Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jaggaiahpet · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree, Additional Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,220 court orders on record since 2020. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

1,220

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/1083/2021 Acquitted

S.I. of Police, Penuganchiprolu P.S. vs Kunchapu Ravi

18 Jul 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: JAGGAYYAPET

Present: Smt R.Shanthisree.,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggayyapet.

Monday, this the 18th day of July, 2022

C.C.No. 1083 of 2021

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penuganchiprolu Police Station.... Complainant.

AND 1.Kunchapu Ravi S/o Lingaiah, 28 years, 2.Upputhala Nagarjuna S/o Venkateswara Rao, 22 Y, Both are C/Vaddera, R/o Model coloby, … Accused Penuganchiprolu village and mandal.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of P.Sameera., Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri A.V.Prasada Rao and Smt.M.Vijaya Kumari, counsels for the Accused appeared himself and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused arraigned before the court for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is as follows:-

On 2.3.2021 at about 20.30 hours LW.6/ S.I. of Police along with his staff HC- 698, PC-1967 and PC-2758 and mediators proceeded to near the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched them and found 102 liquor bottles in their possession and on questioning, they revealed their identity as Kunchapu Ravi and Upputhala

Nagarjunaand stated that they brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for their arrest and obtained samples and drafted mediator report at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No. 76/2021 u/s.

34 (a) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to accused and after sending the samples to FSL, Kakinada and on 2 receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence this charge sheet.

3. After appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The accused were examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the alleged offence and charges framed against the accused under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 which was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution cited 6 witnesses and examined 2 witnesses. LW.4/ L.Chaitanya, VRO, Penuganchiprolu was examined as PW.1. L.W.6 / G.Ramakrishna, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penuganchiprolu Police Station was examined as PW.2. The Learned APPO has given up the remaining witnesses i.e. LW.1/ B.Prakash Rao, LW.2/

B.Upendra, LW.3/ P.Balakrishna who are police constables, LW.4/ G.Ramesh,

VRA of Penuganchiprolu village.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the incriminating material available against them on record, which was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence. No exhibits were marked on behalf of defence.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1

and A2 for the offence charged under section 34 (a) of the Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition & Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.3.2021 at about 20.30 hours

LW.6/ S.I. of Police along with his staff HC- 698, PC-1967 and PC-2758 and mediators proceeded to near the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched them and found 102 liquor bottles in their possession and on questioning, they revealed their identity as

Kunchapu Ravi and Upputhala Nagarjunaand stated that they brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they 3 seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for their arrest and obtained samples and drafted mediator report at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No. 76/2021 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and after sending the samples to

FSL, Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

10. The Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is no way connected with the case and the investigation officer failed to examine the persons who are present at the alleged scene of offence and the present case was foisted against the accused for the statistical purpose without following the procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. and further contended that the defacto complainant solely conducted investigation. But as per the procedure the defacto complainant invariably has to handover the case to the investigation officer. Hence he contended that the procedures were not followed by the police officials and prayed the court to acquit the accused.

11. The learned APPO contended that the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with analysis report Ex.P3 supported the case of the prosecution and prayed the court to convict the accused.

12. On perusal of the entire record the alleged offence against the accused under Sec.34 of A.P.Excise Act. The prosecution has examined Pw.1 and PW.2.

13. Pw.1 is the mediator in the present case who deposed that he is working as VRO at Penuganchiprolu Village and on 02.03.2021 at about 20.30 hours S.I. of Police along with his staff took him along with VRA to near the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found two persons trying to abscond from the scene of offence for which he apprehended the accused and questioned the accused regarding their identity, then accused revealed their identity and S.I. of Police searched the bag and found 102 liquor bottles for which they seized the bottles and on questioning the accused stated that they purchased the bottles at Telangana state to sell them for higher price and on seizing the liquor bottles the S.I. of Police drawn the samples from the seized bottles and then drafted the occurrence report at the scene of offence and obtained their signatures on typed material along with another person

VRA of Penuganchiprolu Village and then returned back to the police station.

14. Pw.2 who is S.I. of Police who filed charge sheet stated that On 02.03.2021 at about 20.30 hours on receipt of credible information he along with his staff HC-698, PC-1967 and PC-2758 and mediators proceeded to near the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched them and found 102 liquor bottles in their possession and on questioning, they revealed their identity as Kunchapu Ravi and Upputhala

Nagarjuna and stated that they brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for their arrest and obtained samples and drafted mediator report at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station, PW.3 registered a case in Cr.No. 76/2021 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

notices to accused, later he sent the samples to FSL, Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. On perusal of the entire evidence of Pw.1 who is the mediator in this case stated in his cross-examination that police have not issued any written notice to him to act as mediator. The same was accepted by PW.2 in his cross- examination. Pw.1 further stated that he did not obtain any written permission from his superior authorities to act as mediator. PW.2 stated in his cross examination that they could not secure any mediators nearby and they did not submit any documents that the seized bottles were transported from

Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. PW.2 further stated that he registered the case and he also investigated the case.

16. As seen from the evidence of Pw.2, it is clear that Pw.2 did not issue any notice to the mediators to act as mediators and Pw.1 did not obtain any permission from his higher authorities to act as mediator. On perusal of the record the investigation officer has not secured and examined any eye witness or independent witnesses at the scene of offence from surrounding of the scene of offence. On perusal of the record, police did not prepare separate seizure report. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2 who is police official is not corroborated with the evidence of Pw.1. Only when the scene of offence is a elufed place or a forest then only the police officials cannot secure any mediators nearby and in the present case police officials have not given any proper explanation or any proper documents to show that they have made their efforts to secure local mediators or nearby persons as in the cross 5 examination the police official stated the scene of offence is a busy locality and also further the commission of offence is mentioned at 20.30 hours in the morning and hence the police officials could not mention any plausible reasons to show that they have made their best efforts to secure mediators.

17. On going through the evidence of Pw.2, it discloses that he himself is the defacto complainant and he himself registered the case and investigated the case. It is established principle of law that the person who is a complainant in the case should not do investigation and if the complainant is the investigation officer in such case invariably the complainant has to handover the case to the investigation officer else it may cause prejudice to the accused. So the evidence available on record, should be treated in a doubtful manner and should be scrutinize scrupulously.

18. On perusal of the record there is force in the contentions of the defence for the above mentioned aspect this court finds it appropriate to rely on a judgment Gurazala Ramesh and others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 13 (A.P.). in this case it was held that..

