015.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 – Sri M.A. Hameed, P&ESI Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Crime and Occurrence Report Nil Ex.P2 – Panchanama Ex.P3 – Analysis Report

M.O’s MARKED

Nil

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI P. VASANTH,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2015

C.C. No. 327/2015

Between :

The State represented by The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Station, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1) Chandragiri Shiva Kumar s/o Ramulu, Aged about: 28 years, R/o H.No. 8-4-367/116, Vinayaka Rao Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad.

A2) Chandrakala W/o Amruth Singh, Aged about: years, R/o Machilipura, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and M/s. Sri Rakesh Pathak, Counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, hearing upon the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Station, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offence committed by them under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.The Prosecution case is that on 22.05.2013, LW.3 M. Rajini Joshua,

Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector along with staff and panchas, on information, proceeded to the open place, in front of H.No. 8-4-367/116,

Vinayak Rao Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad and on reaching the said place at 2 about 9:15 A.M. they found one person (A1) conducting sales of ID liquor sachets by keeping a plastic bag and on seeing them, A1 tried to flee away, but he was caught and on search of the plastic bag, they found 110 ID liquor sachets each about 100 ML. and on enquiry, A1 confessed that he purchased the said sachets from A2 at Dhoolpet. Two samples are drawn from the contraband each sample containing 3 sachets of ID liquor and the remaining contraband was seized and signed chits were affixed on the sample packets under a cover of panchanama. Thereafter, A1, samples and seized property were brought to the excise station and handed over to Lw.4 Sri Syed

Sirajuddin, P&ESI.

It is also the prosecution case that LW.4 Sri Syed Sirajuddin,

Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, basing on panchanama, registered a case in Cr.No. 31/2013-14 U/s. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition Act 1995, as amended in 1997. The accused No.1 was produced before the Court for judicial remand. The case property was deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of

Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad for confiscation. Further, out of the seized samples, one sample was sent for chemical analysis and the same was opined as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

3. The charge sheet was taken on file against the accused No.1 and 2 under

Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. They 3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 8(b) of A.P.

Prohibition Act was framed against them, read over and explained to them.

They denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, only one witness has been examined as

PW.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating material available on record. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In this case only one witness has been examined who is the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector. His evidence is to the effect that on 22-05-2013 on reliable information about the illegal sale of ID liquor at the open place, in front of H.No. 8-4-367/116, Vinayak Rao Nagar, Borabnada, Hyderabad, she secured the presence of two mediators (Lws.1 and 2) and when they reached there at 9:15 A.M., they found the accused No.1 with one plastic bag conducting sale of ID liquor; on search of the plastic bag, they found 110 sachets of ID liquor each about 100 ML.; he has drawn samples from the contraband and 4 seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama (Ex.P2), on interrogation, A1 confessed to have purchased the sachets from A2 at

Dhoolpet for sale purpose and handed over A1, case property and case papers to Lw.4 Sri Syed Sirajuddin, P&ESI who issued Ex.P1 COR, A2 surrendered

before the Court on 28.10.2014; deposited the case property before their D.C.

and on completion of investigation, Lw.5 Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, P&ESI laid the charge sheet.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the most significant factor is that in this case LWs 1 and 2 are the prime and material witnesses being the panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure of contraband but, they could not be examined as the excise police filed report stating that their whereabouts are not known. The alleged seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has even failed to mention the names of the subordinate staff who said to have accompanied PW1 at the time of detecting the offence. At any rate, the sole testimony of the official witness like PW1 cannot be believed in the absence of its independent corroboration. Unless the contents of the alleged panchanama are proved by the prosecution, basing on the sole testimony of PW1 it is not possible to attribute the guilt of the accused under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

11.In view of the above discussion, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act and are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand 5 cancelled after six months. No order for the disposal of seized contraband is made, since the same was said to be deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise at Hyderabad, for confiscation and who is the competent authority for passing confiscation orders.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2015.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 – Smt. M. Rajini Joshua, P&ESI, Nil Who detected the offence and I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Crime Occurrence Report. Nil Ex.P2 – Panchanama. Ex.P3 – Analysis Report.

M.O’s MARKED Nil

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI P. VASANTH,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2015

C.C. No. 135/2015

Between :

The State represented by The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Station, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

U. Durga W/o Late Babu Rao, Aged about: 30 years, R/o H.No. 8-4-371/296, Baba Sailani Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and M/s Smt. N. Sujatha, Counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, hearing upon the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Station, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offence committed by her under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.The Prosecution case is that on 10.06.2014, LW.3 Sri L. Balagangadhar,

Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector along with staff and panchas, on information, proceeded to the open place, in front of H.No. 8-4-371/296, Baba

Sailani Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad and on reaching the said place at 2 about 5:10 P.M. they found one plastic bag in front of the above said house and the house was locked and on search of the plastic bag, they found 49 ID liquor sachets each about 100 ML. and on local enquiry, they revealed the descriptive particulars of escaped woman (accused) who is selling the ID liquor and left the house on knowing raid by the excise officials. Two samples are drawn from the contraband each sample containing 3 sachets of ID liquor and the remaining contraband was seized and signed chits were affixed on the sample packets under a cover of panchanama.

It is also the prosecution case that LW.3 Sri L. Balagangadhar,

Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, basing on panchanama, registered a case in Cr.No. 52/2014-15 U/s. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act 1995, as amended in 1997. The accused was arrested on 17.09.2014 and produced before the Court for judicial remand. The case property was deposited before the

Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad for confiscation.

