Ms. Penumala Gopika Naga Sravya

1 OF 8 CC.No.5278/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: WARANGAL.

Present: Smt. P.Gopika Naga Sravya, I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I-Addl. JFCM, Hanumakonda, FAC. II- Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum– II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

Friday, on this the 06th day of January, 2023.

CALENDER CASE NO.5278 OF 2022.

(Crime No.23 of 2022 of Police Station Parwathagiri.)

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvathagiri. . . .State/Complainant.

AND

A1Doniki Komuraiah, S/o. Iylaiah, Age 56 years, Caste:Yadava, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Doulathnagar village, Parvathagiri mandal.

A2Doniki Ravi, S/o. Komuraiah, Age 35 years, Caste:Yadava, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Doulathnagar village of Parvathagiri mandal.

A3Doniki Rajender, S/o. Komuraiah, Age 30 years, Caste:Yadava, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Doulathnagar Village of Parvathagiri mandal.

A4Ilapaka Ashok, S/o.Illaiah, Age 38 years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Police Constable (PC 1488) at PS Dharmasagar, R/o.Doulathnagar village of Parvathagiri mandal.

… Accused/A1 to A4

This case is coming on 05-01-2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Smt.K.Pavani, learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.

K.Venkatesh, Counsel for the accused/A1 to A4, having perused the evidence adduced on either side , exhibits marked and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 OF 8 CC.No.5278/2022 :: J U D G M E N T::

01. The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvathagiri fled charge sheet in Crime No.23/2022 for the ofences punishable U/sec. 447, 427 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused/A1 to A4.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution is that :

i.On 08.02.2022 at 17.00 hours, LW.10/K.Kishore, Sub-Inspector of police,

PS Parvathagiri received the complaint from LW.1/Chinthakuntla Someshwar stating that in the year 2003 he purchased agricultural land to an extent of

Ac.02.00 guntas situated at the outskirts of Parvathagiri from the accused

A1/Donike Komuraiah and paid an amount of Rs.93,000/-, since then LW.1 is in possession and cultivating the said land for the last 17 years but since one year the accused A1 along with his two sons A2/Doniki Ravi and A3/Doniki Rajender started troubling LW.1 claiming the said land belongs to A1 to A3 by creating nuisance and threatening him, due to which LW.1 approached Police Parvathagiri and three criminal cases were fled against A1 to A3 , sent them for remand and released on bail on sufcient sureties provided by the accused/A4-Ilapaka Ashok

PC 1488. While things stood, the accused/A4-Ilapaka Ashok, PC 1488, who is resident of Doulathnagar village of Parvathagiri mandal in order to grab the land of LW.1 at the instance of A1 to A3, started saying that he is working as Court

Constable at Dharmasagar police station and he knew the defects in the law.

On 7.2.2022 night 21.00 hours the accused A1 to A4 by consuming alcohol illegally trespassed into the land of LW.1 with an intention to harm him. LW.1 went to his felds to irrigate water to his feld and on seeing the accused A1 to

A4, who are in inebriated condition, thinking that they might cause harm to him and narrated the same to his family members after returning back to his home.

On the next day i.e. on 8.2.2022 morning 08.00 hrs LW.1 went to his agriculture felds, where he found “SSaifanu pipe was damaged, thrown away somewhere.

LW.1 lodged a report for taking necessary action against the accused A1 to A4.

ii.On receipt of the report lodged by the LW.10/K.Kishore, Sub-Inspector 3 OF 8 CC.No.5278/2022 of police, PS Parvathagiri registered a case in Cr.No. 23/2022 for the ofences

Under Sec. 447,427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

iii.During the course of investigation, LW.10/K.Kishore, Sub-Inspector of police, PS Parvathagiri,examined and recorded the statement of

LW.1/Chinthakuntla Someshwar at police station. Further he visited the scene of ofence situated at the outskirts of Parvathagiri village and mandal, observed the scene , incorporated the physical features of the scene in Crime detail form in the presence of LW.6/Julapally Gangadhar Rao and LW.7/Gudla

Sridhar ,examined and recorded their statements. Later LW.10 secured the presence of LW.2/Chinthakuntla Ravi Kumar, LW.3/Chinthakuntla Nirmala,

LW.4/Kusla Raghu and LW.5/Chinthakuntal Mallikarjun, examined and recorded their statements.

iv.On 13.04.2021 at 1230 hrs , LW.10/K.Kishore, Sub-Inspector of police, PS

Parvathagiri, along with his staf rushed to the house of A2 and A3, summoned the witnesses LW.8/Maloth Raju and LW.9/Bathini Raju, explained them that the accused A1 to A3 refused to take notices u.sec. 41(A) Cr.PC served on them, as such LW.10 have pasted the notices u.sec. 41(A) Cr.PC of A1 to A3 to the wall infront of their home and read over the matter to the panchas. On 28.04.2022,

LW.10/K.Kishore, Sub-Inspector of police, PS Parvathagiri, served notices u.sec.

41(A) (1) Cr.PC on the accused/A4 directing all the accused to appear before the

Hon’ble Court to face their trial. After completion of entire investigation LW.10

fled a charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 for the ofences punishable under Section 447,427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code .

03. The case was taken on fle by the then Presiding ofcer against accused /A1 to

A3 for the ofences 447,427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. On appearance of the accused/A1 to A4 , copies of documents on which the prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished to them as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

04. The accused/A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Upon hearing 4 OF 8 CC.No.5278/2022 both sides, the charge is framed u/sec.240 Cr.P.C for the ofences u/sec. 447,427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, was read over and explained to the accused/A1 to

A4 in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.4 and marked the exhibited documents P1 to P4 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

06. In this case, the prosecution has not examined LW.2/Chinthakuntla Ravi Kumar, son of LW.1, LW.6/Julapally Gangadhar Rao, LW.7/Gudla Sridhar panch witnesses for CDF, LW.8/Maloth Raju and LW.9Bathini Raju panch witnesses for pasting notice u.sec.41(A)(1) Cr.P.C., and LW.10/K.Kishore, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Parvathagiri, Investigating ofcer, who fled charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 and investigated into the case and has given up their evidence as PW.1 to

PW.4 turned hostile and did not support their own case and due to compromise between both the parties.

