Sri Pattan Shiyaz Khan

C.C.No.585/2019 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL

Calendar Case No.585/2019

1.Offence:05-07-2018

2.Complaint:05-07-2018

3.Apprehension of Accused:

4.Commencement of Trial:29-11-2022

5.Close of Trial:04-07-2023

6.Judgment:16-11-2023

7.Complainant:The State, rep. by Sub Divisional Police Ofcer, Kurnool.

8.Name of the Accused:1. P.G.Narasimhulu Yadav

2. P.G.Gopinath Yadav

3. P.Loknath Yadav @ Buji Yadav

4. P.G.Pradeep Venkatesh Yadav @ Naani

9.Offence:U/s. 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of IPC

10. Plea of Accused:NOT GUILTY

11. Finding:NOT GUILTY

12. Result:In the result, Accused No1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure from the charge punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused have not under gone any remand period.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on fle on 30-03- 2019. Trial commenced on 29-11-2022and closed on 04-07-2023 and on 16-11-2023, the Judgment was pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/-Pattan Shiyaz Khan

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL

Copy submitted 1.)To the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool. 2.)The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. 3.) The Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 8

C.C.No.585/2019 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR (PROHIBITION AND EXCISE), KURNOOL

Present:- Mr.PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool Thursday, this the Sixteenth [16th] day of November, 2023

Calendar Case No.585/2019

Of

Crime No.190/2018

Between: The State, Represented by

The Sub Divisional Police Ofcer, Kurnool...Complainant

AND

1. Sri P.G.Narasimhulu Yadav, S/o P. Narasimhulu, age 51 years, H.No.41/104-B, Kotthapeta, Kurnool Town.

2. Sri P.G.Gopinath Yadav, age 31 years. S/o P.G.Venkateswarlu, H.No.41/104-B, Upstairs, Kotthapeta, Kurnool Town.

3. Sri P.Loknath Yadav @ Buji Yadav, Age: 38 years. S/o P.G.Venkateswarlu, H. No 41/104-B, Up stairs, Kotthapeta, Kurnool Town.

4. Sri P.G.Pradeep Venkatesh Yadav @ Naani, age 28 years, S/o P.G.Rampullaiah, H.No.41/104-B, Kotthapeta, Kurnool Town.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 16-11-2023 for fnal hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State for the complainant and Sri B.Murali Mohan, Advocate for Accused, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Facts of the case:

The Sub Divisional Police Ofcer, fled Report under section 173 of Criminal

Procedure Code in Cr.No.190/2018 against the Accused no.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 326, 506, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Report Contents In Brief:

2.) a)On 05-7-2018 at about 17:45 hrs LW.1(S.K.Hassan) went to the noodles cart, which was situated near the house of the accused no.1. On seeing

LW.1, the accused no.1 who was standing on the roof instigated the accused no.2 to 4 stating that “PATTUKONDI RAA VAANNI”. On instigation A2 to A4 came to LW.1 and questioned, as “YEMI RAA MAA AREA LO KI VACHINAAVU, IDI MAADI RAA

ADDA, NUVVU EE AREA LO TIRUGA KUDADU”. Then A2 to A4 beat on the head of

Corrections Page No. 2 of 8

C.C.No.585/2019 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool LW.1 with an iron rod causing bleeding injury and A3 gave a fst blow on the right eye and nose causing bleeding injuries. Then all were pushed LW.1 on the ground and beat with hands and legs due to which LW.1 raised cries thereby Lw.2 (Sk.Saleem) & Lw.3 (Sk.Farooq) who witnessed the same rescued LW.1 from the hands of accused no.2 to 4. The accused no.2 to 4 left by threatening Lw.1 as “NUVVU INKOKA SAARI MAA AREA LO KI VASTHE CHAMPESTHAM”. Then LWs.2 & 3 shifted LW.1 to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. On information about the same LW.6 (G.Krishna Murthy) went to GGH, Kurnool on 05- 07-2018 at 10:00 PM and recorded his statement. After returning to Police Station

LW.6 registered said statement as FIR in Crime No.190/2018 Under sections 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and took up investigation in the course of investigation LW.6 examined LW.1, and recorded his detailed statement U/s 161(3)

Cr.P.C., examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scence.

LatertheSuperintendentofPoliceissuedmemovide

C.No.C4/3128(1)/SC-ST/2018, dt:06.07.2018 on which LW.7 (N.Yugandhar Babu) took up further investigation and examined their statements then he verifed the rough sketch of the scene which was found to be correct. On 24.05.2018 all the accused surrendered before this court and obtained bail. Later LW.4 (Dr. J.Vimala

Kumari) who examined LW.1 issued wound certifcate basing on the report issued by the LW.5 (Dr.Padmavathi). Hence the charge.

Procedure followed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

3.)Basing on the said report, this court took cognizance for the offence under

Sections U/Sec. 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused no.1 to 4 as contemplated under Sec. 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure and on appearance of accused copies were supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.)On examination of accused no.1 to 4 under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and after framing the charge under Sec.240 of Code of Criminal

Procedure for the offence under Sectiion 323, 324, 326, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and explaining the charges of the offence punishable under Sec. 323, 324,

Corrections Page No. 3 of 8

C.C.No.585/2019 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool 326, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.)To prove the said charges prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and get marked Exs.P1 to P6. On closure of prosecution evidence accused were examined under 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and on questioning them about the incriminating material they denied the same and pleaded no defence.

6.)Heard the arguments of both the counsels.

Point for determination:

7.)Now the point for determination is whether the accused have

committed the ofence under section 323, 324, 326, 506, r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code , and whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of

the accused for the ofence under Sec. 323, 324, 326, 506, r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

Discussion:

8.)In short the case of the prosecution is that the acused No.1 to 4 beat LW.1 with an iron rod on hands and legs causing simple and grievious injuries. Charge

Under Section 323, 324, 326, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed. To prove the said charges the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW6. PW.1 is the injured/informant, PW.2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution, PW.4 is the Doctor who treated LW.1, PW.5 and PW.6 are the investigation ofcers. To prove the charges Under Section 323, 324, 326, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code the prosecution has to establish following evidence.

To establish the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 326, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code the following ingredients are essential:

Section 323 of Indian Penal Code:

 The hurt caused the victim to suffer bodily pain, disease, or infrmity.  The accused caused hurt or bodily pain to the victim.  The accused had caused the hurt with the intention or with knowledge. Section 324 of Indian Penal Code:

Voluntarily causing hurt, by use of dangerous weapons or means, and the act must cause bodily pain, disease or infrmity.

Corrections Page No. 4 of 8

C.C.No.585/2019 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool

Section 326 of Indian Penal Code: Voluntarily causing a hurt; Hurt caused must be a grievous hurt; and The grievous hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means.

Section 506 of Indian Penal Code: making a threat, the intent to cause alarm or apprehension, and the knowledge that the threat is likely to cause such alarm or apprehension

9.)Regarding this the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.4 to Pw.6.

PW1 deposed that on 05-07-2018 at about 5:00 PM to 6-00 PM, he went to the main centre of Kothapeta to a fast food centre to have noodles, and after giving order he was waiting aside, at that time A1 to A4 who were present near the apartment, which is situated adjacent to the food centre, A1 to A4 shouted at him by stating that he should not come here and thereby they got down from the apartment and came towards him and A2 beat him with a rod on back side of his head as a result, he sustained bleeding injury and he fell down on the ground then

A3 beat him with his hands on his nose and right eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury; that the Accused beat him with their hands and legs and immediately PW.2 and 3 who witnessed the said incident, rescued him from the hands of A1 to A4 and then he was to shifted to Government General Hospital, there Police came and recorded his statement under Ex.P1. PW.4 who treated

PW.1 deposed that on 05-07-2018 at about 6:30 PM, PW1 who was accompanied by PW.2 and noticed injuries on which she ordered investigation and PW.1 admitted in Neuro surgery ward for four days and he was managed conservatively and later discharged on 09.07.2018; that later he issued Ex.P4 wound certifcate. Pw.5 deposed that on 05-07-2018, he received MLC intimation from GGH Kurnool and thereby he recorded Ex.P1 of PW.1 and after returning to police station he registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P5 and sent the original to this court and copies to the concerned authorities, then he took up investigation and went to

GGH there he recorded the statement of PW.1; that he visited the scene and prepared Ex.P6, later the counter case under SC/ST atrocity was registered as such he handed over the investigation to PW.6. Pw.6 deposed that on 06-07-2018,

Corrections Page No. 5 of 8

C.C.No.585/2019 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool he received Ofcial memo from the Superintendent of Police to investigate the case in Cr.No.193/2018 U/Sec 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Kurnool II town PS and mmediately, he took up investigation by obtaining CD fle from PW.5 he verifed the investigation done by PW5 and found it to be on correct lines, on 07-07-2018, he visited the GGH, Kurnool, there he secured PW.1 examined him and recorded his statement and he reiterated the same version; that he secured PW.2, PW.3 and recorded the statement and he moved around the vicinity to secure some other witnesses but they did not came forward to give evidence and later, he was transferred. This part of the evidence was not shattered in any manner in the cross examination.

10.) The learned counsel for accused contended that the accused was falsely implicated in this case as a counter blast and the accused did not commit any offence. Thereby pleaded to aquit the accused.On careful consideration of entire evidence of prosecution, the entire case rest on the testimony of Pw.1, 4, 5 and 6.

