Sri. Porika Ravinder

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT NIRMAL ::

Present:- P.Ravinder, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

Dated, this the 25 th day of August, 2025

CC.No. 1245 of 2012

(Old CC No. 345/07)

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Nirmal Rural.

Prosecution // AND //

1. Shaik Ahmed, S/o. Rabbani, age: 35 years, Occ: Eicher Van Driver, R/o. Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad. (Case Split up vide CC 635/2024, dated 22.07.2024)

2. Syed Mohd Illiyas Hussain @ Giddu Shafi, S/o. Gaffar, age: 36 years, R/o. Mujahidnagar, Ramzan Roa, Nizamabad. (Case Split up vide CC 635/2024, dated 22.07.2024)

3. Zuber Khan, R/o. Gajulpet, Nizamabad. (Case Split up vide CC 635/2024, dated 22.07.2024)

4. Rathod Goverdhan, S/o. Laxman, age: 30 years, R/o. Jagadambathanda, Parimandal of Mamada Mandal.

5. Muqeed, R/o. Shantinagar, Nizamabad. (Case Split up vide CC 635/2024, dated 22.07.2024) …Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on this day in the pres- ence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Shyam Sun- der Reddy, Advocate Counsel for accused person and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

2/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Nirmal Rural, laid charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5 in Cr.No.08 of 2007 fo r the offence under

Section 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

02. The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

On 09.02.2007 night hours, the accused no.1 to 3 and accused no.5 came to Nirmal, met A4 at Mancherial Chowrastha, Nirmal and all of them proceeded to Parimandal and got loaded (81) logs in Eicher Van bearing No.

AP 12 U 2936 and started from Parimandal via Kotha Pochampad,

Bhagyanagar road, on the way on seeing the van of LW1 to 3, the LW1 to 3 tried to stop the said van, but the accused no.1 who is the driver of van turned the van on to the LW1 to LW3 due to fear they managed to escape from the attempt of van driver, the LW1 to LW3 followed the said van and at about 4.30 am on 10.02.2007, when they reached to Manjulapur village managed to stop the van by over taking it, then accused no.3 to 5 got down from the van and started beating the LW1 with hands and caused injuries, when the accused persons tried to beat LW2 and LW3 they tried to escape from their hands, then the accused persons threatened to kill the LW1 to

LW3 if they try to chase them and again boarded the van and started towards Bhainsa but the LW1 to LW3 again chased them and informed the matter to police station, Narsapur-G over telephone, on receipt of information

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

3/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal given by LW1, about 5 am the LW4 and his staff tried to stop the Eicher van infront of Narsapur-G police station, in the meantime, the accused no.3 and 5 tried to escape from the van, meanwhile LW1 to LW3 also reached Narsapur-

G police station and found accused no.1 and accused no.2 only in the van bearing no. AP 12 U 2936 loaded with teak logs Later LW1 lodged a report against the accused persons.

Based on the strength of report of LW1, LW8/Investigation Officer registered a case in Cr.No.08 of 2007 for the offence U/sec.332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, issued an FIR, and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 to LW3 and referred the LW1 to Government area hospital, Nirmal for treatment and necessary certificate. Later LW8 examined and recorded the statement of

LW4. Subsequently, LW9 took up investigation of this case, verified the investigtaion done by LW8 and found on correct lines. Later on reliable information, LW9 along with sufficient force rushed to Sofinagar Dargah,

Nirmal, apprehended accused no.1 and 2 and interrogated them, on interrogation, the accused no.1 and 2 admitted the guilt of commission of offence along with other accused no.3 to 5, then LW9 secured the presence of

LW5 and LW6 and recorded the confessional statement of accused no.1 and 2, Later LW9 brought the accused no.1 and 2 and effected their arrest. After completion of legal formalities the accused no.1 and 2 were remanded to judicial custody. Later on 21.02.2007, on reliable information the LW9 along

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

4/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal with sufficient force rushed to Kankapur “X” road, apprehended the absconding accused i.e., accused no.4 and interrogated him thoroughly, on interrogation the accused no.4 admitted his guilt of commission of this offence along with other accused no.1 to 3 and accused no.5. Later brought the accused no.4 to police station and effected his arrest. After completion of legal formalities the accused no.1 and 2 were remanded to judicial custody.

The LW7/Medical Officer who treated LW1 has issued Medical Certificate opining that the injury is simple in nature. After completion of investigation,

LW9 filed the charge-sheet against accused for the offence under section 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

03. This court took cognizance, on the police report, for the offence under section 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued summons to the accused no.1 to 5.

04. During the pendency of case, the case against accused no.1 to 3

and accused no.5 was split up vide CC 635/2024, dated 22.07.2024.

05.On the appearance of the accused no.4 before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C in respect of accusation and charges were framed for the offence under Sections 332, 506 r/w 34 IPC, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

5/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

06. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. The concerned authority filed the death certificate of LW6. Hence the evidence of LW6 is closed.

07.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused no.4 was given an opportunity of being heard by putting before him all the accusations alleged by the prosecution witnesses in the form of questions which have been recorded in the prescribed format in the manner as envisaged under section 313 of Cr.P.C. As aforesaid, the defence denied the allegations in toto and declined to adduce evidence.

08. Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused no.4.