“…...even according to prosecution as also material on record,

same police officer who detected and found the offence gave FIR and

also investigated. Hence, it is manifest illegality is committed by the

same officer who detected the offence or crime also gave FIR and

investigating in to the crime and filed charge sheet. Hence, impugned

convictions and sentences as conformed by the Appellate Court or

unsustainable at law. Hence, have to be set aside”. In this case

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred the decision AIR

1976 Supreme Court 985 (Bhagavan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in

Para No.5 that “it is postulated that infirmity arisen out of the

investigation by the Head constable who lodged the FIR as complainant

will be an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the

case of the prosecution. In view of the authority it is clear that the

complainant cannot be acted as Investigation officer and it is not safe

to rely upon the investigation done by the complainant as there is every

possibility of prejudice to the accused and impartial investigation is

doubtful.”

19. The main contention of the counsel for the accused is that the procedure contemplated for seizure is not properly followed by the police officials and hence that this shows that the accused is falsely implicated in the case and there is no evidence or documents to prove that the accused has committed the offence and the said bottles were seized from the possession of the accused. As the scene of offence is a busy locality and the offence alleged to have been committed is at 20.30 hours there is every possibility to secure local witnesses or independent witnesses and mediators at the scene of offence 6 but the police officials have not made their best efforts to secure any mediators at the scene of offence and hence prayed the court to acquit the accused.

20. Now coming to present case, Ex.P3 is the analysis report established that the sample contains Indian made liquor. By exhibiting the said document, the prosecution at best established the nature of the content that was sent to the Chemical analysis but they failed to establish that it was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Here it is pertinent to refer the relevant judgments of our Honourable High Court on the aspect of search and seizure.

Our Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Yeduru Sreenivaslul Reddy Vs State of

A.P. which was reported in 2002(1) ALD (Crl.)347 (A.P). laid down that:

When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and

none have come forward to act as punch witness, the police should have

resort to Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. and should pass a written order. Therefore, in

the absence of any such written order, the evidence of police officials

that no one came forward to act as mediators, cannot be believed and

relied upon. Therefore, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is

vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be

sustained”.

21. No doubt, non observance of the procedure mandated under the

Criminal Procedure Code may not be fatal in each and every case, if the concerned authority who made the search and seizure has given cogent and convincing explanation as to how and why he could not comply with the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C.

22. In the present case, no such explanation is forthcoming from Pw.1 for not following the procedure contemplated under Sec.100 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the record, Pw.2 has failed to give any plausible reasons for not securing the presence of local mediators at the time of his search, which may cause great prejudice to the accused.

23. Prepondency of probability is not useful in Criminal cases. Prosecution has to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.2 but failed to prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

24. For herein above reasons the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the ingredients charged under sec.34-(a) of A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. In these circumstances this court is of the view the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all 7 reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite for a conviction against the accused and as such he is entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence, charged under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period six months as contemplated under sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 18th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggayyapet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Pw.1: L.Chaintanya, VRO, Penuganchiprolu None PW.2 : G.Ramakrishna, S. I. of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR: PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Ex.P1 : Occurrence report NIL Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggayyapet.

CC/2260/2021 Acquitted

Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Thammisetty Srinivasa Rao

04 Jul 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: JAGGAYYAPET

Present: Smt R.Shanthisree.,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggayyapet.

Monday, this the 4th day of July, 2022

C.C.No. 2260 of 2021

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penuganchiprolu Police Station.... Complainant.

AND

Thammisetty Srinivasa Rao S/o Lakshmana Babu, 26 years, vaddera, Toofan colony, Penuganchiprolu village. … Accused

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of P.Sameera., Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri E.V.Jagannadha Rao, counsel for the Accused appeared himself and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused arraigned before the court for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is as follows:-

On 28.4.2021 at about 8.00 hours LW.5/ S.I. of Police along with his staff HC- 698 and PC-1967 and mediators proceeded to near the house of accused in Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused at his house trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched him and found 46 liquor bottles in his possession and on questioning, he revealed his identity as Thammisetty Srinivasa Raoand stated that he has brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for his arrest and obtained samples and drafted occurrence report at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No. 123/2021 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P.

Prohibition and Excise Act, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and after sending the samples to FSL, Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence this charge sheet.

3. After appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the alleged offence and charges framed against the accused under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 which was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution cited 5 witnesses and examined 2 witnesses. LW.3/ L.Chaitanya, VRO, Penuganchiprolu was examined as PW.1. L.W.5 / G.Ramakrishna, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penuganchiprolu Police Station was examined as PW.2. The Learned APPO has given up the remaining witnesses i.e. LW.1/ B.Prakash Rao, LW.2/

B.Upendra who are police constables, LW.4/ J.Venkateswarlu, VRA of

Penuganchiprolu village.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the incriminating material available against him on record, which was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defence. No exhibits were marked on behalf of defence.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence charged under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition & Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.4.2021 at about 8.00 hours

LW.5/ S.I. of Police along with his staff HC- 698 and PC-1967 and mediators proceeded to near the house of accused in Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused at his house trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched him and found 46 liquor bottles in his possession and on questioning, he revealed his identity as

Thammisetty Srinivasa Raoand stated that he has brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for his arrest and obtained samples and drafted occurrence report at the scene of offence and 3 later after returning back to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No.

123/2021 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Later he issued

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and after sending the samples to FSL,

Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

11. The learned APPO contended that the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with analysis report Ex.P3 supported the case of the prosecution and prayed the court to convict the accused.

12. On perusal of the entire record the alleged offence against the accused under Sec.34 of A.P.Excise Act. The prosecution has examined Pw.1 and PW.2.

13. Pw.1 is the mediator in the present case who deposed that he is working as VRO at Penuganchiprolu Village and on 28.04.2021 at about 8.00 hours S.I. of Police along with his staff took him along with VRA to near the house of accused in Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found one person trying to abscond from the scene of offence for which he apprehended the accused and questioned the accused regarding his identity, then accused revealed his identity and S.I. of Police searched the bag and found 46 liquor bottles for which the he seized the bottles and on questioning the accused stated that he purchased the bottles at Telangana state to sell them for higher price and on seizing the liquor bottles the S.I. of Police drawn the samples from the seized bottles and then drafted the occurrence report at the scene of offence and obtained their signatures on typed material along with another person VRA of Penuganchiprolu Village and then returned back to the police station.

