S.khajamoinuddin

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

BADVEL

Calendar in C.C.168 of 2021

Date of Offence:11.03.2021 Date of Report:11.03.2021 Date of arrest of Accused:18.03.2021 Date of Release of accused on bail:18.03.2021 Date of commencement of Trial:24.09.2024 Date of close of Trial:16.01.2025 Date of sentence or order:17.01.2025 Crime No. and Name of P.S.:Cr.No.104/2021, Badvel Urban P.S. Name of the Complainant:State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Badvel Urban Police Station.

Description of Accused

Perugu Kondaiah, S/o Kondaiah, aged about 35 years, Caste:Yadava, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Lakshmi Narayanapuram village, Mydukur Manddal, YSR Kadapa District, rider of motorcycle bearing NO.AP04AV7571. Accused. Deceased: Palempalli Pedda Subbaiah, S/o Pitchaiah, aged about 76 years, Caste:Kummara, Occ: Milk vendor, R/o Kummarakottala, Badvel town, YSR Kadapa District.

Section of Law: U/Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.181, 184, 134(a)(b) r/w 187, 39 r/w 192 of MV Act. Accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court: Found not guilty Sentence or Order:

In the result Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/section 304-A IPC and Sec.181, 184, 134(a)(b) r/w 187, 39 r/w 192 of MV Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C the bail bonds of accused stands canceled after expiry of 6 months as per Section 437 A Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence no order could be passed.

Sd/- S.Khaja Moinuddin,

Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur,

FAC. Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Badvel. Copy submitted to:- The Hon'ble 1st Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

// TRUE COPY//

Page No.1 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: BADVEL

Present:- S.Khaja Moinuddin

Judicial Magistrate of I Class cum Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur

FAC. Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class cum Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Friday, this the 17 th day of January, 2025

CC No.168 of 2021

Between: State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Badvel Urban Police Station. ….Complainant AND Perugu Kondaiah, S/o Kondaiah, aged about 35 years, Caste:Yadava, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Lakshmi Narayanapuram village, Mydukur Mandal, YSR District, being the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP04-AV-7571. …. Accused.

Deceased: Palempalli Pedda Subbaiah, S/o Pitchaiah, aged about 76 years, Caste: Kummara, Occ:Milk Vendor, R/o Kummarakottala, Badvel town, YSR Kadapa District.

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri E.C.Obula Reddy Advocate

for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till

this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Badvel Urban

Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.104/2022 for the offence punishable U/section 304A of Indian Penal Code and section 181, 184, 134

(a) (b) R/w 187, 39 r/w 192 of Motor Vehicle Act. (“here in short after referred as

IPC and MV Act for the sake of brevity”).

2.Shorn of unnecessary details the case of prosecution in nutshell which is as follows:-

LW.1 Palempalli Sumalatha is the defacto complainant and the daughter of the deceased and they are residents of Kummarakottala, Badvel town. On 11.03.2021 at about 07.00 PM the deceased took the milk as usual to sold the milk

Page No.2 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

and went to daily customer houses, after some time near Anjaneya Swamy temple,

Kummarikottalu village, LW1 hear huge sounds and came outside and noticed some people formed group, then LW1 went there and found one motorcycle proceeding toward Mydukur side from Badvel in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, resulting the deceased fell down on the ground and received sever bleeding injuries over his back side of the head. Then they shifted the deceased to

Divya Private Hospital, Badvel town through auto, there the doctor examined the deceased and advised to go to Kadapa for better treatment, they shifted the deceased through private ambulance to Kadapa, when they reached to Thottigaripalli village the deceased fell unconscious due to critical condition, immediately, they shifted the deceased to Badvel Government Hospital, there the duty doctor examined the deceased and declared that the deceased was already died. Later LW1 came to

Badvel Urban PS and gave report to LW.13/ T.V.Subbaiah, ASI of Police. Based on report of LW.1, LW.13 he registered the case in Cr.No.104/2021 under section 304 A of IPC and section 134 (a)(b) of MV Act and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation on 18.03.20241, LW.13 arrested the accused and released him on bail after obtaining proper sureties. Later on receiving of Postmortem report, M.V.I report and after completion of investigation, LW.14/ B.Jayaram, SI of Police, laid charge sheet under section 304A IPC and section 181, 184, 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of

M.V. Act. Hence the charge.

3.On receipt of charge sheet the case was taken on file by the then presiding officer U/section 304A IPC and section 181, 184, 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.

Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of documents was furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

Page No.3 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

5. Accused was examined by the then presiding officer U/s 251 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material on record, accusation U/section 304A IPC and section 181, 184, 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of

M.V. Act is orally explained to Accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 are examined and Exs.P1 to P12 are marked. As the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of LW3/ P.Subbarao, LW5/ P.Sudharshan,

LW.7/ B.Lakshmidevi, LW.8/ M.Siva Shankaraiah, LW.9/ K.Venkateswarulu, LW.11/

Dr.C.Ramprasad, LW.12/ Y.Pradad and LW14/ B.Jayaram were given up by learned

APP.

7.After closure of evidence, the accused was examined Under Section 313

Cr.PC explaining the incriminating material evidence against the accused for which he denied and reported no defence evidecne.

8.Heard both the sides of APP and learned Advocate of Accused counsel.

9.Now the point for consideration:- “ Whether the prosecution could able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/section 304A IPC and section 181, 184, 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. POINT:-

PW1/ P.Sumalatha, who is the daughter of the deceased and who set the criminal law in motion deposed that at about 2 ½ year back during morning hours i.e., on 11.03.2021 at about 07.00 PM the deceased went to pour milk as usual to the daily customers and the deceased started near from his house, after sometime she heard huge cries from out side, immediately, she rushed out and went near Anjaneya

Swamy temple, Kummarikottalu village and found the deceased sustained sever

Page No.4 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

bleeding injuries over his back side of his head. She further deposed that she came to know about the accident as her father was proceeding on the road one vehicle came in opposite direction and hit her father as a result the deceased fell down to the ground, later they shifted the deceased to private hospital in an auto, there the doctor referred to government hospital, in that government hospital the duty doctors declared that the deceased lost his breath. She further deposed that police obtained her signature in a written paper for legal formalities but she don’t know the contents therein i.e., Ex.P1 signature in a report, dated 11.03.2021. She further deposed that she don’t know who lodged the complaint and police did not examined her. She further deposed that after the death of her father police came to mortuary, Badvel government hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in her presence and in the presence of LW2, LW3, LW8 to LW10 under Ex.P2 and in their opinion the deceased died in the road accident. Except this nothing was elicited against the accused, PW.1 did not stated anything against accused, who caused the accident and on whose negligence the accident occurred and who drove the crime vehicle on that day of accident to hit her father and she did not supported to the case of prosecution, hence no credence will be given to her evidence. As such the evidence of PW.1 is no way useful to the case of prosecution. Except marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P3 at the time of cross examination by learned APP nothing was elicited against the accused except denying the suggestions posed by the learned

APP.

PW.2/ Gajulapalli Chenna Reddy categorically deposed in his evidence that he don’t know the accused and he don’t know anything about this case and police did not examined him. In the cross examination of PW2 by the learned APP he denied suggestion that he was the eye witness to the accident caused to the deceased by the accused. Except marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P4 at the time of cross examination by learned APP nothing was elicited against the accused except

Page No.5 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

denying the suggestions posed by the learned APP. However this witness does not say anything against accused and the evidence of PW.2 is not helpful to the prosecution version.

PW3/ M.Venkata Subbaiah, who is the brother of the deceased deposed in his evidence deposed that on 11.03.2021 the deceased met with an accident near

Anjaneya Swamy temple, while the deceased was proceeding on the road. He further deposed that after he came to know about he death of the deceased in a road accident at Anjaneya Swamy temple and shifted to the government hospital, Badvel and himself, LW8 and LW9 rushed there and found the dead body of the deceased.

He further deposed that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of PW1, LW2 to LW5, LW8 and LW9 under Ex.P2 and they are opined that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. In his cross examination by defence counsel he stated that he don’t know who was responsible for the accident and he only signed on Ex.P2 on the request of the police.

However this witness does not say anything against accused except confronted of his signature on inquest report nothing was elicited against the accused and the evidence of PW.3 is not helpful to the prosecution version.

