Smt S.arunasri

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SMT. S.ARUNA SRI.,B.A.,LLM.,

SPL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P & E)

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

WEDNESDAY THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2014

C.C.498/2013

This case coming on 24-3-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. T.V.Ramana for the state-complainant and Legal aid counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a.The Serial No. of the case:C.C.No.498/2013 b.The date of offence:18-6-2013 c.The name of the complainant:State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station Visakhapatnam City. d.The name of the accusedRajana Gopal @ Surya , S/o Kameswara Rao, aged 38 years, Yadavacaste,N/oIsukathoa, Visakhapatnam city, R/o Jangam metta, Near Falknama Railway station, Chandrayigutta, Hyderabad . e.The offence complained of:Punishable u/sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code. f.The plea of the accused & his :Accused pleaded not guilty examination, if any

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station , Visakha- patnam City filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under section 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code with the following allegations.

2. That on 18-06-2013 at about 05.0-0 hrs. LW1 Kotta Venkatarama Visweswara Rao was informed by one of his neighbors that all the lights in his mother in law's house and asked him to come to the house immediately . At about 5.15 hrs. LW1 went to his mother in laws house noticed all the lights were switched on, lock of the gate was broken and further found silver items

1) Simhasanam, 2) Palem, 3) Sitaramaswamy image, 4) Vishunu Murthy im- age, 5) Anjaneyaswamy image, 6) Lakshmi image, 7) Satyanarayana Murthy image, 8) Parvathi Parameswara image, 9) Panchapartr, 10) Uddirini, 11) Go- dugu, 12) silver bowls, 13) silver tins all weighing about 1 /2 KG and 14) change cash Rs.2000/- from a tumbler were were stolen from God room. LW2 K.venkata Lakshmi witnessed the scene of offence. The accused gained into house of LW.1's mother-in-law in the absence of inmates and committed theft of above mentioned silver items and decamped with the booty. Basing on the report, LW16 T.Ganesh Kumar, SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.459/2013 U/Sec.457 & 380 of IPC at Kancharapalem PS on 18-06-2013 and investigated into. The accused gained entry into house of elder brother of LW3 M.Ravi Sankar by broke open the lock of main door in the absence of inmates committed theft of1) two pairs of gold ear studs and LG cell phone and cash of Rs.2,500/- and decamped with the booty and LW4 L2) .Aditya Ku- mar intimated the same to LW5 M.Ramakrishna . Basing on the report LW11 Ramachandra Rao, Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.489/2011 U/Sec.457 & 380 of IPC Kancharapalem PS on 17.10.2011 and investigated into. The accused gained entry into house of LW6 P.Anupama by broke open lock of grill gate in the absence of inmates and committed theft of 1) gold bracelet wg. 2 ½ tula, 2) gold ring wg.6 grams, 3) 2 pairs of gold ear studs wg. ½ tula, 4) one pair of gold ear hangings wg. ½ tula , 5) laptop bag and

6) cash Rs.600/- and decamped with the booty and LW7 A.Subramanya Prasad witnessed the scene of offence and informed the same to LW8 N.Lak- shmi . Basing on the report , Lw.15 S.I of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.556/2013 U/Sec.457 & 380 of IPC at Kancharapalem PS on 24.11.2011 by LW15 B.Ch.Swamy Naidu, SI of police and investigated into. During the investigation LW16 T.Ganesh Kumar visited the scene of offence in Cr.No.459/13 and inspected it and recorded statements in CD Part-II and LW16 arrested accused on 17-07-13 and recovered the stolen property of sil- ver items concerned to case No.459/13 and gold items concerned to case in cr.No.489/11 and gold items in case Cr.No.556/11 in the presence of media- tors (Lws 9 & 10) J.Venu Gopala Rao and M.Kumar from the possession of ac- cused under the cover of mediators report dated 17.7.2013 and sent the ac- cused for judicial custody. After completion of investigation LW16 filed clubbed charge sheet in three cases against accused.

3.Case was taken on file under sections 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code. On production of accused from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and charge were framed for the offence under sections 392 of Indian Penal Code and incriminating material were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.8 and marked Ex.P.1and Ex.P.8 and M.Os.1 to 16. After closure of evidence the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., all the incriminating material read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defense evidence .

5.Heard both sides.

6. Now the points for consideration are:

1)Whether accused committed theft in a dwelling houses and liable for punishment for the offence under Section 457, 380 Indian Penal Code ? 2)Whether accused is dishonestly received the stolen property and liable for punishment under section 411 Indian Penal Code? 3)Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT NO.1: To prove the charge under section 457, 380, 411 of Indian Penal code prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.8.

8. P.W.1 deposed that he is resident of Marripalem, Visakhapatnam and working in Navy as officer-in-charge. His father-in-law was resident of Muralingar and his father-in-law and mother-in-law went to Bangalore in the month of May,, 2012 after locking their house doors and requested him to observe their house. They deputed one person namely Ramu watchman. On 18-6-2013 he informed him that some unknown offenders gained in the house of his father-in-laws house and theft some silver articles and cash from house . He required his father-in-law through phone by confronting articles, gave report to police. Report shown to me is the same. It is Ex.P1. Subsequently police informed to them some of property was recovered. His father-in-law took the recovered articles for interim custody. M.O.1 silver simhasanam. MO2 silver plate. MO.4 silver idle of Sitaram, M.O4 silver idle of Hanuman, MO-5 silver idle of Laxmi, MO6 silver idle of god satyanarayana. MO7 silver idle of god siva and parvathi. MO8 silver panchapatra. MO9 silver uttarini. MO.10 silver umbrella. MO.11 two silver bowls . M.O12 silver tins.

9. P.W.2 deposed that on 14-10-2011 his brother went to Bhubaneswar along with family members. His residence is at Muralinagar. On 17-10-2011 he received phone information from his brother stating that their house doors were in open condition at requested to verify him. Immediately he went to his brother's house and found doors of house were break opened. All the articles in the house were in pelmel condition. On his information he found missing of two pairs of gold ear studds, Rs.2,500/- cash and one cell phone. Some un-known offenders gained entrance into house by break opened the house and committed theft the above articles. He gave report to police. Report shown to him is the same. It is Ex.P2. Two pairs of ear studds shown to him are the same. It is MO13.

10.P.W.3 deposed that on 23-11-2011 in the absence of his husband he went to his friend house. Next day morning his father in farmed to him over phone lights in his house are on. He rushed to his house he found that his main door new lock to his main door instead of lock put by him. They broke the lock enter in to the house found almarhas are opened. Their gold ornaments are one brass let, 2 pairs of ear studs, one pair of ear hangings, one finger ring and cash of Rs.600/- and laptop bag. They gave report to police. Ex.P3 is his report. Police examined him and recorded his statement. In the year 2012 informed that his stolen property is recovered. M.O.14 is one pair of ear hangings, M.O.15 is two pairs of ear studs. M.O.16 is gold ring. His brass let was not recovered.