Pw.5 and Pw.6 are the police ofcials as such their evidence has to be weighed cautiously. The counsel for accused argued that Pw.1 is a police ofcial and he is in the habit of creating nuisance against the people and also admitted that his shirt was stained with blood and the police did not seize any blood stained clothes in the course of investigation. Further, argued that radiologist was not examined as such the offence under section 326 of Indian Penal Code is not proved. Pw.5 and Pw.6 did not make any investigation or did not make any efforts to seize the blood stained shirt. The entire case rests on testimony of Pw.1. Pw.1 admitted that he and his brother were living together in the same house in Kurnool town since long time and he do not know that criminal cases were fled agaist his brother and this case was fled against his brother which is unbelievable. The learned counsel

for accused argued that there is unsustainibility in the evidence of Pw.1 as such

the evidence of Pw.1 is quite unsafe to be relied upon. Pw.5 admitted that Pw.1 in

Ex.P1 did not state that A2 beat him with an iron rod on the backside of his head as a result he sustained bleeding injury (improvement). The learned counsel for accused contended that this case was fled as a counter blast to a case fled by

Dinesh Raju and Vasanth Kumar. Pw.6 admitted that he investigated the present

Corrections Page No. 6 of 8

C.C.No.585/2019 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool case and also the case in Crime No.193/2018 was registered against A1 and some others. Pw.6 admitted that the Crime No.193/2018 i.e., Ex.D1 was registered on 06.07.2018 and the time of offence was on 05.07.2018 at 05:30 PM and the present, Crime under Ex.P1 was registred on 05.07.2018 at 11:00 PM whereas the offence was occured at 05:45 PM. The contention of accused counsel is that PW.1 was a police ofcer as such he get infuenced by the police and get registered

Ex.P1 before Ex.D1. There is no corroboration to the testimony of PW.1. The entire evidence disclose enimosity between Pw.1 and accused. Surprisingly, Pw.2 who is the brother of PW.1 did not support the version of PW.1 which creates a doubt about the version of Pw.1. This kind of evidence is quite unsafe to be relied upon and the evindence placed by prosecution is not sufcient to convict the accused.

Reasons:

11.) Hence, there is no hinch to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 323, 324, 326, 506, r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.

Result:

12.) In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under

Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure from the charge punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled as per Section 437-A of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The Accused have not under gone any remand period.

Typed on dictation by Stenographer on dual computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the16th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-Pattan Shiyaz Khan

Special Judicial Magistrate Of First Class

(for Prohibition and Excise) Kurnool

Corrections Page No. 7 of 8

C.C.No.585/2019 Spl.JMFC (P&E), Kurnool

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence

side PW1: S.K.Hasan --Nil-- PW2: Shaik Farooq PW3: Shaik Saleem PW4: Dr.J.Vimala Kumari PW5: G.Krishna Murthy PW6: N.Yugandhar Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Ex.P1: Report. Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2. Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3. Ex.P4: Wound Certifcate. Ex.P5: FIR Ex.P6: Rough Sketch. Defence Ex.D1: Certifed copy of FIR in Cr.No.193/2018 along with statement of S.Dinesh Raju, accident intimation of Dinesh Raju and Vasantha Kumar.

Sd/-Pattan Shiyaz Khan

Special Judicial Magistrate Of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise) Kurnool

Corrections Page No. 8 of 8

C.C.No. 662/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: DHONE

Present:­ Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN, 

Principal Junior Civil Judge FAC/Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone

Calendar Case. No. 662/2022

1.Offence :  15.06.2022

2.Complaint :  15.06.2022

3.Apprehension of Accused:  15.06.2022

4.Commencement of Trial:  12.07.2022

5.Close of Trial:  10.08.2022

6.Judgment:  12.08.2022

7.Complainant:  The State, rep. by Sub­Inspector of Police, Jaladurgam P.S.

8.Name of the Accused: 1) Mudavath Sriramulu Naik, S/o Late M. Vali Naik, age 50 years,

2) Ramavath Shankar Naik, S/o Late R. Kimo Naik, age 36 years,

3) Nenavath MAddilety Naik, S/o N. Dude Naik, age 38 years, 

4) Mudavath Ramudu Naik, S/o M. Hanuma Naik, age 45 years,

5) Ramudu @ Mulinti Ramakrishna, S/o M. CHinna Venkata, age 63 years, 

6) Vadde Krishna @ Koilakonda Sriniva­ sulu, S/o K. Ranganna, age 40 years, 

7) Ramudu @ Yerukala Anjaneya, S/o Y.Ramudu age 40 years, A1 to A4 resident of Alebad Thanda Vilalge, Peapully mandal, A5 resident of Chintalapeta village, Dhone Mandal, A6 & A7 are resident of Dhone Town & Mandal, Kurnool District.

9.Offence:  U/Sec. 8(A) r/w 7(B) APP Act

10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11.Finding: NOT GUILTY

12.Result:  In the result, the Accused No.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 8(a) r/w (B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C from the charges punishable under Sections 8(a) r/w 7(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against them. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 7 shall stand cancelled

Corrections Page No. 1 of 8

C.C.No. 662/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C.

The Accused No.1 to 3 have undergone remand period from 21.07.2020 to 27.07.2020 and Accused No.4 to 7 have not undergone any remand period.

13.Explanation for delay:  The case was taken on file on 15.06.2022.

Trial commenced on 12.07.2022 and closed on 10.08.2022. The Judgment was

pronounced on 12.08.2022. Hence, the

delay.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC/Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 2 of 8

C.C.No. 662/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

DHONE

Present:­ Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone Friday the 12th day of August, 2022

Calendar Case. No. 662 of 2022

Between: 

The State, rep. by Sub­Inspector of Police, Jaladurgam P.S.

...Complainant

AND 

1) Mudavath Sriramulu Naik, S/o Late M. Vali Naik, age 50 years,

2) Ramavath Shankar Naik, S/o Late R. Kimo Naik, age 36 years,

3) Nenavath MAddilety Naik, S/o N. Dude Naik, age 38 years, 

4) Mudavath Ramudu Naik, S/o M. Hanuma Naik, age 45 years,

5) Ramudu @ Mulinti Ramakrishna, S/o M. CHinna Venkata, age 63 years, 

6) Vadde Krishna @ Koilakonda Srinivasulu, S/o K. Ranganna, age 40 years, 

7) Ramudu @ Yerukala Anjaneya, S/o Y.Ramudu age 40 years, A1 to A4 resident of Alebad Thanda Vilalge, Peapully mandal, A5 resident of Chintalapeta village, Dhone Mandal, A6 & A7 are resident of Dhone Town & Mandal, Kurnool District.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 10 .08. 2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Mr. M. Naga Bhushan

Reddy, Mr. A. Sreedhar, Mr. V. Ravi Prakash, Miss. S. Heena Beguam, Advocates

for Accused, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and

having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector, Jaladurgam P.S. filed Report as per Section 173 of

Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No.106/2020 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8(A) r/w 7­B of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

Brief Averments of the Report are as follows:­

On 20.07.2020 at 13.20 hours Lw­5 (M. Sreedhar – SI of Police) along with staff went to Garladinne Village, Peapully Mandal and found Seven male persons holding plastic bag, at Racharla Cross road, outskirts of Garladinne Village,

Peapully Mandal and after seeing them they tried to skulk away then Lw.5 caught

Corrections Page No. 3 of 8

C.C.No. 662/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

A1 to A3, A4 to A7 absconded, then they surrounded them and asked their name and they revealed their identity and seized 180 liters of ID Arrack and collected a sample and sealed it by affixing identity slips; that after informing of carrying of ID is an offence as no mediators available they prepared occurrence report and seized the ID liquor and produced A1 to A3 before this court for remand, later Lw.5 issued Notice under Section 41­A of The Code of Criminal Procedure to Accused no.4 to 7; that after coming to P.S he registered FIR in Cr.No. 106/2021 under

Section 8A r/w.7(B) of APP Act; later Circle Inspector sent the sample to the

Director, Excise Laboratory and after receiving the chemical analysis report submitted Report under Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. 

2.)Report was taken on file against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.)On appearance of Accused copies of documents are furnished to him under

Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and Charge under Section 240 of

The Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences under Section 8(a) r/w. 7(B)of APP

Act was framed, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.)To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw­1 & Pw­2 and marked

Ex. P1 to Ex.P5. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses to avoid repetition of evidence. On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused were examined under Section 313 of The

Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

5.)Arguments of both sides are heard.

6.)Now, the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established

Corrections Page No. 4 of 8

C.C.No. 662/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Sections 8(A) r/w 7(B) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:­ 7.)It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused were in illegal possession and found trying to sell ID Arrack after purchasing it from an unknown person.

Charge for the offence punishable under Section 8(A) r/w 7(B) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act 1995 is framed against the Accused. The defence of the Accused are that they did not commit the offence and they are innocent. To prove the case against the Accused No.1 to 7 prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 & 2.

8.)Regarding the commission of offence Pw.1 & 2 in his evidence deposed that on 20.07.2020 at 13.20 hours he along with his staff went to at Racharla Cross road, outskirts of Garladinne Village, Peapully Mandal and found two male persons holding plastic bag. On seeing them they tried to skulk away along with thereby they chased and caught hold of them. Then they noticed that bags containing 20 liters of I.D. Arrack which they questioned about their particulars, then they confessed their names as 1) Mudavath Sriramulu Naik, S/o Late M. Vali

Naik, age 50 years, 2) Ramavath Shankar Naik, S/o Late R. Kimo Naik, age 36 years, 3) Nenavath Maddilety Naik, S/o N. Dude Naik, age 38 years, 4) Mudavath

Ramudu Naik, S/o M. Hanuma Naik, age 45 years, 5) Ramudu @ Mulinti

Ramakrishna, S/o M. CHinna Venkata, age 63 years, 6) Vadde Krishna @

Koilakonda Srinivasulu, S/o K. Ranganna, age 40 years, 7) Ramudu @ Yerukala

Anjaneya, S/o Y.Ramudu age 40 years and they were purchasing the arrack from different persons and selling the same in their village for higher price. When asked them about the covers for which he stated that they purchased of arrack and filled it in covers, when he opened the covers it was filled with 180 liters of ID Arrack; then he collected empty plastic bottles as a sample and pasted a slip on the

Corrections Page No. 5 of 8

C.C.No. 662/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone sample as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report under Ex.P1 and seized the covers and arrested the Accused A1 to A3, issued 41­A Cr.P.C notice to

A4 to A7 and after coming to P.S, Pw.2 registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P2, later Pw.2 sent the sample for chemical examination and after receipt of analysis report­Ex.P3 and after receiving Destruction orders under Ex.P4 he destroyed the property under

Ex.P5 and filed Report.

9.)Section 100(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates “before making a search under this Chapter, the Officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.2 reveals that he has not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused were caught. Hence, Pw.1 and Pw.2 violated the mandatory provisions of Section 100(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Coming to the confession made by the

Accused. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused may be considered as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

10.)Coming to the seizure and sending the sample for chemical analysis, it is the evidence of Pw.1 that the sample was seized by him on 20.07.2020 whereas it was received by the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise Regional

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Kurnool on 30.11.2020 and there is a delay of 130 days in forwarding the sample to the Chemical Examiner and that this delay in sending sample is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. No doubt, as per Rule 24 of A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969, the

Corrections Page No. 6 of 8

C.C.No. 662/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone samples shall be sent to the Court with a requisition to send one of the samples expeditiously to the chemical examiner. Hence, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

11.)In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of Pw1 & 2. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the

Accused are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 8(a) r/w (B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C from the charges punishable under Sections 8(a) r/w 7(B) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against them. The bail bonds of the Accused No.1 to 7 shall stand cancelled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C. The Accused No.1 to 3 have undergone remand period from 21.07.2020 to 27.07.2020 and Accused No.4 to 7 have not undergone any remand period.

Typed on dictation by Personal Assistant on dual computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th August, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I st Class

DHONE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Corrections Page No. 7 of 8

C.C.No. 662/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

Prosecution side Defence side

Pw1: M. Narasaiah...Nil...

Pw2: M. Sreedhar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side

Ex.P1:is the Police Proceedings...Nil...

Ex.P2:is the Printed F.I.R

Ex.P3:is the CE Report 

Ex.P4:is the Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings;

Ex.P5:is the Destruction Panchanama.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I st Class

DHONE.

Copy submitted to : 

1) The First Additional District & Sessions Judge Kurnool.

2) Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

3) The Superintendent Of Police Kurnool.

4) The Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Corrections Page No. 8 of 8

C.C.No. 565/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: DHONE

Present:- Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge FAC/Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone

Calendar Case. No. 565/2022

1.Offence : 13.11.2020

2.Complaint : 13.11.2020

3.Apprehension of Accused: 13.11.2020

4.Commencement of Trial: 19.07.2022

5.Close of Trial: 08.08.2022

6.Judgment: 11.08.2022

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhone Town P.S.

8.Name of the Accused: Ediga Madhu, age 20 years, S/o Late E. Gopal Goud, R/o H.No.7-333-1, TR Nagar, Dhone Town, Native of Bogolu village of Veldurthy Mandal.

9.Offence: U/Sec. 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11.Finding: NOT GUILTY

12.Result: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C from the charges punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against them. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The Accused has undergone remand period from 13.11.2020 to 17.11.2020.

13.Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 16.06.2022. Trial commenced on 19.07.2022 and closed on 08.08.2022. The Judgment was

pronounced on 11.08.2022. Hence, the delay.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC/Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 5

C.C.No.565/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DHONE

Present:- Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone Thursday the 11th day of August, 2022

Calendar Case. No. 565 of 2022

Between:

The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhone Town P.S.

...Complainant

AND

Ediga Madhu, age 20 years, S/o Late E. Gopal Goud, R/o H.No.7-333-1, TR Nagar, Dhone Town, Native of Bogolu village of Veldurthy Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 08.08. 2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Mr. T. Krishna Moorthy, Advocate

for Accused, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having

stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector, Dhone Town P.S. filed Report as per Section 173 of

Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No.352/2020 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

Brief Averments of the Report are as follows:-

On 13.11.2020 at 08.00 hours Lw-4 (T. Subramanyam – SI of Police) along with staff went to Dhone town and Mandal and found one male person holding plastic bag, at near Archie at Kotla Vijayabhaskar Reddy Nagar, Dhone Town and

Mandal and after seeing them he tried to skulk away then they surrounded him and asked his name and he revealed his identity and seized 10 liters of ID Arrack and collected a sample and sealed it by affixing identity slips; that after informing of carrying of ID is an offence as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report and seized the ID liquor and issued Notice under Section 41-A of The Code of

Criminal Procedure to Accused; that after coming to P.S he registered FIR in Cr.No.

352/2020 under Section 7A r/w.8(e) of APP Act; later Circle Inspector sent the sample to the Director, Excise Laboratory and after receiving the chemical analysis report submitted Report under Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.)Report was taken on file against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Corrections Page No. 2 of 5

C.C.No.565/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone 3.)On appearance of Accused copies of documents are furnished to him under

Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and Charge under Section 240 of

The Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences under Section 7(a) r/w. 8(e)of APP

Act was framed, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.)To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw-1 & Pw.2 and marked Ex.

P1 to Ex.P5. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses to avoid repetition of evidence. On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure and he denied the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

5.)Arguments of both sides are heard.

6.)Now, the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:- 7.)It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused was in illegal possession and found trying to sell ID Arrack after purchasing it from an unknown person. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition

Act 1995 is framed against the Accused. The defence of the Accused is that he did not commit the offence and he is innocent. To prove the case against the Accused prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 & 2.