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating prosecution evidence available against the accused/A1 to A4, the examination u/sec. 313

Cr.P.C., is dispensed with and the accused did not choose to fle any evidence on their behalf.

08. Heard arguments on both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

09. Now the point for determination is: - “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused/A1 to A4 for the ofences punishable 447,427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts”?

10. POINT:-

To prove the ofence the prosecution has to bring on record that i) the accused/A1 to A4 illegally trespassed into the agriculture land of PW.1, ii) The accused/A1 to A4 damaged the Saifan pipe in the agriculture land of PW.1.

11. It is settled principle in criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence 5 OF 8 CC.No.5278/2022 notwithstanding on any weakness in the defence of the accused/A1 to A4 and the accused/A1 to A4 are entitled to the beneft of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused/A1 to A4 to acquittal.

(i)On perusal of the evidence, PW.1/LW.1/Chinthakuntla Someshwar in his chief simply deposed that he doesn’t know the accused/A1 to A4 who are standing in the accused dock. Further PW.1 deposed that about 4 months back they approached the village elders stating that some unknown persons broken his civil pipe line in his agriculture felds, where the village elders obtained his signature on some blank papers on 8.2.2022 under Ex.P1, which is confronted to

LW.1 and he identifed the signature as is his on Ex.P1. Further PW.1 stated that police did not examine and record his 161 Cr.P.C. under Ex.P2. Further PW.1 did not whisper anything about the ofence committed by the accused/A1 to A4 on the alleged day and completely resiled from their earlier statement and report made before the police under Ex.P2, thereby failing to support the prosecution case in toto. The learned A.P.P., cross-examined PW.1 but nothing useful has been elicited from his mouth due to compromise between both the parties.

ii)The prosecution examined P.W.2/LW.3/Chinthakuntla Nirmala and in her chief, she simply deposed that she do not know the accused persons who are standing the court hall. Further she stated that she do not know anything about the facts of the case and police did not examine and record her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and did not support the prosecution case and resiled from her earlier statement made before the police under Ex.P3 thereby failing to support the prosecution case in toto. The learned A.P.P., cross-examined PW.2 but nothing could be elicited against the accused/A1 to A4 due to compromise.

iii) The prosecution examined P.W.3/LW.4-Kusla Raghu, circumstantial witness and

PW.4/LW.5-Chinthakuntla Mallikarjun, adjacent land owner and eye witness to the incident and in their chief, they simply deposed that they do not know the accused persons who are standing the court hall. Further they stated that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and did not witness any 6 OF 8 CC.No.5278/2022 incident in this case. Further PW.3 and PW.4 deposed that police did not examine and record their 161 Cr.P.C. statements under Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Pws.3 and 4 not supported the prosecution case in toto and resiled from their earlier statements made before the police under Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, thereby failing to support the prosecution case in toto. The learned A.P.P., cross-examined PW. 3 and PW.4 but they had not stated anything against the accused/A1 to A4 due to compromise.

The evidence of P.W.1 to PW.4 is not at all useful to say that the accused/A1 to

A4 have committed the alleged ofence.

12.From the entire evidence no incriminating evidence is brought on record against the accused by the prosecution to prove the commission of the alleged ofence by the accused. Hence the prosecution has given up rest of the witnesses as no purpose would be served in examining them where the material witness and the eye witness turned hostile due to compromise. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the ofences punishable

U/Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

13. In view of the above discussion, this court opines that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for the ofences punishable u.sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts and this point is answered against the prosecution.

14. In the result, accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofences punishable

U/sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted

U/sec.248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 to A4 shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal period. No order as to case property since no property is deposited before this court.

(Typed to my dictation by the Typist on computer, corrected & pronounced by me in the open court on 06.01.2023.)

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I-Addl. JFCM, Hanumakonda, FAC. II- Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum– II-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

7 OF 8 CC.No.5278/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1/LW.1- Chinthakuntla Someshwar Rao --NIL –

PW2/LW.3- Chinthakuntla Nirmala

PW.3/LW.4- Kusla Raghu

PW.4/LW.5-Chinthakuntla Mallikarujun

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the Report --NIL— Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.PC. Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.PC statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.PC statement of PW.3 Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.PC statement of PW.4

MATERIAL OBJECTS

--NIL--

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I-Addl. JFCM, Hanumakonda, FAC. II- Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum– II-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

8 OF 8 CC.No.5278/2022

Calender Extract

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

II-ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: WARANGAL

CC. No.5278/2022

1. Name of the Police Station: Parvathagiri

2. FIR No: 23/2022

3. Ofence U/S.: 447,427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

4. Name of the accused:

A1 Doniki Komuraiah, S/o. Iylaiah, Age 56 years, Caste:Yadava, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Doulathnagar village, Parvathagiri mandal. A2 Doniki Ravi, S/o. Komuraiah, Age 35 years, Caste:Yadava, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Doulathnagar village of Parvathagiri mandal. A3 Doniki Rajender, S/o. Komuraiah, Age 30 years, Caste:Yadava, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Doulathnagar Village of Parvathagiri mandal. A4 Ilapaka Ashok, S/o.Illaiah, Age 38 years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Police Constable (PC 1488) at PS Dharmasagar, R/o.Doulathnagar village of Parvathagiri mandal.

5. Date of;

a) Ofence: 07.02.2022

b)Complaint: 08.02.2022

c)Arrest :Notice u/s.41 A Cr.P.C. dt.28.4.2022.

d)Released on bail: ---

e)Commencement of Trial 05.12.2022

f)Close of Trial: 05.01.2023

g)Date of Judgment : 06.01.2023 6.In the result, accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the ofences punishable U/sec. 447, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec. 248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 to A4 shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal period. No order as to case property since no property is deposited before this court.

7. Explanation for delay: ---

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I-Addl. JFCM, Hanumakonda, FAC. II- Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum–II Addl. JFCM, Warangal.

Dis. No.Dated: To The Hon'ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Warangal.