11.P.W.4 deposed that in the month of July, 2013 at kancharapalem mettu while he was going police requested him to act as mediators on seeing them one person confused. Police and their staff caught hold him, on questioning he revealed his particulars and police verified the bag it contains some gold and silver ornaments. Witness identified the M.O. 14 to 16 and also identified accused in open court. He also signed on mediators report. Ex.P4 is mediators report. Along with him another person by name kumar also present.

12. P.W.5 deposed that on 17-10-2011 received telephone massage to visit the scene of offence for examination and development of chance prints in Cr. No 289/2011. In the residential house of M. Ramakrishna S/o Sri Rama Kondayya. Plot No. 502. D.No 39-9-99/8. Vythinayata Residential apartment. Sector -9 Mutralingar, Vsp. During the course of minute examination at the scene of offence he developed 5 chance prints and marked them as A,B,C,D,E, for the facility of photography. The chance prints marked ABCD for developed on the gift pack and one chance print marked E . developed on the steel alrahmara. For developed chance prints were got photographed by photographer clues team at the scene of offence on the same day. The photographer clues team supplied the photocopies of chance prints on 18-10-2011. He examined the clarity of photocopies of chance prints. Three chance print marked ABC for fit for comparison in the remaining D and E not fit for comparison. He compared in the fit chance prints ABC with finger prints inmates and on compression such chance prints not identical any of the finger prints inmates. The detailed visiting report sent to SHO, Kancharapalem PS and intimated to director finger print burro Hyderabad. CID on 18-10-2011. He further deposed he compared the chance prints marked AB and C with finger prints records of finger print unit , Visakhapatnam city. During th course of comparison it is found that the photocopy of chance print marked B is identical with left index finger impression and photocopy of chance print marked C. is identical with left middle finger impression of the offender by name Rajana Gopalam @ Gopi s/o late Kameswara Rao , aged 28/2007 cast by yadav, R/o D.No. 12-550, Krishan Arcade, Gandhi Nagar, Arilova, Visakhapatnam city, now at D.No.551 , Hut House, near Gedda, Sector VII, MVP colony, Visakhapatnam City. The said offender was previously identified through chance finger prints in Cr. No. 971/2007 U/sec 457 380 IPC, III town PS, Vsp. City. The detailed compression and identical report sent to SHO, Kancharpelm PS under intimation to director , finger Print Bureau AP Hyderabad, and commissioner of Police on 30-10-2011. along with the photocopies of chance prints marked D and C. Ex.P5 is his report.

13. P.W.6 A.S.I deposed that on 17-10-2011 as per the instruction of their CI he visited scene of offence NGO Colony, Vynatheja residency, plot No. 502, he prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch. He examined Ravi sankar, Aditya and Ramakrishna recorded their detailed statements in part II CD further investigation took up the their

14.P.W.7 S.I of Police, Kancharapalem deposed that on 28-11-2011 he verified investigation of PW6 found it on correct lines.

15.P.W.8 S.I of Police deposed on 24-11-2011 about 14 hrs he received report from P Anupama/ PW3 , he registered a case in Cr. No. 556/11 U/Sec 457,380 IPC, he Issued Ex.P7 FIR, he endorsed the investigation to PW6. He visited scene of offence examined PW3 recorded her detail statement and prepared Ex.P8 rough sketch. He also informed to be clues team for finger print examination.

16. PW.1 to Pw.3 are defacto complainants in the crimes. Their evidence categorically establish that theft had committed in their house in their absence unknown offenders committed theft and found missing of gold and silver articles. Through their evidence prosecution able to establish the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC. but there is no direct eyewitness to the incident prosecution has to prove the offence under section 411 IPC to prove the offence against accused in this case. Prosecution shows six crimes at different dates the case of the prosecution on 18-7-2013 accused found possession of stolen ornaments at Kancharapalem mettru junction in the presence of mediators police seized the stolen property. Pw.4 is the one of the mediator he supported the prosecution case. In the cross examination also nothing material was elicited to discard the case of the prosecution. No where suggested that Pw.4 is the stock mediator to the Kancharapalem Police Station. Hence this court presumes that he is the independent mediator to the incident. Immediately after the incident accused found possession of stolen ornaments presumption under section 114(a) Indian Evidence Act accused either theft or receive the stolen property under section 411 IPC. Admittedly accused voluntarily confessed before police regarding other crimes. In Ex.P4 confession under the police custody is in admissible as per Indian Evidence Act Section 25. But it leads to the discovery of new fact or new thing that part is admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act in this case found possession of stolen property . Stolen property also given to the defacto complainants in the crimes they duly identified by them. Accused failed to explain his illegal possession. As per the prosecution evidence on record proves the accused illegally possessed the stolen property, in this case prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer. Despite of several conditional orders failed to produce the investigating officer in whose presence alleged property was recovered on that ground alone this court need not discard the entire consisting evidence. In this case police also examined Pw.5 finger print expert. His evidence disclose that in Cr.No.285/10 he examined the accused finger prints at scene of offence it was tallied with accused finger prints. He deposed procedure and his detailed report. He denied the suggestion that police forcibly obtained accused thumb impression in police station. Finger prints is the accurate signs however this court did not totally relying in the evidence of finger print expert. All the circumstance and the evidence on record either orally or documentary, this court came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilty of the accused under Section 411 IPC.

In the result , accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and thereby convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

SPL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P & E)

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Heard the accused on quantum of sentence, accused submitted that entire family depend upon him he live by doing cooli works, he requested the court to take lenient view to impose sentence. Facts and circumstances of the case nature of the offence, character of the offender taking into consideration , this court not inclined to invoke the provisions of probation of Offenders Act section 4 . In the result, the accused shall be sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Eight monthsfor the offence under section 411 Indian Penal Code . Accused is appraised about his right appeal to the

Hon'ble District Court. The remand period of the accused if any shall be given

as set off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. Free copy of Judgment furnished to the accused. If he does not require in any cases release forthwith. M.Os.1 to M.O.12 ordered to be given to Pw.1, M.O.13 ordered to be given to Pw.2, M.O.14 to M.O.16 ordered to be given to PW.3 after appeal time is completed.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of March, 2014.