PW4/ P.Chinna Guramma, who is the wife of the deceased deposed in her evidence that at about 2½ years back during March month i.e., on 11.03.2021 at about 07.00 PM the deceased went to pour milk to the daily customer and started near from his house and then she heard huge cries from out side, immediately, she rushed out and went near Anjaneya Swamy temple, Kummari kottalu village and found the deceased sustained injuries over his back side of his head. She further deposed that she came to know about the accident as her husband was proceeding on the road a vehicle came in a opposite direction and hit her husband as a result the deceased fell down on the ground, later they shifted the deceased to private hospital in an auto

Page No.6 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

there the doctor referred to government hospital. She further deposed that in the government hospital the duty doctors declared that her husband lost his breath. She further deposed that she don’t know the number of the crime vehicle and also the particulars of the driver and she don’t know on whose negligence the accident occurred. She further deposed that after the death of her husband police came to the mortuary, Badvel Government Hospital and conducted inquest in her presence and in the presence of PW1, PW3, LW2, LW3, LW8 and LW9 under Ex.P2 and they are of the opined that the deceased died in the road traffic accident. Except marking of

Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P5 at the time of cross examination by learned

APP nothing was elicited against the accused except denying the suggestions posed by the learned APP. However this witness does not say anything against accused and the evidence of PW.4 is not helpful to the prosecution version.

PW5/ K.Guruswamy, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased deposed in his evidence that at about 2½ years back during March month i.e., on 11.03.2021 at about 07.00 PM he received a phone call from the villagers stating that the deceased met with an accident by the time of his arrival the deceased admitted in the hospital and for better treatment, deceased was shifted to RIMS Kadapa in an ambulance and on the way the deceased died. He further deposed that he don’t know anything about this case and police did not examined him. Except marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P6 at the time of cross examination by learned APP nothing was elicited against the accused except denying the suggestions posed by the learned

APP. However this witness does not say anything against accused and the evidence of PW.5 is not helpful to the prosecution version.

PW.6/ T.V.Subbaiah, ASI of Police, who is the investigating officer deposed in his evidence on 11.03.2021 he received written complaint from PW1 along with death intimation, based on Ex.P7/Complaint he registered the case in Cr.No.104/2021 under

Page No.7 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

section 304 A IPC and section 134(a)(b) of MV Act. On the same day he examined

PW1, PW2, LW3, LW5 and LW7 and recorded their statements, after that he visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch. Thereafter, he conducted inquest in the presence of blood relatives and PW.3, LW.8 and LW.9 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report. Later on receiving on PME report and after completion of investigation LW.14 laid charge sheet. He deposed in formal lines as he done the investigation. In cross examination of PW.6 by the defence counsel, elicited that the complaint was not contains the details of driver of the crime vehicle and further nothing was elicited except denying the suggestions posed by the defence counsel.

11.As could be seen from the record, according to the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.4 who are said to be eye witnesses at the the time of accident as per prosecution case, but in their evidence they deposed that they do not know who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident to the deceased and they don’t know anything about this case and they don’t know the accused and they turned hostile and they did not supported to the case of prosecution. Hence their evidence is no way useful to the case of prosecution.

12.Further, the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 who are said to be the inquest Panchayathdars, are the relatives of the deceased and they only know the apparent cause of the death of the deceased. PW.6 deposed the chronological events of the investigation done by him during the course of investigation. Though the prosecution cited the names of the witnesses i.e., LW.3, LW.5, LW.7 to LW.9, LW.11,

LW.12 and LW.14 in charge sheet, but the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, given up the evidence of medical officer, Motor Vehicle Inspector and other witnesses.

The evidence on record only shows that the accident took place due to drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner by the accused, but none of the witnesses deposed that the accused as the driver of the motorcycle and do not know who drove

Page No.8 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

the motorcycle on the date of alleged incident of accident and though PW.1 and PW.4 said to be eye witness does not deposed anything about the accused to be acted as driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, their evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution to that effect.

13.On perusal of entire evidence on record PWs.1 to 5 did not support the case of prosecution version and they resiled from their previous statements except marking of Ex.P1 to P4, P5 and P6 nothing was elicited from their evidence. Hence their evidence is of no value. Though the material on record prosecution establishing the death of deceased in road accident corroborated with the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5 coupled with some extent of in section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements death of deceased was caused by accident, but there is no evidence placed by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused in that alleged accident and also no evidence placed to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident occurred as a result of rash and negligent act on the part of accused.

14.As there is no iota of evidence placed by the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC and when the offence under section 304A IPC is not proved against the accused, there is no need to discussion of section 181, 184, 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act, for that section 181, 184, 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act also not proved against the accused as per evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5, prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt to prove the guilt of the accused.

Hence, on considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

15.In the result Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/section 304A IPC and section 181, 184, 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C the bail bonds of accused stands

Page No.9 of 10

Calendar Case No.:168 of 2021Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Badvel.

cancelled after expiry of 6 months as per Section 437 A Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence no order could be passed.

(Typed to dictation by Stenographer Grade -III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17 th day of January, 2025).

Sd/- S.Khaja Moinuddin,

Junior Civil Judge, Mydukur, FAC. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION : PW1: P.Sumalatha. PW2: G.Chenna Reddy. PW3: M.Venkata Subbaiah PW4: P.Chinna Guramma. PW5: K.Guruswamy. PW6: T.V.Subbaiah, ASI of Police. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NONE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1 is the signature in report, dated 11.03.2021. Ex.P2 is the inquest report. Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P4 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P5 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P6 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P7 is the complaint of PW.1, dated 11.03.2021. Ex.P8 is the death intimation. Ex.P9 is the FIR in Cr.NO.104/2021. Ex.P10 is the rough sketch. Ex.P11 is the Postmortem report. Ex.P12 is the MVI report. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NONE

Id/- S.K.M.

JFCM CUM JCJ

MYDUKUR.

FAC. AJCJ, BADVEL.

//TRUE COPY//

Page No.10 of 10

1 C.C.No.604/2024 dt.17.01.2025

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensioReleasCommencemenClose ofJudgmen n of accusede ont of trial trial t bail 26.01.2026.01.202Station16.01.2017.01.202 244----Bail03.12.2024255

Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.604/2024 on the file of Addition Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel.

COMPLAINANT: The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel.

Name of the accused with Age Religion Residence father's Name.

1234

Resident of D.No.5/41, Gumma Venkata Subbaiah,Abbusahebpeta village, S/o G.Chinna Venkata31 yearsHinduBadvel Mandal, Y.S.R. kadapa SubbaiahDistrict.

Offence : u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 C.P.R.No.91/2024, dt:19.06.2024 on the file of this court shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- S. Khaja Moinuddin,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Mydukur.

FAC. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Dis. No. Dt.

//TRUE COPY//

2 C.C.No.604/2024 dt.17.01.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL.

PRESENT:: S.Khaja Moinuddin, Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur. FAC. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Calendar Case No.604/2024

Between:

State represented by Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel

...Complainant

And

Gumma Venkata Subbaiah, S/o G.Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, aged about 31 years, Caste: Yadava, R/o D.No.5/41, Abbusahebpeta village, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. kadapa District.

... Accused

This case coming on 17.01.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri R.Ravindra

Varma, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.77 of 2024 for the offence punishable

U/sec.7 r/w 8(b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

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

On 26.01.2024 at about 09.50 PM during the raids conducted by the SEB inspector, Badvel (LW.2) along with her staff reached at Abbusahebpeta cross towards

Badvel to Siddavatam bus road, Badvel Mandal, there they found the accused was coming on a motorcycle, on seeing the police he tried to sulk away, on suspicion they detained him. On interrogation the accused person revealed his identity particulars as accused. On enquiry he stated that he was in possession of liquor bottles. Then SEB inspector, Badvel (LW.2) tried for mediators on the spot, but in vain and deputed

M.Guru Prasad (LW.1) to Abbusahebpeta village to secure the mediators. After sometime he came back and stated that no government officials were not available and no one came forward to act as mediators. Then LW.2 verified the bag and found 3 C.C.No.604/2024 dt.17.01.2025 16 nip bottles of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy liquor bottles and found the heals are torn, the accused persons did not revealed about the source of liquor bottles. As such,

LW.2 arrested the accused person and seized the above property from his possession under the cover of special report by drawing one bottle for sample. Thereafter, LW.2 returned to the station along with the accused and seized property and registered a case in Cr.No.77/2024 for the offence punishable u/Sec.7 r/w 8(b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition

Act, sent the accused to judicial custody and after receiving confiscation orders and after completion of investigation, LW.3/ G.Mohan Babu, SEB SI laid charge sheet in this case.

3. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable by the then presiding officer u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure code.

5. Accused was examined by the then presiding officer U/sec.239 Cr.P.C.

charges are framed for the offences punishable u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused and its contents were explained to them in Telugu language for which they have denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. MO.1 also marked. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, has given up the evidence of LW.3/G.Mohan Babu, SEB Sub-Inspector respectively.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence and on perusing the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, the accused is examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, for which the accused denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides perused the material on record.

Considered the evidence of PWs.1 and PW.2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P.6 and MO.1 and other material on record.

