Smt S. Lakshmi Karri

JMFC.NANDYAL 1 CC.No.658 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL

Present:- Smt.S.Lakshmi Karri,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL

Thursday, the 07th day of May, 2026.

C.C.No. 658 /201 6

State: Represented by: Inspector of Police,

Nandyal III Town P.S. ... Complainant

-Vs- 1.Garshanuru Naga Lakshmi, age 28 years, W/o Koppula Murali Mohan, H.No.2/442-A2, Mullanpeta, Nandyal town.

2.Koppula Murali Mohan, age 37 years, S/o Venkata Kondaiah, H.No.2/442-A2, Mullanpeta, Nandyal town.

... Accused 1 and 2

This case came before me on 01.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (hereinafter to be referred as APP) for prosecution and Sri.V.Sesha Sai Baba, learned counsel for accused/A1 and A2 (hereinafter to be referred as A1 and A2 respectively) and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration and having perused the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Inspector of Police, Nandyal III Town Police Station (hereinafter to be referred as Nandyal III Town P.S) filed charge sheet against accused/A1 and A2 in Crime No.112/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 506 of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC)

2. The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

The defacto complainant P.Venu Gopal is resident of Vasavi Residency,

N.K.Road, Nandyal town. About 5 years back LW1-P.Venu Gopal and

A2/K.Murali Mohan purchased site situated at Polur Village near power plant. A1 purchased sites in plot No.43,44,45,46,47,48 and half part in plot

No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 02.07.2015 bearing document

No.794/2015 and the said site plots were also delivered to her name.

JMFC.NANDYAL 2 CC.No.658 OF 2016

LW1/P.Venu Gopal is having own site at the back side of S.P.Y Reddy

College situated near Bommala Satram, Nandyal town and he is being constructed one apartment in the said place. On 21.03.2016 the accused

A1 and A2 came over to under constructions apartment of LW1-P.Venu

Gopal and obstruct the construction and abused the LW1/P.Venu Gopal in a vulgar language and threatened with dire consequences. Further, the accused went to the house of LW1/P.Venu Gopal there abused the

LW1/P.Venu Gopal and LW2/P.Aparna in a vulgar language and threatened the family of LW1/P.Venu Gopal with dire consequences by black mailing that he should pay an amount of Rs.50 lakhs without any manner of right.

Basing on the complaint of LW1-P.Venu Gopal, the S.I of Police registered the case in Cr.No.112/2016 under Sec.509, 506 IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation the S.I of Police examined the list of witnesses and recorded their statements and seized voice record Compact disk evidence from LW1-P.Venu Gopal and S.I of Police arrested the accused on 28.05.2016 and released them on bail. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Sections 509, 506 of IPC, against accused/A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of accused/A1 and A2, copies of all relevant documents relied by prosecution, were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. They were examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and the contents of charge sheet read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6. Exhibits

P1 to P5 are marked on behalf of prosecution and the evidence of LW7 and LW9 given up and reported no further evidence on behalf of prosecution. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused/A1 and A2 were examined under

JMFC.NANDYAL 3 CC.No.658 OF 2016

Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied and did not propose any evidence in their defence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the points for determination are:-

1."Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/s.506 I.P.C.,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

2."Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable u/s.509 I.P.C.,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

9.The contention of the prosecution that PW1 is resident of Vasavi Residency,

N.K.Road, Nandyal town. About 5 years back PW1-P.Venu Gopal and A2/K.Murali

Mohan purchased site situated at Polur Village near power plant. A1 purchased sites in plot No.43,44,45,46,47,48 and half part in plot No.4 under a registered sale deed

dated 02.07.2015 bearing document No.794/2015 and the said site plots were also

delivered to her name. PW1/P.Venu Gopal is having own site at the back side of

S.P.Y Reddy College situated near Bommala Satram, Nandyal town and he is being constructed one apartment in the said place. On 21.03.2016 the accused A1 and A2 came over to under constructions apartment of PW1-P.Venu Gopal and obstruct the construction and abused the PW1/P.Venu Gopal in a vulgar language and threatened with dire consequences.

10. The defence put forth by the accused can be reduced from the lines of cross examination and the arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel that the complainant foisted false case against the accused and also submitted that even if the allegation in the complaint and material production during the investigation are taken at face value, it was not sufficient to prove the ingredients to attract the

JMFC.NANDYAL 4 CC.No.658 OF 2016 offences charged with beyond all reasonable doubt. More over, there were material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution, leads to a reasonable doubt as to the case of prosecution and there is delay in filing of F.I.R and there is a contradictory in place of occurrence and no material evidence were collected. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.i)To prove the guilt of accused under Sec.506 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that,

(i) The accused threatened the victim with any injury to his person, reputation or property or ,

(ii) To the person or reputation of any one in whom the victim is interested.

(iii) In doing so, there should be an intention to cause alarm to the victim or

(iv) Cause the victim to do any act which he is not likely bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person legally bound to do.

ii) Sec. 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of

a woman-Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman;

12. Now, In order to substantiate it's case the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6

Ex.P1 to P5 were marked.