09.Now, the point for determination is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused no.4 for the offence punishable under section 332,

506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10.PW1 is the defacto-complainant and injured witness deposed that, on 09.02.2007, he have received a reliable information after receipt of the information himself and LW2 and LW3 went to New Pochampad when they were on night patrolling duty in between New Pochampad and Bhagyanagar centre there was Kacha road (Parimandal road) a Eicher van coming from

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

6/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

Kacha road at that juncture PW1 intercepted the vehicle but the vehicle driver did not stop the vehicle, then they chased the vehicle and stopped the vehicle at Manjulapur, at that juncture two persons came down from the Eicher vehicle and beat PW1 with hands and threatened them not to follow, then they started the vehicle and left from there, then I telephoned to Narsapur - G police station and the Narsapur -G police stopped the vehicle in front of the

Narsapur police station then the police caught the two persons in the vehicle, on enquiry the name of the persons disclosed has Ahmed is the driver and another is Iliyas. The vehicle is loaded with teak timber. Later they brought the accused No.1 and 2 along with Eicher vehicle and timber to the Forest

Range Office, Nirmal. Later the POR is issued vide POR No. 01/328. Later

PW1 lodged a report against the accused persons and others. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

11.PW2 who is the eye witness to the incident deposed that, on that day at night hours PW1 called him and informed that some persons were illegally transporting teak in a van. On receipt of the said information himself and

Anwar went to left Pochampad and they were yet to stop the said vehicle,

PW1, himself and LW2 tried to stop the vehicle but they did not stop the vehicle at that juncture PW1, himself and LW2 chased the vehicle on their

Jeep and stopped the van, at that juncture the persons in the vehicle tried to beat the PW1 on seeing that they were afraid of that, immediately PW1 telephoned to the Narsapur PS and informed about the incident. Later the

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

7/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

Narsapur Police stopped the vehicle loaded with teak, on knowing with said information they reached the Narsapur Police station. PW2 further deposed that then PW1 took the vehicle loaded with teak wood to the Forest Range

Office, Nirmal. Later PW1 lodged the complaint, Police examined him and recorded his statement.

12. PW3 who is the Head Constable of Narsapur-G police station and who stopped the vehicke in the the year 2007 at about 4.30 pm, he received a phone call from PW1 and informed that a vehicle (Eicher) loaded with teak timber proceeding from Manjulapur to Bhainsa was not stopped when the

PW1 tried to intercept the vehicle. PW3 further deposed that, after receipt of the information he have stopped the Eicher vehicle loaded with teak timber at

Narsapur G police Station, on stopping the vehicle, three persons were escaped from the vehicle and two persons were in the vehicle and he found teak timber was loaded in the Eicher vehicle, immediately PW3 informed the same to the PW1, at that juncture PW1 came to the scene and conducted the panchanama, then PW1 took the custody of the vehicle along with accused persons. Later police examined him and recorded his statement.

13.PW4 who is the mediator for confession of A1 and A2 deposed that, at about 17 years back police has informed him and instructed him to present at

Sofinagar Dargah, on reaching the Sofinagar Dargah, two persons were within the custody of the police. PW4 further deposed that, on his enquiry two

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

8/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal persons have disclosed their names i.e., Syed Ilias and Shaik Ahmed and also they have confessed that they were engaged from Nizamabad for transportation of illegal teak wood from New Pochampad to Nirmal and also confessed that they have loaded the teak wood in DCM vehicle at New

Pochampad, while they were illegally transporting the said teak wood in DCM van, the forest officials tried to intercept the vehicle but the vehicle was not stopped. PW4 further testified that their vehicle was stopped by the Narsapur police at the Narsapur (G) Police Station. After completion of the panchanama,

PW4 signed on it.

14.PW5 who is the Medical Officer and who treated the LW1 deposed that, on 10.02.2007, PW5 have received requisition along with one M.A Quadeer

S/o. Mastan Khan and a constable from the PS Nirmal Rural, then after receipt of the requisition on the same day, PW5 examined the M.A Quadeer on her examination found following injuries:- 1) Contusion over the right thigh and neck and it was a simple injury caused with a blunt weapon and no evidence of any other external injuries found. PW5 further deposed that, after examination she have issued certificate.

15. PW6 who is the eye witness to the incident deposed that, in between 09/10.02.2007, PW6 along with PW1, LW3, LW5 were on patrolling duty at

New Pochampad. As PW1 received a reliable information with regard to the illegally transportation of teak wood in Eicher vehicle, at that juncture the

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

9/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

Eicher vehicle was proceeding from Parimandal while the vehicle took turning at New Pochampad then himself and PW1 and others tried to stop the vehicle, but the said vehicle not stopped and proceeded further, immediately himself along with PW1 and others in their forest four wheeler vehicle chased and stopped the Eicher vehicle, then two persons on the

Eicher vehicle beat the PW1 with sticks and fled away from there, at that juncture PW1 telephoned to the Narsapur police station and informed the entire incident and requested to stop the vehicle, then the Narsapur police stopped the vehicle then they reached the Narsapur police station. PW6 further testified that, on stopping the vehicle, two persons escaped from the scene, then the PW1 took the possession of the vehicle loaded with teak wood and PW1 conducted the panchanama and took the Eicher vehicle along with teak wood to the Nirmal Forest Range Office, the name of the two persons are Shaik Ahmed and Mohammed Iliyas Hussain @ Shafi. PW6 is the eye witness to the incident.

16.PW7 who is the first investigating officer deposed that, on 10.02.2007 at 12.30 hours, PW7 received a report from PW1, on the basis of report PW7 registered a case in Cr. No.08/2007, U/sec.332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR, took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, PW7 examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW6 and PW2 and he referred PW1 to Govt. Area Hospital for treatment. PW7 further deposed that,

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

10/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal later he examined and recorded the statement of PW3. Subsequently LW9 took up the investigation of this case.

17.PW8 who is the second investigating officer deposed that, the PW7 registered a FIR and conducted the investigation. Later PW7 handed over a case file to PW8. Upon verification PW8 found the investigation was in proper line and later made an efforts to apprehend the accused. PW8 further testified that, on 13.02.2007, on reliable information PW8 along with sufficient force rushed to Sofinagar, Dargah, Nirmal and apprehended A1 and A2 at 1400 hours and interrogated them, on interrogation both the accused No.1 and A2 admitted their guilt about the commission of the offence in the company of accused No.3 to 5, then PW8 secured PW4 and LW6 and recorded the statements of A1 and A2. PW8 further testified that, the accused No.2 further disclosed that at the time of stopping the van by PW3 due to fear, the accused no.2 jumped from the van and sustained injury over his left leg. Later PW8 brought the A1 and A2 to the police station on the same day at 1500 hours and affected their arrest and after completion of legal formalities the accused No.1 and 2 were sent to Hon'ble Court for remand. PW8 further testified that, later on 21.02.2007 on reliable information PW8 along with sufficient force rushed to Kanakapur X road and apprehended the absconded accused No.4/Rathod Goverdhan, the accused

No.4 admitted his guilty about the commission of offence in the company of

A1 to A3 and A5, then PW8 brought A4 to police station on same day at 1200

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

11/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal hours and effected his arrest and after completion of legal formalities the accused No.4 was sent to Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. PW8 further testified that, later he have received medical certificate/from PW5 opining that injuries were in simple in nature. After completion of investigation PW8 have filed a charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable U/sec. 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC requested the Hon'ble court to issue NBW to the accused No.3 and 5 who were absconding.

18.The PW1 who is the defacto-complainant, PW2 and PW6 who are the eye witness to the incident, PW3 who is the official witness, PW4 who is the mediator for confession of A1 and A2, PW5 who is the medical officer, PW7 and PW8 who are official witnesses supported the case of prosecution, but did not deposed that whether the accused no.4 beat the PW1 or not and the witnesses also not deposed that the accused no.4 threatened the PW1 to kill him. No independent witnesses deposed that the presence of A4 at the scene of offence i.e., beating PW1 or being in the van or threatened PW1.

PW1/defacto-complainant and other material witnesses i.e., PW2 and PW6 deposed about two individuals i.e., accused no.1/Ahmed and accused no.2/Iliyas beating PW1 and escaping. The act or involvement of the accused no.4 is not supported by any of the witnesses. Though the official witnesses i.e., PW1, PW3, PW7 and PW8 supported the case of prosecution, but specifically not deposed about the involvement of accused no.4. The court solely cannot rely on the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW7 and PW8. Hence the

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

12/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused no.4 and the involvement of the accused no.4 is not connected beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the point is answered in favour of accused no.4 and against the prosecution.

19. In the result, the accused no.4 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 332, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused no.4, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no case property to pass final orders.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25 th day of August, 2025).

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1: M.A.Quadeer -None- PW2: Kamble Dattatri PW3: G.Narsing Rao PW4: Syed Abid PW5: Dr.K.Rajini PW6: Mohammad Anwar

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

13/13 CC No. 1245 of 2012 On the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

PW7: P.Venkateshwarlu PW8: D.A.John Diwakar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is the Report. - Nil - Ex.P2 is the Confession panchanama. Ex.P3 is the Medical Report. Ex.P4 is the FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

I AJFCM, Nirmal.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT: NIRMAL

Present:- Sri. P. Ravindar

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

FAC: II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nirmal (Dated this the 18 th day of November, 2025)

STC.No.300 of 2021

(Cr. No. 102 of 2021 of Sarangapur P.S)

Between:

The State of Telangana, through,

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Sarangapur.

...Prosecution

A n d

A1. Mudram Dinesh,S/o Laxman, Age: 34 Yrs, Caste:Tenugu, Occ: Business,

R/o. Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A2. Balastu Praveen, S/o Chinna Bhumanna, Age: 29 yrs, Caste: Vanjar,

Occ: Auto Driver. R/o Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A3. Korva Srinivas, S/o Chinnaana, Age: 37 yrs, Caste:M/Kapu,

Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A4. Perugu NadipiSayanna, S/o Gajjaram Age:51 yrs, Caste: Kurma, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A5. Maskari Nagaraju, S/o Bhumanna, Age:26 yrs, Caste: Kurma, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A6. Gangani Ravi Kumar, S/o Rajeshwar, Age: 36 yrs, Caste Vanjari,

Occ: Business, R/o Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A7. Vasala Narayana, S/o Narsaiah, Age: 52yrs, Caste: Padmashali, Occ:

Business, R/o Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A8. J. Sampath Surendar, S/o Sampath Rajanna, Age:29 yrs, Caste: Yadava,

Occ: Driver, R/o Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A9. Arimalla Narsimlu, S/o Achaiah, Age: 32 yrs, Caste:Tenugu. Occ: Mason,

R/o Kotaipalli. Udayagiri Arlapadiya Nellur Now at Jam village of

Sarangapur mandal.

A10. Balastu Mallesh, S/o Bhumanna, Age: 36 yrs, Caste: Vanjari, Occ: Driver,

R/o Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A11. Dasari Gangaram, S/o. Syamrao, Age:36 yrs, Caste Mala, Occ Agriculture,

R/o. Jam village of Sarangapur mandal.

A12. Kasa Praveen Kumar. S/o Sagar, Age: 49 yrs, Caste: Christian, Occ: Junior

Assistant R/o Jam village of Sarangapur mandal (Case against A12 is

Abated vide docket order dated 16.07.2025).

A13. Jangiti Bhojanna, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 47 years, Caste: Yadava, Occ:

Bussiness, R/o. Yakarpalli village of Sarangapur mandal.

...Accused No.1 to 13

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29.10.2025 in the presence of learned APPO for the State and Sri S. Lingaiah and S.Raju, Advocate

for the Accused/respondents having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following.

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

01) The Sub Inspector of Police P.S Sarangapur filed charge sheet against

Accused No. 1 to 13 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act in Crime No. 102/2021 of Sarangapur Police Station.