Further, out of the seized samples, one sample was sent for chemical analysis and the same was opined as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

3.The charge sheet was taken on file against the accused under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to her under Section 207 Cr.P.C. She was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act 3 was framed against her, read over and explained to her. She denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, only one witness has been examined as

PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available on record. She denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In this case only one witness has been examined and who is the

Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector. His evidence is to the effect that on 10- 06-2014 having received reliable information about the possession and sale of

ID liquor at the open place, in front of H.No. 8-4-371/296, Baba Sailani Nagar,

Borabanda, Hyderabad, he secured the presence of LWs.1 and 2 viz., R. Tagore and R. Ramu and on reaching there at about 5:10 P.M. they found one plastic bag in front of the house and the said house was locked and accused woman was escaped and on search of the plastic bag, they found 49 sachets of ID liquor each about 100 ML.; that he has drawn samples from the contraband and seized 4 the contraband under the cover of Ex.P2 Panchanama; on 17.09.2014 he apprehended the accused, issued arrest memo and sent her to the Court for judicial remand; that he deposited the contraband before their DC and on completion of his investigation, he laid the charge sheet.

10. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the most significant factor is that in this case LWs 1 and 2 are the prime and material witnesses being the panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure of contraband but, they could not be examined as the excise police filed report stating that their whereabouts are not known. The alleged seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has even failed to mention the names of the subordinate staff who said to have accompanied PW1 at the time of detecting the offence. At any rate, the sole testimony of the official witness like PW1 cannot be believed in the absence of its independent corroboration. Unless the contents of the alleged panchanama are proved by the prosecution, basing on the sole testimony of PW1 it is not possible to attribute the guilt of the accused under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

11.In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act and is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months. No order for the disposal of seized contraband is made, since the same was said to be deposited before the Deputy 5

Commissioner of Excise at Hyderabad, for confiscation and who is the competent authority for passing confiscation orders.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2015.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 – Sri L. Balagangadhar, P&ESI/IO Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Crime and Occurrence Report Nil Ex.P2 – Panchanama Ex.P3 – Analysis Report

M.O’s MARKED

Nil

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI P. VASANTH,

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2015

C.C. No. 345/2015

Between :

The State represented by The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Station, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

Gunja Ramana W/o Ramulu, Aged about: 40 years, R/o H.No. 8-4-371/220/2, Baba Sailani Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and M/s Smt. N. Sujatha, Sri N. Babu Rao, Counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, hearing upon the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Excise Station, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad, filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offence committed by her under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995.

2.The Prosecution case is that on 02.09.2014, LW.3 Sri G. Madhusudhan

Reddy, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector along with staff and panchas, on information, proceeded to the place, in front of H.No. 8-4-371/220/2, Baba

Sailani Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad and on reaching the said place at about 9:45 A.M. they found one woman sitting with a plastic bag and on seeing them, she escaped from the spot leaving the plastic bag, they tried to caught hold 2 but, in vain and on search of the plastic bag, they found 98 ID liquor sachets each about 100 ML. and on local enquiry, they revealed the descriptive particulars of escaped woman (accused). Two samples are drawn from the contraband each sample containing 3 sachets of ID liquor and the remaining contraband was seized and signed chits were affixed on the sample packets under a cover of panchanama.

It is also the prosecution case that LW.3 Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy,

Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, basing on panchanama, registered a case in Cr.No. 108/2014-15 U/s. 7-A r/w 8 (e) of the A.P.Prohibition Act 1995, as amended in 1997. The accused woman was arrested on 15.09.2014 and produced

before the Court for judicial custody. The case property was deposited before

the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Hyderabad for confiscation.

Further, out of the seized samples, one sample was sent for chemical analysis and the same was opined as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

3.The charge sheet was taken on file against the accused under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to her under Section 207 Cr.P.C. She was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act was framed against her, read over and explained to her. She denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5.On behalf of the prosecution, two witnesses have been examined as

PWs.1 and PW.2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating material available on record. She denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT :

9.In this case only two witnesses have been examined and out of them,

PW1 is the Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector who stated to the effect that on 02-09-2014 on reliable information about the possession and sale of ID liquor in front of H.No. 8-4-371/220/2, Baba Sailani Nagar, Borabanda,

Hyderabad, he secured the presence of two mediators (Lws 1 and 2) and when they reached there at 9:45 A.M., they found the accused ran away by leaving one plastic bag and on search of plastic bag, they found 98 sachets of ID liquor each about 100 ML., drawn samples from the contraband and seized the contraband under the cover of panchanama (Ex.P2); that on 15.09.2014 he apprehended the accused, issued arrest memo and sent her to court for judicial remand; deposited the contraband with their DC and on completion of his investigation, he laid the charge sheet.

4

10.PW2 is the panch for confession-cum-seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused, but he did not support the prosecution case as such, he was declared hostile.

11. Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, No doubt, PW1 has perfectly deposed the prosecution's case but, his such evidence remained solitary testimony without there being any corroboration to his evidence. PW2, who said to have acted as panch for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama did not support the prosecution case and another panch (LW2) could not be examined. The alleged seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution. Unless the contents of the alleged panchanama are proved by the prosecution, it is not possible to attribute the guilt of the accused under Section 8 (b) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

12.In view of the above discussion, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act and is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months. No order for the disposal of seized contraband is made, since the same was said to be deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of

Prohibition and Excise at Hyderabad, for confiscation and who is the competent authority for passing confiscation orders.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of May, 2015.

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 – G. Madhusudhan Reddy, P&ESI, Nil who detected the offence and I.O.

PW2 – P. Ramesh, panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Crime Occurrence Report. Nil Ex.P2 – Panchanama. Ex.P3 – Analysis Report. Ex.P4 – Signature of PW2

M.O’s MARKED

Nil

III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD