Sri Praveer Bhanj Deo

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Praveer Bhanj Deo

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Friday, this the 23 rd day of July, 2021

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019

Between:

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station

….Complainant

AND

1. Peerumala Someswar reddy @ Someswar rao, S/o Shadevudu, aged about 50 years, caste by Kapu, Resident of Yellavapalli village, Porumamilla Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District (A1)

2. Andluru Gangireddy, S/o Obulareddy, aged about 62 years, Resident of D.No.57/1418-1-10, Sastri Nagar, Akkayapalli village, Kadapa city, Y.S.R Kadapa District (A2) (Abated)

….Accused No.1

This case is coming today before this court in the presence of learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar, learned Advocate for the Accused No.1 and upon hearing through Bluejeans

Application having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Porumamilla Police Station, filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 304-A of

Indian Penal Code & 3 R/W 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and against the

Accused No.2 for the offence under Sections 5 R/W 180 & 196 of Motor

Page 1 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

Vehicle Act in Crime No. 94 of 2019 on the file of the Porumamilla Police

Station for offence alleged to be committed Kondugaripalli to Ganugapeta main road, near Rowthupalli Village, Porumamilla Mandal that falls within the limits of Porumamilla Police Station and jurisdiction of this court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is: It is submitted on 20- 04-2019, Maruboina Ramanjineyalu (LW1) along with his parents i.e. mother

M.Subbamma (LW2) & father i.e. deceased attended a marriage. After marriage Maruboina Ramanjineyalu (LW1) & M.Subbamma (LW2) were in

Maruboina Ramanjineyalu’s (LW1) two wheeler and Deceased was pillion rider of two wheeler AP04AT6514 being drove by Accused No.1. At about 12:00 Noon when they reached near Rowthupalli Village, Accused rode the said two wheeler in rash & negligent that resulted in Accused No.1 lost control and they met with an accident. Due to the same both received injuries and Deceased received severe injuries on head & body.

Immediately the Deceased was shifted to hospital at Badvel and from there to Ramadevi Super Specialty Hospital at Tirupathi. On 23-04-2019 at about 10:45 AM, while under going treatment deceased died.

Based on report of Maruboina Ramanjineyalu (LW1) crime is registered by Head Constable K.Madhu Sudhana Raju (LW11). During course of investigation K.Madhu Sudhana Raju (LW11) held inquest of the dead body, recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the dead body for autopsy, visited the alleged scene offence, prepared the rough sketch and sent requisition for inspection of crime vehicle. Further during course of investigation Police found that subject crime vehicle was purchased by

Accused No.1 from Accused No.2 but still the vehicle stands in the name of

Accsued No.2. Further investigation taken up by Sub-Inspector R.Suresh (LW12), on 08-05-2017 notice was issued to Accused No.1 & 2 under

Page 2 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

Section 41A of Criminal Procedure Code. On Accused No.1 & 2 appearance, surities were obtained and were instructed to appear when ever their presence is required. V.Madhusudhan (LW10) who inspected the crime vehicle opined that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect.

Dr.C.Ram Prasad (LW9) who conducted autopsy of the dead body opined that the death caused due to multiple injuries. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet before Court.

3.After filing of the charge sheet the case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code & 3 R/W 181 of Motor

Vehicle Act against Accused No.1 and for the offence under Sections 5 R/W 180 & 196 of Motor Vehicle Act against Accused No.2. On Accused appearance copies of the case record were furnished to the Accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4.The Accused No.1 & 2 were examined as per Section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code, the substance of the accusation was read over & explained to the Accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly matter was posted for trial and summons was issued to list of witnesses.

5.During trial Prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. After trial when matter was coming for examination of Accused No.1 & 2 as per Section 313 of Criminal Procedure

Code, the death certificate of Accused No.2 was filed and this against

Accused No.2 abated.

Accused No.1 was examined as per Section 313 of Criminal Procedure

Code, the incriminating evidence against him was explained in Telugu and

Accused No.1 denied the same. On enquiry Accused No.1 reported, he has no evidence to adduce from his side.

Page 3 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments advanced by Prosecution side in brief: The learned Prosecutor submitted that evidence of PW1 to PW5 & PW7 prove that deceased died due to road accident. From the evidence of PW6 & PW8 proves the case of Prosecution that Accused No.1 committed the alleged offence and Defence could not extract anything by cross examining the said witnesses. Hence it can be said that Prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Arguments advanced by Defense in brief: It was submitted that, Prosecution failed to prove the guilt the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW1 to PW3 eye witnesses did not identify the Accused No.1, PW4 &

PW7 did not support the case of Prosecution and PW5 participated only in inquest of dead body. PW6 & PW8 Investigation Officers did not do proper investigation. There is no material on record to prove that the Accused No.1 is one who committed the alleged offence. Hence prayed for acquittal of

Accused No.1.

9.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable

doubt for the offence under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code

and 3 R/W 181 of Motor Vehicle Act?