02) The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:-

That on 18.09.2021 at about 07.00 hours on credible information about some persons playing three cards by betting money in the house of Mudram Dinesh/A1 situated at Jam village using the house as a common Gaming house,

LW-6/G.V.Ramana Reddy, S.I of Police, PS Sarangapur gave a requisition to

SDPO Nirmal with request to issue search proceeding vide proceeding

No.832/SDPO-N/2021, dated 18-09-2021, under Section 5 of TS Gaming ACT 1974. Upon that LW 6 consisting with PCs 1231, 3449 HG-153 rushed to Jam village and raided the said house at 07:30 hrs and found that (2) groups are playing three cards and caught hold of them red handedly while they were playing three cards by betting money. In turn secured two Panch witnesses, before them interrogated thoroughly. On interrogation, owner of gaming house revealed his identity as Mudram Dinesh/A1, after that remaining accused persons revealed their names are as in Ist Group as A2) Balastu Praveen, A3) Korva Srinivas, A4)

Perugu Nadipi Sayanna, A5) Maskari Nagaraju, A6) Gangani Ravi Kumar, A7)

Vasala Narayana, and 2nd group persons revealed their identity as A8) Sampath

Surendar, A9) Armalla Narsimlu, A10) Balastu Mallesh, A11) Dasari Gangaram,

A12) Kasa Praveen Kumar and A13) Jangiti Bhojanna, and they were playing (3) cards in the house of A1/Mudram Dinesh. Later, he recorded their confessionn- cum-seizure Panchanama before the same panchas and seized net cash

Rs.14,810/- and (52) playing cards from the possession of A2 to A13 under cover of Panchanama. Later the A1 to A13 were brought to PS Sarangapur at 09:50 hours and he registered a Suo-motto case in Crime No. 102/2021 under Sections 3 and 4 of Gaming Act. During the course of investigation, the LW6 examined the

LWs-1 to 3 and recorded their statements. Later, LW6 served the notice to A1 to

A13 under Section 41 (A) Cr.PC, and directed them to appear before the court after receiving of accused summons. After completion of Investigation th LW6 filed charge sheet against of Accused No. 1 to 13 for the offence punishable U/Sec 3 and 4 of Gaming Act.

03)Upon receipt of the charge sheet, before I Addl, JMFC Court, Nirmal took cognizance of the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act against accused No.1 to 13 and assigned the case number as S.T.C. 300 of 2021 and same was transferred to II Addl. JMFC, Nirmal.

04) On appearance of the accused No.1 to 11 and 13, copies were furnished to them under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C.) and accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C in respect of accusation for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (Case against A12 is Abated vide docket order dated 16.07.2025).

05) The prosecution got examined (05) witnesses. PW1 is the Home Guard and assisted the I.O in apprehension of the accused persons. PW2 is the Police

Constable and assisted the I.O in apprehension of the accused persons. PW3 and

PW4 are the Panch for confessional cum seizure of the accused persons. PW5 is the I.O who arrested the R1 to R13 and seized the Rs.14,810/- with 104 playing cards. The Learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW2/Jadhav Manoj, PC

No.3449 of PS Sarangapur. On behalf of the prosecution, Exs.P1 to P8 and

M.Os.1 and 2 were marked.

06)After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No. 1 to 11 and 13 were given an opportunity of being heard by putting before them all the accusations alleged by the prosecution witnesses in the form of questions which have been recorded in the prescribed format in the manner as envisaged under section 313 of

Cr.P.C. As aforesaid, the defence denied the allegations in toto and declined to adduce evidence.

07)Heard the arguments of learned APPO and learned defence counsel for accused.

08) Now the point for determination in this case is:

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence with which they stood charged beyond

For the offence punishable U/Sec 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act all

reasonable doubt”

Point:-

09) It is the case of the prosecution is that, o n 18.09.2021, at about 07.30 hours, the accused No.1 to 13 rounded up red-handed while they were playing (3)

Cards by putting for stakes at the house of A1 and police seized an amount of

Rs.14,810/- and (104) playing cards from the possession of A2 to A12 under cover of panchanama.

10) PW1/R. Mohan Singh, deposed that on 18.09.2021, at about 7:00am,

Lw6/SI received reliable information regarding some persons playing three cards in Jam village by betting money in the house of Respondent NO.1/M.Dinesh. The

SI informed to the SDPO, Nirmal. On the instructions of SDPO, Nirmal, he along with their SI/LW6 and LW1 and LW2 went to the Jam village at the house of

Respondent No.1. There, they saw some persons playing three cards, then, the SI caught hold them. LW6/SI secured two panch witnesses ie., Takur Singh/LW4 and

LW5/Rajeshwar and on interrogation by LW6, they revealed that, they are playing three cards and they are confessed commission of this offence and their SI conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized Rs. 14,810/- and 104 playing cards before the panch witnesses and SI brought the R1 to R12 along with case property to the police station PS Sarangapur. The SI registered the case against the Respondents and recorded his statement. He identified the persons, who are present in the court hall, who played the three cards by betting the money.

During the cross-examination It is elicited that on the date of incident, he has no passport to visit the scene of offence. He do not know how much amount from whom seized by the SI of police from the respondents. The distance between PS

Sarangapur to scene of offence is about 3 kms. They have enquired to ascertain the house of respondent No.1 but, he cannot say to whom they were enquired about the house of respondent No.1. That they have not collected any document from the panchayath secretary to ascertain the ownership of the said house. It is not true to suggest that, he do not know who are the panch witnesses. SI of police not mentioned in the panchanama how many cards were seized from each respondent at the time of playing the cards. He can not say the denomination of the notes which was seized from the scene of offence from the possession of respondents. It is not true to suggest that, The SI of police not secured any panch witnesses and not conducted any panchanama in their presence and also not seized any amount and playing cards. It is not true to suggest that, the respondents are falsely implicated in the present case. It is not true to suggest that, on that day, the respondents were not present at the house of R1. It is not true to suggest that,

PW1/R. Mohan Singh deposing false.

PW2/Abdul Ahad, On 18.09.2021, on receiving information LW6 regarding some persons playing three cards by betting money, then I along with

LW2/J.Manoj, PW1, LW6/SI of police went to Jam village at the house of one

Dinesh/R1, there some persons playing three cards by betting money by dividing in two groups. On search, we found Rs. 14,810/-, two sets of playing cards(104) and brought to seized property to the police station along with R1 to R12. Police examined me and recorded my statement.