14. Pw.2 who is S.I. of Police who filed charge sheet stated that On 28.04.2021 at about 8.00 hours on receipt of credible information he along with his staff HC-698 and PC-1967 and mediators proceeded to near the house of accused in Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched him and found 46 liquor bottles in his possession and on questioning, he revealed his identity as Thammisetty Srinivasa Rao and stated that he has brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for his arrest and obtained samples and drafted occurrence report at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station, PW.3 registered a case in Cr.No. 123/2021 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P.

Prohibition and Excise Act, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused, later he sent the samples to FSL, Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. PW.2 further stated that he registered the case and he also investigated the case.

16. As seen from the evidence of Pw.2, it is clear that Pw.2 did not issue any notice to the mediators to act as mediators and Pw.1 did not obtain any permission from his higher authorities to act as mediator. On perusal of the record the investigation officer has not secured and examined any eye witness or independent witnesses at the scene of offence from surrounding of the scene of offence. On perusal of the record, police did not prepare separate seizure report. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2 who is police official is not corroborated with the evidence of Pw.1. Only when the scene of offence is a elufed place or a forest then only the police officials cannot secure any mediators nearby and in the present case police officials have not given any proper explanation or any proper documents to show that they have made their efforts to secure local mediators or nearby persons as in the cross examination the police official stated the scene of offence is a busy locality and 5 also further the commission of offence is mentioned at 8.00 hours in the morning and hence the police officials could not mention any plausible reasons to show that they have made their best efforts to secure mediators.

“…...even according to prosecution as also material on record,

same police officer who detected and found the offence gave FIR and

also investigated. Hence, it is manifest illegality is committed by the

same officer who detected the offence or crime also gave FIR and

investigating in to the crime and filed charge sheet. Hence, impugned

convictions and sentences as conformed by the Appellate Court or

unsustainable at law. Hence, have to be set aside”. In this case

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred the decision AIR

1976 Supreme Court 985 (Bhagavan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in

Para No.5 that “it is postulated that infirmity arisen out of the

investigation by the Head constable who lodged the FIR as complainant

will be an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the

case of the prosecution. In view of the authority it is clear that the

complainant cannot be acted as Investigation officer and it is not safe

to rely upon the investigation done by the complainant as there is every

possibility of prejudice to the accused and impartial investigation is

doubtful.”

19. The main contention of the counsel for the accused is that the procedure contemplated for seizure is not properly followed by the police officials and hence that this shows that the accused is falsely implicated in the case and there is no evidence or documents to prove that the accused has committed the offence and the said bottles were seized from the possession of the accused. As the scene of offence is a busy locality and the offence alleged to have been committed is at 8.00 hours there is every possibility to secure local witnesses or independent witnesses and mediators at the scene of offence but the police officials have not made their best efforts to secure any mediators at the scene of offence and hence prayed the court to acquit the accused.

Our Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Yeduru Sreenivaslul Reddy Vs State of

A.P. which was reported in 2002(1) ALD (Crl.)347 (A.P). laid down that:

When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and

none have come forward to act as punch witness, the police should have

resort to Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. and should pass a written order. Therefore, in

the absence of any such written order, the evidence of police officials

that no one came forward to act as mediators, cannot be believed and

relied upon. Therefore, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is

vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be

sustained”.

21. No doubt, non observance of the procedure mandated under the

24. For herein above reasons the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the ingredients charged under sec.34-(a) of A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. In these circumstances this court is of the view the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite for a conviction against the accused and as such he is entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 4th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggayyapet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Pw.1: L.Chaintanya, VRO, Penuganchiprolu None PW.2 : G.Ramakrishna, S. I. of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR: PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Ex.P1 : Occurrence report NIL Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggayyapet.

CC/2633/2021 Acquitted

Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu P.S. vs Panga Lakshmi

18 Jul 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: JAGGAYYAPET

Present: Smt R.Shanthisree.,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggayyapet.

Monday, this the 18th day of July, 2022

C.C.No. 2633 of 2021

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penuganchiprolu Police Station.... Complainant.

AND

Panga Lakshmi W/o Srinivasa Rao, 59 years, SC-Mala, Mundlapadu village, Penuganchiprolu mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of P.Sameera., Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri A.V.Prasada Rao, counsel for the Accused appeared himself and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused arraigned before the court for the offence under section 34(A) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is as follows:-

On 28.8.2021 at about 12.00 hours LW.5/ S.I. of Police along with his staff PC- 2678 and WPC- 1000 and mediators proceeded to near the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused at his house trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched him and found 65 liquor bottles in her possession and on questioning, she revealed her identity as Panga Lakshmiand stated that she has brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for her arrest and obtained samples and drafted mediator report at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No. 282/2021 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise

Act, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and after sending the samples to FSL, Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence this charge sheet.

3. After appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the alleged offence and charges framed against the accused under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 which was read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution cited 5 witnesses and examined 2 witnesses. L.W.5/S.Hariprasad, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penuganchiprolu Police Station was examined as PW.1. LW.3/ L.Chaitanya,

VRO, Penuganchiprolu was examined as PW.2. The Learned APPO has given up the remaining witnesses i.e. LW.1/ P.Balakrishna, LW.2/ B.Hema who are police constables, LW.4/ M.Kumar, VRA of Penuganchiprolu village.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the incriminating material available against her on record, which was read over and explained to her in Telugu for which she denied and reported no defence. No exhibits were marked on behalf of defence.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence charged under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh

Prohibition & Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

9. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.8.2021 at about 12.00 hours

LW.5/ S.I. of Police along with his staff PC- 2678 and WPC- 1000 and mediators proceeded to near the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused at his house trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched him and found 65 liquor bottles in her possession and on questioning, she revealed her identity as Panga Lakshmiand stated that she has brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for her arrest and obtained samples and drafted mediator report at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station, registered a case in Cr.No. 282/2021 3 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to accused and after sending the samples to FSL, Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence this charge sheet.

11. The learned APPO contended that the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with analysis report Ex.P3 supported the case of the prosecution and prayed the court to convict the accused.

12. On perusal of the entire record the alleged offence against the accused under Sec.34 of A.P.Excise Act. The prosecution has examined Pw.1 and PW.2.

13. Pw.2 is the mediator in the present case who deposed that he is working as VRO at Penuganchiprolu Village and on 28.08.2021 at about 12.00 hours S.I. of Police along with his staff took him along with VRA to near the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found one person trying to abscond from the scene of offence for which he apprehended the accused and questioned the accused regarding her identity, then accused revealed her identity and S.I. of Police searched the bag and found 65 liquor bottles for which they seized the bottles and on questioning the accused stated that she purchased the bottles at Telangana state to sell them for higher price and on seizing the liquor bottles the S.I. of Police drawn the samples from the seized bottles and then drafted the mediator report at the scene of offence and obtained their signatures on typed material along with another person VRA of

Penuganchiprolu Village and then returned back to the police station.

