Ms.patlolla Tejasri

1 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

ALLADURG.

Present: SMT. P. TEJASRI

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS , ALLADURG

Dated this the Tuesday, 07th day of April, 2026.

CC. No. 992 OF 2024

Crime No. & Prohibition & Excise C.O.R. No.81 of 2022 of Prohibition & Excise Medak. Description of AccusedMarvelli Mallesham Goud, S/o. Narayana Goud, Age: 52 years, Occ: Toddy seller, R/o. Gaddipeddapur Village, Alladurg Mandal, Medak District. Section of Law Sec.34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968. Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty Finding of the Court and sentence. In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence Under Section 34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly, he is ACQUITTED under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled subject to Sec.437-A Cr.P.C., for a period of Six Months.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Swathi Goud I/c Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri. M. Anjaiah, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House officer,

Medak has filed the charge sheet in C.O.R No.81 of 2022 against the 2 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

accused for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of T.S Excise Act, 1968.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 12.05.2022 accused was selling toddy illegally at outskirts of Gaddipeddapur village. Hence, after investigation, the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Station House officer, Medak filed charge-sheet under section 34-(a) of TS.Excise Act against the accused.

3.This Court perused the documents filed along with charge sheet under section 173 of Cr.P.C and took cognizance of offence under section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, against the accused by this Court.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to him and he was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. A charge for an offence U/Sec. 34(a) T.S Excise Act was framed and the allegations against accused were read over and explained to the accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1/Arukula Bethaiah,

PW2/B.R. Ramreddy and PW3/A. Rajesh and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

Police reported LW1 died.

3 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed against the accused in vernacular language for which the accused denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for consideration is:-

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence with which the accused is charge beyond all the

reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT:

Section 101. Burden of proof.

Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

10.It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Theoretically one can lay down how the matters in issue shall be decided 4 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

the prosecution must, first of all, establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and thereafter consider whether the accused has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof. With regard to cases falling in the second category, the court shall have to consider again whether all or some of the ingredients of the offence charged had been established beyond reasonable doubt. Where the offence has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the accused would be entitled to acquittal.

Lets go through the Evidence on Record:

11.To prove its case, prosecution examined LW-2 as PW1/Arukula

Bethaiah, LW3 as PW2/B.R. Ramreddy, who is first investigation officer, conducted raid and LW-4 as PW3/A. Rajesh, who is second investigation officer, filed charge sheet against accused.

12.PW1/Arukula Bethaiah in his chief deposed that he do not know anything about the case and no panchanama was conducted in his presence and he do not know the contents of panchanama.

In cross examination he denied that panchanama was conducted in his presence and seized toddy. He denied that in order to help the accused, he is intentionally deposing false.

5 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

13. PW2/B.R. Ramreddy who is first investigation officer, deposed that on 12.05.2022 at 1:10PM, on reliable information regarding illegal sale of toddy near national highway bridge road leads to Dadaipally, outskirts of

Gadipeddapur village, Alladurg Mandal, he along with his staff proceeded to the spot secured panch witness and on reaching there, found one person conducting sales of toddy. on seeing them, he started running from the spot. Himself and his staff tried to hold him but he escaped from the spot. Then, they returned to the spot, there they found 20 plastic crates, each crate containing 12 bottles, each bottle containing 650 ml of toddy.

Total toddy 156Ltrs. On enquiry with the consumers regarding ran away person they revealed that the ran away person is Marvelly Mallesham

Goud and they revealed that he is the resident to Gadipeddapur village,

Alladurg mandal, Medak District and also revealed that he is selling toddy since last 15 days. Then he took small quantity of toddy from each crate in a plastic mug, then from that toddy he took 5ml toddy in a clean test tube added sodium hydroxide and pyridine to it. Upon heating test tube until bubbles arise then on cooling test tube there is no pink colour ring formed on surface of toddy. It shows that toddy is not adulterated with chloral hydrate. Then he drawn 2 samples he took 2 clean glass bottles and poured 350ml of toddy in each bottle. Sealed them as per procedure, 6 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

pasted chits on them signed by him and the witness. Remaining toddy was destroyed along with plastic crate. Samples taken in his custody under cover of Panchanama. The case paper and sample bottles handed over to

SHO Medak for further action. Ex.P1 scene cum seizure panchanama was marked through him.

PW2/B.R. Ramreddy in his cross examination, denied that they have not seized toddy from the accused and no panchanama was conducted by him in presence of LW1 and PW1. He further denied that accused is no way concerned with alleged offence.

14.PW3/A. Rajesh who is second investigation officer, deposed that he received the case papers along with accused from DTF Medak on 12.05.2022 at 01:10PM. After receiving case papers, he issued the C.O.R

No. 81/2022. After receiving CE report, he filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Ex.P2 C.O.R and Ex. P3 CE Report was marked through him.

PW3/ A. Rajesh in his cross examination, denied that accused was not brought before him. DTF persons identified accused. He further denied that accused is no way concerned with alleged offence.

7 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

15. According to section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C before making search the officer or other person shall call upon two or more independent respectable inhabitants of that locality, if such inhabitant of the said locality not willing to be a witness to the search the officer concerned may issue an order in writing to him to do so, but in this case prosecution failed to furnish any cogent and convincing reasons for not securing independent mediators.

16.As PW.1/Arukula Bethaiah who was mediator not supported the prosecution case and in such circumstances according to the confession and recovery panchanama made by the accused before the police officer is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of corroborated evidence with the evidence of the investigation officers, it is not safe to convict the accused for the alleged offence.