During Cross - examination : It is elicited that the SI of police not issued any passport to go to the scene of offence. We have filed the document showing that, the SDPO, Nirmal instructed our SI of police to search the scene of offence. It is true, there is no specifically mentioned in my 161 Cr.P.C statement whether the CI of police or the SI of police were taken the accused into the custody. I stated before

SI of police about the seized amount in denomination in 161 Cr.P.C statement. We directly went to the house of respondent No.1 I do not know whether the house number of accused No.1 mentioned in the charge-sheet or not. It is true, that I have not stated specifically how much amount was seized and how many cards sezied from which persons in my 161 Cr.P.C statement before SI of Police. It is not true to suggest that, we did not went to the house of respondent No.1 and we have not seized any amount and cards from the posession of respondents/accused. It is not true to suggest that, the respondents/accused were not present at the scene of offence and I am deposing false.

11) PW5/G.V. Ramana Reddy, deposed that, On 18.09.2021, at 09.50 hours, he received on credible information that, some persons playing three cards in common gaming house by betting money in the house of Mudram Dinesh at Jam village. On receipt of information, inturn, he gave a requisition to the SDPO,

Nirmal with a request to issue search proceedings, then, immediately, the SDPO,

Nirmal issued search proceedings vide Proc.No.832/SDPO-N/2021 dated 08.09.2021 under section 5 of TS Gaming Act. Search proceedings is marked as

Ex.P5. Upon that, he consisting with PCs Pw2, LW2, Pw1 and rushed to Jam village and raid at the house of R1 at 7.30 hours. Then they found that, two groups are playing three cards and caught hold them redhandedly, at that time, they are playing three cards by betting money. Then, they secured two panch witnesses

PW3 and PW4 before them on interrogation, the owner of the house revealed his identity as Mudram Dinesh, S/o. Laxman, R/o. Jam village. Thereafter, on interrogation of remaining persons they revealed their names in First Group as

R2/B.Praveen, R3/K.Srinivas, R4/P.Nadipi Sayanna, R5/M.Nagaraju, R6/G.Ravi,

R7/A.Narayana and after that, we interrogated the second group they revealed their identity as R8/S.Surender, R9/A.Narsimlu, R10/B.Mallesh, R11/D.Gangaram,

R12/K Praveen Kumar, R13/J.Bhojanna. They confessed that, they are playing three cards in the house of R1/Mudram Dinesh. Later, he recorded their confession cum seizure panchamana before panchas PW3 and PW4 and they confessed commission of offence and seized net cash of Rs. 14,810/- and 104 playing cards from the possession of R2 to R13 under cover of panchamana and conducted CDF panchamana. Confession cum seizure panchamana is marked as Ex.P6. Later, he brought the accused persons along with seized property to the police station.

Thereafter, he registered a suomoto case in Cr.no.102/2021 under section 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act and issued FIR. FIR is marked as Ex.P7. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW2, LW2, PW1 under section 161 CrPC. On 18.09.2021, he went to the scene of offence and conducted

CDF panchamana before the same panchas. CDF is marked as Ex.P8. Later, he issued the 41-A CrPC notice to R1 to R13 and directed them to appear before the court after receiving of summons and he deposited the seized property before the court ie., cash of Rs.14,810/- and 104 playing cards. M.O.1 is 104 playing cards and M.O.2 is net cash of Rs.14,810/- and same was kept in FDR vide FDR

No.170032. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against R1 to R13 for the offence punishable under section 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act.

During the Cross-examination It is elicited that, It is true, he have not mentioned whether the respondents played online betting or offline betting. It is true, he has not mentioned in his charge-sheet that, the respondents are playing the cards on betting. It is true, he has not mentioned previously that, the offence where it is committed is a common gaming house. He has not given any duty passport but they are with them. It is true, in search proceedings not mentioned time. It is true, he mentioned in CDF panchamana G.Raju Kiranam Shop and

Pawar Dasharath House not mentioned as list of witness in my charge-sheet. It is true, specifically he did not identified the persons/R1 to R13. It is true, he did not identify their names. It is true, specifically not mentioned in the charge-sheet, R1 taken how much amount. It is true, not mentioned in the charge-sheet how much amount recovered in two groups. It is not true to suggest that, the M.O.1-104 cards were not seized at the time of commission of offence but, now they packed with panch chits and signatures of the panchas on it. It is true, the signature of the PW3 different on M.O.1 and confession cum seizure panchamana and CDF. It is true, he has not specifically mentioned that, how many cards were seized from whom. It is true, he did not collect the documents of R1 in respect of ownership of the common betting house. It is not true to suggest that, as per the instructions of the superior officers, for the statistical purpose, he foisted a false case against the alleged respondents/accused. It is not true to suggest that, the alleged respondents/accused are no way concerned with the commission of offence. It is not true to suggest that, the alleged M.O.1 and M.O.2 not seized from the scene of offence from the possession of respondents/accused under a cover of confession cum recovery panchanama.

12) In the result, accused No.1 to 11 and 13 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

No.1 to 11 and 13, if any shall be canceled after lapse of appeal time as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1-104 playing cards shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and M.O.2 is net cash of Rs.14,810/- which was kept in FDR vide

FDR No.170032 shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation on computer, by the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this 17 th day of November 2023)

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

FAC:II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: R. Mohan Singh None Pw.2: Abdul Ahad Pw.3:T. Saisingh Pw.4:K. Rajeshwar Pw.5:G.V. Ramana Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 is my signature on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P2 is my signature on CDF panchanama Ex.P3 is my signature on CDF panchanama Ex.P4 is my signature on CDF panchanama Ex.P5 marked as search proceedings Ex.P6 marked as Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P7 is FIR Ex.P8 is CDF

M.Os marked

M.O.1 is 104 playing cards

M.O.2 is the net cash of Rs.14,810/- and same was kept in FDR vide FDR No.170032

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

1 CC.No.146 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KHANAPUR

Present:-P.Ravinder, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur

Dated, this the 29 th day of August, 2025

CC.No. 146 of 2025

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Nirmal.