Prosecution has made accusations against the Accused No.1, hence it is the burden of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove the allegations leveled against the Accused

No.1, Prosecution examined son of deceased i.e. M.Ramanijineyalu

PW1/(LW1), wife of deceased i.e. M.Subbamma PW2/(LW2), eye witnesses

M.Rama Lakshumaiah PW3/(LW3), V.Adinarayana Reddy PW4/(LW5) &

V.V.Krishna Reddy PW7/(LW4), inquest report participant K.Ramana Reddy

Page 4 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

PW5/(LW6) and Investigation Officers K.Madhu Sudhan Raju PW6/(LW11) &

R.Suresh PW8/(LW12). Prosecution gave up the evidence of G.Gopal Reddy & M.Siva Siddaiah as corroborated by K.Ramana Reddy PW5/(LW6) and gave up the evidence of Dr.C.Ram Prasad & M.V.I. M.V.Madhusudhan as corroborated by K.Madhu Sudhan Raju PW6/(LW11) & R.Suresh

PW8/(LW12).

9.1 On perusal of evidence of PW1 & PW2 who are son & wife of deceased and who were eye witnesses of the alleged incident, it is clear that deceased died due to accident. PW1 & PW2 who are family of deceased deposed in the same line as stated in charge sheet about the alleged incident except for identifying the Accused No.1. As PW1 & PW2 did not identify the Accused No.1, at request of Prosecution, PW1 & PW2 were declared hostile and cross examined by Prosecution. By cross examining

PW1 & PW2, Prosecution could not extract anything that supports the case

Prosecution. PW3, PW4 & PW7 who are eye witnesses to the alleged incident as per the case of Prosecution also did not support the case of

Prosecution. At request PW3, PW4 & PW7 were declared hostile and cross examined by Prosecution. By cross examining PW3, PW4 & PW7,

Prosecution could not extract anything that supports the case of

Prosecution. Hence even the evidence of PW3, PW4 & PW7 is not of any help to Prosecution. PW5 participated in the inquest of dead body and he does not know who is responsible for the alleged incident, hence the evidence of PW6 is not of any help to Prosecution with regard to the allegations leveled against the Accused No.1.

9.2 On perusal of evidence of PW6 Investigation Officer who done the initial investigation in this case, during examination-in-chief PW6 deposed in the same line as stated in charge sheet. During cross

Page 5 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel examination PW6 stated that there is a delay of about 3 days in giving report, no intimation was received from hospital with regard to the alleged incident, there is a curved turning near the alleged incident and there are uneven ups & down in the said road due to which it is difficult to maintain.

PW6 denied that Accused No.1 is no way involved in this case and denied that he was falsely implicated only to help the dependents of the Deceased.

From the evidence of PW6 it is clear that there is a delay of three days in giving report and no satisfactory explanation came from Prosecution as to the said delay. Even though PW6 done the major part of investigation in this case, no material found to show that the Accused No.1 is responsible for the alleged incident that led to the death of the Deceased.

9.3Now coming to the evidence of Investigation Officer PW8 who done part investigation in this case and filed charge sheet. During examination-in-chief PW8 deposed in the same line as stated in charge sheet. During cross examination PW8 stated that there is a curved turning near the alleged incident and there are uneven ups & down in the said road due to which it is difficult to maintain same speed. PW8 further stated that there is no document to establish relation between Accused No.1 with the crime vehicle. PW8 denied that Accused No.1 is no way related to the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in this case. Nothing incriminating found against Accused No.1, during the investigation done by

PW8. Hence, even the evidence of PW8 is not of any help to Prosecution.

9.4In summarizing the entire evidence, PW1 & PW2 who are son & wife of the Deceased and who are eye witnesses to the alleged incident, did not identity the Accused No.1. PW3, PW4 & PW7 who as per the case of

Prosecution shifted the Deceased to hospital, did not support the case of

Prosecution. PW5 participated in inquest and he does not know who is

Page 6 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel responsible for the alleged incident. Investigation officers PW6 & PW8 did not do proper investigation, no document adduced to establish relation between Accused No.1 with crime vehicle and no explanation came as to delay for 3 days in giving report. There is no material on record to show that the Accused No.1 committed the alleged offence. From the above discussion it is clear that Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused

No.1 beyond reasonable doubt and hence Accused No.1 entitled for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered against Prosecution.

10.In the result, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code and 3 R/W 181 of Motor Vehicle

Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of July, 2021.)

PRAVEERDigitally signed

by PRAVEER

BHANJ

BHANJ DEO

DEODate: 2021.07.23

16:16:34 +0530

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1: M.Ramanjineyulu. P.W.2: M.Subbamma. P.W.3: M.Rama Lakshumaiah. P.W.4: V.Adinarayana Reddy. P.W.5: K.Konda Ramana Reddy. P.W.6:K.Madhusudhana Raju, Head constable. P.W.7:V.Venkata Krishna Reddy. P.W.8: R.Suresh, Sub Inspector of Police.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1: Report of PW1, dated 23-04-2019. Ex.P.2: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Page 7 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 235 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

Ex.P.3: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6: Inquest report, dated 24-04-2019. Ex.P.7: The FIR in Cr.No.94/2019 of Porumamilla P.S. Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch. Ex.P.9:161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7. Ex.P.10:Post Mortem Report. Ex.P.11: Inspection Report of M.V.I.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL

PRAVEERDigitally signed

by PRAVEER

BHANJ

BHANJ DEO

DEODate: 2021.07.23

16:16:51 +0530

AJCJ, BDL.