17.Therefore, basing on the evidence of PW2/B.R. Ramreddy, who is first investigation officer and PW3/A. Rajesh it cannot be concluded that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused. The seizure was not proved out in accordance with the provisions of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C in the absence of independent testimony believing the evidence of police officer to convict the accused may lead to miscarriage of justice. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the 8 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 34(a) of T.S Excise Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted for the same U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused stands canceled subject to Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed directly to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 06 th day of April, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Judge, Alladurg.

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) PW.1Arukula BethaiahPanch witness PW.2B.R. Ramreddy, P & EI DTF1st Investigation officer who conducted raid and Medakpanchanama PW.3A. Rajesh, P & ESI, SHO2nd Investigation officer who issued COR and filed Medakcharge sheet

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no- 9 of 9

Fair C. C No.992 of 202 4

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS:

A. Prosecution:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description 1Exhibit P1/PW2Scene cum seizure panchanama 2Exhibit P2/PW3COR 3Exhibit P3/PW3CE report

B. Material Objects:

Sl.No. Material Object Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Judge, Alladurg.

IN THE COURT OF

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALLADURG

(Presided Over by Smt. R. Siri Sowjanya)

PRC 01 of 202 5

Between

PS Shankarampet A Through Police Station Officer … Complainant VERSUS 1:Kongonda Devaiah Age: 45 Occupation : H.No. 1-62/2, Moosapet Village, Shankarampet A Mandal, Medak District.

… Accused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 304, of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 181,185, of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 23-01-2026)

ORDER

Accused present. Perused the case record and found prima facie case for the offence under Section- 105 BNS, Sec. 181, 185 Motor Vehicle Act against the accused which is exclusively triable by Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak. Hence, this case is committed to the Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Court, Medak under Section 232(a) BNSS. Therefore, the case against the

Accused are committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions for trial of the offence under Section- 105 BNS, Sec. 181, 185 Motor Vehicle Act against the accused for being tried . The Accused is on bail and may be continued on bail during and until conclusion of trial at the discretion of the said Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Medak under Section 232(b) BNSS. The entire case record and the case property, if any, shall be submitted to the Court of Sessions under Section 232(c) BNSS. The committal proceedings are to be notified to the APP under Section 232(d) BNSS. The Accused is directed to be bound over to appear before the aforesaid Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

Medak on receipt of summons on their committal bond for an amount of Rs.25,000/- each.

Date : 23-01-2026

(Smt. R. Siri Sowjanya) Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate, Alladurg

IN THE COURT OF

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALLADURG

(Presided Over by Smt. Patlolla Tejasri)

C C 148 of 202 5

Between

PS Shankarampet A Through Police Station Officer … Complainant VERSUS 1:Mohammed Azimuddin Age: 34 Occupation : H.No. 9-5-913, Hamidiya colony, Nanded town and district, Maharashtra.

2:Syed Sameer Ahmed Age: 22 Occupation : Near Omar Farooq Masjid Labor colony Nanded town and district Maharashtra … Accused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 303(2) r/w 3(5) BNS,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 21-12-2025)

ORDER

In view of National Lok Adalath sumoto case advanced from 20-03-2026 to 21-12- 2025 in view of National Lok Adalath. Complainant/LW1 and 2 present and accused absent for the offence U/sec. 303(2) r/w 3(5) BNS complainant/LW1 reported compromise, Lok Adalath form filled since parties compromised the case voluntarily, the case is closed U/sec. 303(2) r/w 3(5) BNS Accordingly award is passed and accused are acquitted under section 359 BNSS. If any unmarked case property is there shall be return to the owner of the property on proper verification of identity particulars or shall be disposed as per procedure.

Date : 21-12-2025

(Smt. Patlolla Tejasri) Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate, Alladurg

IN THE COURT OF

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALLADURG

(Presided Over by Smt. Patlolla Tejasri)

C C 162 of 202 5

Between

PS Shankarampet A Through Police Station Officer … Complainant VERSUS 1:Abdul Ayaz Khan Age: 36 Occupation : H.No. 1-1-371, Rakasipet, Bodhan village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

2:Mohammad Sameeruddin Age: 18 Occupation : H.No. 1-1-371 Rakasipet Bodhan village and Mandal Nizamabad District … Accused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 379, of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 21-12-2025)

ORDER

In view of National Lok Adalath sumoto case advanced from 19-01-2026 to 21-12- 2025 in view of National Lok Adalath. Complainant/LW1 present and accused absent for the offence U/sec. 379 IPC complainant/LW1 reported compromise, Lok Adalath form filled since parties compromised the case voluntarily, the case is closed U/sec. 379 IPC Accordingly award is passed and accused are acquitted under section 320 Cr.P.C. If any unmarked case property is there shall be return to the owner of the property on proper verification of identity particulars or shall be disposed as per procedure.

Date : 21-12-2025

(Smt. Patlolla Tejasri) Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate, Alladurg

IN THE COURT OF

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ALLADURG

(Presided Over by Smt. Patlolla Tejasri)

C C 22 of 202 4

Between

P.S. Tekmal Through Police Station Officer … Complainant VERSUS 1:Lambadi Ganesh Age: 24 Occupation : Kamlapur Village, Shankarampet-A, Medak District.

… Accused ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 338, 337 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 21-12-2025)

ORDER

In view of National Lok adalath police filed death certificate of accused on 21-12- 2025 and verified the particulars of accused found to be correct. Hence this case is abated against accused.

Date : 21-12-2025

(Smt. Patlolla Tejasri) Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate, Alladurg