C.C.No.16 of 20231Dt. 06-02-2023

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER TELANGANA PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT-cum-IV ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL:

Monday, the 06th day of February, 2023.

Present: Ms. P.Gopika Naga Sravya, FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Proh. & Excise Cases -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

CC.No. 16 of 2023

(COR.NO.17/2022 of Proh. & Excise station, Wardhannapet) Between:

The State represented by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Station Wardhannapet.

… Complainant.

AND

Lavudya Chittemma, W/o Bhadru, Age: 40 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Coolie, R/o Palliriguda, Sangem(M) ...Sole Accused.

This case is coming on 06-02-2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri A. R. Srinivas for the prosecution and of Sri N.Kamalakar, Counsel for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Wardhannapet Station fled charge sheet in COR.No.17/2022 against the accused for the ofence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The case of prosecution in brief as follows: -

On 11-02-2022, at about 01.00 pm, on receiving reliable information that some persons are selling I.D.Liquor, LW.3/P.Karamchand, Assistant Proh. Superintendent, DTF Warangal & LW.4/G.Suravna, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Wardhannapet Station along with her staf proceeded to Infront of house of Accused at Pallariguda, Sangem for conducting ID raids by securing the Panch witnesses i.e., LW.1/Bhukya Mahender &

C.C.No.16 of 20232Dt. 06-02-2023

LW.2/Chandu Rajashekar. During checking found one person in suspicious manner holding a bag in her hand, on seeing them she tried to escape from the scene, but LW.3 & LW.4 along with their staf caught her. Then LW.3 & LW.4 opened the bag and found two polythene covers flled with some liquid. By virtue of smell of the contents of the polythene cover, LW-1 to LW-4 identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters. LW.3 seized the contraband under cover of panchanama and drawn two samples of I.D.Liquor 180 ml each. Later, on return to the station, basing on panchanama, LW.4 registered a case in COR.No. 17/2022, Dated: 11-02-2022, for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8

(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and released the accused by serving notice under section 41(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. During the investigation, out of two samples drawn, one sample has been forwarded to Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Warangal for Chemical Examination. LW5/M.Neelima Swapna Latha examined the sample and gave a report stating that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor unft for human consumption which is injurious to health. On 18-06-2022 the case property was destroyed under the supervision of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Warangal Rural under cover of Panchanama. After completion of investigation LW.4/G.Suvarna fled the charge sheet against the sole accused.

3. The case was taken on fle against sole accused for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The sole accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code,1973 and charge framed under section 240 Criminal Procedure Code for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act,1955 was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of sole accused the prosecution examined witnesses i.e., LW1 to LW.4 as PW1 to PW.4 and got marked Exhibited documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, and material object MO1, as indicated in the Appendix of Evidence.

6. In this case, the prosecution has not examined LW5/ M.Neelima Swapna Latha, Govt. Chemical Examiner, who gave expert opinion as the learned APP has given up their evidence.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, sole accused was examined Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for which she denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence deposed against her and reported no defence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

C.C.No.16 of 20233Dt. 06-02-2023 9. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the sole accused under

section 7-A r/w 8(e) T.S Proh Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

(i)The case of the prosecution is that the sole accused person has committed the ofence of arrack under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995, accordingly the prosecution has to establish that the sole accused was in possession of 2 liters of I.D liquor at scene of ofence, PW.3 & PW.4 recovered the same in the presence of Panch witnesses i.e., PW.1/Bhukya Mahender and PW.2/Chandu Rajashekar. The contention of the learned counsel for sole accused is that the accused did not commit any ofence and the case is foisted against her only for statistical purpose.

(ii)PW.1 and PW.2 who are panch witnesses to the present case had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, but PW.1 & PW.2 had admitted their signatures which were marked as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. Hence, PW1 and PW2’s signatures which were marked as Exs.P1 & P2 and cannot be taken into consideration as they did not support the prosecution case.

(iii) PW.3 deposed that on 11-02-2022 at about 01.00 pm, basing on receiving reliable information he along with PW.4 and their staf proceeded to Pallariguda, Sangem Mandal and secured the panch witnesses PW.1 & PW.2. PW.3 further stated that while conducting search they found one women in a suspicious manner carrying a white plastic bag in her hand and on seeing them she tried to escape from the scene, but his staf caught her and PW3 opened the bag and found two polythene covers flled with some liquid, by virtue of smell and contents of cover they identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters and on enquiry the accused revealed her identity. PW.3 further deposed that two samples in 180 ml in a bottle were drawn for chemical analysis and same was produced before this court and got marked as MO1. Later PW.3 handed over the case to PW.4.

In PW.3 Cross Examination, he clearly admitted that there is a distance of 20-25 Kms from the police station to the scene of ofence and on information through phone call and reached there through Government Vehicle. PW.3 further stated that he has not fled any log book pertaining to the said crime and he has not examined any independent witness at scene of ofence. PW.3 admitted that PW1 & PW2 are stock witnesses in number of cases at Excise Police Station.

(iv)P.W.4 deposed that on 11-02-2022 at about 01.00 PM on reliable information she along with PW.3 and their staf proceeded to Pallariguda, Sangem Mandal and secured the panchas PW.1 & PW.2. PW.4 further stated that while conducting search

C.C.No.16 of 20234Dt. 06-02-2023 they found one women in a suspicious manner carrying a white plastic bag in her hand, and on seeing them she tried to escape from the scene, but his staf caught her and PW3 opened the bag and found two polythene covers flled with some liquid. By virtue of smell and contents of cover they identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters and on enquiry the accused revealed her identity. PW.4 further deposed that two samples in 180 ml in a bottle were drawn for chemical analysis and same was produced before this court and got marked as MO1 and she conducted panchana in the presence of PW.1 & PW.2 which is marked as Ex.P3. Later, after going to Police Station PW.4 issued Ex.P4 vide No.17/2022. On verifcation they came to know that the said person by name Lavudya Chittemma and released her by serving notice under section 41(A) Cr.P.C. Later, PW.4 stated that she has sent the drawn sample bottle for chemical analysis through letter of advice which is marked as Ex.P5. PW.4 conducted destruction over a seized property and after collecting all the documents PW.4 flled charge sheet against the Accused.