Page 8 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 311 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Praveer Bhanj Deo

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Friday, this the 23 rd day of July, 2021

Calendar Case No.:311 of 2020

Between:

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel.

….Complainant

AND

Sonisani Bhaskar, S/o S.Yellaiah, aged about 35 years, caste by Balija, Resident of Kota street, Badvel Town, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. ….Accused

This case is coming today before this court in the presence of

Prosecution and Sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar the learned Advocate for the

Accused and upon hearing through Bluejeans Application having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise

Act in Crime No.64 of 2019 on the file of the Badvel Prohibition & Excise

Station alleged to be committed at Porumamilla bypass, on Badvel to Nellore bus road, Badvel that falls within the limits of Badvel Prohibition & Excise

Station and jurisdiction of this court.

Page 1 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 311 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is: It is submitted that on 15-08-2019 at 06:30 PM, during raids conducted by Prohibition & Excise

Inspector and Sub-Inspector, AC Enforcement, Kadapa along with staff when they reached at Porumamilla bypass, on Badvel to Nellore bus road, Badvel.

At the said place, a person who was in possession of plastic bag on seeing

Prohibition & Excise officials tried to run away, then the officials apprehended him. On enquiry Accused revealed that he is in possession 2

Quarts of Royal Stag Premium Whisky, 2 Quarts of M.C.Dowells No.1 VSOP

Brandy, 2 Quarts of Courier Napeleon Brandy and 3 Nips of M.C.Dowells No.1

VSOP Brandy bottles. Then Inspector deputed P&E Head Constable V.Obula

Reddy (LW2) to get mediators from Badvel Town, after 30 minutes he returned, reported that VRO & VRA are not available in village and no one is ready to act as Mediator. On interrogation Accused did not reveal about the source of liquor bottles. Then the Sub-Inspector drawn one sample bottle of

IML from the plastic bag for sending the same for chemical analysis test, drafted special report on the spot and arrested the Accused. After that took

Accused to Prohibition & Excise Station at Badvel and handed over the

Station House Officer. Based on the special report crime was registered by

Sub-Inspector B.Nagamani (LW3) and the Accused was produced before

Court. During course of investigation the sample bottle was sent to Chemical

Examiner Kurnool through this Court and the Chemical Examiner after testing opined that the sample is an Indian liquor vide C.E.No. 1025/2019

dated 18-12-2019. The case property was confiscated to state and same was

destroyed on 12-03-2020 as per order of Deputy Commissioner Kadapa vide

RC.No.DCPE-DET/45/2020-JA(A2)-PEKDP dated 17-02-2020 under cover of

Panchanama. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed

Page 2 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 311 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

before this Court for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act.

3.After filing of the charge sheet the case was taken on file for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. On Accused appearance copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4.The Accused was examined as per Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code, the substance of the accusation was read over & explained to the Accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges framed for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act was explained in Telugu to Accused. Accordingly matter was posted for trial and summons was issued to list of witnesses.

5.During trial Prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 & MO1 to MO4. After completion of trial, the Accused was examined as per Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the incriminating evidence against him was explained in Telugu and Accused denied the same.

On enquiry Accused reported that he has no evidence to adduce from his side.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments advanced by Prosecution side in brief: The learned Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW1 to PW4 prove the case of the Prosecution. By cross examining PW1 to PW4, Defense could not extract anything that is adverse to the case of Prosecution. Hence prayed for conviction of Accused.

8. Arguments advanced by Defense in brief: It was submitted by Defense that, this case is created only for statistical purpose. Accused never committed any offence as alleged hence no independent witnesses

Page 3 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 311 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel were cited in this case. The search conducted by the officials is not as per procedure. No explanation came from police whom all police approached to act as mediators. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence prayed for acquittal of the Accused.

9.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for

the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act?

Prosecution has made accusations against the Accused, hence it is the burden of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, Prosecution examined P&E

Inspector M.Neelakanteswara Reddy (LW1)/PW1, P&E Head Constable

V.Obula Reddy (LW2)/PW2, P&E Sub-Inspector B.Nagamani (LW3)/PW3 and

P.Kesavulu (LW4)/PW4. PW1 & PW2 are Prohibition & Excise officials who arrested the Accused and PW3 & PW4 are the Investigating Officer in this case. Through PW1 Prosecution got marked Special Report as Ex.P1, sample bottle of Royal Stag Premium Whisky 750 ml sent for chemical analysis as

MO1, sample bottle of M.C.Dowells No.1 VSOP Brandy 750 ml sent for chemical analysis as MO2, sample bottle of Courier Nepolean Brandy 750 ml sent for chemical analysis as MO3 & sample bottle of M.C.Dowells No.1 VSOP brandy 180 ml sent for chemical analysis as MO4. Though PW3 got marked

FIR in Crime No.64 of 2019 as Ex.P2, letter of advice as Ex.P3, FSL Report as

Ex.P4 and copy of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner Kadapa vide

RC.No.DCPE-DET/45/2020-JA(A2)-PEKDP dated 17-02-2020 as Ex.P5. Through

PW4 got marked copy of Panchanama dated 12-03-2020 as Ex.P6.

9.1The Prosecution alleged that Accused was found illegally in possession of liquor bottles at the alleged scene of offence and confessed

Page 4 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 311 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel that he was selling the same. As no one came forward to act as mediators they proceeded with search of the Accused, but no explanation came from the Prosecution as why no mediators were secured by Prohibition & Excise

Officials even though during cross examination it was denied that no efforts were made by the Officials for securing mediators, it was also deposed that the names of the persons whom they approached to act as Mediators is not mentioned.

9.2The relevant decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the circumstance is S.Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh [2010 ALT(Cri) (1) 32] wherein it was observed that, “when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise Officials or

Prohibition Officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise Officials are also authorised to issue an order in writing asking them to act as Mediators under Sub Section (4) of

Section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted”

In the light of the above said decision of Hon’ble High Court, the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality and case of the Prosecution that no one came forward to act as mediator is not satisfactory especially when the complete proceedings are silent about details of the persons whom they approached to act as mediators. It is not out of place to say that the alleged scene of offence is situated in Badvel Town which is mandal head quarters

Page 5 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 311 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel consisting of various government offices and also at the alleged time wine shops are open in the Badvel Town.

9.3In this case the informant is Prohibition & Excise officials and all the witnesses are Prohibition & Excise officials, except for the testimony of the Prohibition & Excise officials and seized liquor under cover of Special

Report there is no evidence on record to show that Accused has committed offence as alleged. The testimony of the Prohibition & Excise officials supported by the Special Report is not enough to prove their case. The relevant decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the circumstance is Mudavath Mothia Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2005

ALD(NOC) (1) 52] wherein it was observed that, “Once the Excise Officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence under A.P.Excise

Act they become Police Officials as such the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Evidence

Act and Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code.”

Another relevant decision is Adapa Rambabu @ Ramu Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh [2014 ALD(Cri) (1) 966] it was held that, “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of evidence of Police Officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspiciaon that surrounds the evidence of a Police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusing on the evidence of the Police Officials.” 9.4In the light of the above said decisions in the absence of mediators, even though the testimony of the Officials is supported by the

Special report & seized liquor bottles, same is not enough as laid procedure is not followed by Officials, as rough sketch is not prepared, as no

Page 6 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 311 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel investigation is done with regard to the source of the involved bottles and as

PW2 did not issue notice to persons whom he approached to act as mediators. Hence, it can be said that Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered against Prosecution.

10.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The MO1 to MO4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months.

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of July, 2021.)

PRAVEERDigitally signed by

PRAVEER BHANJ

BHANJ

DEO

Date: 2021.07.23

DEO

16:17:49 +0530

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1:M.Neelakanteswara Reddy, P & E Inspector. P.W.2:V.Obul Reddy, P & E Head constable. P.W.3: B.Naga Mani, P & E Inspector. P.W.4:P.Keshavulu, Rtd. P & E Inspector.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1:Special report Ex.P.2:FIR No. 64/2019 Ex.P.3:Letter of advice Ex.P.4:FSL Analysis Report Ex.P.5:The Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner P & E, Kadapa R.C.No.DCPE/45/2020-JA(A2)-PEKDP, dated 17-02-2020 Ex.P6:The attested copy of Panchanama, dated 12-03-2020.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : MO1:One sample bottle of Royal Stag Premium whisky containing 750 ml.

Page 7 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 311 of 2020 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

MO2:One sample bottle of MC Dowells No.1 VSOP Brandy 750 ml. MO3: One sample bottle of Courier Nepolean Brandy containing 750 ml. MO4:One sample bottle of MC Dowells No.1 VSOP Brandy 180 ml.

PRAVEERDigitally signed by PRAVEER

BHANJ

BHANJ DEO

DEODate: 2021.07.23 16:18:04 +0530 AJCJ/BDL

Page 8 of 8

Calendar Case No.: 111 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Praveer Bhanj Deo

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Monday, this the 26 th day of July, 2021

Calendar Case No.: 111 of 2020

Between:

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station ….Complainant

AND

Lodugu Maddeiah, S/o Chennaiah, aged about 40 years, caste by Madiga, occ:cooly, Resident of Munneli H.Wada village, B.Kodur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District. ….Accused

This case is coming today before this court in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and learned Advocate Sri

K.Vijaya Kumar for the Accused through Bluejeans Application and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station, filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act in Crime No. 118 of 2019 on the file of the B.Kodur Police Station alleged to be committed at Munnelli Village, B.Kodur Mandal that falls within the limits of B.Kodur Police Station and jurisdiction of this court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is: It is submitted that on 27-06-2019 at 06:00 PM, M.Sreenivasulu (LW4) along with staff left Police

Page 1 of 7

Calendar Case No.: 111 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel station for village rounds. When the Police reached petty shop, Munnelli

Village, B.Kodur Mandal at about 07:00 PM. There M.Sreenivasulu (LW4) noticed one person on seeing Police tried to run away. Then M.Sreenivasulu (LW4) caught him with the assistance of staff. On interrogation Accused stated that his name is Lodugu Maddeiah and he is selling liquor bottles illegaly for extra over M.R.P. by getting the same from various wine shops of

Porumamilla Town. On search M.Sreenivasulu (LW4) found 15 Honey Bee

Godl Brandy bottles each 180 ml and 2 Tetra packets of Double Kick each 180 ml. M.Sreenivasulu (LW4) separated one bottle and one tetra packet for sending the same for chemical analysis. After that M.Sreenivasulu (LW4) arrested the Accused & seized the bottles under cover of Police proceedings, went to Police station registered crime and released Accused after obtaining surities. Later sent the lifted bottle for chemical analysis. Chemical Examiner,

Regional Excise Lab, Kurnool who examined the sample bottle and opined that the sample is Indian liquor vide C.E.No.625/2019 dated 25-07-2019.