13. PW.1/Defacto complainant in this case, deposed that he is resident of

Nandyal.He do real estate business. He know the accused A1 and A2 and deposed that he started venture near power plant at SRBC Road in the year 2011 along with

A2. In the year 2015, 0-44 cents of land is registered in the name of A1 as the share of A2. On 21.03.2016, A1, A2 came to his office at Balaji Complex and made a galata that they still have to get their share and again on 24.3.2016, A1, A2 made a galata in his office and at his house and his venture that they have to get their share and threatened the coolies who are working at venture and abused him in vulgar language. They also threatened him on phone. He recorded the galata made by the accused at his site. They waited for one month that the accused will stop the same, but in vain as such he made a complaint in the police station. Ex.P1 is the complaint.

JMFC.NANDYAL 5 CC.No.658 OF 2016

14. But in his cross examination, he admitted that he did not state in his complaint that disputes arose between him and accused is for Ac.0-44 cents of land. He did not file any document into the court showing his purchase and sale. The accused tried to stop his work by threatening the workers and taking away the instruments. The counsel for the accused given suggestion and he denied the same.

15. PW2 also deposed same lines of PW1. Coming to the evidence of PW3 he stated that he worked as a carpenter at PW1 in the year 2016. On 21.03.2016 at about the morning hours while he was working at the apartment of PW1, PW1 and

PW2 came to the apartment to supervise their work. Then, A1 and A2 came to that apartment and had quarrel with PW1 and PW2 and abused them in filthy language.

They also stopped their work. After they left and he again started to work. Again on 24.03.2016, A1 and A2 came to the apartment and quarreled with PW1 and PW2 and threatened to kill them and made nuisance and left the place.

16. In cross examination of PW3, he stated that PW1 will come to the apartment daily, PW2 will come occasionally. He does not know whether the accused are having right over the property or not. PW1 did not give the complaint on the same day. He does not know the reason for the delay. He denied the suggestions.

17. PW4 deposed that in the year 2016, on one day, at about afternoon hours, while he was doing bricks works along with other workers, at apartment of PW1 situated near Bommalasatram, A1 and A2 came there and abused them in filthy language.

They left that place due to fear. In cross examination he stated that he has no prior acquaintance with accused/A1 and A2 and he saw them for the first time on the date of incident. He worked at the said apartment from 2012 to 2017. He does not remember the exact date of the said incident, but the same took place in the afternoon hours. He denied the suggestions.

18. PW5 who is mediator deposed that on 17.05.2016, LW8/S.I of Police, Nandyal III

Town P.S seized a CD from PW1 in his presence and in presence of LW7/Siva

Krishna under cover of panchanama. In cross examination he admitted that in Ex.P3 he stated that he was resident of Sirvella Mandal. In the said CD, accused/A1 and

JMFC.NANDYAL 6 CC.No.658 OF 2016

A2 were abusing PW1 in filthy language. He do not remember whether or not PW1 was present in the said video in C.D.

19. PW6 is the investigation officer who deposed the chronological events of the investigation. During cross Examination of PW6 nothing worthy is elicited to touch the core of prosecution case. It is admitted by the investigating officer that LW9 filed charge sheet based on investigation conducted by him and also admitted that in FIR,

Column NO.5, place of occurrence is at the house of complaint. As per Ex.P1, scene of offence is an apartment. In Ex.P1 occupation of PW1 is not mentioned. In

Ex.P4/FIR, column No.14, signature of PW1 is not obtained. The house of PW1 is situated at Vasavi Residency, Nandikotkur road, Nandyal and his office is situated at

Balaji Complex, Nandyal and he is constructing apartment at Bommalasatram,

Nandyal. PW1 reported about the incident at the police station after 53 days from the date of incident. He did not examine the person who video graphed the incident as a witness. He did not examine neighbors of PW1 at his residence and anyone at his office.

20. Coming to the evidence of PW1, the galata took place on 21.03.2016 at his office, at Balaji complex and again on 24.03.2016 at his house, at his office and at his venture but in this case the witness who were cited as eye witnesses worked as carpenter deposed the contradictory version of the PW1 that on 21.03.2016 the galata took place at apartment and also there is contradictory version a place of occurrence between chief examination of PW1 and Ex.P1. Coming to the evidence of PW3 in his cross examination he took the video of the incident but coming to the evidence of PW4 in his chief examination that he recorded the galata made by the accused at his site. Coming to the evidence of PW4 in his cross examination he deposed that he and one Madhu were present at the scene of offence at the time of incident and he do not know PW3 and also deposed that PW3 came to the scene of offence after the incident and he do not know his name. Coming to the evidence of

PW5 he acted as mediator at the time of seizing the Compact Disc. He deposed that

A1 and A2 abusing in filthy language and he do not remember whether PW1 was present in the said video in C.D.

JMFC.NANDYAL 7 CC.No.658 OF 2016

21. Coming to the evidence of PW6 the investigating officer registered the case and admitted that PW1 reported the above incident at the police station after 50 days from the date of incident and also admitted that he did not examine the person who video graphed the incident as a witness and also admitted he did not examine the neighbors of PW1 at his residence and any one at his office. Moreover, the delay of giving complaint is not properly explained. PW1 deposed that he waited for one month but it was not mentioned particularly that some instance was happened therefore they came to the conclusion that the accused did not stop to making galata. Though Ex.P2 is marked but the authentication of evidence is not proved.

22. For the aforementioned reasons, from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and material available on record in can fairly be concluded that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused/A1 and A2 for the charged offences punishable under

Sections 506, 509 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Points are answered accordingly.

23. In the result, accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 509 of IPC and acquitted for the same under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per

Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

Party dictated to the stenographer and partly typed to my dictation by Stenographer on computer device, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 07 th day of May, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- P.W.1 :Pabbathi VenugopalNone P.W.2 :Aparna P.W.3:V.Guruvaiah Achari P.W.4:M.Mabasha PW.5:Shaik R.Abdul Khadar P.W.6:S.Surya Mouli

JMFC.NANDYAL 8 CC.No.658 OF 2016

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- Ex.P1:Complaint Nil Ex.P2:C.D Ex.P3:Panchanama dt.17.05.2016 Ex.P4:F.I.R Ex.P5:Rough Sketch

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

Nil Nil

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal.

JMFC.NANDYAL 9 CC.No.658 OF 2016

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C.No. 658 /201 6

1.Date of offence24.03.2016

2.Date of report or Complaint24.03.2016

3.Date of apprehension of the accused28.05.2016

4.Date of release on bail28.05.2016

5.Date of commencement of trial16.11.2021

6.Date of close of the trial20.02.2024

7.Date of sentence of order07-05-2026

8.Explanation of delay and remarks-

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub-Inspector of Police,Nandyal III Town PS. Accused1.Garshanuru Naga Lakshmi, age 28 years, W/o Koppula Murali Mohan, H.No.2/442-A2, Mullanpeta, Nandyal town. 2.Koppula Murali Mohan, age 37 years, S/o Venkata Kondaiah, H.No.2/442-A2, Mullanpeta, Nandyal town. Offenceunder Sections 506, 509 of IPC

FindingAccused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty

SentenceIn the result, accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 509 of IPC and acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

JMFC.NDL 1 CC.NO.978 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL

Present:- Smt.S.Lakshmi Karri,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL

Friday, the 08th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 978 /202 4

Between: State:– Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Mahanandi P.S. ... Complainant

-And-

Bairi Gopi, age 30 years, S/o Bala Raju, resident of Buchamma Thopu Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District.

... Accused

This case has come before me on 06.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (hereinafter to be referred as APP) for the State and Sri.P.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for accused; upon perusing material papers on record, having heard and stood over for determination till today, this Court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T: :

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahanandi P.S filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, in Crime No.102 of 2024.

2. The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

That on 27.07.2024 at 13.00 hours, at Sarva Vanka, near Buchamma

Thopu, Gajulapalli Village, Mahanandi Mandal, in which the accused Bairi

Gopi was arrested by S.I of Police/LW5 and seized 20 liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused and after the accused shown the place of

Batti, where he used to manufacturing the ID arrack and further S.I destroyed four drums containing 800 liters of jaggery wash (each drum 200 liters) in the presence of panchayathdars under cover of seizure panchanama.

Basing on the panchanama, he registered a case vide Cr.No.102/2024 under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP (Amendment) Act and submitted FIRs to all officers concerned and took up investigation. On 22.08.2024 the samples of

JMFC.NDL 2 CC.NO.978 OF 2024 liquor sent to Excise Laboratory for analaysis on 23.09.2024 LW6-N.Rama

Mohan Reddy received analysis report, in that Government Chemical

Examiner, Excise laboratory examined the sample bottle and gave opinion that the Sample C.E.No.1421/2024 and S.L.No.14459/2024 dt.22.08.2024 is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.

Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents relied by prosecution, were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Accusation leveled against him and charge framed for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, was read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4, MO1 and the learned APP has given up the rest of the listed witnesses and thus prosecution evidence was closed.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for accused respectively.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

"Whether prosecution established guilt of accused for the offence

punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt"?

JMFC.NDL 3 CC.NO.978 OF 2024

POINT:

9. The case of prosecution is that on 27.07.2024, at 13.00 hours at Sarva

Vanka, near Buchamma Thopu, Gajulapalli Village, Mahanandi Mandal, the

S.I of police found the accused making ID arrack and seized 20liters of ID arrack from the possession of accused and further S.I of Police destroyed four drums containing 800 liters of jaggery wash (each drum 200 liters).

Thus, the accused thereby committed offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

10. The alleged mediator, who is present at the time of the seizure of contraband examined as P.W.1 but he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. In view of the above evidence the learned A.P.P. declared him as hostile and cross examined him with the permission of the Court, but nothing were elicited in favor of the Prosecution except marking his signature in the panchanama.

11. One of the Police constable, who assisted the P.W.3 for conducting raid was examined as P.W.2 and he deposed the similar lines to the evidence of

P.W.3. In cross examination it is elicited that the scene of offence is a busy locality. Panchanama prepared at scene of offence.

12. The evidence of PW3 investigating officer reveals that on 27.07.2024 at about 10.30 AM himself along with other staff and mediators were proceeded and reached Buchammathota, Gajulapalli Village, near Sarva

Vanka and they noticed the accused with a plastic bag and on seeing the police party, he tried to escape from there itself containing ID arrack, but they all chased and surrounded and caught hold him. He enquired accused revealed his identity and further confessed that he will in possession of ID wash and he fled them to the place, where he concealed the manufacturing

ID arrack, he destroyed the four drums containing 800 liters of jaggery wash (each drum 200 liters) in the presence of the mediators of under covre of panchanama. Thereafter, the accused confessed the commission of offence in the presence of mediators/PW.1. Then, he drawn one 180 ml sample bottle and also seized the remaining contraband from the can for chemical

JMFC.NDL 4 CC.NO.978 OF 2024 analysis and arrested the accused after explaining the reasons under the cover of confession-cum-arrest-cum-seizure panchanama. Thereafter, the accused along with seized contraband were brought to the police station and registered the case. Basing on the panchanama, he registered a case in

Cr.No.102/2024 under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. He sent the accused to this court for judicial custody. He handed over the C.D file to LW6, he verified it, he sent the sample for chemical examination, after receipt of chemical analysis report, he filed charge sheet. In cross examination he admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality. He has not examined independent witnesses at scene of offence. At the scene of offence public gathered.

13. The mediator who is examined as PW4 and deposed that on 27.07.2024 at about 10.30 AM himself along with other mediators along with police staff were proceeded and reached Buchammathota, Gajulapalli Village, near

Sarva Vanka and they noticed the accused with a plastic bag and on seeing the police party, he tried to escape from there itself containing ID arrack, but

PW3 chased and surrounded and caught hold him. PW3 enquired accused and revealed his identity and further confessed that he will in possession of

ID wash and he fled them to the place where he concealed the manufacturing ID arrack, PW3 destroyed the four drums containing 800 liters of jaggery wash (each drum 200 liters) in their presence under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, the accused confessed the commission of offence in their presence. Then, PW3 drawn one 180 ml sample and also seized the remaining contraband from the can for chemical analysis and arrested the accused. He know the contents of the panchanama.

14. To prove the point the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.s.1 to 4 apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. As seen from the evidence on record

P.W.4 is the mediators at the time of arrest and seizure of contraband from accused. The prosecution projected him as a mediator for arrest and seizure of the contraband. In the present case, as already discussed above, P.W.3 did not make any efforts to secure the independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. When P.W.3 did not assign any specific reasons for not

JMFC.NDL 5 CC.NO.978 OF 2024 making efforts to take independent respectable inhabitants of the locality, his evidence looses credibility.

15. It is pertinent to note that the mere supporting analysis report does not establish the case against the accused. It only speaks of the fact that the material referred for chemical analysis was found to be the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. But it is for the prosecution to establish that such samples which was referred for chemical analysis was seized from the possession of the accused. Except interested testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 no supporting material is provided. It is needless to say that mere registration of crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution. For the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.

16. It is a well-established rule of evidence that confession of accused made

before police cannot be proved against accused as per Section 25 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus the same cannot be used as evidence to establish alleged charge against accused. That apart, except their self- serving and solitary testimonies, prosecution has not produced any other evidence or material to corroborate their evidence. Prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 do not inspire confidence so as to fasten a liability or conviction against the accused. In the absence of any corroborating material to their evidence, it cannot be taken as gospel truth to lay conviction against accused. For all these reasons it is concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt of accused for the charged offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

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

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail

JMFC.NDL 6 CC.NO.978 OF 2024 bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The MO1 is sample bottle vide CPR No.333/2024 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 08th day of May, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1:Noor Basha None P.W.2:S.Salam P.W.3:G.Nagendra Prasad PW.4:T.Chandra Mohan

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 in panchanama NIL Ex.P2 :Panchanama Ex.P3 :FIR Ex.P4:Chemical analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo1 is sample bottle vide CPR No.333/2024.

JMFC, NDL.

JMFC.NDL 7 CC.NO.978 OF 2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C. No. 978 /202 4

1. Date of offence27.07.2024

2.Date of report or Complaint27.07.2024

3.Date of apprehension of the accused27.07.2024

4.Date of release on bail02.08.2024

5.Date of commencement of trial16.09.2025

6.Date of close of the trial09.10.2025

7.Date of sentence of order 08.05.2026

8.Explanation of delay and remarks -

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub Inspector of Police, Mahanandi P.S. AccusedBairi Gopi, age 30 years, S/o Bala Raju, resident of Buchamma Thopu Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyal District. Offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

FindingAccused is found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The MO1 is sample bottle vide CPR No.333/2024 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

JMFC,NDL 1 C.CNO.358 OF 2024

THE COURT OF THE ADDL .JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: NANDYAL. Present: Smt.S.Lakshmi Karri Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. Wednesday, this the 13th of May, 2026.

C.C.No. 358 /202 4

Between : The State rep by Sub Inspector of Police,

SEB, Nandyal …...Complainant

And :

Paradesi Pedda Narasimha, age 23 years, S/o P.Obulesu (late), Resident of Pusulur Village, Nandyal Mandal. …. Accused.

This case is coming on 08.05.2026 for final hearing before me for consideration after hearing both sides in the presence of Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.V.Balu Naik, Advocate for Accused and on perusal of the material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Enforcement Sub Inspector of Police, SEB, Nandyal has laid a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise(Amendment) Act, 2020.