SPL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P & E)

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED: FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1 K.V.R.Visweswara Rao NIL P.W.2 M.Ravi Sankar P.W.3 P.Anupama P.W.4 J.Venugopal P.W.5 T. Ramachandra Rao P.W.6 CH Srinivasa Rao, P.W.7 S.Ramesh P.W.8 D.CH Swamy Naidu,

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 :Report of Pw.1 Ex.P2 :Report of PW.2 Ex.P3 : Report of Pw.3 Ex.P4 :Mediators report. Ex.P5 : Report of Pw.5 Ex.P6 :Rough sketch. Ex.P7: First Information Report Ex.P8:Rough sketch

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

M.Os. Marked: MO1 silver simhasanam. MO2 silver plate. MO3 silver idle of Sitaram MO4 silver idle of Hanuman MO-5 silver idle of Laxmi MO6 silver idle of god satyanarayana. MO7 silver idle of god siva and parvathi. MO8 silver panchapatra MO9 silver uttarini MO10 silver umbrella. MO11 two silver bowls MO12 silver tins. MO13 Two pairs of ear studds MO14 is one pair of ear hangings MO15 is two pairs of ear studs. MO16 is gold ring.

SPL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P & E)

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT :: VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.NO.498/2013

Date of offence: 18-6-2013 Date of release on bail: Accused is in jail

Date of Filing: 23-8-2013 Date of Apprehension: 1-11-2013 Date of commencement of trial: 7-1-2014 Date of Close of trial: 24-3-2014 Date of Sentence or Order: 26-3-2014 Explanation for delay: Delay due to non-appearance of accused and witnesses. No witness is detained beyond three days. C.C.No.498/2013on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam The name of the complainant :State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station Visakhapatnam City. The Name of the accused :Rajana Gopal @ Surya , S/o Kameswara Parentage & ResidenceRao, aged 38 years, Yadava caste, N/o Isukathoa, Visakhapatnam city, R/o Jangam metta, Near Falknama Railway station, Chandrayigutta, Hyderabad . Offences:Punishable u/sec.411 of Indian Penal Code. Finding:Accused found guilty Sentence: In the result , accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and thereby convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. the accused shall be sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of Eight monthsfor the offence under section 411 Indian Penal Code . Accused is appraised about his right appeal to the Hon'ble District Court. The remand period of the accused if any shall be given as set off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. Free copy of Judgment furnished to the accused. If he does not require in any cases release forthwith. M.Os.1 to M.O.12 ordered to be given to Pw.1, M.O.13 ordered to be given to Pw.2, M.O.14 to M.O.16 ordered to be given to PW.3 after appeal time is completed.

SPL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P & E)

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

STATEMENT SHOWING THE COMPLAINT OF SECTION 363 (1) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AND RULE 72 OF CRIMINAL R.P. IN FURNISHING FREE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE CONVICITION / APPEALLANTS RELATING TO THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE’S VISAKHAPATNAM FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2014

SC.C.DATE OF DATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE ACCUSED

.NJUDGMEDELIVER OF ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF JUDGMENT.

O.NTJUDGMENT

1. Accused -Rajana Gopal @ Surya , 498/201326-3-201426-3-2014

SPL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P & E)

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

STATEMENT SHOWING THE COMPLAINT OF SECTION 363 (1) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AND RULE 72 OF CRIMINAL R.P. IN FURNISHING FREE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE CONVICITION / APPEALLANTS RELATING TO THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE’S VISAKHAPATNAM FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2014

SC.C.DATE OF DATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE ACCUSED

.NJUDGMEDELIVER OF ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF JUDGMENT.

O.NTJUDGMENT

1. Accused -Rajana Gopal @ Surya , 498/201326-3-201426-3-2014

SPL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P & E)

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.14/2015

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P&E) :

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. S.Aruna Sri, B.A. LLM., Spl. Judicial First class Magistrate (P&E),

Friday, this the 08 th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No. 14/2015.

a.The Serial No. of the case:CC.No.14/2015 b.The date of offence:17.06.2014.

c.The name of the complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Proh & Excise, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam.

d.The name of the accused:Beri Kondamma, S/o. late Eswara Reddy, aged 30 years, r/o. Bhuvaneswara Colony, Sagar Nagar, Chinagadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

e.The offence complained of:Punishable u/sec. 34(a)APE Act,1968 f.The plea of the accused & his :Pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case is coming on 07.05.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms.Mrunalini Devi, Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri G.Govinda Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act in Crime No.34/2014-15 of Proh.

& Excise Pendurthy PS, Visakhapatnam city, with the following allegations:

That on 17.06.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., PW-2 Inspector of police, ESTF,

Visakhapatnam along with PW-1 and his Staff LWs-1 and 2 viz., Ch.Jyothi and

P.Sankara Rao, constables, ESTF Police, proceeded for patrolling to detect unauthorized out-let and illegal transportation of IM liquor and found the accused at

Mutyamamba-Bhoolakamamba temple, Sagar nagar, Chinagadhili Mandal with plastic gunny bag in her right hand. On questioning the accused confessed that the bag contained liquor bottles and then PW-2 deputed LW-1 Ch.Jyothi,

Enforcement P&E Constable to secure mediators but in vain and he verified and found the bag contained 1) 15 nip bottles of director special whisky each 180 ml.,

On further questioning the accused stated that she purchased those bottles from 2 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.14/2015

unknown person for sale on profit and failed to produce any licence or permit. Then

PW-2 seized those bottles, drawn samples, affixed identity slips on samples and arrested the accused under the cover of occurrence report drafted at the scene of offence signed by him and later transmitted the case to PW-3, CI of police,

Pendurthy Excise PS, who registered it as Cr.No.34/2014 u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act and sent the samples for chemical examination and received the report and later after completion of investigation LW-7 B.Madhu Kumar, her SI of police, filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance of the offence u/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act was taken against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of the charge sheet and other relevant documents were furnished to her as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused are examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charge u/sec 34(a) AP Excise Act is framed against her and read over and explained to her in Telugu language, but she pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 3 and got Exs.P-1 to P-4 and Mo.1 are marked on its behalf.

7. After the closure of prosecution’s evidence, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., by well explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against her and she denied the allegations. The accused reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs-1 to 3, Exs.P-1 to P4 and MO-1 are sufficiently and categorically proved the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 and their evidence did not corroborate with each other and so many infirmities and inconsistencies crept in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The Prosecution failed to examine any one of the independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband, which is fatal to the prosecution case, as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and thus, he sought to acquit the accused.