In PW.4 Cross Examination, she clearly admitted that there is a distance of 20- 25 Kms from the police station to the scene of ofence and on information through her informer and reached there through Government Vehicle. PW.4 further stated that she has not drawn any rough sketch at the scene of ofence nor examined any independent witnesses there and have not recorded any 161 statements of her staf and admitted that she has not mentioned any specifc color of the cover in panchanama/Ex.P3 and PW1 & PW2 are stock witnesses at their Excise police station and also there was a delay of one month for sending the sample drawn for chemical examination.

(v)On perusal of PW.3 & PW.4 evidence, there is a clear cut contradiction between PW1 & PW2 statements with PW.3 & PW.4 regarding the material content whether the panch witnesses were present during seizure panchanama and destruction panchanama. The learned APP has contended that conviction can be given solely upon the testimony of PW.3 & PW.4, as they does not come under interested witness category.

(vi)PW.3 & PW.4 deposed in their cross examination that PW1 & PW2 are witnesses to few other cases at their police station but as per section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code the ofcer or the other person shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched or any other locality if no such inhabitants 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, but in the present case the PW.3 has failed to call local panch witnesses at the scene of ofence, which itself shows the proceedings are vitiated and the Accused is entitled for beneft of doubt. Further, PW.3 & PW.4 has

C.C.No.16 of 20235Dt. 06-02-2023 not supported the prosecution case in toto including the contents of the Ex.P3 panchanama, and not drawn any rough sketch at the scene of ofence there are several infrmities in the evidence of PW.3 & PW.4 which compel this Court not to rely on the evidence of PW.3 & PW.4.

(vii) Except the evidence of PW.3 & PW.4 who are Excise Police ofcials, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is true that the Court can not reject the evidence of PW.3 & PW.4 at the threshold on the mere ground that they are Excise ofcials. However evidence of PW.3 & PW.4 has to be appreciated with great care and caution because PW.3 & PW.4 are very much interested in the result of the case being Excise Police ofcials.

(viii) Moreover PW.3 & PW.4 failed to prove that the Accused was in possession of 2 liters of ID liquor as per the charge, the prosecution must prove that the Accused was in the possession of 2 liters of ID liquor but failed to prove the same. It is appropriate to mention here that supporting chemical analysis report has not established in this case against the Accused. But it is the prosecution to establish that such samples which were referred for chemical analysis were seized from the possession of the Accused and was sent for chemical examination without any tampering. Except interested testimony of PW.3 & PW.4, no supporting material is provided with all these discrepancies it clearly shows that mere registration of crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution, whereas PW1 & PW2 has completely denied the prosecution case. From the above infrmities this Court is of view that the testimony of PW.3 & PW.4 cannot be base for conviction. Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the ofence which was charged. This point is answered against the prosecution.

10. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty for the ofence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S prohibition Act-1995 and she is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for six months as prescribed under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 i.e., sample bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 06th day of February, 2023)

Sd/-

FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.

C.C.No.16 of 20236Dt. 06-02-2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Bhukya Mahender - None - PW2: Chandu Rajashekar PW.3: P.Karam Chand PW.4: G.Suvarna

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Ex.P3/Panchnama. –Nil-

Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on Ex.P3/Panchnama.

Ex.P3: Seizure Panchanama, dt.11-02-2022.

Ex.P4: Crime Occurrence Report vide No.17/2022.

Ex.P5: Letter of Advice.

Mos.Marked:

MO1: Sample bottle of 180 ml I.D. Liquor.

Sd/-

FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.

C.C.No.16 of 20237Dt. 06-02-2023

C.C.No.18 of 20231Dt. 06-02-2023

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER TELANGANA PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT-cum-IV ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL:

Monday, the 06th day of February, 2023.

Present: P.Gopika Naga Sravya, FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Proh. & Excise Cases -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

CC.No. 18 of 2023

(COR.NO.15/2022 of Proh. & Excise station, Wardhannapet) Between:

The State represented by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Station Wardhannapet.

… Complainant.

AND

Banoth Bhadramma, W/o Eerya, Age: 48 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Coolie, R/o Thurpu thanda, Parvathagiri mandal.

...Sole Accused.

This case is coming on 06-02-2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri A.R.Srinivas for the prosecution and of Sri N.Kamalakar, Counsel for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Wardhannapet Station fled charge sheet in COR.No.15/2022 against the accused for the ofence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The case of prosecution in brief as follows: -

On 11-02-2022, at about 11.30 AM, on receiving reliable information that some persons are selling I.D.Liquor, LW.3/P.Karamchand, Assistant Proh. Superintendent, DTF Warangal & LW.4/G.Suravna, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Wardhannapet Station along with their staf proceeded to Infront of house of Accused at Thurupur Thanda, Parvathagiri Mandal for conducting ID raids by securing the Panch witnesses i.e.,

C.C.No.18 of 20232Dt. 06-02-2023

LW.1/Bhukya Mahender & LW.2/Chandu Rajashekar. During checking found one person in suspicious manner holding a bag in her hand, on seeing them she tried to escape from the scene, but LW.3 & LW.4 along with their staf caught her. Then LW.3 & LW.4 opened the bag and found two polythene covers flled with some liquid. By virtue of smell of the contents of the polythene cover, LW-1 to LW-4 identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters. LW.3 seized the contraband under cover of panchanama and drawn two samples of I.D.Liquor 180 ml each. Later, on return to the station, basing on panchanama, LW.4 registered a case in COR.No. 15/2022, Dated: 11-02-2022, for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and released the accused by serving notice under section 41(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. During the investigation, out of two samples drawn, one sample has been forwarded to Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Warangal for Chemical Examination. LW5/ M.Neelima Swapna Latha examined the sample and gave a report stating that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor unft for human consumption which is injurious to health. On 18-06-2022 the case property was destroyed under the supervision of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Warangal Rural under cover of Panchanama. After completion of investigation LW.4/G.Suvarna fled the charge sheet against the sole accused.

