Sri Rama Mohan Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

Present: - Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kodangal.

Dated, this the 10th day of August, 2018

C.C. No. 10 of 2018

Between: State: Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Pargi. …Complainant

AND

1. Sabavath Tikya Naik S/o. Seethya Naik age, 40 years,

2. Sabavath Seethe Bai W/o. Seethya Naik, age 62 years, Both are Occupation: ID seller, R/o. Nandya Naik thanda, H/o Dewarfasalwad village of Doulathabad Mandal. ….Accused

This case is coming on 9-8-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Yadaiah, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Venkataiah, advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Pargi filed this case against the A-1 and A-2 vide PCOR No. 218/17 of his station alleging that A-1 and A-2 had committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, having received reliable information about illegal sale of ID liquor at Nandya Naik thanda, on dt.20.5.2017, about 11:10 am, PW-3 along with staff proceeded to said thanda and secured PW-1 and PW-2 as panch witnesses. On reaching the suspected house of said thanda, PW-3 found a person coming out of it, with a bag. On suspicion PW-3 checked the bag and found 2 lts of ID liquor in a plastic can, and on further checking of suspected place, found 30 kgs of black jaggery at the scene of offence. On enquiry he revealed, his name as S. Tikya

Naik S/o. seethya Naik and he also revealed, that A-2 purchased the black jaggery for manufacturing of ID liquor and held in manufacture of

ID liquor. Then PW-3 seized the I.D liquor after drawing two samples of 2

ID liquor each of 350 ml, black jaggery was destroyed on the spot under cover of panchanama by pasting sign chits. PW-3 apprehended

A-1 and brought to the excise station along with samples and seized property and handed over the same to PW-4 for further necessary action. Basing on the panchanama, PW-4 registered case in

PCOR.No.218/17, dt.20.5.2017, for the offence U/sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of

AP Prohibition Act. PW-3 deposited the sample bottles before the court vide CPR No.300/17, with a request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis. The remaining contraband (I.D liquor) was deposited

before the Dy. Commissioner of P&E, Mahabubnagar for confiscation.

The CE report vide No.4253/2017/8, dt.24.6.2017 denotes the sample as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. On 20.5.2017, PW-3 issued sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A-1. On completion of investigation, PW-4 laid charge sheet against the A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act against the A-1 and A-2, on dt.11.1.2018. On appearance of A-1 and A-2, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

4.A-1 and A-2 were examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for which, they denied the offence. A charge framed U/Sec. 7(A) R/W 8(e) of AP.

Prohibition Act was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs-1 to

PW-4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. MO.1 is sample bottle of 350 ml

I.D. Liquor and MO-2 is sample of 100 gms. Black Jaggery.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 and A-2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which, they pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8.The point for determination is__ 3

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of A-1 and A-2 for the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point:- In order to establish its case, as already noted, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P1 and

Ex.P4. MO-1 is sample bottle of 350 ml ID liquor and MO-2 is sample of 100 gms. Black Jaggery. PW-1 and PW-2 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama. PW-3 and PW-4 are the

Investigating Officers of the case. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW-2 on scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 is PCOR, Ex.P4 is CE report.

10.Upon perusal of prosecution evidence, it is apparent that PW-1 and PW-2 panch witnesses for Scene of Offence-Cum-Seizure

Panchanama totally turned hostile. In their evidence, PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that excise police obtained their signatures/thumb impression on white papers without disclosing any purpose, Except Ex.P1 signature nothing can be taken from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 against the A-1 & A-2. As such, Ex.P2 panchanama remains doubtful.

11.It is the case of prosecution that PW-3 got reliable information about illegal possession 30 Kgs of black jaggery for preparation of I.D liquor at Nandya Naik thanda, but, PW-3 did not whisper the names of persons through whom he learnt such information. According to PW-3, on search of the premises, he found of 2 lts. Of ID liquor in a plastic can and 30 kgs black jaggery from the possession of A-1, at the scene of offence and seized the ID liquor, and also destroyed the black jaggery on the spot in the presence of panch witnesses. A-1 also confessed that the black jaggery purchased by A-2 for manufacturing of ID liquor. As already noted, PW-1 and PW-2 panch witnesses did not support the case.