8.)Regarding the commission of offence Pw.1 & Pw.2 in his evidence deposed that on 13.11.2020 at 08.00 hours he along with his staff went to at near Archie at Kotla

Vijayabhaskar Reddy Nagar, Dhone Town and Mandal and found one male person holding plastic bag. On seeing them he tried to skulk away along with thereby they chased and caught hold of him. Then they noticed that bags containing 10 liters of

I.D. Arrack which they questioned about his particulars, then he confessed his name as Ediga Madhu, age 20 years, S/o Late E. Gopal Goud and he was purchasing the arrack from different persons and selling the same in his village for

Corrections Page No. 3 of 5

C.C.No.565/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone higher price. When asked him about the covers for which he stated that he purchased of arrack and filled it in covers, when he opened the covers it was filled with 10 liters of ID Arrack; then he collected empty plastic bottles as a sample and pasted a slipon the sample as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report under Ex.P1 and seized the covers and arrested the Accused and after coming to

P.S, Pw.2 registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P2, later Pw.2 sent the sample for chemical examination and after receipt of analysis report-Ex.P3 and after receiving

Destruction orders under Ex.P4 he destroyed the property under Ex.P5 and filed

Report.

9.)Section 100(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates “before making a search under this Chapter, the Officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.2 reveals that he has not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 and Pw.2 violated the mandatory provisions of Section 100(4) of The Code of

Criminal Procedure. Coming to the confession made by the Accused. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused may be considered as per Section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act.

10.)Coming to the seizure and sending the sample for chemical analysis, it is the evidence of Pw.1 that the sample was seized by him on 13.11.2020 whereas it was received by the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise Regional

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Kurnool on 27.11.2020 and there is a delay of 14 days in forwarding the sample to the Chemical Examiner and that this delay in sending sample is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. No doubt, as per Rule 24 of

Corrections Page No. 4 of 5

C.C.No.565/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969, the samples shall be sent to the Court with a requisition to send one of the samples expeditiously to the chemical examiner. Hence, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

11.)In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of

Pw1 & 2. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the

Accused are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C from the charges punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against him. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The Accused has undergone remand period from 13.11.2020 to 17.11.2020.

Typed on dictation by Personal Assistant on dual computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11 th August, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I st Class

DHONE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side Pw1: U. Ranga Swamy...Nil... Pw2: T. Subramanyam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side Ex.P1: is the Police Proceedings...Nil... Ex.P2: is the Printed F.I.R Ex.P3: is the CE Report Ex.P4: is the Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings; Ex.P5: is the Destruction Panchanama.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I st Class DHONE. Copy submitted to :

1) The First Additional District & Sessions Judge Kurnool.

2) Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

3) The Superintendent Of Police Kurnool. 4) The Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Corrections Page No. 5 of 5

C.C.No. 566/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: DHONE

Present:­ Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN, 

Principal Junior Civil Judge FAC/Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone

Calendar Case. No. 566/2022

1.Offence :  10.11.2020

2.Complaint :  10.11.2020

3.Apprehension of Accused:  10.11.2020

4.Commencement of Trial:  19.07.2022

5.Close of Trial:  10.08.2022

6.Judgment:  12.08.2022

7.Complainant:  The State, rep. by Sub­Inspector of Police, Dhone Town P.S.

8.Name of the Accused:  Boya Srikala, age 33 years, W/o Boya Sudhakar Naidu, R/o Kotla vijayabhaskar Reddy Nagar, Dhone Town, Kurnool District.

9.Offence: U/Sec. 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11.Finding: NOT GUILTY

12.Result:  In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C from the charges punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against them. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C. The Accused has undergone remand period from 10.11.2020 to 12.11.2020

13.Explanation for delay:  The case was taken on file on 16.06.2022. Trial commenced on 19.07.2022 and closed on 10.08.2022. The Judgment was

pronounced on 12.08.2022. Hence, the

delay.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC/Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 6

C.C.No.566/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS 

DHONE

Present:­ Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN 

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone Friday the 12th day of August, 2022

Calendar Case. No. 566 of 2022

Between: 

The State, rep. by Sub­Inspector of Police, Dhone Town P.S.

...Complainant

AND 

Boya Srikala, age 33 years, W/o Boya Sudhakar Naidu, R/o Kotla vijayabhaskar 

Reddy Nagar, Dhone Town, Kurnool District....Accused

This case is coming up before me on 10 .08. 2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Mr. M. Gopal Reddy , Advocates for Accused, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector, Dhone Town P.S. filed Report as per Section 173 of

Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No.349/2020 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

Brief Averments of the Report are as follows:­

On 10.11.2020 at 08.15 hours Lw­5 (B. Madhusudhan Rao – SI of Police) along with staff went to Dhone town and Mandal and found one male person holding plastic bag, near Archie at Kotla Vijayabhaskar Reddy Nagar, Dhone

Town and after seeing them he tried to skulk away then they surrounded him and asked his name and he revealed his identity and seized 5 liters of ID Arrack and collected a sample and sealed it by affixing identity slips; that after informing of carrying of ID is an offence as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report and arrested the accused and produced her before court for remand; that after coming to P.S he registered FIR in Cr.No. 349/2020 under Section 7A r/w.8(e) of APP Act; later Circle Inspector sent the sample to the Director, Excise

Laboratory and after receiving the chemical analysis report submitted Report under Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Corrections Page No. 2 of 6

C.C.No.566/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone 2.)Report was taken on file against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

3.)On appearance of Accused copies of documents are furnished to him under

Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and Charge under Section 240 of

The Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences under Section 7(a) r/w. 8(e)of APP

Act was framed, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.)To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw­1 & Pw.2 and marked

Ex. P1 to Ex.P5. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses to avoid repetition of evidence. On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

5.)Arguments of both sides are heard. 