3. The case was taken on fle against sole accused for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The sole accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code,1973 and charge framed under section 240 Criminal Procedure Code for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act,1955 was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of sole accused the prosecution examined witnesses i.e., LW1 to LW.4 as PW1 to PW.4 and got marked Exhibited documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, and material object MO1, as indicated in the Appendix of Evidence.

6. In this case, the prosecution has not examined LW5/M.Neelima Swapna Latha, Govt. Chemical Examiner, who gave expert opinion as the learned APP has given up their evidence.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, sole accused was examined Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for which she denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence deposed against her and reported no defence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

C.C.No.18 of 20233Dt. 06-02-2023 9. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the sole accused under

section 7-A r/w 8(e) T.S Proh Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

(i)The case of the prosecution is that the sole accused person has committed the ofence of arrack under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995, accordingly the prosecution has to establish that the sole accused was in possession of 2 liters of I.D liquor at scene of ofence, PW.3 & PW.4 recovered the same in the presence of Panch witnesses i.e., PW.1/Bhukya Mahender and PW.2/Chandu Rajashekar. The contention of the learned counsel for sole accused is that the accused did not commit any ofence and the case is foisted against her only for statistical purpose.

(ii)PW.1 and PW.2 who are panch witnesses to the present case had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, but PW.1 & PW.2 had admitted their signatures which were marked as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. Hence, PW1 and PW2’s signatures which were marked as Exs.P1 & P2 and cannot be taken into consideration as they did not support the prosecution case.

(iii) PW.3 deposed that on 11-02-2022 at about 11.30 am, basing on receiving reliable information he along with PW.4 and their staf proceeded to Thurpu Thadna, Parvathagiri and secured the panch witnesses PW.1 & PW.2. PW.3 stated that, while conducting search they found one person in a suspicious manner carrying a white plastic bag in her hand and on seeing them she tried to escape from the scene, but his staf caught her and PW3 opened the bag and found two polythene covers flled with some liquid, by virtue of smell and contents of cover they identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters and on enquiry the accused revealed her identity. PW.3 further deposed that two samples in 180 ml in a bottle were drawn for chemical analysis and same was produced before this court and got marked as MO1. Later PW.3 handed over the case to PW.4.

In PW.3 Cross Examination, he clearly admitted that there is a distance of 18-20 Kms from the police station to the scene of ofence and on information through phone call and reached there through Government Vehicle. PW.3 further stated that he has not examined any independent witness at scene of ofence. PW.3 admitted that PW1 & PW2 are stock witnesses in number of cases at Excise Police Station.

(iv)P.W.4 deposed that on 11-02-2022 at about 11.30 AM on reliable information she along with PW.3 and their staf proceeded to Thurpu Thanda, Parvathagiri and secured the panchas PW.1 & PW.2. PW.4 stated that while conducting search they found one women in a suspicious manner carrying a white plastic bag in her hand and

C.C.No.18 of 20234Dt. 06-02-2023 on seeing them she tried to escape from the scene, but her staf caught her and PW.3 opened the bag and found two polythene covers flled with some liquid, by virtue of smell and contents of cover they identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters and on enquiry the accused revealed her identity. PW.4 further deposed that two samples in 180 ml in a bottle were drawn for chemical analysis and same was produced before this court and got marked as MO1 and she conducted panchana in the presence of PW.1 & PW.2 which is marked as Ex.P3. Later, after going to Police Station PW.4 issued Ex.P4 vide No.15/2022. On verifcation they came to know that the said person by name Banothu Badhramma and released her by serving notice under section 41(A) Cr.P.C. Later, PW.4 stated that she has sent the drawn sample bottle for chemical analysis through letter of advice which is marked as Ex.P5. PW.4 conducted destruction over a seized property and after collecting all the documents PW.4 flled charge sheet against the Accused.

In PW.4 Cross Examination, she clearly admitted that there is a distance of 18- 20 Kms from the police station to the scene of ofence and on information through her informer and reached there through Government Vehicle. PW.4 further stated that she has not drawn any rough sketch at the scene of ofence nor examined any independent witnesses there and have not recorded any 161 statements of her staf and admitted that she has not mentioned any specifc color of the cover in panchanama/Ex.P3 and PW1 & PW2 are stock witnesses at their Excise police station and also there was a delay of one month for sending the sample drawn for chemical examination.

(v)On perusal of PW.3 & PW.4 evidence, there is a clear cut contradiction between PW1 & PW2 statements with PW.3 & PW.4 regarding the material content whether the panch witnesses were present during the seizure panchanama and destruction panchanama. The learned APP has contended that conviction can be given solely upon the testimony of PW.3 & PW.4, as they does not come under interested witness category.

(vi)PW.3 & PW.4 deposed in their cross examination that PW1 & PW2 are witnesses to few other cases at their police station but as per section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code the ofcer or the other person shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched or any other locality if no such inhabitants 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, but in the present case the PW.3 has failed to call local panch witnesses at the scene of ofence, which itself shows the proceedings are vitiated and the Accused is entitled for beneft of doubt. Further, PW.4 has not supported the prosecution case in toto including the contents of the Ex.P3

C.C.No.18 of 20235Dt. 06-02-2023 panchanama, and not drawn any rough sketch at the scene of ofence there are several infrmities in the evidence of PW.4 which compel this Court not to rely on the evidence of PW.4.

(vii) Except the evidence of PW.3 & PW.4 who are Excise Police ofcials, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is true that the Court can not reject the evidence of PW.3 & PW.4 at the threshold on the mere ground that they are Excise ofcials. However evidence of PW.3 & PW.4 has to be appreciated with great care and caution because PW.3 & PW.4 are very much interested in the result of the case being Excise Police ofcials.

(viii) Moreover PW.3 & PW.4 failed to prove that the Accused was in possession of 2 liters of ID liquor as per the charge, the prosecution must prove that the Accused was in the possession of 2 liters of ID liquor but failed to prove the same. It is appropriate to mention here that supporting chemical analysis report has not established in this case against the Accused. But it is the prosecution to establish that such samples which were referred for chemical analysis were seized from the possession of the Accused and was sent for chemical examination without any tampering. Except interested testimony of PW.3 & PW.4, no supporting material is provided with all these discrepancies it clearly shows that mere registration of crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution, whereas PW1 & PW2 has completely denied the prosecution case. From the above infrmities this Court is of view that the testimony of PW.3 & PW.4 cannot be base for conviction. Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the ofence which was charged. This point is answered against the prosecution.

10. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty for the ofence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S prohibition Act-1995 and she is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for six months as prescribed under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 i.e., sample bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 06th day of February, 2023)

Sd/-

FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.

C.C.No.18 of 20236Dt. 06-02-2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Bhukya Mahender - None - PW2: Chandu Rajashekar PW.3: P.Karam Chand PW.4: G.Suvarna

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Ex.P3/Panchnama. –Nil-

Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on Ex.P3/Panchnama.

Ex.P3: Seizure Panchanama, dt.11-02-2022.

Ex.P4: Crime Occurrence Report vide No.15/2022.

Ex.P5: Letter of Advice.

Mos.Marked:

MO1: Sample bottle of 180 ml I.D. Liquor.

Sd/-

FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.

C.C.No.14 of 20231Dt. 10-02-2023

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER TELANGANA PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT-cum-IV ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL:

Friday, the 10th day of February, 2023.

Present: Ms. P.Gopika Naga Sravya, FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Proh. & Excise Cases -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

CC.No. 14 of 2023

(COR.NO.14/2022 of Proh. & Excise station, Wardhannapet)

Between:

The State represented by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Station Wardhannapet.

… Complainant.

AND

Vallamdas Sathish, Age: 35 years, S/o Permaiah, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occ: Coolie, R/o SC Colony, Wardhannapet.

...Sole Accused.

This case is coming on 10-02-2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri A. R. Srinivas for the prosecution and of Sri.N.Kamalakar, Counsel for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Wardhannapet Station fled charge sheet in COR.No.14/2022 against the accused for the ofence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The case of prosecution in brief as follows: -

On 10-02-2022, at about 11.30 AM, basing on reliable information that some persons are selling I.D.Liquor, LW.3/Ch.Pavan, Proh. & Excise Inspector, Wardhannapet

C.C.No.14 of 20232Dt. 10-02-2023

Station along with his staf proceeded to SC Colony, Wardhannapet for conducting ID raids by securing the Panch witnesses i.e., LW.1/Bhukya Mahender & LW.2/Chandu Rajashekar. During checking they found one person in suspicious manner holding a bag in his hand, on seeing them he tried to escape from there. Then LW.3 along with his staf caught him, opened the bag and found one plastic bottle flled with some liquid. By virtue of smell of the contents of the bottle, LW-1 to LW-3 identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters. LW.3 seized the contraband under cover of panchanama and drawn two samples of I.D.Liquor 180 ml each. Later, LW.3 returned to the station and basing on panchanama, LW.3 registered a case in COR.No. 14/2022, Dated: 10-02-2022, for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and released the sole accused by serving notice under section 41(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. During the investigation, out of two samples drawn, one sample has been forwarded to Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Warangal for Chemical Examination. LW4/ M.Neelima Swapna Latha examined the sample and gave a report stating that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor unft for human consumption which is injurious to health. On 18-06-2022 the case property was destroyed under the supervision of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Warangal Rural under cover of Panchanama. After completion of investigation LW.5/G.Suvarna fled the charge sheet against the sole accused.

3. The case was taken on fle against sole accused for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The sole accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code,1973, and charge framed under section 240 Criminal Procedure Code for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act,1955 was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of sole accused the prosecution examined witnesses i.e., LW1 to LW.3 as PW1 to PW.3 and got marked Exhibited documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, and material object MO1, as indicated in the Appendix of Evidence.

6. In this case, the prosecution has not examined LW4/ M.Neelima Swapna Latha, Govt. Chemical Examiner, who gave expert opinion and LW5/G.Suvarna, Investigation officer who fled the charge sheet, as the learned APP has given up their evidence.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, sole accused was examined Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for which he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence deposed against him and reported no defence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

C.C.No.14 of 20233Dt. 10-02-2023

8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the sole accused under

section 7-A r/w 8(e) T.S Proh Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

(i)The case of the prosecution is that the sole accused has committed the ofence of arrack under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995, accordingly the prosecution has to establish that the sole accused was in possession of 2 liters of I.D liquor at scene of ofence and PW.3 recovered the same in the presence of Panch witnesses i.e., PW.1/Bhukya Mahender and PW.2/Chandu Rajashekar. The contention of the learned counsel for sole accused is that the accused did not commit any ofence and the case is foisted against him only for statistical purpose.

(ii)PW.1 & PW.2, who are panch witnesses to the present case had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, but PW.1 & PW.2 admitted their signatures which were marked as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. Hence, PW1 & PW2’s signatures which were marked as Exs.P1 & P2 and cannot be taken into consideration as they did not support the prosecution case.

(iii) P.W.3 deposed that on 10-02-2022 at about 11.30 AM basing on reliable information he along with his staf proceeded to SC Colony, Wardhannapet by securing panch witnesses PW.1 & PW.2. While conducting search they found one person in a suspicious manner carrying a bag in his hand. On seeing them he tried to escape from the scene, but PW.3 along with his staf caught the accused. Then PW.3 opened the bag and found one plastic bottle fled with some liquid. By virtue of smell and contents of the bottle, PW.1 to PW.3 identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters. PW.3 further deposed that he has drawn two samples of 180 ml in bottles for chemical analysis and same was produced before this court and got marked as MO1 and conducted panchanama in the presence of PW.1 & PW.2 which is marked as Ex.P3. Later, after going to Police Station PW.3 issued COR/Ex.P4 vide No.14/2022, dt.10-02- 2022. On enquiry they came to know that the said Accused person as Vallamdas Sathish. Later, PW.3 sent the drawn sample bottle for chemical analysis through letter of advice which is marked as Ex.P5. PW.3 further stated that he handed over the case fle to LW.5/G.Suvarna, SI P & E, PS Wardhannapet, who conducted destruction over a seized property and after collecting all the documents LW.5/G.Suvarna flled charge sheet against the Accused.