Further investigation taken up by Sub-Inspector K.Venakata Ramana (LW5) and as per the orders of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibtion & Excise,

Kadapa vide RC.No.DCPE-DET/120/2019-JA(A2)-PEKDP dated 01-11-2019 the remaining seized liquor bottles were destroyed under cover of Panchanama

dated 21-12-2019. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet

before court.

3.After filing of the charge sheet the case was taken on file for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. On Accused appearance copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4.The Accused was examined as per Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code, the substance of the accusation was read over & explained

Page 2 of 7

Calendar Case No.: 111 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel to the Accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges framed for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act was explained in Telugu to Accused. Accordingly matter was posted for trial and summons was issued to list of witnesses.

5.During trial Prosecution examined PW1 to PW3, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO1 & MO2. After completion of trial, the Accused was examined as per Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the incriminating evidence against him was explained in Telugu and Accused denied the same.

On enquiry Accused reported that he has nothing to say and he has no evidence to adduce from his side.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments advanced by Prosecution side in brief: The learned Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 supported by the Ex.P1 Police proceeding prove the case of the Prosecution. By cross examining PW1 to PW3, Defense could not extract anything that is adverse to the case of Prosecution. Hence prayed for conviction of Accused.

8. Arguments advanced by Defense in brief: It was submitted by

Defense that, this case is created only for statistical purpose. Accused never committed any offence as alleged hence no independent witness were cited in this case. The search conducted by the police is not as per procedure. No explanation came from police whom all police approached to act as mediators. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence prayed for acquittal of the Accused.

9.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for

the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act?

Page 3 of 7

Calendar Case No.: 111 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

Prosecution has made accusations against the Accused, hence it is the burden of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, Prosecution examined Head

Constable B.Vijay Kumar (LW2)/PW1, Sub-Inspector M.Sreenivasulu (LW4)/PW2 and Sub-Inspector K.Venkata Ramana (LW5)/PW3. PW1 & PW2 are Police officials who arrested the Accused and PW2 & PW3 are the

Investigating Officers in this case. Through PW1 Prosecution got marked

Police proceedings as Ex.P1. Through PW2 got marked FIR in Crime no. 118 of 2019 as Ex.P2, Letter of Advice as Ex.P3, FSL report as Ex.P4, sample liquor bottle of Honey Bee Gold Brandy 180 ml as MO1 & sample Tetra

Packet Double Kick 180 ml as MO2. Through PW3 got marked Certified copy of proceedings of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibtion & Excise, Kadapa vide

RC.No.DCPE-DET/120/2019-JA(A2)-PEKDP dated 01-11-2019 as Ex.P5 &

Certified Copy of Panchanama as Ex.P6. Prosecution gave up the evidence of

R.M.Suresh Babu and C.Rajeswaramma as corroborated by other witnesses.

9.1The Prosecution alleged that Accused was found illegally in possession of 15 liquor bottles and two liquor Tetra packets on 27-06-2019 at his petty shop and Accused confessed about the same. As no one came forward to act as mediators the subject liquor bottles were seized under cover of Ex.P1 Police Proceedings. But no explanation came from the

Prosecution as to why no mediators were secured by Police even though during cross examination it was denied that no efforts were made by the

Officials for securing mediators, it was also deposed that the names of the persons whom they approached to act as Mediators is not mentioned.

Further no witnesses were examined to show that the Accused was selling liquor at his petty shop.

Page 4 of 7

Calendar Case No.: 111 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel 9.2The relevant decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the circumstance is Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2002 ALT(Crl) (1) 347] wherein it was observed that, “when no mediators examined through search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.”

In the light of the above said decision of Hon’ble High Court, the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality and case of the Prosecution that no one came forward to act as mediator is not satisfactory especially when the complete proceedings are silent about details of the persons whom they approached to act as mediators. It is not out of place to say that the alleged scene of offence is a residential locality where Accused runs the petty shop in which he was alleged to be selling liquor illegally.

9.3In this case the informant is Police and all the witnesses are

Police, except for the testimony of the Police and seized liquor under cover of

Police proceedings there is no evidence on record to show that Accused has committed offence as alleged. The testimony of the Police supported by the

Ex.P1 Police Proceedings is not enough to prove their case. The relevant decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the circumstance is

Adapa Rambabu @ Ramu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2014 ALD(Crl) (1) 966] it was held that, “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of evidence of Police Officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a Police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusing on the evidence of the Police

Officials.” 9.4In the light of the above said decisions in the absence of mediators and independent witnesses, even though the testimony of the

Page 5 of 7

Calendar Case No.: 111 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

Officials is supported by the Ex.P1 Police Proceedings & seized liquor bottles, same is not enough as laid procedure is not followed by Officials, as rough sketch is not prepared, as no investigation is done with regard to the source of the involved bottles, no witness is examined from the alleged spot locality and notice is not issued to persons whom Police approached to act as mediators as required. Hence, it can be said that Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered against Prosecution.