4 C.C.No.604/2024 dt.17.01.2025

9.Now the point that arise for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued before this court that the evi- dence of PW.1 & PW.2, Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO.1, well establish the offence against accused persons as such the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused per- sons and they are not even entitled for benefit of doubt and pray to convict the ac- cused persons.

11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has contended that though there is possibility of securing the independent panchayatdars, as the locality is a busy one, no such attempts were made and in a mechanical manner, the Special report was prepared at SEB station and search was conducted and the accused was shown arrested. Further, his submission is that Ex.P.1 was prepared at SEB station and the liquor bottles similar to the material objects are easily available in the market and for statistical purpose, many cases are registered by the excise officials and this is one such false case foisted for statistical purpose. He has sought for the acquittal of the accused persons.

12.To prove the case out of 03 list of witnesses the prosecution examined

PW.1 and PW.2, PW.1/M.Guru Prasad, who is SEB constable, Badvel deposed that on 26.01.2024 at about 09.50 PM, he along with other staff accompanied PW.2 to conduct general raids and they reached at Abbusahebpeta cross towards Badvel to

Siddavatam bus road, Badvel Mandal, there they found the accused person keeping one white coloured bag in his hand, on seeing them the accused person tried to skulk away from that place, and on suspicion they detained him and enquired his name and address particulars, and questioned about the reason of his fleeing from the said place, for which the accused person confessed that he possessed liquor bottles for selling the same for higher price without permission. Then he was deputed by PW.2 to secure mediators from the Abbusahebpeta village, but no one came forward to act as 5 C.C.No.604/2024 dt.17.01.2025 mediators. Then he and PW.2 searched the bag and found 16 nip bottles of Royal

Palace VSOP Brandy liquor bottles, in that bag and found the heals are torn. Then

PW.2 drawn one sample for sending chemical analysis purpose and the remaining contraband and auto was seized under the cover of special report. After informing the grounds of arrest to the accused and arrested the accused and brought him to the po- lice station along with contraband.

In the cross examination of PW.1 by the defence counsel it was elicited that there are approximately 10 villages between the station and alleged scene offence, the alleged scene of offence is surrounded by villages, further it was elicited that there are

VRO offices and other such officers in that village and the detailes of the person who they requested to act as mediators was not mentioned any where in special report and the reasons for not securing any public servant as the mediators was not mentioned in the special report. Further, he denied other suggestions posed by the defence coun- sel.

13.PW.2/M.Manjula, SEB Inspector who was the investigating officer de- posed as to the similar lines of PW.1 and done her part of role as investigating officer in this case. Based on Ex.P.1/special report, she registered the case in Cr.No.77/2024 and she prepared letter of advice and sent the sample bottle to the chemical analysis purpose through this court and she also received analysis report. She sent the contra- band to the Deputy commissioner of Anathapuram for confiscation and destruction and she received confiscation proceedings. Based on the confiscation proceedings she destroyed the contraband on 01.04.2024 under the cover of destruction panchanama.

After completion of investigation LW.3 G.Mohan Babu, SEB sub inspector laid charge sheet in this case.

In cross examination of PW.2 by the defence counsel, it was elicited that the scene of offence is busy locality with general public and he did not disclose in Ex.P.1 how many persons were went to the scene of offence and where was they conducted raids before they reached to the scene of offence and he did not issued any written 6 C.C.No.604/2024 dt.17.01.2025 summons to PW.1 to brought mediators from surrounding place and he did not men- tioned in Ex.P.1 to whom he requested the name of the person to act as mediators in that surrounding places i.e., near the scene offence. Further it was also elicited that there was VRO and VRA officials in that village i.e., near to the scene of offence.

Further the scene of offence is surrounded by the residential houses and government offices situated at reachable distance. Further it is elicited that there was no cash was seized in this case and there was no investigation was made with regard to from where the accused person purchased the case property. Further PW.2 denied other suggestions posed by the defence counsel.

14. To prove the offence against accused the only evidence on record is PW.1 and PW.2. The search, seizure and arrest was conducted by PW.2 alone. PW.1 accompanied PW.2 during the course of search and seizure. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is quite evident that PW.2 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C during the search and seizure. And moreover PW.2 failed to secure any mediators from the surrounding places though there is sufficient availability to secure mediators from government offices, village secretariats and residential houses in surrounding place. And admittedly, no summons was served on any one calling them as mediators. As PW.2 failed to follow the procedure prescribed U/sec.100 (4) Cr.P.C. It is expedient to have a glance on section.100 (4) of Cr.P.C. for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.