12. Basing on the panchanama, PW-4 P&ESI registered a case against

A-1 and A-2. PW-3 is Investigating officer, and from his cross- examination, learned counsel for defence elicited that PW-3 did not examine or record the statements of respectable persons the scene of offence locality. Though PW-3 deposed that he received reliable information about illegal sale and preparation of I.D liquor, he failed to mention the names of persons through whom he learnt such 4 information. PW-3 and PW-4 failed to do any further investigation in this regard. Further more. PW-3 did not collect any documents to show that scene of offence house/shop belongs to the accused, and that the alleged I.D liquor can be easily procured from the market.

13.Evidence of PW-4 Investigating Officer is replica of his charge sheet that the samples were not deposited in the court within the prescribed period of 24 hours. Further, PW-4 did not file any documents to establish depositing of remaining contraband before Dy.

Commissioner, P&E, Mahabubnagar. Adding to it, PW-4 did not do any further investigation of this case. In these circumstances, argument of defence attracts the attention of this court, if really, PW-3 visited the scene of offence nothing would prevent him from drawing rough sketch and mentioning the boundaries or land marks of scene of offence to identify it.

14.Now, it is clear that except the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 interested witness, prosecution does not have any other evidence on record. Testimony of PW-4 creates doubt as he could not deposit the samples in court within the prescribed period of 24 hours. More so, PW- 3 failed to examine the staff members who accompanied him to show the possession of ID liquor and black jaggery by the accused. Further, no details were brought on record showing the fate of remaining contraband. Adding strength to this view, procedure adopted by PW-3 in sealing the samples were also not described in Ex.P2 Panchanama.

Under AP Prohibition Act, it is mandatory to follow certain procedure to seal the samples.

15.It is the arguments of learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 that no investigation is done to show that A-2 purchased black jaggery, for preparation of ID. Liquor, as PW.3 did not made attempts to show from whom A-2 purchased black jaggery. The arguments of defence counsel has force as PW.3 did not examine any other persons who were assisting A-1 in preparation of ID. liquor by using the black jaggery, and also no instruments were seized by either PW-3 or PW-4.

16.It is pertinent to mention here that except the panchanama, no further investigation, i.e., examination of neighbours of the scene of offence was done. In these circumstances, when the seizure of alleged contraband itself is not established by the prosecution, Ex.P4 C.E 5 report does not help the prosecution. In that view of the matter, this

Court opines that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence with which A-1 and A-2 are charged and accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

17.In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) R/W 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 and A-2 shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed

U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 and MO-2 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on Chamber computer, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2018.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kodangal

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Sabavath Manjulal. None. PW-2: Sabavath Sunder Naik. PW-3: N. Veera Reddy, P&EI PW-4: Md. Shakeer Ahmed, P&ESI

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 Sabavath Manjulal on scene of offence-cum- seizure Panchanama, Dt.20.5.2017. Ex.P2: Scene of offense-cum-seizure panchanama, Dt.20.5.2017. Ex.P3: PCOR, Dt.20.5.2017. Ex.P4: CE Report, Dt.26.4.2017.

For Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects Marked.

MO.1: Sample bottle of 350 ml I.D. Liquor MO.2: Sample of 100 gms. Black Jaggery.

JFCM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KODANGAL

Present: - Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kodangal.

Dated, this the 10th day of August, 2018

C.C. No. 10 of 2018

Between: State: Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Pargi. …Complainant

AND

1. Sabavath Tikya Naik S/o. Seethya Naik age, 40 years,

2. Sabavath Seethe Bai W/o. Seethya Naik, age 62 years, Both are Occupation: ID seller, R/o. Nandya Naik thanda, H/o Dewarfasalwad village of Doulathabad Mandal. ….Accused

This case is coming on 9-8-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Yadaiah, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Venkataiah, advocate for Accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Pargi filed this case against the A-1 and A-2 vide PCOR No. 218/17 of his station alleging that A-1 and A-2 had committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, having received reliable information about illegal sale of ID liquor at Nandya Naik thanda, on dt.20.5.2017, about 11:10 am, PW-3 along with staff proceeded to said thanda and secured PW-1 and PW-2 as panch witnesses. On reaching the suspected house of said thanda, PW-3 found a person coming out of it, with a bag. On suspicion PW-3 checked the bag and found 2 lts of ID liquor in a plastic can, and on further checking of suspected place, found 30 kgs of black jaggery at the scene of offence. On enquiry he revealed, his name as S. Tikya

Naik S/o. seethya Naik and he also revealed, that A-2 purchased the black jaggery for manufacturing of ID liquor and held in manufacture of

ID liquor. Then PW-3 seized the I.D liquor after drawing two samples of 2

ID liquor each of 350 ml, black jaggery was destroyed on the spot under cover of panchanama by pasting sign chits. PW-3 apprehended

A-1 and brought to the excise station along with samples and seized property and handed over the same to PW-4 for further necessary action. Basing on the panchanama, PW-4 registered case in

PCOR.No.218/17, dt.20.5.2017, for the offence U/sec.7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of

AP Prohibition Act. PW-3 deposited the sample bottles before the court vide CPR No.300/17, with a request to send one of the samples for chemical analysis. The remaining contraband (I.D liquor) was deposited

before the Dy. Commissioner of P&E, Mahabubnagar for confiscation.