14. Pw.1 who is S.I. of Police who filed charge sheet stated that On 28.08.2021 at about 12.00 hours on receipt of credible information he along 4 with his staff PC-2678 and WPC-1000 and mediators proceeded to near the outskirts of Penuganchiprolu village and mandal and found the accused trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched her and found 65 liquor bottles in her possession and on questioning, she revealed her identity as Panga Lakshmi and stated that she has brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized the liquor bottles and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for her arrest and obtained samples and drafted mediator report at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station,

PW.1 registered a case in Cr.No. 282/2021 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Prohibition and

Excise Act, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused, later he sent the samples to FSL, Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. On perusal of the entire evidence of Pw.2 who is the mediator in this case stated in his cross-examination that police have not issued any written notice to him to act as mediator. The same was accepted by PW.1 in his cross- examination. Pw.2 further stated that he did not obtain any written permission from his superior authorities to act as mediator. PW.1 stated in his cross examination that they could not secure any mediators nearby and they did not submit any documents that the seized bottles were transported from

Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. PW.1 further stated that he registered the case and he also investigated the case.

16. As seen from the evidence of Pw.1, it is clear that Pw.1 did not issue any notice to the mediators to act as mediators and Pw.2 did not obtain any permission from his higher authorities to act as mediator. On perusal of the record the investigation officer has not secured and examined any eye witness or independent witnesses at the scene of offence from surrounding of the scene of offence. On perusal of the record, police did not prepare separate seizure report. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 who is police official is not corroborated with the evidence of Pw.1. Only when the scene of offence is a elufed place or a forest then only the police officials cannot secure any mediators nearby and in the present case police officials have not given any proper explanation or any proper documents to show that they have made their efforts to secure local mediators or nearby persons as in the cross examination the police official stated the scene of offence is a busy locality and also further the commission of offence is mentioned at 12.00 hours in the 5 morning and hence the police officials could not mention any plausible reasons to show that they have made their best efforts to secure mediators.

17. On going through the evidence of Pw.1, it discloses that he himself is the defacto complainant and he himself registered the case and investigated the case. It is established principle of law that the person who is a complainant in the case should not do investigation and if the complainant is the investigation officer in such case invariably the complainant has to handover the case to the investigation officer else it may cause prejudice to the accused. So the evidence available on record, should be treated in a doubtful manner and should be scrutinize scrupulously.

“…...even according to prosecution as also material on record,

same police officer who detected and found the offence gave FIR and

also investigated. Hence, it is manifest illegality is committed by the

same officer who detected the offence or crime also gave FIR and

investigating in to the crime and filed charge sheet. Hence, impugned

convictions and sentences as conformed by the Appellate Court or

unsustainable at law. Hence, have to be set aside”. In this case

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred the decision AIR

1976 Supreme Court 985 (Bhagavan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in

Para No.5 that “it is postulated that infirmity arisen out of the

investigation by the Head constable who lodged the FIR as complainant

will be an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the

case of the prosecution. In view of the authority it is clear that the

complainant cannot be acted as Investigation officer and it is not safe

to rely upon the investigation done by the complainant as there is every

possibility of prejudice to the accused and impartial investigation is

doubtful.”

19. The main contention of the counsel for the accused is that the procedure contemplated for seizure is not properly followed by the police officials and hence that this shows that the accused is falsely implicated in the case and there is no evidence or documents to prove that the accused has committed the offence and the said bottles were seized from the possession of the accused. As the scene of offence is a busy locality and the offence alleged to have been committed is at 12.00 hours there is every possibility to secure local witnesses or independent witnesses and mediators at the scene of offence but the police officials have not made their best efforts to secure any mediators at the scene of offence and hence prayed the court to acquit the accused.

Our Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Yeduru Sreenivaslul Reddy Vs State of

A.P. which was reported in 2002(1) ALD (Crl.)347 (A.P). laid down that:

When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and

none have come forward to act as punch witness, the police should have

resort to Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. and should pass a written order. Therefore, in

the absence of any such written order, the evidence of police officials

that no one came forward to act as mediators, cannot be believed and

relied upon. Therefore, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is

vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be

sustained”.

21. No doubt, non observance of the procedure mandated under the

22. In the present case, no such explanation is forthcoming from Pw.1 for not following the procedure contemplated under Sec.100 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the record, Pw.1 has failed to give any plausible reasons for not securing the presence of local mediators at the time of his search, which may cause great prejudice to the accused.

23. Prepondency of probability is not useful in Criminal cases. Prosecution has to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 but failed to prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

24. For herein above reasons the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the ingredients charged under sec.34-(a) of A.P.Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt. In these circumstances this court is of the view the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite for a conviction against the accused and as such he is entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence, charged under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period six months as contemplated under sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 18th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggayyapet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Pw.1: S. Hariprasad, S. I. of Police None PW.2 : L.Chaitanya, VRO, Penuganchiprolu

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR: PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Ex.P1 : Occurrence report NIL Ex.P2 : First Information Report Ex.P3 : Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggayyapet.

CC/2044/2021 Acquitted

sho vatsavai vs Sunkara Rama Krishna

04 Jul 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: JAGGAYYAPET

Present: Smt R.Shanthisree.,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggayyapet.

Monday, this the 4th day of July, 2022

C.C.No. 2044 of 2021

Between:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vatsavai Police Station.... Complainant.