“Sec.100 (4) reads as follows:: Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do...” As per the Sec 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. when the independent Mediators in that locality are not available, the Excise officials has to 7 C.C.No.604/2024 dt.17.01.2025 record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above.

15.It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the

Investigating officer though scene of offence is located at busy area and government offices, residential houses situated at surrounding places which it was located at reachable distance as admitted by PW.2. It is settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. This court feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in the case of 'Yeduru sreenivasul reddy Vs State of A.P' reported in '2002(1) A.L.D (Crl) 347 (A.P)'held that: “When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and none have come forward to act as a panch witness, the police should have resort to section. 100(4) of 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.” As held in the above authority,

PW.2 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non-securing of independent mediators by the excise officials are creating doubt on the entire prosecution case.

16.As seen from the record, though there are chances to get mediators from surrounding place which it was reachable distance i.e., near to the scene of offence though residential houses, government offices are situated in that surrounding place as admitted by the PW.2, but no efforts made by the investigating agency, which is a serious lacunae on the part of the prosecution. For all these reasons, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2. Hence, the search and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused is not proved. PW.1 who accompanied

PW.2 at the time of the alleged search and seizure, Except the evidence of PW.1 who is subordinate to PW.2, there is no other material evidence is available on record to prove the search and seizure in this case. From the above discussion, this court holds 8 C.C.No.604/2024 dt.17.01.2025 that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/

Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 C.P.R.No. 91/2024, dt:19.06.2024 on the file of this court shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 17 th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- S. Khaja Moinuddin,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MYDUKUR.

FAC. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined:-

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- - Nil -

PW.1: M.Guru Prasad, SEB constable.

PW.2: M.Manjula, SEB Inspector.

Exhibits marked:-

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- - NIL –

Ex.P.1: Special report.

Ex.P.2: FIR.

Ex.P.3: Letter of Advice.

Ex.P.4: Analysis Report.

Ex.P.5: confiscation proceedings, dated 27.03.2024.

Ex.P.6: Destruction panchanama, dated 01.04.2024.

Material Objects Marked:-

MO.1 is one sample bottle of Royal Palace VSOP Brandy.

Id/- S.K.M., JFCM, Mydukur, FAC. AJCJ, Badvel.

//TRUE COPY//

1 C.C.No.607/2024 dt.17.01.2025

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehenReleaseCommenceClose ofJudgment sion ofon bailment of trial trial accused

Station 26.01.2024 26.01.2024----03.12.2024 16.01.2025 17.01.2025 Bail

Calender and Judgment in C.C.No.607/2024 on the file of Addition Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Badvel.

COMPLAINANT: The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel.

Name of the accused with Age Religion Residence father's Name.

1234

Resident of Chennampalle Kakarla Peeraiah, S/o 58 years Dudekulavillage, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. K.Noor Mahammad kadapa District

Offence : u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 C.P.R.No.89/2024, dt:19.06.2024 on the file of this court shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- S. Khaja Moinuddin,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Mydukur.

FAC. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis. No. Dt.

//TRUE COPY// 2 C.C.No.607/2024 dt.17.01.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BADVEL.

PRESENT:: S.Khaja Moinuddin, Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur. FAC. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. Friday, this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Calendar Case No.607/2024

Between:

State represented by Enforcement Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel

...Complainant

And

Kakarla Peeraiah, S/o K.Noor Mahammad, aged about 58 years, Caste: Dudekula, R/o Chennampalle village, Badvel Mandal, Y.S.R. kadapa District.

... Accused

This case coming on 17.01.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri K.Vijaya Kumar, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Badvel filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.75 of 2024 for the offence punishable

U/sec.7 r/w 8(b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

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

On 26.01.2024 at about 11.30 AM during the raids conducted by the SEB inspector, Badvel (LW.2) along with her staff reached at Thottigaripalli cross towards

Badvel to Mydukur bus road, Badvel Mandal, there they found the accused stood there carrying one white bag, on suspicion they detained him. On interrogation the accused person revealed his identity particulars as accused. On enquiry he stated that he was in possession of liquor bottles. Then SEB inspector, Badvel (LW.2) tried for mediators on the spot, but in vain and deputed M.Guru Prasad (LW.1) to Thottigaripalli village to secure the mediators. After some time he came back and stated that no government officials were not available and no one came forward to act as mediators.

Then LW.2 verified the bag and found 29 nip bottles of Malabar House VSOP Brandy 3 C.C.No.607/2024 dt.17.01.2025 180 ml liquor bottles and found the heals are torn, the accused persons did not revealed about the source of liquor bottles. As such, LW.2 arrested the accused person and seized the above property from his possession under the cover of special report by drawing one bottle for sample. Thereafter, LW.2 returned to the station along with the accused and seized property and registered a case in Cr.No.75/2024 for the offence punishable u/Sec.7 r/w 8(b)(i) of A.P.Prohibition Act, sent the accused to judicial custody and after receiving confiscation orders and after completion of investigation, LW.3/ G.Mohan Babu, SEB SI laid charge sheet in this case.

3. After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file by the then presiding officer for the offence punishable u/Sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure code.

5. Accused was examined by the then presiding officer U/sec.239 Cr.P.C.

charges are framed for the offences punishable u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused and its contents were explained to them in Telugu language for which they have denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. MO.1 also marked. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, has given up the evidence of LW.3/G.Mohan Babu, SEB sub Inspector respectively.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence and on perusing the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, the accused is examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, for which the accused denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides perused the material on record.

Considered the evidence of PWs.1 and PW.2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P.6 and MO.1 and other material on record.

9.Now the point that arise for determination is:

4 C.C.No.607/2024 dt.17.01.2025

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable u/Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued before this court that the evi- dence of PW.1 & PW.2, Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO.1, well establish the offence against accused persons as such the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused per- sons and they are not even entitled for benefit of doubt and pray to convict the ac- cused persons.

11.Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has contended that though there is possibility of securing the independent panchayatdars, as the locality is a busy one, no such attempts were made and in a mechanical manner, the Special report was prepared at SEB station and search was conducted and the accused was shown arrested. Further, his submission is that Ex.P.1 was prepared at SEB station and the liquor bottles similar to the material objects are easily available in the market and for statistical purpose, many cases are registered by the excise officials and this is one such false case foisted for statistical purpose. He has sought for the acquittal of the accused persons.

12.To prove the case out of 03 list of witnesses the prosecution examined

PW.1 and PW.2, PW.1/M.Guru Prasad, who is SEB constable, Badvel deposed that on 26.01.2024 at about 11.20 AM, he along with other staff accompanied PW.2 to conduct general raids and they reached at Thottigaripalli cross towards Badvel to Mydukur bus road, Badvel Mandal, there they found the accused person keeping one white coloured cloth bag in his hand, on seeing them the accused person tried to skulk away from that place, and on suspicion they detained him and enquired his name and ad- dress particulars, and questioned about the reason of his fleeing from the said place, for which the accused person confessed that he possessed liquor bottles for selling the same for higher price without permission. Then he was deputed by PW.2 to se- cure mediators from the Surrounding place, but no one came forward to act as media- tors. Then he and PW.2 searched the bag and found 29 nip bottles of Malabar House 5 C.C.No.607/2024 dt.17.01.2025

VSOP Brandy 180 ml liquor bottles, in that bag and found the heals are torn. Then

PW.2 drawn one sample for sending chemical analysis purpose and the remaining contraband was seized under the cover of special report. After informing the grounds of arrest to the accused and arrested the accused and brought him to the police sta- tion along with contraband.

In the cross examination of PW.1 by the defence counsel it was elicited that there are approximately 10 villages between the station and alleged scene offence, the alleged scene of offence is surrounded by villages, further it was elicited that there are

VRO offices and other such officers in the villages and the detailes of the person who they requested to act as mediators was not mentioned any where in special report and the reasons for not securing any public servant as the mediators was not mentioned in the special report. Further, he denied other suggestions posed by the defence coun- sel.

13.PW.2/M.Manjula, SEB Inspector who was the investigating officer de- posed as to the similar lines of PW.1 and done her part of role as investigating officer in this case. Based on Ex.P.1/special report, she registered the case in Cr.No.75/2024 and she prepared letter of advice and sent the sample bottle to the chemical analysis purpose through this court and she also received analysis report. She sent the contra- band to the Deputy commissioner of Anathapuram for confiscation and destruction and she received confiscation proceedings. Based on the confiscation proceedings she destroyed the contraband on 01.04.2024 under the cover of destruction panchanama.

After completion of investigation LW.3 G.Mohan Babu, SEB sub inspector laid charge sheet in this case.