In PW.3 Cross Examination, he clearly admitted that there is a distance of 1 Km from the police station to the scene of ofence, he received the information through

C.C.No.14 of 20234Dt. 10-02-2023 phone call and reached there through Government Vehicle. PW.3 further stated that he has not fled any log book pertaining to the said crime and not entered the case details in general diary or case diary. PW.3 admitted that he has not drawn any rough sketch at the scene of ofence nor examined any independent witness there and have not recorded any 161 statements of his staf and admitted that he has not mentioned any specifc color of the cover in panchanama/Ex.P3 and PW1 & PW2 are stock witnesses at their Excise police station and also there was a delay of one month for sending the sample drawn for chemical examination.

(iv) On perusal of PW.3 evidence, there is a clear cut contradiction between PW1 & PW2 statements with PW.3 regarding the material content whether the panch witnesses were present during the seizure panchanama and destruction panchanama. The learned APP has contended that conviction can be given solely upon the testimony of PW.3, as he does not come under interested witness category.

(v) PW.3 deposed in his cross examination that PW1 & PW2 are witnesses to few other cases at their police station but as per section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code the officer or the other person shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched or any other locality if no such inhabitants 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, but in the present case the PW.3 has failed to call local panch witnesses at the scene of ofence, which itself shows the proceedings are vitiated and the Accused is entitled for beneft of doubt. Further, PW.3 has not supported the prosecution case in toto including the contents of the Ex.P3 panchanama, and not drawn any rough sketch at the scene of ofence there are several infrmities in the evidence of PW.3 which compel this Court not to rely on the evidence of PW.3.

(vi) Except the evidence of PW.3 who is an Excise Police official, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is true that the Court can not reject the evidence of PW.3 at the threshold on the mere ground that he is an Excise official. However evidence of PW.3 has to be appreciated with great care and caution because PW.3 is very much interested in the result of the case being Excise Police official.

(vii) Moreover PW.3 has failed to prove that the Accused was in possession of 2 liters of ID liquor as per the charge, the prosecution must prove that the Accused was in the possession of 2 liters of ID liquor but failed to prove the same. It is appropriate to mention here that supporting chemical analysis report has not established in this case against the Accused. But it is the prosecution to establish that such samples which were referred for chemical analysis were seized from the possession of the Accused and was sent for chemical examination without any tampering. Except interested

C.C.No.14 of 20235Dt. 10-02-2023 testimony of PW.3, no supporting material is provided with all these discrepancies it clearly shows that mere registration of crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution, whereas PW1 & PW2 has completely denied the prosecution case. From the above infrmities this Court is of view that the sole testimony of PW.3 cannot be base for conviction. Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the ofence which was charged. This point is answered against the prosecution.

10. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty for the ofence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S prohibition Act-1995 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for six months as prescribed under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 i.e., sample bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 10th day of February, 2023)

Sd/-

FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.

C.C.No.14 of 20236Dt. 10-02-2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Bhukya Mahender - None - PW2: Chandu Rajashekar PW.3: Ch.Pavan

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Ex.P3/Panchnama. –Nil-

Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on Ex.P3/Panchnama.

Ex.P3: Panchanama

Ex.P4: Crime Occurrence Report vide No.14/2022..

Ex.P5: Letter of Advice.

Mos.Marked:

MO1: Sample bottle of 180 ml I.D. Liquor.

Sd/-

FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.

C.C.No.15 of 2023Dt. 31-01-2023

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER TELANGANA PROHIBITION AND EXCISE ACT-cum-IV ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL:

Tuesday, the 31st day of January, 2023.

Present: Ms. P.Gopika Naga Sravya, FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Proh. & Excise Cases -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

CC.No. 15 of 2023

(COR.NO.12/2022 of Proh. & Excise station, Wardhannapet)

Between:

The State represented by Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Station Wardhannapet.

… Complainant.

AND

Banoth Lakpathi S/o Panthulau, Age: 43 years, Caste: ST-Lambada, Occ: Coolie, R/o NS Thanda, Wardhannapet ...Sole Accused.

This case is coming on 31-01-2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri A. R. Srinivas for the prosecution and of Sri N.Kamalakar, Counsel for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Proh. & Excise, Wardhannapet Station fled charge sheet in COR.No.12/2022 against the accused for the ofence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995.

2. The case of prosecution in brief as follows: -

On 05-02-2022, at about 06.00 pm, on receiving reliable information that some persons are selling I.D.Liquor, LW.3/G.Suvarna, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector,

C.C.No.15 of 2023Dt. 31-01-2023

Wardhannapet Station along with her staf proceeded to NS Thanda, Wardhannapet for conducting ID raids after securing the Panch witnesses i.e., LW.1/Bhukya Mahender & LW.2/Chandu Rajashekar and during checking found one person in suspicious manner holding a bag in his hand, on seeing them he left the bag and escaped from there. Then LW.3 opened the bag and found one polythene cover flled with some liquid. By virtue of smell of the contents of the polythene cover, LW-1 to LW-3 identifed it as ID liquor of 2 liters, then LW.3 went through surroundings found one plastic drum flled with black colour liquid and destroyed 100 liters of Fermented Jaggery Wash on the spot. LW.3 seized the contraband under cover of panchanama and drawn two samples of I.D.Liquor 180 ml each. Later, LW.3 returned to the station, basing on panchanama, LW.3 registered a case in COR.No. 12/2022, Dated: 05-02- 2022, for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995 and on 05-11-2022 LW.3 arrested the sole accused and released him by serving notice under section 41(A) of Criminal Procedure Code. During the investigation, out of two samples drawn, one sample has been forwarded to Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Warangal for Chemical Examination. LW4/M.Neelima Swapna Latha examined the sample and gave a report stating that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor unft for human consumption which is injurious to health. On 18-06-2022 the case property was destroyed under the supervision of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Warangal Rural under cover of Panchanama. After completion of investigation LW.3/G.Suvarna fled the charge sheet against the sole accused.