...Complainant

AND

Guglavath Srikanth, S/o. Gopichand, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gosampelly village, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. …Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O for the complainant and Sri.M.Suresh, the lea rned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Nirmal filed the charge sheet in COR.No.26 of 2024 for the offences punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition

Act, 1995 against the accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 06.02.2024 at about 05.45 pm the Excise AC Enforcement Adilabad raid party lead by LW3 and along with staff, on reliable information about preparation, possession and sale of illicitly distilled liquor at Shantinagar village, Khanapur mandal then 2 CC.No.146 of 2025 immediately LW3 along with staff and two panchas i.e., LW1 and LW2 proceeded to the spot and conducted raids on suspected places, and found the accused person with a bag in front of the bike and stopped the vehicle, on opening the said bag they found a substance with hard smell which is illicit distilled liquor on measuring found (04) litres in polythene covers and apprehended the accused. On enquiry, the accused disclosed his identity and particulars. LW3 seized the contraband and two wheeler vehicle i.e., Hero

HF Deluxe blue colour bearing registration No. TS 18 4002 and drawn one sample of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis and report and seized remaining ID liquor under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and obtained signatures of the panchas.

3. Basing on the panchanama, the LW4/J.Ramesh, P&ESI, Proh.&Excise S.I,

Nirmal has registered a case in COR.No.26/2024 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of

TS Proh. Act 1995 and issued COR and took up the investigation and later issued 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused. During the course of investigation, LW4 sent the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for analysis and obtained a report where in opined that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide CE No. 557/2024 dated 24.04.2024.

Subsequently LW4 destroyed the contraband before the same panchas under the cover of panchanama as per the proceedings of Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise,

Adilabad. After completion of investigation, the LW5 filed charge-sheet against the accused person.

3 CC.No.146 of 2025

4. This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995 against the accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and he was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8

(e) of TS Proh Act 1995. Hence the charges for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS

Proh Act 1995 were framed and read over and explained to the accused person in hisvernacular language.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined the PWs.1 to PW4 and the documents marked under Ex.P1 to P7. No witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused person. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4. Hence the evidence of LW4 is closed.

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

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against him, for which the accused person denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offences punishable U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995 against the

accused ?” 4 CC.No.146 of 2025

9. POINT:- To prove its case, the prosecution have examined PW1/P.Shekar Goud and

PW2/K.Narsaiah who are the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama have turned hostile and deposed that they do not know anything about this case. Police did not conducted any panchanama and did not seized any liquor bottles. PW1 and PW2 further deposed that when they went to police station on their personal work police obtained their signatures on some papers. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 signatures of PW1 and PW2 on panchanama.

10. The prosecution have examined PW3/B.Gajender, ESI, Enforcement Adilabad who is Investigation Officer in this case has deposed that on 06.02.2024 at 5.45 PM, while conducting route watch along with staff and panchas received reliable information regarding transportation of illicit distilled liquor at the outskirts of Khanapur village, found one vehicle coming suspiciously along with one bag and PW3 stopped him, issued search memo and searched the bag and found 04 litres of ID liquor, conducted confession cum seizure panchanama. On enquiry the accused disclosed his identity as

Guglavath Srikanth and also confessed about the commission of this offence, PW3 seized contraband and vehicle i.e., Hero HF Delux bearing registration No. TS 18 4002 and drawn one sample bottle under the cover of panchanama conducted by him before the panch witnesses i.e., PW1 and PW2 and brought the accused person along with case property and handed over the seized contraband along with the accused and search memo and panchanama to the LW4/J.Ramesh.

5 CC.No.146 of 2025

11. Further the prosecution have examined PW4/K.Abhishekar, ESI, Nirmal who is

Investigation Officer in this case has deposed that he took CD file from LW4, LW4 issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and registered the case in COR No. 26/2024

dated 06.02.2024. During the course of investigation, LW4 sent the samples of

contraband to the Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for analysis and report and inturn the report was received mentioning that P.Shekar Goud and K.Narsaiah, the sample is containing illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide CE.No.557/2024.03, dated 24.04.2024. PW4 further deposed that, thereafter the contraband seized from the possession of accused has been deposited before Deputy

Commissioner P & E Adilabad for confiscation and intum he has issued confiscation orders to destroy the seized property under cover of panchanama vide Proc.

Cr.No.95/24/Proh. & Ex/B1, dated 01.04.2024 and the contraband has been destroyed under cover of panchanama. PW4 further deposed that, LW4 handed over the entire CD file to him. PW4 have verified all the relevant documents and he filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh Act 1995, after verifying the investigation done by the LW4. PW4 further deposed that, he can identify LW4’s signatures. Ex.P4 is COR. Ex.P5 is the chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P6 is Attested copy of destroyed proceedings. Ex.P7 is the Attested copyof destroyed panchanama.

12. As it could be seen from the above evidences that, the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama i.e., PW1 and PW2 have turned hostile, as such recording of 6 CC.No.146 of 2025 panchanama is not said to be proved. Further the prosecution have not examined any of the independent witnesses, when no independent witnesses were examined this court cannot relay upon the evidence of PW3 and PW4 who are the Investigation Officers in this case and who interested in the outcome of the case of the prosecution. As such, due to lack of the evidence, this court do not hesitate to held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused person.

13. For the reasons stated above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to prove the case for the offences U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS

Proh. Act, 1995 against the accused and the accused person is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8

(e) of TS Proh. Act, 1995 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited vide CP No.