AND

1.Sunkara Ramakrishna S/o Pitchaiah, 27 years, Dasari, Mundlapadu village, Penuganchiprolu mandal. 2.Podili Anil Kumar S/o Lakshmaiah, 21 Years, Dasari, Penuganchiprolu village and mandal. 3.Munagala Vijay S/o Brahma Raj, 22 years, Dasari, Mundlapadu village, Penuganchiprolu mandal. 4.Kota Veerababu S/o Ayyappa, 45 years, Kamma, Chandarlapadu village and mandal. 5.Gutha Ramesh Babu S/o Venkateswara Rao, 43 years … Accused. Kamma, Mundlapadu village, Penuganchiprolu mandal.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of P.Sameera., Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri B.Narapa Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Accused appeared himself and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is as follows:-

On 7.6.2020 at about 10.00 hours Lw.3/K.Srinivasa Rao, A.S.I. of

Police, Vatsavai P.S. along with his staff PC- 311 and HG- 400 conducted raid at the outskirts of Khambampadu village, Vatsavai Mandal and found the accused A1 to A5, three of them were coming on a bike bearing No. AP 27 BP 9139 and two of them were coming by walk towards them with three bags. On seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there, then on suspicion, they detained the accused, on questioning, the accused revealed that the bags were containing liquor bottles. Then A.S.I of Police and his staff tried for securing mediators, but in vain. On interrogation, accused stated their names and identity particulars and also stated that they purchased the liquor bottles from

Telangana State and try to sell them in Andhra Pradesh for higher price. Then 2 the A.S.I. of Police verified the bags and found total 11 liquor bottles. Then he arrested the accused and seized the contraband by obtaining samples and sent to R.F.S.L for analysis under cover of occurrence report.

3. Based on the occurrence report, he registered the First Information

Report as Crime No. 246 /2020 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of

Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, later Accused were arrested and issued Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C. notice to them. Later he sent the sample for RFSL analysis report and after receipt of report and after completion of entire investigation, LW.4/SLR

Someswara Rao, S.I. of Police filed charge sheet. Hence, the Charge sheet.

4. After appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. The accused were examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, a charge was framed under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act, 1968 which was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the trial afforded by both the parties, prosecution cited 04 witnesses and examined 2 witnesses. LW.4 / S.L.R. Someswara Rao, S.I. of Police,

Vatsavai Police Station was examined as PW-1. LW.3 / K.Srinivasa Rao, A.S.I.

of Police, Vatsavai Police Station was examined as PW-2. The remaining witnesses i.e. LW.1 – PC-311, LW.2/ HG- 400 who are police officials of

Vatsavai Police Station were given up by the prosecution. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are marked.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the incriminating material was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence. No exhibits were marked in “D” series.

8. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to

A5 for the offence charged under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10. The case of the prosecution is that On 7.6.2020 at about 10.00 hours

Lw.3/K.Srinivasa Rao, A.S.I. of Police, Vatsavai P.S. along with his staff PC- 3 311 and HG- 400 conducted raid at the outskirts of Khambampadu village,

Vatsavai Mandal and found the accused A1 to A5, three of them were coming on a bike bearing No. AP 27 BP 9139 and two of them were coming by walk towards them with three bags. On seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there, then on suspicion, they detained the accused, on questioning, the accused revealed that the bags were containing liquor bottles. Then A.S.I of

Police and his staff tried for securing mediators, but in vain. On interrogation, accused stated their names and identity particulars and also stated that they purchased the liquor bottles from Telangana State and try to sell them in

Andhra Pradesh for higher price. Then the A.S.I. of Police verified the bags and found total 11 liquor bottles. Then he arrested the accused and seized the contraband by obtaining samples and sent to R.F.S.L for analysis under cover of occurrence report. Based on the occurrence report, he registered the First

Information Report as Crime No. 246 /2020 for the offence punishable under

Sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, later Accused were arrested and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to them. Later he sent the sample for RFSL analysis report and after receipt of report and after completion of entire investigation, LW.4/ SLR Someswara Rao, S.I. of Police filed charge sheet.

11. The Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused are no way connected with the case and the investigation officer failed to examine the persons who are present at the alleged scene of offence and the present case was foisted against the accused for the statistical purpose without following the procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. and further contended that the defacto complainant solely conducted investigation. But as per the procedure the defacto complainant invariably has to handover the case to the investigation officer. Hence he contended that the procedures were not followed by the police officials and prayed the court to acquit the accused.

12. The learned APPO contended that the evidence of Pw.1 and PW.2 coupled with analysis report Ex.P1 supported the case of the prosecution and prayed the court to convict the accused.

13. On perusal of the entire record the alleged offence against the accused under Sec.34 of A.P. Excise Act. The prosecution has examined Pw.1 & PW.2.

14. Pw.2 who is A.S.I. of Police who conducted investigation, stated that on 7.6.2020 at about 10.00 hours on receipt of credible information he along with his staff PC- 311 and HG- 400 proceeded to the outskirts of Khambampadu village, Vatsavai Mandal and found the accused trying to escape from the 4 scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched the accused and found liquor bottles in their possession and on questioning, they revealed their identity and stated that they have brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized total 11 liquor bottles from the possession of accused, then they arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for their arrest and obtained samples and drafted occurrence report/ Ex.P2 at the scene of offence and later after returning back to the police station, he registered a case in Cr.No. 246 /2020 u/s. 34 (a) of

A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Ex.P3 is FIR, issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notices to them, prepared rough sketch/ Ex.P4 and sent the samples to FSL,

Kakinada. PW.1 who is S.I. of Police deposed that on receipt of analysis report/ Ex.P1 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. PW.1 stated in his cross examination that they could not secure any mediators nearby and they did not submit any documents that the seized bottles were transported from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. PW.2 further stated that he registered the case and he also investigated the case.

16. On perusal of the record the investigation officer has not secured and examined any eye witness or independent witnesses at the scene of offence from surrounding of the scene of offence. On perusal of the record, police did not prepare separate seizure report. Only when the scene of offence is a elufed place or a forest then only the police officials cannot secure any mediators nearby and in the present case police officials have not given any proper explanation or any proper documents to show that they have made their efforts to secure local mediators or nearby persons as in the cross examination the police official stated the scene of offence is a busy locality and also further the commission of offence is mentioned at 10.00 hours and hence the police officials could not mention any plausible reasons to show that they have made their best efforts to secure mediators.

“…...even according to prosecution as also material on record,

same police officer who detected and found the offence gave FIR and

also investigated. Hence, it is manifest illegality is committed by the

same officer who detected the offence or crime also gave FIR and

investigating in to the crime and filed charge sheet. Hence, impugned

convictions and sentences as conformed by the Appellate Court or

unsustainable at law. Hence, have to be set aside”. In this case

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred the decision AIR

1976 Supreme Court 985 (Bhagavan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in

Para No.5 that “it is postulated that infirmity arisen out of the

investigation by the Head constable who lodged the FIR as complainant

will be an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the

case of the prosecution. In view of the authority it is clear that the

complainant cannot be acted as Investigation officer and it is not safe

to rely upon the investigation done by the complainant as there is every

possibility of prejudice to the accused and impartial investigation is

doubtful.”