The CE report vide No.4253/2017/8, dt.24.6.2017 denotes the sample as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. On 20.5.2017, PW-3 issued sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice to A-1. On completion of investigation, PW-4 laid charge sheet against the A-1 and A-2 for the offence punishable U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition

Act.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act against the A-1 and A-2, on dt.11.1.2018. On appearance of A-1 and A-2, copies of documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

4.A-1 and A-2 were examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for which, they denied the offence. A charge framed U/Sec. 7(A) R/W 8(e) of AP.

Prohibition Act was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs-1 to

PW-4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. MO.1 is sample bottle of 350 ml

I.D. Liquor and MO-2 is sample of 100 gms. Black Jaggery.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 and A-2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which, they pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8.The point for determination is__ 3

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of A-1 and A-2 for the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point:- In order to establish its case, as already noted, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P1 and

Ex.P4. MO-1 is sample bottle of 350 ml ID liquor and MO-2 is sample of 100 gms. Black Jaggery. PW-1 and PW-2 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama. PW-3 and PW-4 are the

Investigating Officers of the case. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW-2 on scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 is PCOR, Ex.P4 is CE report.

10.Upon perusal of prosecution evidence, it is apparent that PW-1 and PW-2 panch witnesses for Scene of Offence-Cum-Seizure

Panchanama totally turned hostile. In their evidence, PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that excise police obtained their signatures/thumb impression on white papers without disclosing any purpose, Except Ex.P1 signature nothing can be taken from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 against the A-1 & A-2. As such, Ex.P2 panchanama remains doubtful.

11.It is the case of prosecution that PW-3 got reliable information about illegal possession 30 Kgs of black jaggery for preparation of I.D liquor at Nandya Naik thanda, but, PW-3 did not whisper the names of persons through whom he learnt such information. According to PW-3, on search of the premises, he found of 2 lts. Of ID liquor in a plastic can and 30 kgs black jaggery from the possession of A-1, at the scene of offence and seized the ID liquor, and also destroyed the black jaggery on the spot in the presence of panch witnesses. A-1 also confessed that the black jaggery purchased by A-2 for manufacturing of ID liquor. As already noted, PW-1 and PW-2 panch witnesses did not support the case.

12. Basing on the panchanama, PW-4 P&ESI registered a case against

A-1 and A-2. PW-3 is Investigating officer, and from his cross- examination, learned counsel for defence elicited that PW-3 did not examine or record the statements of respectable persons the scene of offence locality. Though PW-3 deposed that he received reliable information about illegal sale and preparation of I.D liquor, he failed to mention the names of persons through whom he learnt such 4 information. PW-3 and PW-4 failed to do any further investigation in this regard. Further more. PW-3 did not collect any documents to show that scene of offence house/shop belongs to the accused, and that the alleged I.D liquor can be easily procured from the market.

13.Evidence of PW-4 Investigating Officer is replica of his charge sheet that the samples were not deposited in the court within the prescribed period of 24 hours. Further, PW-4 did not file any documents to establish depositing of remaining contraband before Dy.

Commissioner, P&E, Mahabubnagar. Adding to it, PW-4 did not do any further investigation of this case. In these circumstances, argument of defence attracts the attention of this court, if really, PW-3 visited the scene of offence nothing would prevent him from drawing rough sketch and mentioning the boundaries or land marks of scene of offence to identify it.

14.Now, it is clear that except the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 interested witness, prosecution does not have any other evidence on record. Testimony of PW-4 creates doubt as he could not deposit the samples in court within the prescribed period of 24 hours. More so, PW- 3 failed to examine the staff members who accompanied him to show the possession of ID liquor and black jaggery by the accused. Further, no details were brought on record showing the fate of remaining contraband. Adding strength to this view, procedure adopted by PW-3 in sealing the samples were also not described in Ex.P2 Panchanama.

Under AP Prohibition Act, it is mandatory to follow certain procedure to seal the samples.