3 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.14/2015

11. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT: In order to prove the charge us/.34(a) of AP Excise Act, the prosecution cited as many as 7 witnesses, out of which only PW-1 is M.Atchutha Rao, SI of police, Enforcement, PW-2 R.Jaibheem, Inspector of police ESTF, PW-3 is Smt. Y.Kalavathi, Inspector of police, Pendurthy Excise PS, Visakhapatnam. Exs.P1 to P4 and Mo-1 are marked. The crux of the prosecution’s case is that on the date of occurrence while PW-2 and his team on route watch, accused was found at the scene of offence with plastic bag containing liquor bottles without any permit or licence for sale and thereby the accused is committed an offence U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

13.It is the evidence of PW-1 that on 17.6.2014 at about 5.00 pm., while he and his staff on route watch, the accused was found at Sagarnagar, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam with polythene gunny bag and on questioning she revealed that the bag contained liquor bottles and then his Inspector deputed LW-1 Ch.Jyothi, Constable, ESTF, to secure mediators who returned aftersome time and informed that none were accepted to act as mediators. His Inspector verified the bag and found 15 nip bottles of Director Special Whisky each 180 ml., and on further questioning the accused stated that she bought those bottles from unknown person for sale on profit and failed to produce any licence or permit. His Inspector seized those bottles, affixed identify slips on samples, arrested the accused under Ex.P1 mediators report drafted at the scene of offence signed by him.

14.The evidence of PW-2 would indicate in the similar lines as that of the evidence of PW-1 with regard to his conducting raid and found the accused with contraband at the scene of offence, seizure of property, arrest of accused and transmission of case to PW-3 for further investigation. When coming to the evidence of PW-3, she testified that on 18.06.2014 basing on the case property, occurrence report along with accused handed over by ESTF police, she registered FIR vide Cr.No.34/2014 u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act, marked as Ex.P2 and sent the sample bottles for chemical examination under Ex.P3 letter of advice and received CE report under Ex.P4 and after completion of investigation, her SI of police, laid charge sheet.

15.As can be seen from the evidence on record, there is no evidence through independent witnesses in this case except the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2. When coming to their cross-examination, they admitted that the scene of offence is residential locality and they did not try to secure 4 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.14/2015

mediators and there is no mention in Ex.P1 about the details of raid party and batch numbers, manufacturing date of seized property. Thus, the entire evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would clearly indicate that they did not make any bonafide efforts to secure independent persons in support of their version and there are inconsistencies in their evidence to discard the version of prosecution. So far as the evidence of PW-3 is concerned, it does not help with the corroboration of testimonies of PWs-1 and 2, except registration of case and filing of charge sheet. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to adduce cogent and legally acceptable evidence to prove the offence against the accused and there is no reasonable explanation offered by the prosecution for non-securing the local inhabitant persons to prove the raid and seizure of alleged contraband from the possession of accused.

16. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here the relevant citation of

Honourable Supreme Court in this aspect in the case of State Vs. Arun

reported in AIR 2003 SC 801 held that :

“Where there is no independent witnesses from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery.”

The Honourable High Court of A.P., in the case of Mudevath Mothia Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005(1) ALD (NOC) 52 AP held that “Once Excise Officials are interested with the investigation of cognizance offence under A.P. Excise Act they become police officials, as such, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure procedure drafted and also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sec. 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.”

In another case the Honourable High Court of A.P., in the case of S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP held in para No.16 that :

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of 5 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.14/2015

section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but some times destroy the prosecution case.”

17. Here it is to be noted that there is no independent evidence in this case except the testimony of PWs-1 and 2 who are interested witnesses and the prosecution failed to give reasonable explanation in this regard. Further when the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution though the scene of offence is residential locality where mediators can be secured, thus, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked into as suspicious. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. There are several lacunas and infirmities in the evidence of Pws-1 and 2. Thus, their evidence cannot be believed unless there is corroboration from independent witness. So, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would go show that it was mere legal formality after detection of offence. As per the case of the prosecution, the police searched the accused and found with the alleged contraband.

18.As per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C, search and seizer must be conducted in the presence of two respectable local inhabitants. As the place of offence is amenable to secure independent persons and it is not an isolated place, the non-securing the local persons is one of the draw back to the prosecution’s case.

19.Further as PW-2 is an investigating officer, who conducted the raid, seized the contraband, drafting of the occurrence report and arrested the accused, his evidence should be scrutinized carefully. Without any independent corroboration, basing on the evidence of police officials, it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Since, the evidence of PWs-1 to 3 found to be artificial and stereo type, conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence.

20. Under the above circumstances, as there are many inconsistencies and infirmities in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution failed to 6 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.14/2015

prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt goes to accused.

21. In view of my discussion and finding rendered above, it is clear that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 34 (a) A.P. Excise Act 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

22. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act with which she is charged and she is acquitted U/sec 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancel and MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr-II,corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08 th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate(P&E), Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution : PW-1: M.Atchutha Rao, SI of police, Enforcement police, Visakhapatnam. PW-2: R.Jaibheem, CI of police, Enforcement police, Visakhapatnam. PW-3: Smt.Y.Kalavathi, CI of police, Pendurthy Excise PS, Visakhapatnam.

For Accused: - Nil -

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 :Occurrence report; Ex.P2: First Information report Ex.P3: Letter of advice; Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report.

For Accused: - NIL –

No. of Material Objects marked

MO-1: One sample bottle of Director special whisky;

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. J.F.C.M (P&E) Visakhapatnam.

Copy submitted to: The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

7 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.14/2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P&E)

AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.14/2015

Date of offence:17.06.2014 Date of release on bail:19.06.2014 Date of filing:24.01.2015 Date of Apprehension :12.02.2015 Date of commencement :23.02.2015 of trail Date of closing of trial :22.4.2015 Date of sentence : 08.05.2015. Explanation for the There is no delay in disposing of the delay, if anycase. The name of the :The State represented by the Inspector of complainantpolice, Proh & Excise, Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam. The name of the :Beri Kondamma, S/o. late Eswara Reddy, accusedaged 30 years, r/o. Bhuvaneswara Colony, Sagar Nagar, Chinagadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Offence:Punishable u/sec. 34(a) AP Excise Act. Finding:Accused found not guilty Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act with which she is charged and she is acquitted U/sec 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancel and MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate(P&E), Visakhapatnam.

1 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.96/2015

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P&E) :

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. S.Aruna Sri, B.A. LLM., Spl. Judicial First class Magistrate (P&E),

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No. 96/2015.

a.The Serial No. of the case:CC.No.96/2015 b.The date of offence:29.11.2014.

c.The name of the complainant:The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of police, Proh & Excise, Circle-III P.S., Visakhapatnam.

d.The name of the accused:Oduri Chiranjeevi, S/o. Narasinga Rao, aged 23 years, r/o. Bangarimetta, Tagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam.

e.The offence complained of:Punishable u/sec. 34(a)APE Act,1968 f.The plea of the accused & his :Pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case is coming on 08.05.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms.Mrunalini Devi, Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri V.Suresh Kumar, P.Syam Babu, Advocates for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act in Crime No.49/2014-15 of Proh.