2)In brief the case of the prosecution as set out in the Charge sheet is stated as follows:

(a)On 07.04.2019 the Enforcement Sub Inspector, SEB Nandyal with his staff and panchayathdars conducted raids and reached at infront of accused house Pusulur

Village and found one male person sitting in possession of one bag in front of him. On suspicious LW5-G.Maruthi Prasad Sub Inspector and his staff reached him on seeing the uniform officials he standing with scaring. LW5 enquiry about the content of the bag on enquiry, he revealed that bag containing liquor bottles and also he disclosed his identity particulars. LW5 verified the bag in presence of mediators and found it is white colour and containing 12 NIPS (180 ml) of Double kick fine whisky pet bottles (DPL) for sale in AP only. LW5 enquired about the IML bottles on enquiry he purchased above said liquor bottles from various IML shops and selling the same for his livelihood. Later, LW5 took one 180 ml sample bottle of double kick fine whisky pet bottle for purpose of chemical analysis duly sealed and labeled. The SEB Sub Inspector informed to the accused, in possession and sale of IML bottles without any license is an offence. The accused was

JMFC,NDL 2 C.CNO.358 OF 2024 arrested, property was seized, sealed and labeled the same under the cover of panchanama.

The sub Inspector(LW6), Nandyal registered a case in Cr.No.225/2019 Nandyal,

Prohibition and Excise Station, under Section 34(a) of APE Act and the Chemical

Examiner, Kurnool who examined the sample in report C.E.No.441/2019 dt.27.05.2019 opined that the sample in Sl.No.3848 is Indian Liquor. On 20.02.2020, the property was destroyed as per the destruction and confiscation orders of Deputy Commissioner,

Kurnool in his proceedings in Rc.No.B1/141/19, dated 06.02.2020. Hence, the charge.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused under Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act 2020.

4.The accused is appeared before this Court on receipt of Summons and copies of documents are supplied tohimas required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act 2020 and explained the contents in charge sheet, for which, he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.3 and MO.1. The learned APP given up the rest of the list of witnesses.

Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence accused is examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material against him from the witnesses and he denied, reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard and perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the charge under Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act 2020 beyond reasonable doubt ?”

10.POINT:-

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is found in possession of 12 Nips (180 ml) of Double Kick fine whisky pet bottles (DPL) for sale in AP only and the accused selling for higher price without any license and thereby committed an offence under

Section 34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act 2020.

11.In order to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the Prosecution has examined the P.W.s.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P3, MO1.

JMFC,NDL 3 C.CNO.358 OF 2024

12.The evidence of PW1 deposed that on 07.04.2019 at 09.20 AM, on information, he along with panchayathdars and other staff proceed to Pusuluru Village infront of accused house and they found one person was in possession of white bag and on seeing them he tried to escape and they caught hold him, on enquiry they found 12 NIPS 180 ml tetra packets. LW5 drawn one bottle for chemical purpose and they seized remaining bottles and took the accused to the police station under the cover of panchanama. In cross examination he stated that the distance between Police Station and scene of offence is 8

KM. They enquired about the liquor bottles and he replied that he brought from the wine shop. They did not added the owner of the wine shop as an accused.

13. The Investigating officer, who has done major part of the investigation was examined as P.W.2, he deposed that he conducted raid and arrested the accused and seized the material object from the possession of the accused in the presence of P.W.4 under the panchanama.

14. The investigating officer examined as PW3 and deposed that on 07.04.2019, PW1 hand over the accused and property to him at 12.20 PM.Basing on the panchanama, he registered a case in Cr.No.225/2019 under sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act. He served Sec.41-

A notice to the accused and released him. He sent sample bottle to the chemical analysis.

After receipt of lab report, LW7 filed charge sheet.

15.The mediator who is examined as PW4 and deposed that on 07.04.2019, he went along S.I of Police and other staff and another mediator went to Pusuluru Village infront of the house of the accused in possession of one white plastic cover. On seeing the police he tried to escape. One of the police staff caught hold accused. When enquiry of accused police found 12 liquor bottles capacity of 180 ML. Out of such liquor bottles 11 bottles were seized and one bottle was drawn for sample purpose. Police has seized the remaining bottles under the cover of panchanama. He along with another mediator and police officials made the signature in panchanama.

16.To prove the point the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.s.1 to 4 apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. As seen from the evidence on record P.W.4 is the mediators at the time of arrest and seizure of contraband from accused. The prosecution projected him as a mediator for arrest and seizure of the contraband.

JMFC,NDL 4 C.CNO.358 OF 2024

17. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of the local mediators. In this regard, it is relevant to mention a decision between Gajamker Narayan

Vs State of A.P. reported in 2005(3) ALT page 1 (AP) wherein our Hon'ble High Court while dealing with Excise case held as follows:

“Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the

Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers. Neither the testimony of P. W. 1 nor that of P. W. 3 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex. P-1, Panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by Excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100(4) Cr. P. C. are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing

I. D. liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

In the present case, as already discussed above, P.W.2 did not make any efforts to secure the independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. When P.W.2 did not assign any specific reasons for not making efforts to take independent respectable inhabitants of the locality, his evidence looses credibility.