6.)Now, the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:­ 7.)It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused was in illegal possession and found trying to sell ID Arrack after purchasing it from an unknown person.

Charge for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act 1995 is framed against the Accused. The defence of the Accused is that he did not commit the offence and he is innocent. To prove the case against the Accused prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 & 2.

8.)Regarding the commission of offence Pw.1 & Pw.2 in his evidence deposed that on 10.11.2020 at 08.15 hours he along with his staff went near Arch at Kotla

Vijayabhaskar Reddy Nagar, Dhone Town and Mandal and found one female person holding plastic bag. On seeing them she tried to skulk away along with bag thereby they chased and caught hold of her. Then they noticed that bags containing 5 liters of I.D. Arrack which they questioned about his particulars,

Corrections Page No. 3 of 6

C.C.No.566/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone then he confessed his name as Boya Srikala, age 33 years, W/o Boya Sudhakar

Naidu and he was purchasing the arrack from different persons and selling the same in his village for higher price. When asked him about the covers for which he stated that he purchased of arrack and filled it in covers, when he opened the covers it was filled with 5 liters of ID Arrack; then he collected empty plastic bottles as a sample and pasted a slipon the sample as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report under Ex.P1 and seized the covers and arrested the

Accused and after coming to P.S, Pw.2 registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P2, later Pw.2 sent the sample for chemical examination and after receipt of analysis report­Ex.P3 and after receiving Destruction orders under Ex.P4 he destroyed the property under

Ex.P5 and filed Report. 

9.)Section 100(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates “before making a search under this Chapter, the Officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.2 reveals that he has not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 and Pw.2 violated the mandatory provisions of Section 100(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Coming to the confession made by the

Accused. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused may be considered as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

10.)Coming to the seizure and sending the sample for chemical analysis, it is the evidence of Pw.1 that the sample was seized by him on 10.11.2020 whereas it was received by the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise Regional

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Kurnool on 27.11.2020 and there is a delay of 17

Corrections Page No. 4 of 6

C.C.No.566/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone days in forwarding the sample to the Chemical Examiner and that this delay in sending sample is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. No doubt, as per Rule 24 of

A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969, the samples shall be sent to the Court with a requisition to send one of the samples expeditiously to the chemical examiner. Hence, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 

11.)In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of Pw1 & 2. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the

Accused are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C from the charges punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against him. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C. The Accused has undergone remand period from 10.11.2020 to 12.11.2020.

Typed on dictation by Personal Assistant on dual computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th August, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I st Class

DHONE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side

Pw1: U. Ranga Swamy...Nil... Pw2: T. Subramanyam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side

Ex.P1: is the Police Proceedings...Nil... Ex.P2: is the Printed F.I.R Ex.P3: is the CE Report Ex.P4: is the Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings; Ex.P5: is the Destruction Panchanama.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone

Corrections Page No. 5 of 6

C.C.No.566/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I st Class DHONE. Copy submitted to : 

1) The First Additional District & Sessions Judge Kurnool.

2) Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

3) The Superintendent Of Police Kurnool. 4) The Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Corrections Page No. 6 of 6

C.C.No. 583/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: DHONE

Present:- Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge FAC/Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone

Calendar Case. No. 583/2022

1.Offence : 31.10.2020

2.Complaint : 31.10.2020

3.Apprehension of Accused: 31.10.2020

4.Commencement of Trial: 06.07.2022

5.Close of Trial: 10.08.2022

6.Judgment: 12.08.2022

7.Complainant: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhone Town U.P.S.

8.Name of the Accused: Dudekula Shalu Bee, W/o Dudekula Sada Vali, age 45 years, R/o H.No.7-479-8-B, TR Nagar, Dhone Town.

9.Offence: U/Sec. 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995

10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY

11.Finding: NOT GUILTY

12.Result: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C from the charges punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against them. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The Accused has undergone remand period from 31.10.2020 to 04.11.2020.

13.Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 16.06.2022. Trial commenced on 06.07.2022 and closed on 10.08.2022. The Judgment was

pronounced on 12.08.2022. Hence, the delay.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

FAC/Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone

Copy submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2. Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Corrections Page No. 1 of 5

C.C.No. 583/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

DHONE

Present:- Mr. PATTAN SHIYAZ KHAN

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone Friday the 12th day of August, 2022

Calendar Case. No. 583 of 2022

Between:

The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhone Town P.S.