19. The main contention of the counsel for the accused is that the procedure contemplated for seizure is not properly followed by the police officials and hence that this shows that the accused is falsely implicated in the case and there is no evidence or documents to prove that the accused has committed the offence and the said bottles were seized from the possession of the accused. As the scene of offence is a busy locality and the offence alleged to have been committed is at 10.00 hours, there is every possibility to secure local witnesses or independent witnesses and mediators at the scene of offence but the police officials have not made their best efforts to secure any mediators at the scene of offence and hence prayed the court to acquit the accused.

20. Now coming to present case, Ex.P1 is the analysis report established that the sample contains Indian made liquor. By exhibiting the said document, the prosecution at best established the nature of the content that was sent to the Chemical analysis but they failed to establish that it was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Here it is pertinent to refer the relevant judgments of our Honourable High Court on the aspect of search and seizure.

Our Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Yeduru Sreenivaslul Reddy Vs State of

A.P. which was reported in 2002(1) ALD (Crl.)347 (A.P). laid down that:

When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and none

have come forward to act as punch witness, the police should have resort

to Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. and should pass a written order. Therefore, in the

absence of any such written order, the evidence of police officials that no

one came forward to act as mediators, cannot be believed and relied

upon. Therefore, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is

vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be

sustained”.

21. No doubt, non observance of the procedure mandated under the

22. In the present case, no such explanation is forthcoming from Pw.2 for not following the procedure contemplated under Sec.100 Cr.P.C. On perusal of the record, Pw.2 has failed to give any plausible reasons for not securing the presence of local mediators at the time of his search, which may cause great prejudice to the accused.

24. For herein above reasons the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the ingredients charged under sec.34-(a) of A.P.Excise

Act beyond all reasonable doubt. In these circumstances this court is of the view the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, which is an essential requisite for a conviction against the accused and as such he is entitled for an acquittal on benefit of doubt. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

25. In the result, the accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence, charged under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act.

Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period six months as contemplated under sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 4th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggayyapet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Pw.1: S.L.R. Someswara Rao, S.I. of Police NIL PW.2 : K. Srinivasa Rao, ASI of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Ex.P1: Analysis Report. NIL Ex.P2: Occurrence report Ex.P3: First Information Report Ex.P4: Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

P.J.C.J-cum-J.M.F.C. JPT.

CC/442/2020 Acquitted

subinspectorofpolice vatsavi vs Vsbaddala upendra

04 Jul 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: JAGGAYYAPET

Present: Smt R.Shanthisree., Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggayyapet.

Monday, this the 4th day of July, 2022

C.C.No. 442 of 2020

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,... Complainant.

Vatsavai Police Station.

AND

Baddala Upendra S/o Lingaiah, 34 years, Yadava, Ramakrishnapuram village, Chinthakani mandal. … Accused. Khammam district.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of P.Sameera., Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri B.Bikshmaiah, Learned Counsel for the Accused appeared himself and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Vatsavai Police station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is as follows:-

On 06.06.2020 at about 19.30 hours Lw.3/ K.Srinivasa Rao, A.S.I. of

Police, Vatsavai P.S. along with his staff PC- 1820 and PC- 1825 conducted raid at the outskirts of Pentyalavarigudem village, Vatsavai mandal and found the accused coming towards them with bags. On seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there, then on suspicion, they detained the accused, on questioning, the accused revealed that the bag was containing liquor bottles.

Then the A.S.I. of Police and his staff tried for securing mediators, but in vain.

On interrogation, accused stated his name as Baddala Upendra and also identity particulars and also stated that he purchased the liquor bottles from

Telangana State and try to sell them in Andhra Pradesh for higher price. Then the A.S.I. of Police verified the bag and found 30 liquor bottles. Then he arrested the accused and seized the contraband by obtaining samples and sent to R.F.S.L for analysis under cover of occurrence report.

3. Based on the occurrence report, Lw.4/ SLR Someswara Rao, S.I. of

Police, registered the First Information Report as Crime No. 241/2020 for the 2 offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, later

Accused was arrested and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to him. Later he sent the sample for RFSL analysis report and after receipt of report and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet. Hence, the Charge sheet.

4. After appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. The accused was examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, a charge was framed under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act, 1968 which was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the trial afforded by both the parties, prosecution cited 04 witnesses and examined 2 witnesses. LW.3 / K.Srinivasa Rao, A.S.I. of Police, Vatsavai

Police Station was examined as PW-1. LW.4 / SLR Someswara Rao, S.I. of

Police, Vatsavai Police Station was examined as PW-2, the remaining witnesses i.e. LW.1 – PC- 1820 and LW.2/ PC- 1825 who are police constables of

Vatsavai Police Station were given up by the prosecution. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are marked.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the incriminating material was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defence. No exhibits were marked in “D” series.

8. Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence charged under section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise

Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10. The case of the prosecution is that On 06.06.2020 at about 19.30 hours Lw.3/ K.Srinivasa Rao, A.S.I. of Police, Vatsavai P.S. along with his staff

PC- 1820 and PC- 1825 conducted raid at the outskirts of Pentyalavarigudem village, Vatsavai mandal and found the accused coming towards them with bags. On seeing them, the accused tried to escape from there, then on suspicion, they detained the accused, on questioning, the accused revealed 3 that the bag was containing liquor bottles. Then the A.S.I. of Police and his staff tried for securing mediators, but in vain. On interrogation, accused stated his name as Baddala Upendra and also identity particulars and also stated that he purchased the liquor bottles from Telangana State and try to sell them in Andhra Pradesh for higher price. Then the A.S.I. of Police verified the bag and found 30 liquor bottles. Then he arrested the accused and seized the contraband by obtaining samples and sent to R.F.S.L for analysis under cover of occurrence report. Based on the occurrence report, Lw.4/ SLR Someswara

Rao, S.I. of Police, registered the First Information Report as Crime No.

241/2020 for the offence punishable under Sec.34(a) of Andhra Pradesh

Excise Act, later Accused was arrested and issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to him. Later he sent the sample for RFSL analysis report and after receipt of report and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12. The learned APPO contended that the evidence of Pw.1 and PW.2 coupled with analysis report Ex.P4 supported the case of the prosecution and prayed the court to convict the accused.

13. On perusal of the entire record the alleged offence against the accused under Sec.34 of A.P. Excise Act. The prosecution has examined Pw.1 and

PW.2.