10.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The MO1 & MO2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months.

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th of July, 2021.)

Sd/- Praveer Bhanj Deo,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1:B.Vijay Kumar, Head constable. P.W.2:M.Sreenivasulu, Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.3: K.Venkata Ramana, Sub Inspector of Police.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1:Police Proceedings. Ex.P.2:FIR in Cr.No.118/2019 of B.Kodur P.S. Ex.P.3:Letter of Advice. Ex.P.4:FSL Analysis Report. Ex.P.5:The Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kadapa vide R.C.No.DCPE-DET/120/2019-JA(A2)- PEKDP, dated 01-11-2019 (certified copy). Ex.P.6:The Panchanama, dated 21-12-2019 (certified copy).

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

Page 6 of 7

Calendar Case No.: 111 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

MO1:The Sample bottle of Honey Bee Gold Brandy containing 180 ml. MO2: One Tetra Packet of Double Kick whisky containing 180 ml.

Id/- P.B.D., AJCJ/BDL

Page 7 of 7

Calendar Case No.: 58 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Praveer Bhanj Deo

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Monday, this the 26 th day of July, 2021

Calendar Case No.: 58 of 2020

Between:

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station ….Complainant

AND

Kakarla Nagoor, S/o late Ahamed, aged about 67 years, caste by Dudekula, occ:Cultivation, Resident of Sirigiripalle village, B.Kodur Mandal, Y.S.R. kadapa District. ….Accused

This case is coming today before this court in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and learned Advocate Sri

E.C.Obula Reddy for the Accused through Bluejeans Application and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, B.Kodur Police Station, filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act in Crime No. 173 of 2018 on the file of the B.Kodur Police Station alleged to be committed at Sirigiripalle Village, B.Kodur Mandal that falls within the limits of B.Kodur Police Station and jurisdiction of this court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is: It is submitted that on 04-11-2018 at 02:30 PM, B.Ghana Maddileti (LW4) along with staff left Police

Page 1 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 58 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel station for village rounds & checkings. When the Police reached Sirigiripalle

Village, B.Kodur Mandal. There B.Ghana Maddileti (LW4) noticed one person outside a house standing, who was in possession of plastic bag and tried to run away on seeing police. Then B.Ghana Maddileti (LW4) caught him with the assistance of staff. On interrogation Accused stated that his name is Kakarla

Nagoor and he is selling liquor bottles illegaly for extra over M.R.P. On search

B.Ghana Maddileti (LW4) found 15 HD Heavens Door Whisky bottles each 180 ml. B.Ghana Maddileti (LW4) separated one bottle for sending the same for chemical analysis. After that B.Ghana Maddileti (LW4) arrested the Accused & seized the bottles under cover of Police proceedings, went to Police station registered crime and produced the Accused before Court. Later sent the lifted bottle for chemical analysis. Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise Lab, Kurnool who examined the sample bottle and opined that the sample is Indian liquor vide C.E.No.798/2018 dated 12-12-2018. Further investigation taken up by

Sub-Inspector K.Venakata Ramana (LW5) as per the orders of Deputy

CommissionerofProhibtion&Excise,Kadapavide

RC.No.DCPE-DET/120/2019-JA(A2)-PEKDP dated 05-11-2019 the remaining bottles were destroyed under cover of Panchanama dated 21-12-2019. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet before court.

3.After filing of the charge sheet the case was taken on file for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. On Accused appearance copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4.The Accused was examined as per Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code, the substance of the accusation was read over & explained to the Accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges framed for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Page 2 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 58 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

Excise Act was explained in Telugu to Accused. Accordingly matter was posted for trial and summons was issued to list of witnesses.

5.During trial Prosecution got examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 & MO1. After completion of trial, the Accused was examined as per Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the incriminating evidence against him was explained in Telugu and Accused denied the same.

On enquiry Accused reported that he has nothing to say and he has no evidence to adduce from his side.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments advanced by Prosecution side in brief: The learned Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 supported by the Ex.P1 Police proceeding prove the case of the Prosecution. By cross examining PW1 to PW3, Defense could not extract anything that is adverse to the case of Prosecution. Hence prayed for conviction of Accused.

8. Arguments advanced by Defense in brief: It was submitted by

Defense that, this case is created only for statistical purpose. Accused never committed any offence as alleged hence no independent witness were cited in this case. The search conducted by the police is not as per procedure. No explanation came from police whom all police approached to act as mediators. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence prayed for acquittal of the Accused.

9.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for

the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act?

Prosecution has made accusations against the Accused, hence it is the burden of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under

Page 3 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 58 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, Prosecution examined Constable

B.Bhaskar Rao (LW1)/PW1, Sub-Inspector B.Ghana Maddileti (LW4)/PW2 and

Sub-Inspector K.Venkata Ramana (LW5)/PW3. PW1 & PW2 are Police officials who arrested the Accused and PW2 & PW3 are the Investigating Officers in this case. Through PW1 Prosecution got marked Police proceedings as Ex.P1.