& Excise Circle-III PS, Visakhapatnam city, with the following allegations:

That on 29.11.2014 at about 9.00 p.m., PW-2 Sub Inspector of police, along with PW-1 and his Staff LWs-1 and 2 viz., V.Sreenu, Constable,

A.Kondayyya, Head constable, proceeded for patrolling to detect unauthorized out-let of the liquor and found the accused at Dharma Nagar

Culvert, Thatichetla palem, Visakhapatnam with white gunny bag in his right hand and on questioning the accused stated that the bag contained liquor bottles. Then PW-1 deputed PW-1 to secure mediators but in vain and then he verified the bag and found 07 nip bottles of Officer choice whisky each 180 ml., and on further questioning the accused stated that he purchased those bottles from unknown person for sale on profit and failed to produce 2 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.96/2015

any licence or permit. PW-2 seized those bottles, drawn sample, affixed identity slip on sample, arrested the accused under the cover of mediators report prepared at the scene of offence signed by him along with raid party and registered it as Cr.No.49/2014-15 u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act and sent accused for judicial remand. During the course of investigation, he forwarded the samples for chemical analysis and received analysis report. His Inspector

LW-6 SG Bahadur, obtained proceedings from Dy.Commissioner of P&E, for destruction of seized property and destroyed them under panchanama and after completion of investigation, PW-2 laid charge sheet.

3. Cognizance of the offence u/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act was taken against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of the charge sheet and other relevant documents were furnished to him as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused are examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charge u/sec 34(a) AP Excise Act is framed against the accused and read over and explained to him in Telugu language, but he pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs-1 and 2 and got Exs.P-1 to P-6 and Mo.1 are marked on its behalf.

7. After the closure of prosecution’s evidence, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by well explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against her and she denied the allegations. The accused reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs-1 and 2, Exs.P-1 to P6 and MO-1 are sufficiently and categorically proved the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and their evidence did not corroborate with each other and so many infirmities and 3 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.96/2015

inconsistencies crept in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The

Prosecution failed to examine any one of the independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband, which is fatal to the prosecution case, as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

11. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the of- fence u/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT: In order to prove the charge u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act, the prosecution examined PWs-1 and 2 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P6 and MO-1. PW-1

E.Ramakrisha, Head Constable and PW-2 is M.Kousalya Kumafr, SI of police, Circle-

III Excise PS. The crux of the prosecution’s case is that when PW-2 along with his staff conducted a raid at the scene of offence, they found the accused was in possession of contraband and selling them without any permit or licence thereby, the accused committed an offence U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

13.To prove the offence proper, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of

PW-1 and 2. It is the evidence of PW-1 that he along with his SI and staff proceeded for patrolling and found the accused at the scene of offence where the accused is in possession of a plastic bag and on questioning the accused confcessed that the bag contained liquor bottles and then his SI deputed him to secure mediators and after 20 minutes, he returned and informed that none were accepted to act as mediators. Then his SI verified the bag and found 07 nip bottles of officers choice whisky each 180 ml., On further questioning, the accused stated that he purchased those bottles from unknown person for sale on profit and failed to produce any licence or permit. Then his SI seized those bottles and drawn sample, affixed identity slips on sample, arrested the accused under Ex.P1 mediators report drafted at the scene of offene signed by him and MO-1 is one sample bottle of

Officere choice reserve whisky;

14.When coming to the evidence of PW-2, Sub-Inspector of police, he testified his evidence in the similar lines as that of the evidence of PW-1 with regard to conducting raid, detecting the accused with contraband without licence, arrest and 4 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.96/2015

seizure of property under Ex.P1. He further deposed that he registered a

Cr.No.49/2014-15 U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act under Ex.P2 and sent the accused for judicial custody and sent the samples for chemical analysis examination under

Ex.P3 letter of advise and received analysis Report under Ex.P4, obtaining destruction proceedings from Dy. Commissioner of P&E, dt.21.01.2015 under Ex.P5 and the seized property was destroyed under Ex.P6 Panchanama dt.27.01.2015 and after completion of the investigation he laid the charge sheet.

14.As can be seen from the prosecution evidence, there is no independent evidence in this case except the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2. When coming to the cross-examination, PWs-1 and 2 admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and their raid party consists four members. There is no evidence that PW-2 issued written summons to PW-1 for securing mediators.

It is admitted that in Ex.P1 they did not mention the batch nos., manufacturing date of seized property and they did not mention the names of the persons who refused to act mediators. Thus, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would clearly show that they did not make any bonafide efforts to secure independent persons in support of their version with regard to the raid on particular date, time and place. So, the prosecution failed to offer any reasonable explanation for non-securing independent witnesses though the area is busy locality prevailing mediators and thus the prosecution failed to adduce any cogent and relevant evidence in support of its contention.

15. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here the relevant citation of

Honourable Supreme Court in this aspect in the case of State Vs. Arun

reported in AIR 2003 SC 801 held that :

“Where there is no independent witnesses from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery.”

The Honourable High Court of A.P., in the case of Mudevath Mothia Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005(1) ALD (NOC) 52 AP held that “Once Excise Officials are interested with the investigation of cognizance offence under A.P. Excise Act they become police officials, as such, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure procedure drafted and also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sec. 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.” 5 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.96/2015

In another case the Honourable High Court of A.P., in the case of S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP held in para No.16 that :

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but some times destroy the prosecution case.”

16. Here it is to be noted that though the entire evidence on record shows that

PWs-1 and 2 participated and conducted the raid and found MO-1 in the possession of the accused, there is no independent evidence in this case except their testimonies and absolutely they are interested witnesses. Further the attempts of PW-2, disclosed nothing on record though his staff members had followed him to the place of detection. There are several lacunas and infirmities in the evidence of Pws-1 and 2. Thus, their evidence cannot be believed unless there is corroboration from independent witness. So, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would go show that it was mere legal formality after detection of offence.

As per the case of the prosecution, the police searched the accused and found with the alleged contraband.

17.As per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C, search and seizer must be conducted in the presence of two respectable local inhabitants. As the place of offence is amenable to secure independent persons and it is not an isolated place, the non-securing the local persons is one of the draw back to the prosecution’s case.

18.Admittedly, PW-2 is an investigating officer, who conducted the raid, seized the contraband, drafting of the occurrence report and arrested the accused, so, his evidence should be scrutinized carefully. Without any independent corroboration, basing on the evidence of police officials, it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all 6 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.96/2015

reasonable doubt. Since, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 found to be artificial and stereo type, conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence.