In cross examination of PW.2 by the defence counsel, it was elicited that the scene of offence is busy locality with general public and he did not disclose in Ex.P.1 how many persons were went to the scene of offence and where was they conducted raids before they reached to the scene of offence. Further it was elicited that he did not issued any written summons to PW.1 to brought mediators from near by surrounding 6 C.C.No.607/2024 dt.17.01.2025 places and he did not mentioned in Ex.P.1 to whom PW.1 requested the name of the person to act as mediators in that surrounding places i.e., near by scene of offence.

Further it was also elicited that there are VRO and VRA officials in that village i.e., near to the scene of offence. Further the scene offence is surrounded by residential houses and government offices situated at reachable distance. Further it was elicited that no cash was seized in this case and there is no investigation with regard to where the accused purchased the case property and there is no notices issued to the accused prior to search and seizure. Further PW.2 denied other suggestions posed by the defence counsel.

14. To prove the offence against accused the only evidence on record is PW.1 and PW.2. The search, seizure and arrest was conducted by PW.2 alone. PW.1 accompanied PW.2 during the course of search and seizure. On a careful perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is quite evident that PW.2 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/sec.100(4) Cr.P.C during the search and seizure. And moreover PW.2 failed to secure any mediators from the surrounding places though there is sufficient availability to secure mediators from government offices, village secretariats and residential houses in surrounding place. And admittedly, no summons was served on any one calling them as mediators. As PW.2 failed to follow the procedure prescribed U/sec.100 (4) Cr.P.C. It is expedient to have a glance on section.100 (4) of Cr.P.C. for better appreciation of the evidence in this case.

“Sec.100 (4) reads as follows:: Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do...” As per the Sec 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. when the independent Mediators in that locality are not available, the Excise officials has to 7 C.C.No.607/2024 dt.17.01.2025 record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above.

15.It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the

Investigating officer though scene of offence is located at busy area and government offices, residential houses situated at surrounding places which it was located at reachable distance as admitted by PW.2. It is settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. This court feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard. The Hon'ble High court of A.P in the case of 'Yeduru sreenivasul reddy Vs State of A.P' reported in '2002(1) A.L.D (Crl) 347 (A.P)'held that: “When the search and seizure taken place in a busy locality and none have come forward to act as a panch witness, the police should have resort to section. 100(4) of 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.” As held in the above authority,

PW.2 failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non-securing of independent mediators by the excise officials are creating doubt on the entire prosecution case.

16.As seen from the record, though there are chances to get mediators from

Surrounding places which it was reachable distance i.e., near to the scene of offence though residential houses, government offices are situated in that surrounding place as admitted by the PW.2, but no efforts made by the investigating agency, which is a serious lacunae on the part of the prosecution. For all these reasons, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2. Hence, the search and seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused is not proved. PW.1 who accompanied

PW.2 at the time of the alleged search and seizure, Except the evidence of PW.1 who is subordinate to PW.2, there is no other material evidence is available on record to prove the search and seizure in this case. From the above discussion, this court holds 8 C.C.No.607/2024 dt.17.01.2025 that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/

Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 C.P.R.No. 89/2024, dt:19.06.2024 on the file of this court shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 17 th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- S. Khaja Moinuddin,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MYDUKUR.

FAC. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Badvel.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined:-

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- - Nil -

PW.1: M.Guru Prasad, SEB constable.

PW.2: M.Manjula, SEB Inspector.

Exhibits marked:-

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- - NIL –

Ex.P.1: Special report.

Ex.P.2: FIR.

Ex.P.3: Letter of Advice.

Ex.P.4: Analysis Report.

Ex.P.5: confiscation proceedings, dated 27.03.2024.

Ex.P.6: Destruction panchanama, dated 01.04.2024.

Material Objects Marked:-

MO.1 is one sample bottle of 180 ml Malabar House VSOP Brandy.

Id/- S.K.M., JFCM

MYDUKUR

FAC. AJCJ, Badvel.

//TRUE COPY//

In the Court of :Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Date  : 14-12-2024

________________________________________________________________________________

Business: Both parties and their counsels are present. Accordingly award is passed. Hence, this case is settled before Lok Adalath. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALATH Disposal Date: 14-12-2024

Sd/- B.Gayathri,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

In the Court of :Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel

Date  : 14-12-2024

________________________________________________________________________________

Business: Both parties and their counsels are present. Accordingly award is passed. Hence, this case is settled before Lok Adalath. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALATH Disposal Date: 14-12-2024

Sd/- B.Gayathri,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Badvel