14. Pw.1 who is Investigation officer stated that On 06.06.2020 at about 19.30 hours on receipt of credible information he along with his staff PC- 1820 and PC- 1825 proceeded to the outskirts of Pentyalavarigudem village,

Vatsavai mandal and found the accused trying to escape from the scene of offence in a doubtful manner, for which they searched the accused and found liquor bottles in his possession and on questioning, he revealed his identity as

Baddala Upendra and stated that he has brought the said bottles for reselling them for higher rates to gain profits, for which they seized 30 liquor bottles 4 and arrested the accused on explaining the reasons for his arrest and obtained samples and drafted occurrence report/ Ex.P1 at the scene of offence and returned back to the police station and handed over the case to PW.2.

15. PW.2 stated in his evidence that on receiving the case copies from

PW.1, he registered a case in Cr.No. 241/ 2020 u/s. 34 (a) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Ex.P2 is FIR, Later he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused, prepared rough sketch/ Ex.P3 and after sending the samples to FSL,

Kakinada and on receipt of analysis report/ Ex.P4 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. PW.1 stated in his cross examination that they could not secure any mediators nearby and they did not submit any documents that the seized bottles were transported from Telangana State to Andhra Pradesh. PW.1 further stated that he registered the case and he also investigated the case.

16. On perusal of the record the investigation officer has not secured and examined any eye witness or independent witnesses at the scene of offence from surrounding of the scene of offence. On perusal of the record, police did not prepare separate seizure report. Only when the scene of offence is a elufed place or a forest then only the police officials cannot secure any mediators nearby and in the present case police officials have not given any proper explanation or any proper documents to show that they have made their efforts to secure local mediators or nearby persons as in the cross examination the police official stated the scene of offence is a busy locality and also further the commission of offence is mentioned at 19.30 hours and hence the police officials could not mention any plausible reasons to show that they have made their best efforts to secure mediators.

“…...even according to prosecution as also material on record,

same police officer who detected and found the offence gave FIR and

also investigated. Hence, it is manifest illegality is committed by the

same officer who detected the offence or crime also gave FIR and

investigating in to the crime and filed charge sheet. Hence, impugned

convictions and sentences as conformed by the Appellate Court or

unsustainable at law. Hence, have to be set aside”. In this case

Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred the decision AIR

1976 Supreme Court 985 (Bhagavan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in

Para No.5 that “it is postulated that infirmity arisen out of the

investigation by the Head constable who lodged the FIR as complainant

will be an infirmity which is bound to reflect on the credibility of the

case of the prosecution. In view of the authority it is clear that the

complainant cannot be acted as Investigation officer and it is not safe

to rely upon the investigation done by the complainant as there is every

possibility of prejudice to the accused and impartial investigation is

doubtful.”

19. The main contention of the counsel for the accused is that the procedure contemplated for seizure is not properly followed by the police officials and hence that this shows that the accused is falsely implicated in the case and there is no evidence or documents to prove that the accused has committed the offence and the said bottles were seized from the possession of the accused. As the scene of offence is a busy locality and the offence alleged to have been committed is at 19.30 hours, there is every possibility to secure local witnesses or independent witnesses and mediators at the scene of offence but the police officials have not made their best efforts to secure any mediators at the scene of offence and hence prayed the court to acquit the accused.

20. Now coming to present case, Ex.P4 is the analysis report established that the sample contains Indian made liquor. By exhibiting the said document, the prosecution at best established the nature of the content that was sent to the Chemical analysis but they failed to establish that it was seized from the conscious possession of the accused. Here it is pertinent to refer the relevant judgments of our Honourable High Court on the aspect of search and seizure.

Our Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Yeduru Sreenivaslul Reddy Vs State of

A.P. which was reported in 2002(1) ALD (Crl.)347 (A.P). laid down that:

When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and none

have come forward to act as punch witness, the police should have resort

to Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C. and should pass a written order. Therefore, in the

absence of any such written order, the evidence of police officials that no

one came forward to act as mediators, cannot be believed and relied

upon. Therefore, the entire search conducted by the prosecution is

vitiated. Held, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be

sustained”.

21. No doubt, non observance of the procedure mandated under the

23. Prepondency of probability is not useful in Criminal cases. Prosecution has to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 but failed to prove the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

24. For herein above reasons the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the ingredients charged under sec.34-(a) of A.P.Excise

Dictated to the stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 4th day of July, 2022.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jaggayyapet 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Pw.1 : K. Srinivasa Rao, ASI of Police NIL PW.2 : SLR Someswara Rao, S.I. of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION:- DEFENCE:-

Ex.P1: Occurrence report NIL Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Rough sketch. Ex.P4: Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

P.J.C.J-cum-J.M.F.C. JPT.

Order Record 1,187 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/45/2019	Turaka Venkati vs Pallapu Srinivasa Rao	18 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/1083/2021	S.I. of Police, Penuganchiprolu P.S. vs Kunchapu Ravi	18 Jul 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2633/2021	Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu P.S. vs Panga Lakshmi	18 Jul 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/26/2020	Mogili Basavamma vs Meda Rajyam	14 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/111/2022	Sanka Srinivasa Rao vs Bonagiri Lakshmi Venkata Nagaraju	14 Jul 2022	Decree	—
OS/86/2019	Rayapati Linga Rao vs Daasu Amji	06 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/365/2021	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Kamsani Ramesh	06 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/2469/2021	Station Hosue Officer, VAtsavai Police Station. vs Kamsani Ramesh	06 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/50/2022	Nagamalla Venkata Srinivasa Rao vs Parupalli Purna Swarajyam	05 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/442/2020	subinspectorofpolice vatsavi vs Vsbaddala upendra	04 Jul 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2044/2021	sho vatsavai vs Sunkara Rama Krishna	04 Jul 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2260/2021	Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Thammisetty Srinivasa Rao	04 Jul 2022	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/145/2021	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vsmondithoka ravi and others	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/355/2021	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs K.Naveen	01 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/778/2020	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Sk Nagul Meera	01 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/1468/2021	ANDHRA PRADESH vs CHALLA SURESH	01 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/1481/2021	ANDHRA PRADESH vs Buddavarau Gopi	01 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/1514/2021	ANDHRA PRADESH vs Kattumuri Ramesh	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/1544/2021	SI of POlice, Vatsavai Police Station vs Matta Venkateswara Reddy	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/1563/2021	Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu P.S. vs Nallabothula Tirupathamma	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/1625/2021	Station House Officer, Vatsavai P.S. vs Challa Suresh	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/1629/2021	Station House Officer, Vatsavai P.S. vs Bomidi Srinu	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/2048/2021	sho vatsavai vs Bandaru Yacob	01 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/2187/2021	Station House Officer, Vatsavai P.S. vs Gangineni Ramanaiah	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/2188/2021	Station House Officer, Vatsavai P.S. vs Jala Kotaiah	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/2268/2021	Station House Officer, VAtsavai Police Station vs Chinthala Suresh	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/2463/2021	Station House officer, VAtsavai P.s. vs Kunchapu Lakshmi Tirupathamma	01 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/2815/2021	Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Bejavada Rajesh	01 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/133/2020	phanithi vijaya kumar vs Vsjillepalli bhushanam	30 Jun 2022	Order	—
OS/148/2020	pallapu mangamma vs Vsvallepapu naga lakshmi and other	29 Jun 2022	Order	—
OS/100181/2014	Jupalli Satyanarayana vs Mettela Nagamani	29 Jun 2022	Order	—
CC/1231/2022	Station House officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Talluri Srnivas	28 Jun 2022	Order	—
EP/5/2020	Duggi Hanumantha Rao and Company being Rep.by its Managing Partner Duggi Uma Maheswara Rao vs Pasam Pullaiah	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
EP/39/2018	Peruri Pandu Ranga Rao vs Chede Annapoorna	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
OS/19/2020	Nomula Venkata Naga Gangadhara Rao vs Juttukonda Divya	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
OS/20/2020	Nomula Venkata Naga Gangadhara Rao vs Mekala Mahesh	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
OS/41/2020	Bhukya Shankar vs Adothu Bhimudu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
OS/42/2020	Bhukya Krishna vs Adothu Bhimdu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
OS/65/2022	Bhukya Devi vs Bhukya Deva Kumar	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
OS/75/2020	Bhukya Narasimha vs Adothu Bhimudu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
OS/194/2021	Lavudiya Kalyani vs Lavudiya Gopi Nayak	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/102/2022	Station HOuse Officer, Penuganchiprolu P.S. vs Rachakonda Gopi	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/107/2022	Station HOuse Officer, Penuganchiprolu P.S. vs Kovuri Rama Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/111/2022	Station HOuse Officer, Penuganchiprolu P.S. vs Patan Janmiya	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/163/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Ravuri Ramana	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/189/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Papaganti Premakumar	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/393/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vsy.tirupathi	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/396/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vsp.upendra	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/402/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vsn.nageswararao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/409/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vss,srikanth	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/415/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vsr.venkateswarlu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/420/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vsb.ramesh	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/422/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vsg.venkateswarlu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/424/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vsg.venkateswarao and other	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/464/2022	S.I of Police, Vatsavai vs Vst,venkateswarao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/561/2022	Station House Officer, VAtsavai Police Station vs Damala Surendra	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/686/2022	Station Hosue Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Yarramasu Prasada Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/688/2022	Station Hosue Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Badam Naresh	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/947/2022	Station House officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Kamatham Gopala Krishna	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/956/2022	Station House Officer,Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Vemparala Srinivasa Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/961/2022	Station House Officer,Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Kolli Sathish	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/962/2022	Station House Officer,Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Penugonda Gopala Krishna	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/969/2022	Station HOuse Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Tejavathu Gopi	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/970/2022	Station HOuse Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Kandy Naresh	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/976/2022	Station HOuse Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs GAddam Veera Raju	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/990/2022	Staion House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station. vs Pakalapati Pavan Kumar	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1074/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Sanchu Madhu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1078/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Kamatham Suresh Babu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1108/2022	Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Thanuri Sambasiva Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1120/2022	Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Bandi Veladri	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1202/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Bathula Kiran	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1203/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Bojja Srinivasa Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1204/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Jatotu Naresh	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1205/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Banavathu Krishna	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1206/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Vslakavath Devendar	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1207/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Garalapati Bheemeswara Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1210/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Akam Venkateswarlu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1211/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Ganji Shanthi	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1212/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Pullakandam Nagendar	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1232/2022	Statlion House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Jalla RadhaKrishna	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1234/2022	Statlion House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Perumalla Manikanta	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1235/2022	Statlion House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs KOnatham Venkateswara Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1238/2022	Statin House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Kathi Ravi	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1282/2022	Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Saugundu Vamsi Krishna	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1283/2022	Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu Police StationDHRA PRADESH vs Puli Khasim	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1284/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Dandugula Upendar	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1285/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Gurajala Vinay	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1286/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Dhadhe Srinivasa Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1287/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Erram Rama Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1288/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Kancharapogu Nagendra Babu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1289/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Katta Sivaiah	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1290/2022	Station House officer Vatsavai Police Station vs Nalluri Bhima Raju	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1291/2022	Station House officer Vatsavai Police Station vs Dutteluri Khajavali	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1292/2022	Station House officer Vatsavai Police Station vs Vutukuri Ramulu	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1293/2022	Station House officer Vatsavai Police Station vs Mekala Rama Murthy	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1294/2022	Station House officer Vatsavai Police Station vs Sambro Durga Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1295/2022	Station House officer Vatsavai Police Station vs Vodapalli Sai Ram	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1298/2022	Station House Officer, Vatsavai Police Station vs Chinthala Narasimha Rao	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1299/2022	Station House Officer,Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs Papatla Venkata Rathnam	26 Jun 2022	Other	—
CC/1300/2022	Station House Officer,Penuganchiprolu Police Station vs KOndru Suman	26 Jun 2022	Other	—

Showing 100 of 1,187 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jul 2022		28
Jun 2022		115
May 2022		37
Apr 2022		43
Mar 2022		169
Feb 2022		12
Jan 2022		25
Dec 2021		87
Nov 2021		31
Oct 2021		26
Sep 2021		69
Aug 2021		15

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree handled?

Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree has handled 1220 court orders since 2020 at Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jaggaiahpet. The average disposal rate is 58 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree hear?

Based on available records, Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jaggaiahpet.

Where is Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree currently posted?

Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree is posted as Additional Junior Civil Judge at Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree dispose cases?

Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree disposes approximately 58 cases per month, based on 1220 orders handled over their tenure at Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jaggaiahpet.

Since when is Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree serving?

Smt Ravi Shanthi Sree has been serving at Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jaggaiahpet since 2020.

Case Types

CC 89%

OS 10%

EP 1%

PRC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2022 — Apr 2022

Additional Junior Civil Judge
Jul 2020 — Jul 2022

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 1,220 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Ms. A.himabindu

Principal Junior Civil Judge

558 orders

← View all judges at Prl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Jaggaiahpet