19. In view of the inconsistencies and infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt goes to accused.

20. In view of my discussion and finding rendered above, it is clear that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 34 (a) A.P. Excise Act 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

21. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act with which he is charged and he is acquitted U/sec 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancel and MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr-II,corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate(P&E), Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution : PW-1: E.Ramakrishna, Head constable, Circle-III, P&E PS, Vsp. PW-2: M.Kousalya Kumar,SI of police, Circle-III, P&E PS, Vsp.

For Accused: - Nil -

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 :Occurrence report; Ex.P2: First Information report Ex.P3: Letter of advice; Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P5: Proceedings of Dy.Commissioner of P&E, Visakhapatnam., Ex.P6: Panchanama.

For Accused: - NIL –

No. of Material Objects marked

MO-1: One Sample bottle of Officers choice Reserve whisky;

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. J.F.C.M (P&E) Visakhapatnam. Copy submitted to: The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

7 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.96/2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P&E)

AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.96/2015

Date of offence:29.11.2014 Date of release on bail:29.11.2014 Date of filing:13.02.2015 Date of Apprehension :20.02.2015 Date of commencement :05.05.2015 of trail Date of closing of trial :05.05.2015 Date of sentence : 11.05.2015. Explanation for the There is no delay in disposing of the delay, if anycase. The name of the :The State represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Proh & Excise, PS, complainant Circle-III Visakhapatnam.

The name of the :Oduri Chiranjeevi, S/o. Narasinga Rao, aged accused23 years, r/o. Bangarimetta, Tagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam. Offence:Punishable u/sec. 34(a) AP Excise Act. Finding:Accused found not guilty Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act with which he is charged and he is acquitted U/sec 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancel and MO-1 is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate(P&E), Visakhapatnam.

1 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.67/2015

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P&E) :

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. S.Aruna Sri, B.A. LLM., Spl. Judicial First class Magistrate (P&E),

Friday, this the 08 th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No. 67/2015.

a.The Serial No. of the case:CC.No.67/2015 b.The date of offence:01.07.2014.

c.The name of the :The State represented by the complainantInspector of police, Proh & Excise, PS, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

d.The name of the accused:Gondesi Ramuilamma, W/o. Chinnarao, aged 55 years, r/o.Siddeswaram Village, Peda Gantyada Mandal, Gajuwaka.

e.The offence complained of:Punishable u/sec. 34(a)APE Act,1968 f.The plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty. & his examination, if any

This case is coming on 07.05.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms.Mrunalini Devi, Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri MA Raju, Advocate for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act in Crime No.51/2014-15 of Proh.

& Excise, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam with the following allegations:

That on 01.07.2014 at about 8.40 p.m., PW-1 Inspector of police, along with PW-1 and his Staff LW-1 K.Ramunaidu, Excise Constable proceeded for patrolling to detect unauthorized out-let of the liquor and found the accused at her Pan shop situated at BC Gate area, Pedagantyada

Mandal, Gajuwaka with polythene bag and on questioning the accused stated that the bag contained liquor bottles. Then PW-1 deputed LW-1 to secure mediators but in vain and then he verified the bag and found 1) 5 nip 2 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.67/2015

bottles of officers’ Choice whisky each 180 ml.,2) 4 nip bottles of gold

Riband whisky each 180 ml., and on further questioning the accused stated she purchased those bottles from an unknown person for sale on profit and failed to produce any licence or permit. PW-1 seized those bottles, drawn samples, affixed identity slips and arrested the accused under cover of occurrence report drafted at the scene of offence signed by him along with other raid party and registered it as Cr.No.51/2014-15 u/s.34(a) of AP Excise

Act u/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act, and produced the accused before the Court.

During the course of investigation, PW-2 forwarded the samples for chemical analysis and after receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

3. Cognizance of the offence u/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act was taken against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of the charge sheet and other relevant documents were furnished to her as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused are examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charge u/sec 34(a) AP

Excise Act is framed against the accused and read over and explained to her in Telugu language, but she pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PWs-1 and 2 and got Exs.P-1 to P-4 and Mos.1 and 2 are marked on its behalf.

7. After the closure of prosecution’s evidence, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by well explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him and he denied the allegations. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence nor got marked any documents.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 Exs.P-1 to P4 and MOs-1 and 2 are sufficiently and categorically proved the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution successfully 3 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.67/2015

established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and their evidence did not corroborate with each other and so many infirmities and inconsistencies crept in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The

Prosecution failed to examine any one of the independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband, which is fatal to the prosecution case, as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

11. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT: In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined

PWs-1 and 2 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P4 and MOs-1 and 2. PW-1 is A.Santhosh, Inspector of Police, PW-2 is K.Naidu babu, Constable, Pendurthy Excise PS. It is the version of the prosecution that when PW-1 along with his staff conducted a raid on 01.07.2014 along with his staff and found the accused in illegal possession of Im Liquor bottles and selling them without any licence or permit at the scene of offence and thereby the accused committed an offence U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

13.It is the evidence of PW-1 that on 01.07.2014 at about 8.40 p.m., he along with PW-1 and his staff proceeded for patrolling and found the accused at the scene of offence i.e., at her Pan sho, BC road, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka, where the accused was in possession of polythene bag and on questioning she stated that the bag contained liquor bottles and then he deputed LW-1 K.Ramunaidu, to secure mediators, who returned after sometime and informed that none were accepted to act as mediators. He further deposed that he verified the bag and found 1) 5 nip bottles of officers’ choice whisky each 180 ml., 2) 4 nip bottles of gold Riband whisky each 180 ml., and on further questioning the accused confessed that she purchased those liquor bottles from an unknown person for sale on profit. He seized those bottles, drawn the samples, affixed the identity slips on samples and arrested the accused under Ex.P1 cover of occurrence report drafted at the scene of offence signed by him. He registered FIR in

Cr.No.51/2014 u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act, under Ex.P2 and released the accused on self bail and sent the samples for chemical analysis under Ex.P3

Letter of advice, and got received CE report under Ex.P4 and after completion of the investigation, he laid charge sheet. Through him Exs.P1 4 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.67/2015

to P4 and MOs-1 and 2 sample bottles are marked.

14. When coming to the evidence of PW-2, he testified in the similar lines as that of the evidence of PW-1 with regard to his participation in the raid, detecting the accused with contraband, seizure and arrest of the accused.