...Complainant

AND

Dudekula Shalu Bee, W/o Dudekula Sada Vali, age 45 years, R/o H.No.7-479-8-B, TR Nagar, Dhone Town. ….Accused

This case is coming up before me on 10 .08. 2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Mr. T. Krishna Moorthy, Advocate for Accused, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector, Dhone Town P.S. filed Report as per Section 173 of

Criminal Procedure Code in Cr. No.338/2020 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

Brief Averments of the Report are as follows:-

On 31.10.2020 at 09.00 hours Lw-4 (T. Subramanyam – SI of Police) along with staff went to Dhone Town and Mandal and found one female person holding plastic bag, reached near Kambalapadu circle, Dhone town and Mandal and after seeing them she tried to skulk away then they surrounded her and asked her name and she revealed his identity and seized 5 liters of ID Arrack and collected a sample and sealed it by affixing identity slips; that after informing of carrying of ID is an offence as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report and seized the ID liquor and arrested the accused and produced her before this court for remand; that after coming to P.S he registered FIR in Cr.No. 338/2020 under

Section 7A r/w.8(e) of APP Act; later Circle Inspector sent the sample to the

Director, Excise Laboratory and after receiving the chemical analysis report submitted Report under Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.)Report was taken on file against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Corrections Page No. 2 of 5

C.C.No. 583/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone 3.)On appearance of Accused copies of documents are furnished to him under

Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and Charge under Section 240 of

The Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences under Section 7(a) r/w. 8(e)of APP

Act was framed, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.)To prove the charges, the Prosecution examined Pw-1 & Pw2 and marked

Ex. P1 to Ex.P5. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses to avoid repetition of evidence. On the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and he denied the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For the defence no witness is examined and no document is marked.

5.)Arguments of both sides are heard.

6.)Now, the point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:- 7.)It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused was in illegal possession and found trying to sell ID Arrack after purchasing it from an unknown person.

Charge for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition Act 1995 is framed against the Accused. The defence of the Accused is that he did not commit the offence and he is innocent. To prove the case against the Accused prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 & 2.

8.)Regarding the commission of offence Pw.1 & Pw2 in his evidence deposed that on 31.10.2020 at 09.00 hours he along with his staff went to reached near

Kambalapadu circle, Dhone town Mandal and found one female person holding plastic bag. On seeing them she tried to skulk away along with thereby they chased and caught hold of her. Then they noticed that bags containing 5 liters of

ID Arrack which they questioned about his particulars, then she confessed her name as Dudekula Shalu Bee, W/o Dudekula Sada Vali and she was purchasing the arrack from different persons and selling the same in his village for higher

Corrections Page No. 3 of 5

C.C.No. 583/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone price. When asked her about the covers for which he stated that she purchased of arrack and filled it in covers, when she opened the covers it was filled with 5 liters of ID Arrack as a sample and pasted a slipon the sample as no mediators available he prepared occurrence report under Ex.P1 and seized the covers and arrested the

Accused and after coming to P.S, Pw.2 registered Ex.P1 as Ex.P2, later Pw.2 sent the sample for chemical examination and after receipt of analysis report-Ex.P3 and after receiving Destruction orders under Ex.P4 he destroyed the property under

Ex.P5 and filed Report.

9.)Section 100(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates “before making a search under this Chapter, the Officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. The evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 reveals that he has not made any attempt to secure respectable inhabitants of the locality where the Accused was caught. Hence, Pw.1 and Pw.2 violated the mandatory provisions of Section 100(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure. Coming to the confession made by the

Accused. The confession made before a Police Officer is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and this is not the case where the property was seized in pursuance of confession so that the confession made by the Accused may be considered as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

10.)Coming to the seizure and sending the sample for chemical analysis, it is the evidence of Pw.1 that the sample was seized by him on 31.10.2020 whereas it was received by the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise Regional

Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Kurnool on 27.11.2020 and there is a delay of 27 days in forwarding the sample to the Chemical Examiner and that this delay in sending sample is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. No doubt, as per Rule 24 of

A.P. Excise (Arrack and Toddy Licences General Conditions) Rules, 1969, the

Corrections Page No. 4 of 5

C.C.No. 583/2022 J.M.F.C.Dhone samples shall be sent to the Court with a requisition to send one of the samples expeditiously to the chemical examiner. Hence, the delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

11.)In these circumstances, it is quite unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of Pw1 & 2. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court holds that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused of the charges under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the

Accused are found not guilty of the charges under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 and accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C from the charges punishable under Sections 7(a) r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act 1995 leveled against him. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after 6 months period of appeal time as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The Accused has undergone remand period from 31.10.2020 to 04.11.2020.

Typed on dictation by Personal Assistant on dual computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th August, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I st Class

DHONE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side

Pw1: K. Nagesh...Nil... Pw2: T. Subramanyam

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution side Defence side

Ex.P1: is the Police Proceedings...Nil... Ex.P2: is the Printed F.I.R Ex.P3: is the CE Report Ex.P4: is the Attested copy of Destruction Proceedings; Ex.P5: is the Destruction Panchanama.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone

FAC/ Judl. Magistrate of I st Class DHONE. Copy submitted to :

1) The First Additional District & Sessions Judge Kurnool.

2) Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

3) The Superintendent Of Police Kurnool.

4) The Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Corrections Page No. 5 of 5