Through PW2 got marked FIR in Crime no. 173 of 2018 as Ex.P2, Letter of

Advice as Ex.P3, FSL report as Ex.P4 & sample liquor bottle of HD Heavens

Door Whisky sent for chemical analysis as MO1. Through PW3 got marked

Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibtion & Excise, Kadapa vide

RC.No.DCPE-DET/120/2019-JA(A2)-PEKDP dated 05-11-2019 as Ex.P5 &

Panchanama dated 21-12-2019 as Ex.P6. Prosecution gave up the evidence of

G.V.Ramanaiah and C.Rajeswaramma as corroborated by other witnesses.

9.1The Prosecution alleged that Accused was found illegally in possession of 15 liquor bottles on 04-11-2018 outside his house and Accused confessed about the same. As no one came forward to act as mediators the subject liquor bottles were seized under cover of Ex.P1 Police Proceedings.

But no explanation came from the Prosecution as to why no mediators were secured by Police even though during cross examination it was denied that no efforts were made by the Officials for securing mediators, it was also deposed that the names of the persons whom they approached to act as Mediators is not mentioned. Further no witnesses were examined to show that the

Accused was selling liquor at the alleged scene of offence.

9.2The relevant decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the circumstance is Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2002 ALT(Crl) (1) 347] wherein it was observed that, “when no mediators examined through search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.”

Page 4 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 58 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

In the light of the above said decision of Hon’ble High Court, the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality and case of the Prosecution that no one came forward to act as mediator is not satisfactory especially when the complete proceedings are silent about details of the persons whom they approached to act as mediators. It is not out of place to say that the alleged scene of offence is a residential locality in which Accused house situated.

9.3In this case the informant is Police and all the witnesses are

Police, except for the testimony of the Police and seized liquor under cover of

Police proceedings there is no evidence on record to show that Accused has committed offence as alleged. The testimony of the Police supported by the

Ex.P1 Police Proceedings is not enough to prove their case. The relevant decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the circumstance is

Adapa Rambabu @ Ramu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2014 ALD(Crl) (1) 966] it was held that, “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of evidence of

Police Officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that.

It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a Police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusing on the evidence of the Police Officials.” 9.4In the light of the above said decisions in the absence of mediators and independent witnesses, even though the testimony of the

Officials is supported by the Ex.P1 Police Proceedings & seized liquor bottles, same is not enough as laid procedure is not followed by Officials, as rough sketch is not prepared, as no investigation is done with regard to the source of the involved bottles, no witness is examined from the alleged spot locality and notice is not issued to persons whom Police approached to act as mediators as required. Hence, it can be said that Prosecution failed to prove

Page 5 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 58 of 2020Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered against Prosecution.

10.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The MO1 shall be disposed after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months.

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th of July, 2021.)

Sd/- Praveer Bhanj Deo,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1:G.Bhaskar Rao, Head constable. P.W.2:B.Ghana Madduleti, Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.3:K.Venkata Ramana, Sub Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1:Police Proceedings. Ex.P.2:FIR in Cr.No.173/2018 of B.Kodur P.S. Ex.P.3:Letter of Advice. Ex.P.4:FSL Analysis Report. Ex.P.5:The Proceedings of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Kadapa vide R.C.No.DCPE-DET/120/2019-JA(A2)- PEKDP, dated 05-11-2019. Ex.P.6:The Panchanama, dated 21-12-2019.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : MO1:The Sample bottle of HD Heavens Door whisky containing 180 ml.

Id/- P.B.D., AJCJ/BDL

Page 6 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 510 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Present: Praveer Bhanj Deo

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Friday, this the 23 rd day of July, 2021

Calendar Case No.: 510 of 2019

Between:

State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Kalasapadu Police Station

….Complainant

AND

Shaik Hussen Peera, S/o Khasimsab, aged about 49 years, caste by Muslim, Resident of Mulaveedhi, Kalasapadu Town & Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District. ….Accused

This case is coming today before this court in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and learned Advocate Sri

K.Vijay Kumar for the Accused and upon hearing through Bluejeans

Application having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalasapadu Police Station, filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra

Pradesh Excise Act in Crime No. 14 of 2019 on the file of the Kalasapadu

Police Station alleged to be committed Patharamapuram Village, Kalasapadu

Mandal that falls within the limits of Kalasapadu Police Station and jurisdiction of this court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is: It is submitted that on 30-01-2019 at 04:40 PM, K.Venkata Ramana (LW4) along with staff left Police

Page 1 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 510 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel station for village rounds. When the Police reached Patharamapuram Village.

There K.Venkata Ramana (LW4) came across Accused who was in possession of plastic bag and tried to run away on seeing police. Then K.Venkata

Ramana (LW4) caught him with the assistance of staff. On interrogation

Accused stated that his name is Shaik Hussain Peera and he is selling liquor bottles illegaly for Rs.10/- (Rupees Ten only) extra over M.R.P. On search

K.Venkata Ramana (LW4) found 20 HD Heavens Door Whisky bottles each 180 ml. K.Venkata Ramana (LW4) separated one bottle for sending the same for chemical analysis. After that K.Venkata Ramana (LW4) arrested the

Accused & seized the bottles under cover of Police proceedings, went to

Police station registered crime and released Accused after obtaining surities.