15.As can be seen from the prosecution evidence, there is no independent evidence in this case except testimonies of PW-1 and 2. When coming to their cross-examination, they admitted that the scene of offence is residential locality and there is no issuance of summons to LW-1 to secure mediators and they did not mention the details of the persons, who refused to act as mediators in Ex.P1. They further admitted that they did not mention the batch nos., manufacturing date of seized property in Ex.P1. So, the entire evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would clearly show that they did not make any bonafide efforts to secure independent persons in support of their version that they conducted a raid with their staff, detected the accused with contraband and seized the property etc., Thus, the prosecution failed to adduce cogent and relevant evidence to buttress its contention.

16. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here the relevant citation of

Honourable Supreme Court in this aspect in the case of State Vs. Arun

reported in AIR 2003 SC 801 held that :

“Where there is no independent witnesses from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery.”

The Honourable High Court of A.P., in the case of Mudevath Mothia Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005(1) ALD (NOC) 52 AP held that “Once Excise Officials are interested with the investigation of cognizance offence under A.P. Excise Act they become police officials, as such, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure procedure drafted and also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sec. 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.”

In another case the Honourable High Court of A.P., in the case of S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP held in para No.16 that :

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure 5 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.67/2015

proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but some times destroy the prosecution case.”

17. As seen from the entire evidence of PWs-1 and 2, who participated in the raid that they found MOs-1 and 2 in the possession of the accused, seized under

Ex.P-1 but there is no independent evidence in this case except the testimony of PWs-1 and 2 who are interested witnesses. Further the attempts of PW-1 disclosing nothing is placed on record though his staff members had followed him to the place of detection. There are several lacunas and infirmities in the evidence of Pws-1 and 2. Thus, their evidence cannot be believed unless there is corroboration from independent witness. So, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would go show that it was mere legal formality after detection of offence. As per the case of the prosecution, the police searched the accused and found with the alleged contraband.

18.As per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C, search and seizer must be conducted in the presence of two respectable local inhabitants. As the place of offence is amenable to secure independent persons and it is not an isolated place, the non-securing the local persons is one of the draw back to the prosecution’s case.

19.As PW-2 is an investigating officer, who conducted the raid, seized the contraband, drafting of the occurrence report and arrested the accused, her evidence should be scrutinized carefully. Without any independent corroboration, basing on the evidence of police officials, it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Since, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 found to be artificial and stereo type, conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence.

20. In view of the inconsistencies and infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt goes to accused.

6 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.67/2015

21. In view of my discussion and finding rendered above, it is clear that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 34 (a) A.P. Excise Act 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

22. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act with which she is charged and she is acquitted U/sec 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancel and MOs-1 and 2 (samples) are ordered to be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr-II,corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08 th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate(P&E), Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution : PW-1: A.Santhosh, Inspector of police, Gajuwaka Excise PS., Vsp. PW-2: K.Naidu Babu, Constable, Gajuwaka Excise PS., Vsp.

For Accused: - Nil -

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 :Occurrence report; Ex.P2: First Information report; Ex.P3: Letter of advice; Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report.

For Accused: - NIL –

No. of Material Objects marked

MO-1: One sample bottle of Officers choice whisky; MO-2: One sample bottle of Gold riband whisky;

sd/- Sri S.Aruna Sri

Spl. J.F.C.M (P&E) Visakhapatnam.

Copy submitted to: The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

7 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.67/2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P&E)

AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.67/2015

Date of offence:01.07.2014 Date of release on bail:01.07.2014 Date of filing:24.01.2015 Date of Apprehension :16.02.2015. Date of commencement :09.03.2015 of trail Date of closing of trial :04.05.2015 Date of sentence : 08.05.2015. Explanation for the There is no delay in disposing of the delay, if anycase. The name of the :The State represented by the Inspector of police, Proh & Excise, Gajuwaka complainant PS, Visakhapatnam. The name of the :Gondesi Ramuilamma, W/o. Chinnarao, accusedaged 55 years, r/o.Siddeswaram Village, Peda Gantyada Mandal, Gajuwaka. Offence:Punishable u/sec. 34(a) AP Excise Act. Finding:Accused found not guilty Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act with which she is charged and she is acquitted U/sec 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancel and MOs-1 and 2 (samples) are ordered to be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate(P&E), Visakhapatnam.

1 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.136/2015

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P&E) :

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. S.Aruna Sri, B.A. LLM., Spl. Judicial First class Magistrate (P&E),

Monday, this the 11 th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No. 136/2015.

a.The Serial No. of the case:CC.No.136/2015 b.The date of offence:01.09.2014 c.The name of the :The State represented by the complainantInspector of police, Proh & Excise, PS, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

d.The name of the accused:Merugu Kodandamma, W/o. Demudu, aged 32 years, R/o. Kotha Dibbapalem, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka.

e.The offence complained of:Punishable u/sec. 34(a)APE Act,1968 f.The plea of the accused :Accused Pleaded not guilty. & his examination, if any

This case is coming on 08.05.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms.Mrunalini Devi, Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri A.Someswara Rao, A.Veerabadra Rao and Ms.B.Sujatha, Advocates for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act in Crime No.102/2014-15 of

Proh. & Excise, Gajuwaka, Viskahapatnam with the following allegations:

That on 01.09.2014 at about 5.45 p.m., PW-1 Sub Inspector of police, along with PW-1 and her Staff LWs-2 and 4 viz., Ms.S.Dhana Lakshmi, and

K.Ramu Naidu, Excise Constables proceeded for patrolling to detect unauthorized out-let of the liquor and found the accused at her Pan shop situated in a vacant place, Kotha Dibbapalem, Gajuwaka where some persons gathered around her pan shop and on seeing the police party, those persons fled away and when the accused was questioned, she stated that 2 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.136/2015

she is selling liquor bottles kept in her pan shop. Then PW-1 deputed PW-2 to secure mediators but in vain and then she got verified the premises and found one black colour bag containing 1) 16 nip bottles of Directors special whisky each 180 ml., 2) 2 disposal glasses and sale proceeds of Rs.20/-. On further questioning the accused stated she purchased those bottles from an unknown person for sale on profit and failed to produce any licence or permit. PW-1 seized those bottles, drawn samples, affixed identity slips and arrested the accused under cover of occurrence report drafted at the scene of offence signed by her along with other raid party and registered it as

Cr.No.102/2014-15 u/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act u/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act, and released the accused on station bail. During the course of investigation, PW-1 forwarded the samples for chemical analysis and after receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation, her CI filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance of the offence u/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act was taken against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of the charge sheet and other relevant documents were furnished to her as per Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused are examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charge u/sec 34(a) AP

Excise Act is framed against the accused and read over and explained to her in Telugu language, but she pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PWs-1 and 2 and got Exs.P-1 to P-4 and Mo.1 are marked on its behalf.