3. The case was taken on fle against sole accused for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The sole accused was examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code,1973 charge was framed under section 240 Criminal Procedure Code for the ofence under section 7-A r/w 8 (e) of T.S Prohibition Act,1955 was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of sole accused the prosecution examined witnesses i.e., LW1 to LW.3 as PW1 to PW.3 and got marked Exhibited documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5, and material object MO1, as indicated in the Appendix of Evidence.

6. In this case, the prosecution has not examined LW4/ M.Neelima Swapna Latha, Govt. Chemical Examiner, who gave expert opinion as the learned APP has given up their evidence.

C.C.No.15 of 2023Dt. 31-01-2023

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, sole accused was examined Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for which he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence deposed against him and reported no defence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the sole accused under

section 7-A r/w 8(e) T.S Proh Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

(i)The case of the prosecution is that the sole accused person has committed the ofence of arrack under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S Prohibition Act, 1995, accordingly the prosecution has to establish that the sole accused was in possession of 2 liters of I.D liquor at scene of ofence, PW.3 recovered the same in the presence of Panch witnesses i.e., PW.1/Bhukya Mahender and PW.2/Chandu Rajashekar. The contention of the learned counsel for sole accused is that the accused did not commit any ofence and the case is foisted against him only for statistical purpose.

(ii)PW.1 and PW.2 who are panch witnesses to the present case had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, but PW.1 and PW.2 had admitted their signatures which were marked as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. Hence, PW1 and PW2’s signatures which were marked as Exs.P1 & P2 and cannot be taken into consideration as they did not support the prosecution case.

(iii) P.W.3 deposed that on 05-02-2022 at about 06.00 PM on reliable information proceeded along with her staf to NS Thanda, Wardhannapet by securing panchas PW.1 and PW.2. While conducting search they found one person in a suspicious manner carrying a bag in his hand. On seeing them he escaped from the scene by throwing away the bag. Then PW.3 opened the bag and found one polythene cover fled with some liquid which was identifed as ID liquor of 2 liters and while PW.3 along with her staf going through around the surrounding found one plastic drum flled with black liquid which was destroyed on the spot. PW.3 drawn a sample of 180 ml in a bottle for chemical analysis and same was produced before this court and got marked as MO1. Later, after going to Police Station PW.3 issued Ex.P3 vide No.12/2022. On enquiry they came to know that the said person by name Banoth Lakpathi. Later, PW.3 sent the drawn sample bottle for chemical analysis through letter of advice which is marked as Ex.P5. PW.3 conducted destruction over a seized

C.C.No.15 of 2023Dt. 31-01-2023 property and after collecting all the documents PW.3 flled charge sheet against the Accused.

In PW.3 Cross Examination, he clearly admitted that there is a distance of 5 Kms from the police station to the scene of ofence and on information through her informer and reached there through Government Vehicle. PW.3 further stated that she has not drawn any rough sketch at the scene of ofence nor examined any independent witnesses there and have not recorded any 161 statements of his staf and admitted that PW.3 has not mentioned any specifc color of the cover in panchanama/Ex.P4 and PW1 & PW2 are stock witnesses at their Excise police station and also there was a delay of one month for sending the sample drawn for chemical examination.

(iv) On perusal of PW.3 evidence, there is a clear cut contradiction between PW1 & PW2 statements with PW.3 regarding the material content whether the panch witnesses were present and the seizure panchanama and the destruction panchanama was prepared before the PW1 & PW2. The learned APP has contended that conviction can be given solely upon the testimony of PW.3, as she does not come under interested witness category.

(v) PW.3 deposed in her cross examination that PW1 & PW2 are witnesses to few other cases at their police station but as per section 100(4) Criminal Procedure Code the ofcer or the other person shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched or any other locality if no such inhabitants 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, but in the present case the PW.3 has failed to call local panch witnesses at the scene of ofence, itself shows the proceedings are vitiated and the Accused is entitled for beneft of doubt. Further, PW.3 has not supported the prosecution case in toto including the contents of the Ex.P4 panchanama, and not drawn any rough sketch at the scene of ofence there are several infrmities in the evidence of PW.3 which compel this Court not to rely on the evidence of PW.3.

(vi) Except the evidence of PW.3 who is an Excise Police ofcial, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is true that the Court can not reject the evidence of PW.3 at the threshold on the mere ground that she is Excise ofcial. However evidence of PW.3 has to be appreciated with great care and caution because PW.3 is very much interested in the result of the case being Excise Police ofcial.

C.C.No.15 of 2023Dt. 31-01-2023

(vii) Moreover PW.3 has failed to prove that the Accused was in possession of 2 liters of ID liquor as per the charge, the prosecution must prove that the Accused was in the possession of 2 liters of ID liquor but failed to prove the same. It is appropriate to mention here that supporting chemical analysis report has not established in this case against the Accused. But it is the prosecution to establish that such samples which were referred for chemical analysis were seized from the possession of the Accused and was sent for chemical examination without any tampering. Except interested testimony of PW.3, no supporting material is provided with all these discrepancies it clearly shows that mere registration of crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution, whereas PW1 & PW2 has completely denied the prosecution case. From the above infrmities this Court is of view that upon sole testimony of PW.3 cannot be base for conviction. Prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the ofence which was charged. Thus point is answered against the prosecution.

10. In the result, the Accused is not found guilty for the ofence punishable under section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S prohibition Act-1995 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for six months as prescribed under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. MO1 i.e., sample bottle shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 31st day of January, 2023)

Sd/-

FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.

C.C.No.15 of 2023Dt. 31-01-2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Bhukya Mahender - None - PW2: Chandu Rajashekar PW.3: G.Suvarna

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Ex.P4/Panchnama. –Nil-

Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on Ex.P4/Panchnama.

Ex.P3: Crime Occurrence Report vide No.12/2022.

Ex.P4: Panchanama.

Ex.P5: Letter of Advice.

Mos.Marked:

MO1: Sample bottle of 180 ml I.D. Liquor.

Sd/-

FAC-Spl. J.M.F.C. for Trial of cases under T.S.Proh. & Excise Act -cum-IV Addl.J.C.J.,Warangal.