18.It is pertinent to note that the mere supporting analysis report does not establish the case against the accused. It only speaks of the fact that the material referred for chemical analysis was found to be the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. But it is for the prosecution to establish that such samples which was referred for chemical analysis was seized from the possession of the accused. Except interested testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 no supporting material is provided. It is needless to say that mere registration of crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the

JMFC,NDL 5 C.CNO.358 OF 2024 prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution. For the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise (Amendment) Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months

U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO1 is sample bottle vide CPR NO.117/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this 13th day of May, 2026.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: Accused:- Pw.1:U.V.Ramana -NONE - Pw.2:G.Maruthi Prasad Pw.3:B.Krishna Naik Pw.4:L.Venkatesh

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROHIBITION

Ex.P.1 :Panchanama Ex.P.2 :F.I.R Ex.P 3 :Chemical analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 is sample bottle vide CPR NO.117/2024

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

JMFC,NDL 6 C.CNO.358 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF ADDL .JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: NANDYAL

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.No. 358 /202 4

1. Offence :07.04.2019

2. Filling :07.04.2019

3. Apprehension of accused :07.04.2019

4. Commencement of Trial :26.11.2025

5. Close of Trial :09.04.2026

6. Judgment : 13.05.2026

7. Complainant : The State rep.by SEB, Nandyal

8. Name of the Accused : Paradesi Pedda Narasimha

9. Offence : Sec.34(a) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act

10. Plea of accused : NOT GUILTY.

11. Finding : FOUND NOT GUILTY

12. Result :

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec.34(a) of AP

Excise (Amendment) Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months

U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C. The MO1 is sample bottle vide CPR NO.117/2024 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

JMFC.NDL 1 CC.No.1063 OF 2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C. No. 1063 /202 4

1. Date of offence15.10.2023

2.Date of report or Complaint15.10.2023

3.Date of apprehension of the accused21.11.2023

4.Date of release on bail27.11.2023

5.Date of commencement of trial25.11.2025

6.Date of close of the trial02.12.2025

7.Date of sentence of order 12.12.2025

8.Explanation of delay and remarks -

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub Inspector of Police, Nandyal I Town PS Accused1.Bochu Prahallad, age 53 years, S/o Late B.Ramudu, resident of H.No.25- 246-216, PV Nagar, Now at Harijanapeta, Nandyal Town.

2.Dandu Ramadevi, age 38 years, W/o Late Maddaiah, resident of H.No.13- 111, Neeli Street, Nandyal town. Offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

Finding Accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty

Sentence In the result, accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused/A1 and A2 shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. MO.1 is sample bottle in CPR No.311/2024 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.

JMFC.NDL 2 CC.No.1063 OF 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL

Present:- Smt.S.Lakshmi Karri,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL

Friday, the 12th day of December, 2025.

C.C. No. 1063 /202 4

Between: State:– Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Nandyal I Town PS. ... Complainant

-And-

1.Bochu Prahallad, age 53 years, S/o Late B.Ramudu, resident of H.No.25-246- 216, PV Nagar, Now at Harijanapeta, Nandyal Town.

2.Dandu Ramadevi, age 38 years, W/o Late Maddaiah, resident of H.No.13-

111, Neeli Street, Nandyal town. ... Accused

This case has come before me on 11.12.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri.Y.Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2; upon perusing material papers on record, having heard and stood over for determination till today, this Court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T: :

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nandyal I Town PS filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, in Crime No.98 of 2023.

2. The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

That on 15.10.2023 at 15.15 hours LW4/S.I of Police received information about the selling ID arrack, LW4 along with staff reached at water tank besides Maddileru Vagu, Harijanapeta, Nandyal town there Accused A1 tried to conceal possesing a white colour polythene cover on seeing the police officials, the accused tried to escape on leaving the plastic cans then LW4 prevented his A1 escape with assistance of his staff and surrounding him and produce before LW4 and on enquiry of LW4 the accused was confessed that accused was approached one Dandu Ramadevi/A2 who is acquinted with her residing in Neeli street, Nandyal town and where A1 use to purchase ID arrack and brother same to sell for higher rates which is being used to meet his family expenses. The LW4/S.I of Police arrested the

JMFC.NDL 3 CC.No.1063 OF 2024 accused and seized 10 liters of ID arrack from their possession under cover of police proceedings. LW4 had drawn 180 ID arrack in one bottle from the plastic can for sending the same to the Chemical examiner.

Basing on the police proceedings, LW4/S.I of Police registered the case in

Cr.No.98/2023 under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. During the course of investigation on 21.11.2023 the accused/A2 was appear before LW4 and on enquiry the accused admitted her guilty of offence and LW4/S.I of Police arrested the accused/A2 and sent to her judicial custody. On 28.11.2023,

LW4/S.I of Police received the Chemical analysis report from Regional

Proh.&Excise Laboratory, Kurnool. After examining the samply by the chemical examiner, he opined that the samples in Sl.No.6428 is illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide

C.E.No.1149/2023. Hence,the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, against accused/A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents relied by prosecution, were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. They were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Accusation leveled against them and charge framed for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, was read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2, got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and MO.1, the learned APP given up the evidence of

LW2 and LW3. Thus prosecution evidence was closed.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they denied and did not propose any evidence in their defence.

JMFC.NDL 4 CC.No.1063 OF 2024

7. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for accused respectively.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

"Whether prosecution established guilt of accused for the

offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition

(Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt"?