61/2025 i.e., one sealed sample bottle (180 ml) of ID liquor shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of August, 2025).

sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur 7 CC.No.146 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1 : P.Shekar Goud -NONE- PW2 : K.Narsaiah PW3 : B.Gajender PW4 : K.Abhishekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on confession cum seizure -NIL- panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: Confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P4: COR Ex.P5: Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P6: Attested copy of destroyed proceedings. Ex.P7: Attested copy of destroyed panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur

1 CC.No.93 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KHANAPUR

Present:-P.Ravinder, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur

Dated, this the 29 th day of August, 2025

CC.No. 93 of 2025

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Nirmal.

...Complainant

AND

Badam Posani, W/o. Durgaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Kirana shop seller, R/o. Indranagar village, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. …Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O for the complainant and Sri.M.Suresh, the lea rned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Nirmal filed the charge sheet in COR.No.598 of 2024 for the offences punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:- 2 CC.No.93 of 2025

On 21.09.2024 at about 08.45 am, the District Task Force Excise raid party lead by LW3 and along with staff on reliable information regarding preparation, possession and sale of illicitly distilled liquor at Indranagar village, then immediately

LW3 along with staff and two panchas i.e., LW1 and LW2 proceeded to the spot and conducted raids on suspected places, and found the accused person selling packets of

ID liquor, on seeing the excise officials started running then immediately the excise officials caught and apprehended the accused person, on search they found one polythene cover, on opening the said cover found a substance with hard smell which is illicitly distilled liquor on measuring it found approximately 3.3 litres in 22 packets each 150 ml. On enquiry, the accused disclosed her identity and particulars, then

LW3 drawn one sample of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis and report and seized remaining ID liquor under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and obtained signatures of the panchas.

3.Basing on the panchanama, the LW4/K.Abhishekar, P&ESI, Proh.&Excise S.I,

Nirmal has registered a case in COR.No.598/2024 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8

(e) of TS Proh. Act 1995, issued COR and took up the investigation and later issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. LW4 sent the sample bottle to the Government

Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for analysis and report and wherein opined that the sample is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide CE.No. 1601/2024.11 dated 28.11.2024. Subsequently LW-4 destroyed the 3 CC.No.93 of 2025 contraband before the same panchas under the cover of panchanama by obtaining the proceedings from Deputy Commissioner, Proh and Excise, Adilabad. After completion of investigation, the LW4 filed charge-sheet against the accused person.

4.This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995 against the accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and she was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. for which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence

U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995. Hence the charges for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995 were framed and read over and explained to the accused person in vernacular language.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined the PWs.1 to PW3 and the document marked under Ex.P1 to P6. No witnesses and no documents marked on behalf of the accused person. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of LW3. Hence the evidence of LW3 is closed.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against her, for which the accused person denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

4 CC.No.93 of 2025

8.Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts for

the offences punishable U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995 against the

accused ?”

9. POINT:- To prove its case, the prosecution have examined PW1/K.Raju and

PW2/K.Bhaskar who are the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama have turned hostile and deposed that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. No confession was made by accused in their presence. Nothing was seized from the possession of the accused. PW1 and PW2 further deposed that, on the request excise police they put their signatures. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the signatures of PW1 and

PW2 on the confession cum seizure panchanama.

10.Further the prosecution have examined PW3/K.Abhishekar, ESI, Nirmal who is

Investigation Officer in this case has deposed that on 21.09.2024 at 8.45 AM, he along with PW1, PW2 and LW3 went to the Indranagar and found one person in suspicious at the back side of Kirana shop of accused at Indranagar village and while they were conducting search, they saw the accused person selling ID liquor bottles, on seeing the excise officials the accused person tried to run away from the place, but the excise officials caught hier and apprehended her and found illicitly distilled liquor (3.3) liters in 22 packets each 150 ml in possession of the accused. On enquiry accused disclosed her identity as Baddam Posani and she confessed about 5 CC.No.93 of 2025 the commission of this offence and seized the contraband from the possession of accused and drawn one sample bottle under the cover of panchanama before the panch witness i.e., PW1 and PW2 and brought the accused person along with case property and issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and he registered the case in

COR.No.598/2024 dated 21.09.2024. During course of investigation, he sent the sample taken from contraband to Chemical examiner Nizamabad for analysis and report and inturn report was received mentioning that the sample is containing illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide CE.No.1601/2024.2020 dt. 28.11.2024. PW3 further deposed that, thereafter the contraband seized from the possession of accused has been deposited before Deputy

Commissioner P & E Adilabad for confiscation and intum he has issued confiscation orders to destroy the seized property under cover of panchanama vide Proc.

Cr.No.RC.No.B1/NRM/ID/DCA/2025, dated:09.02.2025 and the contraband has been destroyed under cover of panchanama. PW3 have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence of under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh Act 1995, after verifying the investigation done by the LW3. PW3 further deposed that, he can identify LW3’s signatures.

11.As it could be seen from the above evidences that, the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama i.e., PW1 and PW2 have turned hostile, as such recording of panchanama is not said to be proved. Further the prosecution have not examined any 6 CC.No.93 of 2025 of the independent witnesses, when no independent witnesses were examined this court cannot relay upon the evidence of PW3 who is the Investigation Officer in this case and who interested in the outcome of the case of the prosecution. As such, due to lack of the evidence, this court do not hesitate to held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons.

12.For the reasons stated above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to prove the case for the offences U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

TS Proh. Act, 1995 against the accused and the accused person is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh. Act, 1995 and she is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited vide CP

No. 60/2025 i.e., one sealed sample bottle (180 ml) of ID liquor shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of August, 2025).

Sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur 7 CC.No.93 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1 : K.Raju -NONE- PW2 : K.Bhasker PW3 : K.Abhishekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

-NIL- Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P5: Attested copy of destroyed proceedings. Ex.P6: Attested copy of destroyed panchanama.