15.It is the arguments of learned counsel for A-1 and A-2 that no investigation is done to show that A-2 purchased black jaggery, for preparation of ID. Liquor, as PW.3 did not made attempts to show from whom A-2 purchased black jaggery. The arguments of defence counsel has force as PW.3 did not examine any other persons who were assisting A-1 in preparation of ID. liquor by using the black jaggery, and also no instruments were seized by either PW-3 or PW-4.

16.It is pertinent to mention here that except the panchanama, no further investigation, i.e., examination of neighbours of the scene of offence was done. In these circumstances, when the seizure of alleged contraband itself is not established by the prosecution, Ex.P4 C.E 5 report does not help the prosecution. In that view of the matter, this

Court opines that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence with which A-1 and A-2 are charged and accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

17.In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) R/W 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 and A-2 shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed

U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 and MO-2 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on Chamber computer, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2018.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kodangal

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Sabavath Manjulal. None. PW-2: Sabavath Sunder Naik. PW-3: N. Veera Reddy, P&EI PW-4: Md. Shakeer Ahmed, P&ESI

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 Sabavath Manjulal on scene of offence-cum- seizure Panchanama, Dt.20.5.2017. Ex.P2: Scene of offense-cum-seizure panchanama, Dt.20.5.2017. Ex.P3: PCOR, Dt.20.5.2017. Ex.P4: CE Report, Dt.26.4.2017.

For Defence: -Nil-

Material Objects Marked.

MO.1: Sample bottle of 350 ml I.D. Liquor MO.2: Sample of 100 gms. Black Jaggery.

JFCM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KODANGAL

Present: - Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kodgangal

Dated, this the 10th day of August, 2018

C.C. No. 04 of 2018

Between: State: Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Pargi. …Complainant AND

Kethavath Thulsya Naik S/o. Bandya Naik, age 30 years, Occ: ID seller, R/o Chervumundu thanda, Bomraspet Mandal. ….Accused

This case is coming on 09-08-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Yadaiah, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Baswaraju, advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Pargi filed this case against the Accused in PCOR No.96/2017 of his station alleging that

Accused had committed an offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on 3.3.2017 at about 10:30 am, PW-3 received credible information about illegal sale and possession of illicitly distilled liquor, at outskirts of Cherumundari thanda. Immediately PW-3 along with staff members proceeded to the said thanda and secured PW-1 and PW-2 as panch witnesses. When they reached outskirts of said thanda found a person running away from the scene of offence on seeing excise officials at some distance.

Excise officials find to catch hold of him but in vain. On enquiry PW-3 came to know the particulars of ran away person as Tulsya Naik S/o.

Bandya Naik. On search of the premises PW-3 found a plastic can containing 5 lts of ID liquor and 200 lts of FJ Wash in a mud pot. PW-3 conducted scene of offence-cum-seizure by drawing 2 sample bottles of ID liquor each of 350 ml, and FJ wash destroyed on the spot under cover of panchanama by pasting sign chits. Basing on the panchanama

PW-3 registered a case in PCOR No.96/17, dt.3.3.2017 for the offence

U/sec.7(A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act by showing the accused as 2 absconding. The remaining contraband was deposited before the

Dy.Commissioner of P&E, Rangareddy for confiscation. PW-3 deposited the samples in court vide CPR No. 178/17, with request to send one of the sample for chemical analysis. PW-3 received CE report vide No.

2683/2017/11, dt.26.4.2017 denotes the sample as illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. On 3.3.2017, PW-3 issued sec. 41-A Cr.PC notice to the accused. After completion of investigation PW-3 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused, on dt.11.1.2018. On appearance of accused, copies of documents as contemplated

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. were furnished to him.

4.Accused was examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., for which, he denied the offence. A charge framed U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP.

Prohibition Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. MO.1 is sample bottle of 350 ml I.D.

Liquor and MO-2 is sample bottle of 350 ml JF wash.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which, he pleaded all such evidence is false and reported no defence.

7.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8.The point for determination is__

Whether prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.Point:- In order to establish its case, as already noted, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4. MO-1 is sample bottle of 350 ml ID liquor and MO-2 is sample bottle of 350 ml JF wash. PW-1 and PW2 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama. PW-3 is the Investigating

Officer of the case. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW-1 on the scene of 3 offence-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is the scene of offence-cum- seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is PCOR and Ex.P4 is CE report.

10.Upon perusal of prosecution evidence, it is apparent that PW-1 and PW-2 panch witnesses for Scene of Offence-Cum-Seizure

Panchanama totally turned hostile. In their evidence, PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that excise police obtained their signature/thumb impressions on white papers without disclosing any purpose. Except Ex.P1 signature, nothing can be taken from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 against the accused. As such, Ex.P2 panchanama remains doubtful.

11.It is the case of prosecution that PW-3 received reliable information about the sales and possession of ID liquor at outskirts of

Cheruvumundari thanda, but, he did not whisper the names of persons through whom he learnt such information. According to PW-3, on search of the premises, he found 5 lt of ID liquor in a plastic can and 200 lts of FJ wash in a mud pot at the scene of offence and seized the

ID liquor, and FJ wash destroyed on the spot in the presence of panch witnesses. As already noted, PW-1 and PW-2 panch witnesses did not support the case.

12.Evidence of PW-3 Investigating Officer is replica of his charge sheet. From his cross-examination, learned counsel for defence elicited that he did not mention the boundaries of scene of offence.

Admittedly, the samples were not deposited in the court within the prescribed period of 24 hours, and that the alleged I.D liquor can be easily procured from the market. Further, PW-3 did not file any documents to establish depositing of remaining contraband before Dy.

Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise. Adding to it, PW-3 did not examine the persons from whom he came to know about the particulars of accused. In these circumstances, argument of defence attracts the attention of this court, if really, PW-3 visited the scene of offence nothing would prevent him from drawing rough sketch and mentioning the boundaries or land marks of scene of offence to identify it.

13.Now, it is clear that except the evidence of PW-3 interested witness, prosecution does not have any other evidence on record.

Testimony of PW-3 creates doubt as he could not deposit the sample bottles in court within the prescribed period of 24 hours. More so, PW-3 failed to examine the staff members who accompanied him to show the possession of ID liquor by the accused. Further, no details were 4 brought on record showing the fate of remaining contraband. Adding strength to this view, procedure adopted by PW-3 in sealing the sample bottles was also not described in Ex.P2 Panchanama. Under AP

Prohibition Act, it is mandatory to follow certain procedure to seal the sample bottles.

14.It is pertinent to mention here that except the panchanama, no further investigation, i.e., examination of neighbours of the scene of offence was done. In these circumstances, when the seizure of alleged contraband itself is not established by the prosecution, Ex.P4 C.E report does not help the prosecution. In that view of the matter, this

Court opines that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence with which he is charged and accordingly entitled to benefit of doubt.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 7(A) R/W 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO-1 and MO-2 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the typist on chamber computer, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2018.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kodangal

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: PW-1: Kethavath ShankerNone. PW-2: Kethavath Chandrya PW-3: Md. Shakeer Ahmed, P & ESI

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 Kethavath Shanker, on Scene of offense-cum- seizure panchanama, Dt..3.3.2017. Ex.P2: Scene of offense-cum-seizure panchanama, Dt3.3.2017. Ex.P3: PCOR, Dt 3.3.2017. Ex.P4: CE Report, Dt.26.4.2017.

For Defence: -Nil- Material Objects Marked

MO-1: Sample bottle of 350 ml. ID liquor. MO-2: Sample bottle of 350 ml. FJ wash.

5

JFCM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KODANGAL

Present: - Sri D.Rama Mohan Reddy Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal.

Dated, this the 10th day of August, 2018

O.S. No.95 of 2016

Between :

1. Pedda Laxmya Naik S/o Bhojya Naik, aged: 71 years.

2. Kisti Bai W/o Balya Naik @ Bhanu Naik, aged: 30 years. Both are Occ: Agriculture, R/o Hanmya Naik Tanda, H/o Gokafaslabad village, Doulatabad mandal, Mahabubnagar district.

…Plaintiffs

And

1. Dodla Kistappa S/o Mallappa, age: 50 years.

2. Damargidda Pullappa S/o Ashappa, age: 60 years.

3. Damargidda Pakirappa S/o Chinna Pullappa, age: 30 years.

4. Dodla Venkatamma W/o Kistappa, age: 45 years.

5. Damargidda Shamappa S/o Thammappa, age: 40 years. All are Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gokafaslabad village, Doulatabad mandal, Mahabubnagar district. …Defendants

This suit is coming on 09-08-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Baswaraj, Advocate for the plaintiffs; defendants having remained exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit land and for costs.

2.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows :

That the plaintiff No.1 is the father-in-law of plaintiff No.2.