Later sent the lifted bottle for chemical analysis. Further investigaiton taken up by K.Pradeep Naidu (LW5). Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise Lab,

Kurnool who examined the sample bottle and opined that the sample is

Indian liquor vide C.E.No.123/2019 dated 12-02-2019. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet before court.

3.After filing of the charge sheet the case was taken on file for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. On Accused appearance copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4.The Accused was examined as per Section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code, the substance of the accusation was read over & explained to the Accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges framed for the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act was explained in Telugu to Accused. Accordingly matter was posted for trial and summons was issued to list of witnesses.

5.During trial Prosecution got examined PW1 to PW3, got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and MO1 & MO2. After completion of trial, the Accused was

Page 2 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 510 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel examined as per Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the incriminating evidence against him was explained in Telugu and Accused denied the same.

On enquiry Accused reported that he has nothing to say and he has no evidence to adduce from his side.

6.Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. Arguments advanced by Prosecution side in brief: The learned Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 supported by the Ex.P1 Police proceeding prove the case of the Prosecution. By cross examining PW1 to PW3, Defense could not extract anything that is adverse to the case of Prosecution. Hence prayed for conviction of Accused.

8. Arguments advanced by Defense in brief: It was submitted by

Defense that, this case is created only for statistical purpose. Accused never committed any offence as alleged hence no independent witness were cited in this case. The search conducted by the police is not as per procedure. No explanation came from police whom all police approached to act as mediators. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence prayed for acquittal of the Accused.

9.Now the point for determination is Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for

the offence under Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act?

Prosecution has made accusations against the Accused, hence it is the burden of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. To prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, Prosecution examined

P.Narasimhulu (LW1)/PW1, Sub-Inspector K.Venkata Ramana (LW4)/PW2 and

K.Pradeep Naidu (LW5)/PW3. PW1 & PW2 are Police officials who arrested the

Accused and PW2 & PW3 are the Investigating Officers in this case. Through

PW2 Prosecution got marked Police proceedings as Ex.P1, FIR in Crime no. 14

Page 3 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 510 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel of 2019 as Ex.P2, Letter of Advice as Ex.P3 & sample liquor bottle of HD

Heavens Door Whisky as MO1. Through PW3 got marked FSL Report as Ex.P4 & remaining 19 bottles of HD Heavens Door Whisky as MO2. Prosecution gave up the evidence of P.Rajasekhar Reddy and C.Rajeswaramma as corroborated by other witnesses.

9.1The Prosecution alleged that Accused was found illegally in possession of 20 liquor bottles on 30-01-2019 and Accused confessed about the same. As no one came forward to act as mediators the subject liquor bottles were seized under cover of Ex.P1 Police Proceedings. But no explanation came from the Prosecution as to why no mediators were secured by Police even though during cross examination it was denied that no efforts were made by the Officials for securing mediators, it was also deposed that the names of the persons whom they approached to act as Mediators is not mentioned. Further no witnesses were examined to show that the Accused was selling liquor at the alleged scene of offence.

9.2The relevant decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the circumstance is Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2002 ALT(Crl) (1) 347] wherein it was observed that, “when no mediators examined through search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.”

In the light of the above said decision of Hon’ble High Court, the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality and case of the Prosecution that no one came forward to act as mediator is not satisfactory especially when the complete proceedings are silent about details of the persons whom they approached to act as mediators.

9.3In this case the informant is Police and all the witnesses are

Police, except for the testimony of the Police and seized liquor under cover of

Police proceedings there is no evidence on record to show that Accused has

Page 4 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 510 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel committed offence as alleged. The testimony of the Police supported by the

Ex.P1 Police Proceedings is not enough to prove their case. The relevant decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the circumstance is

Adapa Rambabu @ Ramu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2014 ALD(Crl) (1) 966] it was held that, “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of evidence of Police Officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a Police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusing on the evidence of the Police

Officials.” 9.4In the light of the above said decisions in the absence of mediators and independent witnesses, even though the testimony of the

Officials is supported by the Ex.P1 Police Proceedings & seized liquor bottles, same is not enough as laid procedure is not followed by Officials, as rough sketch is not prepared, as no investigation is done with regard to the source of the involved bottles and notice is not issued to persons whom Police approached to act as mediators as required. Hence, it can be said that

Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered against Prosecution.

10.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The MO1 & MO2 shall be disposed after expiry of appeal period. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand canceled after expiry of six months.

(Typed to dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd of July, 2021.) Digitally signed by

PRAVEER

PRAVEER BHANJ DEO

BHANJ DEODate: 2021.07.23 16:19:07 +0530

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

BADVEL

Page 5 of 6

Calendar Case No.: 510 of 2019 Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Badvel

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1:P.Narasimhulu, Police constable. P.W.2:K.Venkata Ramana, Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.3:K.Pradeep Naidu, Sub Inspector of Police.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1:Police Proceedings. Ex.P.2:FIR in Cr.No.14/2019 of Kalasapadu P.S. Ex.P.3:Letter of Advice. Ex.P.4:Analysis Report.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : MO1:One sample bottle of HD Heavens Door whisky containing 180 ml. MO2:The remaining 19 bottles of Old Tavern whisky containing 180 ml each.

PRAVEERDigitally signed

by PRAVEER

BHANJ

BHANJ DEO

DEODate: 2021.07.23

16:19:22 +0530 AJCJ/BDL

Page 6 of 6