8 CC.No.93 of 2025

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur

1 CC.No.94 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KHANAPUR

Present:-P.Ravinder, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur

Dated, this the 29 th day of August, 2025

CC.No. 94 of 2025

BETWEEN:- The State of Telangana through Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Nirmal. ... Prosecution AND

Gaddam Kalavathi, S/o. Prabhakar, Age: 44 years, Occ: Kirana shop, R/o. Indranagar village, Khanapur Mandal, Nirmal District. …Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O for the complainant and Sri.M.Suresh, the lea rned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector of Police, Nirmal filed the charge sheet in COR.No.599 of 2024 for the offences punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS

Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 21.09.2024 on reliable information about preparation, possession and sale of illicitly distilled liquor at Indranagar village, then immediately LW3 along with 2 CC.No.94 of 2025 staff and two panchas i.e., LW1 and LW2 proceeded to the spot and conducted raids on suspected places, and found the accused person selling packets of ID liquor, on seeing the excise officials started running then immediately the excise officials caught and apprehended the accused person, on search they found one cover in washing machine, on opening the said cover found approximately 13.5 litres in 90 packets each 150 ml. On enquiry, the accused disclosed her identity and particulars, then

LW3 drawn one sample of 180 ml in a clean glass bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis and report and seized remaining ID liquor under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW1 and LW2 and obtained signatures of the panchas.

3. Basing on panchanama, the LW4/K.Abhishekar, P&ESI, Proh.&Excise S.I,

Nirmal has registered a case in COR.No.599/2024 for the offence U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8

(e) of TS Proh. Act 1995, issued COR and took up the investigation and later issued 35(3) BNSS notice to the accused. During the course of investigation, LW4 sent the sample bottle to the Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for analysis and obtained report and the chemical examiner opined that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. Subsequently LW-4 destroyed the contraband before the same panchas under the cover of panchanama.

After completion of investigation, the LW4 filed charge-sheet against the accused person.

3 CC.No.94 of 2025

4. This court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995 against the accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required U/Sec.230 of BNSS and she was examined U/Sec.262 of BNSS by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against her and a charge was framed for the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh. Act, 1995 , read over and explained same and she denied reported claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution examined the PWs.1 to PW3 and the documents marked under Ex.P1 to P6. No witnesses and no documents marked on behalf of the accused person. The learned

APP has given up the evidence of LW3. Hence the evidence of LW3 was closed.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against her, for which the accused person denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts for

the offences punishable U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh Act 1995 against the

accused ?” 4 CC.No.94 of 2025

9. POINT:- To prove its case, the prosecution have examined PW1/K.Raju and

PW2/K.Bhaskar who are the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama have turned hostile and deposed that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. No confession was made by accused in their presence. Nothing was seized from the possession of the accused. PW1 and PW2 deposed testified that, on the request of excise police they put their signatures.

10. Further the prosecution have examined PW3/K.Abhishekar, ESI, Nirmal who is

Investigation Officer in this case has deposed that on 21.09.2024 at 7.30 PM, he along with PW1, PW2 and LW3 went to the Indranagar and found one person in suspicious at the back side of Kirana shop of accused at Indranagar village and while they were conducting search, they saw the accused person selling ID liquor bottles, on seeing the excise officials the accused person tried to run away from the place, but the excise officials caught him and apprehended him and found illicitly distilled liquor (13.5) liters in 19 packets each 150 ml in possession of the accused.

On enquiry accused disclosed her identity as Gaddam Kalavathi and she confessed about the commission of this offence and seized the contraband from the possession of accused and drawn one sample bottle under the cover of panchanama before the panch witness i.e., PW1 and PW2 and brought the accused person along with case property and issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and he registered the case in

COR.No.599/2024 dated 21.09.2024. During course of investigation, he sent the 5 CC.No.94 of 2025 sample taken from contraband to Chemical examiner Nizamabad for analysis and report and inturn report was received mentioning that the sample is containing illicitly distilled liquor which is unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide CE.No.1601/2024.2020 dt. 28.11.2024. PW3 further deposed that, thereafter the contraband seized from the possession of accused has been deposited before Deputy

Commissioner P & E Adilabad for confiscation and intum he has issued confiscation orders to destroy the seized property under cover of panchanama vide Proc.

Cr.No.RC.No.B1/NRM/ID/DCA/2025, dated:09.02.2025 and the contraband has been destroyed under cover of panchanama. PW3 have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence of under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh Act 1995, after verifying the investigation done by the LW3. PW3 further deposed that, he can identify LW3’s signatures. Ex.P3 is Cor, Ex.P4 is the chemical analysis report. Ex.P5 is attested copy of destroyed proceedings. Ex.P6 is the destroyed panchanama.

11. As it could be seen from the above evidences that, the panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama i.e., PW1 and PW2 have turned hostile, as such recording of panchanama is not said to be proved. Further the prosecution have not examined any of the independent witnesses, when no independent witnesses were examined this court cannot relay upon the evidence of PW3 who is the Investigation Officer in this case and who interested in the outcome of the case of the prosecution. As such, due to 6 CC.No.94 of 2025 lack of the evidence, this court do not hesitate to held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused person.

12. For the reasons stated above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to prove the case for the offences U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

TS Proh. Act, 1995 against the accused and the accused person is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of TS Proh. Act, 1995 and she is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited vide CP

No. 61/2025 i.e., one sealed sample bottle (180 ml) of ID liquor shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of August, 2025).

sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1 : K.Raju -NONE- PW2 : K.Bhasker 7 CC.No.94 of 2025

PW3 : K.Abhishekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on confession cum seizure -NIL- panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis report. Ex.P5: Attested copy of destroyed proceedings. Ex.P6: Attested copy of destroyed panchanama.

8 CC.No.94 of 2025

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

sd/-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khanapur