Defendants No.1 and 4 are wife and husband, defendants No.3 is the son of defendants No.2's younger brother. Defendants No.5 is the son of defendants No.2's junior paternal uncle. The Government has assigned the suit land in Sy.No.97/2/1, dry to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts, in favour of plaintiff No.1 and in Sy.No.97/1, dry to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts, in favour of plaintiff No.2, situated at Gokafaslabad village, 2

Doultabad mandal. The revenue authorities issued pattadar pass books and title deeds of the suit lands in the favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs availed crop loan from bank by depositing the title deeds as such original title deeds are not filedbefore the court. Defendants No.1 to 5 do not have any rights, title or interest over the suit lands. On 20-6- 2016, when the plaintiffs were attending the agricultural works in the suit lands, all the defendents with their henchmen and family members went and tried to obstruct the work and damage the bunds of suit lands and threatened not to attend any agricultural work in the suit lands. Again on 6-8-2016 at 11:00 a.m., the defendants repeated the same but plaintiffs prevented them from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit lands with the help of adjacent land owners. The about acts of defendants are illegal and injurious to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs who are cultivating the suit lands jointly.Hence the suit for perpetual injunction.

3.Defendants upon receipt of summons failed to appear before this court and remained exparte.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and perused the record.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to seek relief of Perpetual injunction against the defendants and their men ?

6.In support of their case, Plaintiff No.1 and Nurya Naik were examined as P.W.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-22 and none were examined as defendants remained exparte.

7. POINT : Plaintiff No.1 in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief- examination as PW-1 deposed reiterating the averments of the plaint and through him Exs.A1 to A22 are marked.Ex.A-1 is the original assignment certificate dated 23-11-2012 in favour of plaintiff No.1

Ex.A2 is the pattedar passbook of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A3 is the C.C. of 1-B 3

ROR. of plaintiff No.1 Exs.A4 to A10 are the certified copy of Pahanies for the fasli from 1420 to 1426 pertaining to plaintiff No.1. Ex.A-11 is the original assignment certificate dated 23-11-2012 in favour of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A12 is the pattedar passbook of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A13 is the C.C. of 1-B ROR. of plaintiff No.2. Exs.A14 to A20 are the certified copy of Pahanies for the fasli from 1420 to 1426 pertaining to plaintiff

No.2. Ex.A21 and A22 are the original endorsements dated 21-7-2018 of plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Thus, Exs.A1 to A22 shows that government has assigned suit lands to plaintiffs and that plaintiffs got implemented the same in revenue records and also were issued passbooks, which clearly shows the possession of plaintiffs over the suit lands.

In addition to the above, one Nurya Naik S/o.Sakriya Naik who filed affidavit in lieu of chief examinations of PW-2 deposed that plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule lands, and that defendants on 20-6-2016 and again on 6-8-2016 interfered and tried to obstruct the work of plaintiffs and tried to damage the bunds of suit lands, which acts were resisted by plaintiffs.

8.Oral testimony of plaintiff No.1 as PW-1 and one Nurya Naik as

PW-2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-22 clinchingly establishes that

Plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit schedule lands as on the date of filing of the suit and that they are the owners and possessors of suit schedule lands. Since the defendants having received the summons failed to appear before this court and remained exparte, as such, the ocular testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Exs.A-1 to

A-22 remained unrebutted and in tact. Therefore this court is of the view that plaintiffs through unchallenged testimony PW-1 and PW-2 established that they are in lawful possession of suit schedule lands and hence entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. This point is answered in favour of plaintiffs against the defendants.

4

9.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiffs by granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their henchmen and family members and relatives or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit schedule land.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th day of August, 2018.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KODANGAL

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs : For Defendants :

P.W-1: P.Laxmya Naik. Nil. P.W-2: Nurya Naik.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiffs :

Ex.A1: Original assignment certificate, dt. 23-11-2012, in favour of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A2: Pattadar pass book of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A3: C.C of ROR 1-B of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A4: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1420 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A5: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1421 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A6: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1422 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A7: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1423 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A8: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1424 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A9: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1425 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A10: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1426 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A11: Original assignment certificate, dt. 23-11-2012, in favour of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A12: Pattadar pass book of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A13: C.C of ROR 1-B of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A14: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1420 of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A15: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1421 of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A16: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1422 of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A17: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1423 of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A18: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1424 of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A19: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1425 of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A20: C.C of Pahani for the fasli 1426 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A21: Original endorsement dt. 21-7-2018 of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A22: Original endorsement dt. 21-7-2018 of plaintiff No.2.

JCJ.

5