7. After the closure of prosecution’s evidence, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by well explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him and he denied the allegations. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence nor got marked any documents.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PWs-1 3 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.136/2015

and 2 Exs.P-1 to P4 and MO-1 are sufficiently and categorically proved the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and their evidence did not corroborate with each other and so many infirmities and inconsistencies crept in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The

Prosecution failed to examine any one of the independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband, which is fatal to the prosecution case, as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

11. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT: In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined

PWs-1 and 2 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P4 and MO-1. PW-1 is J.Ramakrishna Eswara Rao, constable and PW-2 is Mrs.L.Anuradha Devi, SI of police, Pendurthy Excise PS. It is the version of the prosecution that when PW-2 along with her staff conducted a raid on 01.09.2014 along with her staff and found the accused was found in illegal possession of liquor bottles and selling them without any licence or permit at the scene of offence and thereby the accused committed an offence U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act.

13.It is the evidence of PW-1 that on 01.09.2014 at about 5.45 p.m., she along with PW-2 and her staff proceeded for patrolling and found the accused at the scene of offence i.e., Kotha Dibbapalem, Visakhapatnam, where the accused was in possession of liquor bottles and selling to public and on questioning she stated that she possessed liquor bottles. Then PW-1 deputed PW-2 to secure mediators, after sometime he returned and informed her that none were accepted to act as mediators. She further deposed that she verified the premises and found 16 nip bottles of Director Special whisky each 180 ml.,and 2 disposal glasses and cash of

Rs.20/-. On further questioning the accused confessed that she purchased those liquor bottles from an unknown person for sale on profit. She seized those bottles, drawn the samples, affixed the identity slips on samples and arrested the accused under Ex.P1 cover of occurrence report drafted at the scene of offence signed by her. She registered Ex.P2 FIR as Cr.No.102/2014

U/s.34(a) of AP Excise Act, and sent the samples for chemical analysis under 4 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.136/2015

Ex.P3 letter of advice and received chemical report under Ex.P4. After completion of the investigation, her Inspector of police, laid charge sheet.

Through her Ex.P1 to P4 and MO-1 sample bottle of Director special fine whisky are marked.

14. When coming to the evidence of PW-2 constable, he testified in the similar lines as that of the evidence of PW-1 with regard to his participation in the raid with PW-1, detecting the accused with contraband, seizure and arrest of the accused.

15.As can be seen from the prosecution evidence, there is no independent evidence in this case except testimonies of PW-1 and 2. When coming to their cross-examination, they admitted no written summons were issued to

PW-1 to secure mediators and PW-1 did not inform the names of persons whom he asked to act as mediators. They further admitted that they did not mention the batch nos., manufacturing date of the seized property etc., in

Ex.P1. So, the entire evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would clearly show that they did not make any bonafide efforts to secure independent persons in support of their version that they conducted a raid with their staff, detected the accused with contraband and seized the property etc., Thus, the prosecution failed to adduce cogent and relevant evidence to buttress its contention.

16. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here the relevant citation of

Honourable Supreme Court in this aspect in the case of State Vs. Arun

reported in AIR 2003 SC 801 held that :

“Where there is no independent witnesses from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery.”

The Honourable High Court of A.P., in the case of Mudevath Mothia Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2005(1) ALD (NOC) 52 AP held that “Once Excise Officials are interested with the investigation of cognizance offence under A.P. Excise Act they become police officials, as such, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. When the independent witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. The seizure procedure drafted and also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sec. 25 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.”

In another case the Honourable High Court of A.P., in the case of S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 32 AP held in para No.16 that :

“Admittedly PW-1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information they were right in taking mediators along with 5 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.136/2015

them. If in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure the local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., but excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general. That is genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the persons of mediators of any other locality would not only weakened but some times destroy the prosecution case.”

17. Here it may be noted that there is no independent evidence in this case except the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2 who are interested witnesses. Further the attempts of PW-1 disclosing nothing on record though her staff members had followed her to the place of detection. There are several lacunas and infirmities in the evidence of Pws-1 and 2. Thus, their evidence cannot be believed unless there is corroboration from independent witness. So, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 would go show that it was mere legal formality after detection of offence. As per the case of the prosecution, the police searched the accused and found with the alleged contraband.

18.As per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C, search and seizer must be conducted in the presence of two respectable local inhabitants. As the place of offence is amenable to secure independent persons and it is not an isolated place, the non-securing the local persons is one of the draw back to the prosecution’s case.

19.Admittedly, PW-1 is an investigating officer, who conducted the raid, seized the contraband, drafting of the occurrence report and arrested the accused, so, her evidence should be scrutinized carefully. The prosecution failed to produce the alleged sale proceeds seized at the time of raid from the accused

before this Court. Further, without any independent corroboration, basing on the

evidence of police officials, it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Since, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 found to be artificial and stereo type, conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence.

6 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.136/2015

20. In view of the inconsistencies and infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt goes to accused.

21. In view of my discussion and finding rendered above, it is clear that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 34 (a) A.P. Excise Act 1968, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

22. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act with which she is charged and she is acquitted U/sec 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancel and MO-1 (sample) is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr-II,corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate(P&E), Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution : PW-1: JRK Eswara Rao, constable, Gajuwaka Excise PS., Vsp. PW-2: Smt.L.Anuradha Devi, SI of police, Pendurty Excise PS., Vsp.

For Accused: - Nil -

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P1 :Occurrence report; Ex.P2: First Information report; Ex.P3: Letter of advice; Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report.

For Accused: - NIL –

No. of Material Objects marked

MO-1: One sample bottle of Directors’ Special whisky;

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. J.F.C.M (P&E) Visakhapatnam.

Copy submitted to: The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

7 Spl.JFCM (P&E) VSP

CC No.136/2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE (P&E)

AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.136/2015

Date of offence:01.09.2014 Date of release on bail:02.09.2014 Date of filing:10.03.2015 Date of Apprehension :07.04.2015 Date of commencement :17.04.2015 of trail Date of closing of trial :17.04.2015 Date of sentence : 11.05.2015. Explanation for the There is no delay in disposing of the delay, if anycase. The name of the :The State represented by the Inspector of police, Proh & Excise, Gajuwaka complainant PS, Visakhapatnam.

The name of the :Merugu Kodandamma, W/o. Demudu, accusedaged 32 years, R/o. Kotha Dibbapalem, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka.

Offence:Punishable u/sec. 34(a) AP Excise Act. Finding:Accused found not guilty Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec 34(a) of AP Excise Act with which she is charged and she is acquitted U/sec 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancel and MO-1 (sample) is ordered to be destroyed, after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Smt.S.Aruna Sri

Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate(P&E), Visakhapatnam.