POINT:

9. The case of prosecution is that on 15.10.2023, at 15.15.00 hours, near water tank besides Maddileru Vagu, Harijanapeta, Nandyal town, they found accused in possession of 10 liters of ID arrack; that a sample of 180 ml was drawn and sent for analysis; that the same was certified to be ID liquor and that accused thereby committed offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, for being in illegal possession of I.D. arrack.

10.The evidence of PW1/Constable, is replica of evidence of PW2 and it reveals about the investigation conducted, confession of accused that they were in possession of ID arrack and the way in which the same was seized from their possession. In Cross examination it is elicited that the distance between P.S and scene of offence is 1/2 KM. Further admitted that it is a busy locality and there is moving of vehicles. He admitted that LW4 did not give any summons to independent witnesses.

11. The evidence of PW2 being investigating officer deposed that on 15.10.2023 at 3.00 PM, on reliable information, he along with three other staff proceeded to Harijanapeta near Maddileru vagu water tank and they found one person on seeing them he tried to escape by leaving one white polythene cover and their staff caught hold him. He found approximately 10 liters of ID arrack in the cover. He deputed PW1 to secure mediators but in vain. He enquired the accused about his identity particulars and he replied his identify particulars. He drawn one 180 ml sample from ID arrack for chemical examination purpose and he seized remaining ID arrack and took the accused to the police station under the cover of police proceedings.

JMFC.NDL 5 CC.No.1063 OF 2024

Basing on the police proceedings, he registered a case in Cr.No.98/2023 under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Accused produced before this Hon'ble court for judicial remand. He sent sample bottle to the chemical analysis.

After receipt of lab report, he filed charge sheet. In cross-examination it is elicited that near the scene of offence there are residential houses. Further admitted that no written notice issue to independent witnesses. The distnace between P.S to scene of offence is 1 parlong.

12. Simple statement made by P.W.2 that he did not secure mediators is not sufficient and it is expected from PW2 that he should put forth reasonable grounds and the attempts made by him to secure panchayatdars. If anybody refuses to act as mediators, the officials can take action against those persons U/S 187 of I.P.C,as contemplated U/S 100(8) of Cr.PC. But no action was taken by PW2/Rtd.S.I of Police. Except the evidence of police official, there is no independent corroborative piece of evidence and in the absence of it, the recovery of M.O.1 from the possession of this accused is not proved by the prosecution.

13. In another case the Hon'ble High court of A.P in between Adapa

Ramababu@Ramuv Vs State of A.P 2014 (1) ALD (Crl)966 (A.P).,the lordship held that “whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the evidence of the police officials.

14. It is a well-established rule of evidence that confession of accused made

before police cannot be proved against accused as per Section 25 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus the same cannot be used as evidence to establish alleged charge against accused. That apart except for their self- serving and solitary testimonies, prosecution has not produced any other evidence or material to corroborate their evidence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 do not inspire confidence so as to fasten liability or conviction against the accused. In the absence of any corroborating material to their

JMFC.NDL 6 CC.No.1063 OF 2024 evidence, it cannot be taken as gospel truth to lay conviction against accused. For all these reasons it is concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt of accused for the charged offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

15. In the result, accused/A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused/A1 and A2 shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 is sample bottle in CPR

No.311/2024 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12 th day of December, 2025.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1:B.Nabhi Saheb None P.W.2:G.C.Pullaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Police proceedings. NIL Ex.P2 : FIR Ex.P3 : Analysis report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1:Sample bottle vide CPR No.311/2024.

JMFC, NDL.

JMFC.NDL 1 CC.NO.1949 OF 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDYAL

Present:- Smt.S.Lakshmi Karri,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDYAL

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 1949 /202 1

Between: State:– Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Mahanandi P.S. ... Complainant

-And-

Oburai Ramanaiah, age 35 years, S/o Venkataswamy, Buchamma thopu, Gajulapalli Village, Mahanandi Mandal.

... Accused

This case has come before me on 13.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor (hereinafter to be referred as APP) for the State and Sri.S.I.Khaleel and Sri.M.Jakeer Hussain, learned counsels for accused; upon perusing material papers on record, having heard and stood over for determination till today, this Court delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T: :

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahanandi P.S filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, in Crime No.121 of 2020.

2. The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

That on 14.06.2020 as per the instructions of S.I of Police/LW5-Y.Praveen

Kumar Reddy, the police constable LW1-P.Kailas and S.Sarath Naik Home

Guard reached Basapuram Village fields at about 12.00 hours some unknown accused preparing ID arrack with Gagger wash in three drums having about 300 liters wash, on knowing police came there, the unknown accused skulk way from that place. Then, they verified the ID arrack with

Gagger wash having about 300 liters wash. Meanwhile the police officials destroyed about the Gagger wash and seized one drums and four plastic pipes and gave a special report.

Basing on the special report of LW1-P.Kailas, Police constable, the S.I of

Police registered a case vide Cr.No.121/2020 under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

APP Act of Mahanandi P.S. The Government Chemical examiner who

JMFC.NDL 2 CC.NO.1949 OF 2021 examined the sample and gave opinion that the sample is fermented wash, fit for distillation vide C.E.No.1503/2020 dt.04.01.2021 vide S.No.15454.

Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 against accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of all relevant documents relied by prosecution, were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Accusation leveled against him and charge framed for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, was read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, in support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5, MO1 and the learned APP has given up the rest of the listed witnesses and thus prosecution evidence was closed.

6. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7. Heard learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for accused respectively.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

"Whether prosecution established guilt of accused for the offence

punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 2020, beyond reasonable doubt"?

POINT:

9. The case of prosecution is that on 14.06.2020 at about 12.00 hours some unknown accused preparing ID arrack with Gagger wash in three drums

JMFC.NDL 3 CC.NO.1949 OF 2021 having about 300 liters wash, on knowing police came there, the unknown accused skulk away from that place. Then the police official verified the ID arrack with Gagger wash having about 300 liters wash. The Police official destroyed about the Gagger wash and seized one drums and four plastic pipes. Thus, the accused thereby committed offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

10. The police constable PW1 deposed that on 14.06.2020 at about 8.00 am he along with LW5/Y.Praveen Kumar Reddy, LW2/S.Sarath Nayak were proceeded to Basapuram Village, Nallamalla forest, there they found a male person with plastic can. On seeing the, they tried to skulk away from the scene, on suspicious circumstances. They surrounded and caught hold of them with the assistance of other police constables and produced before the

S.I of Police. On enquiry, the S.I of Police, the said person disclosed his name as mentioned in charge sheet and they further stated that he was cooking the ID arrack. On examination of can it contained 300 liters of ID wash and produced before the S.I of Police drew one sample of ID wash for the purpose of chemical analysis. Then, the S.I of Police informed to the accused about their arrest by that reason and sealed the contraband and affixed the signature slip on the bottle. The S.I of Police arrested the accused and seized the ID arrack under police proceedings. In cross examination he admitted that the S.I of Police has not served any summons for mediators. The S.I of Police obtained the signature of the accused in police station without seizing any contraband from him. He further admitted that the police proceedings did not contain about the names and identity particulars of the elders who they refused to act as mediators.

11. The alleged mediator, examined as PW2 and deposed that he was running a petty shop. He does not know accused who is standing in the court hall.

About 1 1/2 years ago he signed at the instance of Mahanandi Police in the police station in a blank paper. He does not know anything about this case.

12. The investigating officer examined as P.W.3 and he deposed that on 14.05.2020 at about 02.00 PM, PW1 and LW2 went to the Basapuram

JMFC.NDL 4 CC.NO.1949 OF 2021 village, Mahanandi Mandal, near Nallamalla forest and found one person was preparing the ID arrack in three drums and on seeing their staff, accused escaped. They identified the 300 liters of ID wash in 3 drums and destroyed the ID wash and drawn 180 ml of ID arrack sample for chemical analysis. They handed over the accused through special report. Basing on the special report, he registered a case in Cr.NO.121/2020 under Sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of APP Act. Thereafter, he examined PW1 and LW2 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he arrested the accused on 29.07.2020 in the presence of mediators. After receipt of lab report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. During cross examination, he admitted that the scene of offence occurred at carona time and it was a lock down and no one is roaming outside.

13. It is pertinent to note that the mere supporting analysis report does not establish the case against the accused. It only speaks of the fact that the material referred for chemical analysis was found to be the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injuries to health. But it is for the prosecution to establish that such samples which was referred for chemical analysis was seized from the possession of the accused. Except interested testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 no supporting material is provided. It is needless to say that mere registration of crime and securing the analysis report in favour of the prosecution by itself does not prove the case of the prosecution. For the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.

14. It is a well-established rule of evidence that confession of accused made

before police cannot be proved against accused as per Section 25 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and thus the same cannot be used as evidence to establish alleged charge against accused. That apart, except their self- serving and solitary testimonies, prosecution has not produced any other evidence or material to corroborate their evidence. Prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 do not inspire confidence so as to fasten a liability or conviction against the

JMFC.NDL 5 CC.NO.1949 OF 2021 accused. In the absence of any corroborating material to their evidence, it cannot be taken as gospel truth to lay conviction against accused. For all these reasons it is concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt of accused for the charged offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 beyond reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The MO1 is sample bottle vide CPR No.336/2021 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1:P.Kailas None P.W.2:A.Sivaiah P.W.3:Y.Praveen Kumar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 in special report NIL Ex.P2 :Signature of PW2 in the Panchanama Ex.P3 :FIR Ex.P4:Arrest panchanama Ex.P5:Analysis report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo1 is sample bottle vide CPR No.336/2021.

JMFC, NDL.

JMFC.NDL 6 CC.NO.1949 OF 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NANDYAL

C.C. No. 1949 /202 1

1. Date of offence14.06.2020

2.Date of report or Complaint14.06.2020

3.Date of apprehension of the accused29.07.2020

4.Date of release on bail25.09.2020

5.Date of commencement of trial19.05.2022

6.Date of close of the trial23.04.2026

7.Date of sentence of order 13.05.2026

8.Explanation of delay and remarks -

ComplainantState: Represented by: Sub Inspector of Police, Mahanandi P.S. AccusedOburai Ramanaiah, age 35 years, S/o Venkataswamy, Buchamma thopu, Gajulapalli Village, Mahanandi Mandal. Offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020

FindingAccused is found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for the next six months as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The MO1 is sample bottle vide CPR No.336/2021 shall be destroyed after the appeal period.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool.